I still remember when mental health "professionals" blamed Mothers for autism...

[Archae]

Some of you may also remember the "Frozen Mother" that said women who are cold to their babies caused autism.
It was bullshit, and I knew it.
Fortunately, that belief has just about entirely died out.

What has taken it's place?

Wild, unsupported claims that vaccines cause autism.
And these claims have the same validity as the "Frozen Mother" theory.
That is, nothing.

[TexasProgresive]

1. Let's not forget that mothers were held responsible

for SID and homosexuality among what ever else Freud attributed to mothers.

[Archae]

2. The field of psychiatry and psychology has always been prone to crazy theories.

Ever hear of Phrenology?
It was the belief that the bumps on a person's head were indicators of what sort of person they are.

There was also that "multiple personality disorder," made famous by the (now discredited) books "Three Faces Of Eve" and "Sybil."

Some "Christians" still pine for the "good old days" when people were locked up for being gay.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/louisiana-activist-waxes-nostalgic-days-when-homosexuality-was-considered-disorder

Remember the "Satanic Panic" from about 25-30 years ago?
Some still believe wholeheartedly in it, but it's been just about entirely debunked.

[LeftishBrit]

3. k&r

[thucythucy]

4. The term I remember was "refrigerator mothers"--

and the theory was most prominently pushed by Bruno Bettelheim, who was also in the habit of blaming victims of the Holocaust for not fighting back.

Creepy man, all around.

[Igel]

5. But part of the motivation for saying it's vaccines

is to say it's anything other than the mothers. And fathers get in on the act now, too.

If it's genetic, if it's because of choices that the mother (or father) has made, then some assume this is assigning guilt instead of just attributing risk and responsibility. Mothers (and fathers) that find out their son have a genetic illness are often first overcome by guilt at "doing that" to their kid.

If it's a vaccine that the doctor duped them into letting their kid have, if it's something that's in the water or in the air or in the canned tomatoes or plastics, then the parents are off the hook. Somebody else is supposed to be responsible for the kid's safety. How could they be responsible for keeping all those poisons out of their kid? (Easier than keeping the "wrong" DNA from getting into their kid's cells' nuclei, but given science education in the US....)

Responsibility is an ambiguous word. It can be moral, legal, or objective responsibility. I'm responsible for half of my son's DNA and the entirety of his Y-chromosome; I'm responsible for feeding and clothing him; I'm responsible for nurturing him so that he grows up to be a good person. The first is strictly biological, there's no moral or legal anything there. The second is legal, while I have custody of him or have to pay child-support, but it's also moral. The third is strictly moral, if I fail to give him good guidance nobody can come back and tell me that I screwed up the biology or committed a crime. But if you're telling a mother that her DNA is responsible for a genetic disease, it only sounds like you're saying "morally responsible." Hard to deal with emotions, even good ones.