Three weeks ago, we all had a big fuss about FDU adjunct — and Nazi leader — Professor Pluss. Now it turns out that there’s another twist to the story. The good professor’s fiancee claims to have been forced off the FDU campus according to this far-right website. The article notes that the unnamed woman is a sophomore English major. Pluss is, according to a number of articles about him, 51.
Should we all just hope the future Mrs. Pluss is a student of non-traditional age?
Hugo, why should we even care what her age is? If she’s legally an adult, don’t you think that she is capable of making informed decisions for herself? Or are you suggesting that women who’ve reached the age of majority aren’t really fully-mature adults? And if so, then should they be able to exercise adult responsibilities like voting, having an abortion, entering into contracts, etc.? It seems to me that you’re infantilizing Dr. Pluss’ fiancee in order to further an agenda. What that agenda might be, I have no idea.
I don’t think that it’s any of our business what kind of arrangement these two people have. Would you be bringing this up if Dr. Pluss was, e.g., a liberal gay male that had a male fiancee who was a sophomore? I doubt it very much.
If there’s a problem, it’s not necessarily age, but rather the power dynamic between professor and student (assuming they met through the university) - even if she’s not taking his class, there’s still a power dynamic there. Doesn’t make a difference if he’s 51, 31 or 71.
I agree with Jeff; most schools have ethical guidelines that prevent instructors from having relationships with students, regardless of age or gender of either.
We can hope, but let’s not hold our breaths. People who are attracted to fascism, suffice it to say, are control freaks. Fascist philosophy idealizes the submissive female. A goose-stepping fascist is likely to want a wife he can control easily.
Certainly, splitting the funding for this agency from the profits of food producers is in our nations best interest. I’m glad they’ve updated the pyramid. I’m chagrined to hear they say nothing about portion control. What could be a more important message for the society that has supersized and all-you-can-eat buffetted and all-you-can-drink soda’d every meal?
Come on you guys, you’re avoiding the issue by trying to change the subject to “power.” Hugo was clearly addressing the age discrepancy, nothing else, so let’s try to stay on topic.
Do you think that the woman is old/mature enough to make personal decisions for herself, and if so, why should it be any of our business? And if you think she isn’t old/mature enough to make an informed decision to hook up with an honest-to-goodness Nazi, then why shouldn’t we be concerned enough to make it our business if she made other ‘adult’ decisions like having an abortion, voting, entering into legal contracts, etc.? And if she’s not old/mature enough for this sort of thing, what new age of majority would you impose on women? 25? 30?
The question isn’t whether she’s old enough to have a relationship with a 51-year-old professor; it’s why a 51-year-old professor is dating an 18-year-old student. She’s certainly old enough to make her own mistakes, but what’s he thinking?
Shush, myth. Only women’s motivations are up for question, don’t you know?
mythago, Hugo didn’t say anything about Dr. Pluss and his age, he cited *her* age.
Besides, older men pairing up with younger women is a non-issue from a biological/reproductive standpoint; there are no significant “biological clock” issues with men, and in fact, older men are usually better prepared to support families than are younger men. Seems to me you too are trying to change the subject to issues about *his* judgement, when it’s *her* judgement Hugo seemed to be questioning. Perhaps you’re engaging in a bit of “blaming the victim” here? And it’s a distinct possibility that he *is* a victim here - it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a young woman took advantage of an older man to get access to his money and other resources.
Food for thought.
Mr. Bad, you’re right! Everywhere I look, I see predatory young women, often still in their teens, ruthlessly exploiting defenseless older men, taking advantage of them sexually, emotionally, and above all, financially. It’s crisis of epidemic proportions, and what makes matters worse, fools such as myself continue to deny these wicked femme fatales (for surely their youth and inexperience is no defense) their own agency.
I hang my head in shame.
Ah Hugo, you’re so predictable! :) You make light of a real - albeit rare - problem when it suits you, and at the same time practically obssess on issues that are equally rare.
Goldiggers? Heck, Anna Nicole Smith made a career out it, as did the wives of Lee Iacocca, Donald Trump and other rich dumb suckers. However, I never said the practice was *common,* you did; although I bet it’s just as common as older men taking advantage of younger women for, e.g., sex and status. What I object to in your most recent post is the hypocrasy of you making a big deal out of what is a relatively uncommon practice, and at the same time making light of the issue when it’s women using their power to exploit men.
Ah, but you feminists are so stuck on “male privilege and power” that you can’t see how privileged and powerful females are. They’re just different about it (vive la difference!). But I guess that’s typical for you members of the Church of Feminism, eh?
Ever notice that the guys who tell us that their bodies leave them no biological choice other than to go after very young women usually are the same men that come over here to whine about their divorces and child support payments? Or whine about feminism? By their reckoning, men are utterly unreliable and you shouldn’t marry them, because they will leave you as soon as you develop a wrinkle. If men are always moving onto younger pastures, then a pile of child support payments to a series of exes is just nature, my friends. Your uncontrollable need for young flesh is a curse to you, not to women.
And it’s a distinct possibility that he *is* a victim here - it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a young woman took advantage of an older man to get access to his money and other resources.
Yeah, you know, I’ve noticed that about adjunct professors. They may be working for $2500 a class with no benefits and no job security, but they’re generally just swimming in resources. I can see how they’re a lot like Donald Trump.
SSSH! Sally, the proverbial cat has just leapt out of the bag, thanks to your carelessness!
Amanda, where did I tell you that “my body leaves me no biological choice other than to go after very young women?” Where did I “whine about my divorce and child support payments?” Your post is so full of non-sequitors that I can’t for the life of me see any relevance to the debate other than to throw barbs. Are you really that void of relevant ideas or thoughts on the matter? When I behave as you are in this thread Hugo censors me, but apparently you get to play by different, more generous rules. No doubt this is more of that “male privilege” I keep hearing about.
Sally, one nevers know what kind of “resources” this woman may be (again, *may* be!) after. Some women aren’t looking to break the bank at Monte Carlo, they’re just looking for sperm donors and a CS check, and I’ll bet that Pluss could supply those. But I only offered that as a possibility; if you’ve been concentrating real hard and following my thread, you’d know that I’m challenging Hugo’s suggestion that this woman is not old/mature enough to make intelligent choices re. who she marries. But apparently questioning a woman’s maturity is Ok if the woman doesn’t go along with the program according to feminist doctrine.
But you know what? Maybe she *really* does love him. It’s a possibility, dontcha think?
I guess I really didn’t expect that this would be a place where diversity of ideas and perspective are welcome - after all, you *are* feminists. But I at least thought that you’d be able to engage in a serious, logical debate. But then, I’ve already provided my own answer: You folks are feminists. Silly me.
A few years back I was in an organization of several hundred persons, and at a gathering, an experiment was conducted, with the approval of all present (about 100). These were all heterosexual singles who had some familiarity with one another, and they were asked to write on a slip of paper the names of three persons of the opposite sex in the room whom they would be interested in knowing better, possibly dating.
There were three or four men and three or four women whose names turned up on nearly every ballot, and others with few or no mentions. The men were the powerful, influential men in the organization, and the women were the young and conventionally pretty ones. They decided to throw away the ballots and drop the experiment, rather than cause unnecessary hurt. I was not present, but my future wife was - it was mostly her idea, and she voted to throw away the ballots.
I’m not sure what this means, but it seemed interesting and possibly relevant to this discussion.
A suggestion to Mr.Bad: I understand your frustration, but if you persevere in expecting the best of people, you will sometimes get it. Act as if you expect the worst, and you will almost always get that. I know - I succumb to expecting the worst too often. And I get it.
stanton, that’s an interesting experiment, with unsurprising results. It seems to be in line with theories re. hard-wired human nature (”social construct” theory notwithstanding), empirical data, and what we observe with Dr. Pluss and his bride-to-be. Thanks for the anecdote.
And thanks for the suggestion - I’ll try and lower the bar vis-a-vis my expectations from this forum. I need to keep reminding myself who (for the most part) I’m dealing with here. Yours seems to be one of the very few reasonable and measured voices around, and for that I thank you.
Besides, older men pairing up with younger women is a non-issue from a biological/reproductive standpoint; there are no significant “biological clock” issues with men, and in fact, older men are usually better prepared to support families than are younger men. Seems to me you too are trying to change the subject to issues about *his* judgement, when it’s *her* judgement Hugo seemed to be questioning. Perhaps you’re engaging in a bit of “blaming the victim” here? And it’s a distinct possibility that he *is* a victim here - it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a young woman took advantage of an older man to get access to his money and other resources.
You’re right–no hint there whatsoever of a worldview that men are after youth and women after money.
stanton, interesting experiment. Did they expect those results, or different results (seeing as this was a group of people who were familiar with each other)?
I’ve kinda been running my own inadvertant experiment for some time, unwillingly. The results make me angry. See, I’m a 37-year-old woman, who is often assumed to be around 26 or 27. I still get ‘carded’ at liquor stores and bars, because most places around here have a policy of checking the ID of anyone who appears to be under 30, just to be on the safe side.
Anyway, I’ll notice that men will approach me, talk to me, do the usual chatting up….and when my political and pop-cultural references easily add up to my being older than I look, they’ll ask, “uhh…do you mind if I ask how old you are?” And when I say “Sure! I’m 37!” it’s not long before they lose interest in any further conversation. And I’m not talking about young fellows who mistakenly thought they were chatting with a young woman their own age—I’m talking about guys my age or older.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not complaining. This unplanned, unanticipated condition has turned out to be a great jerk-detector. But it does make me go “hmmmm”. Back when I was in my twenties, a black man of my acquaintance (a man I already knew had incredibly sexist ideas about women) asked me out, prefacing his question with virulent intra-racial bigoted commentary on the hostility and mouthiness of black women; the look on my face must have said it all—he didn’t even stick around for the “no”. It wasn’t just the bigotry and sexism, it wasn’t just the utter stupidity (black women are “mouthy”, so you’re gonna ask out a Sicilian woman?! Do you ever leave your house?!)…..I just can’t help but think what kind of scary baggage is hiding behind a person who wants nothing to do with others who resemble them. Race, age, whatever.
Oh…and I probably ought to mention, this behavior isn’t just at bars, where you can pretty much expect a certain amount of jerky, shallow behavior…..no, this happens at non-alcoholic music events, outdoor festivals, bookstores, coffeehouses, the grocery store, walk-around-the-block, the park, the gym….you name it, places where typical “pick-up” routines aren’t expected.
And it’s a distinct possibility that he *is* a victim here -
A victim of what? 51 is a little late to cry testosterone poisoning.
Biologically speaking, if you think it’s natural for older men to chase young women, you have to also agree it’s natural for women to be gold-diggers. Though the traditional fate of widows tends to suggest that marrying old guys is not such a good thing.
This was a religious organization in Marin county, California, at a gathering of the singles. My future wife was involved with the organizing of it. They had hoped that everyone would be able to connect with one or two others to see what might develop. They were appalled at the results, but in retrospect, their attitude was more like, “Well, what the hell did we THINK was going to happen? Duh!” (My wife is Syrian-Italian, and a fiery contrast to my rather reserved British-Scandinavian stock.)
I understand your anger. As I said, I was not at that particular gathering, but I have no illusions about how often my name would have shown up on a ballot if I had been. The majority of both the men and the women have grounds to be upset.
And dare I wonder which names I myself would have put on my own ballot, had I been there? Rosemary (my wife) was not one of the popular ones. Perhaps I should be glad this happened before I arrived!
So - don’t you also get a few interesting guys who are really interested in knowing YOU, who aren’t so stuck in their programmed expectations? Just a FEW?
Yeah, stanton….I haven’t lost my faith in mankind in general! But I think that the larger trend (men my age rejecting women of their own age) speaks to a pattern of learned sexism, that doesn’t benefit them any more than it does the women. I don’t think it has anything to do with “hard-wired” notions about fertility or health; the trend I’ve witnessed seems to be older-man-with-vasectomy-whose-children-are-grown, specifically seeking out young-woman-slightly-over-age-of-majority-who-has-not-had-any-children. (and maybe this is regional here; women around here tend to start having children in their early twenties). The guys who are uptight about age are even more uptight about kids; children are “baggage”. Like I said, it’s an effective jerk-detector!
I also think this is a distinctly U.S. attitude; folks from elsewhere don’t seem as tied to age-as-a-number as we do here.
Frankly, I’m not worried about the exploitation of the young women in these relationships. They are not dumb, and it doesn’t take them long to recognize who the jerks are, and pull the plug on a bad relationship just as their more experienced (who oughta know better, but hey…) sisters. They’ll be fine. We all have our learning experiences.
No…what sticks in my mind is just the ageism bias in general, and how it disproportionately affects women. Women in their twenties are now worried about “looking old” even though they are decades away from actually “looking old”. That’s messed up. A younger friend of mine wants to start getting “worked on” (plastic surgery) because she is afraid her “aging” is going to make her “less marketable” in the dating game. I told her to put her spare cash into investments; they’ll be worth something in thirty years, whereas plastic surgery she has now is not going to be noticeable in thirty years time.
See, the stereotypical older guys with the open-neck shirts, gold chains and sportcars (oh yeah, these dinosaurs didn’t disappear in the seventies) will come and go, without a really long-lasting effect on young women. But a culture that continually drives home a message to young women that they’re used-up old broads after 30 or 35 (and again, this may be regional; most of the women I know who are my age are attending their kids’ high school graduations), that sticks around. Enough for a growing number of plastic surgery outfits to keep popping up, anyway. I can’t help but think in ten years time, most women won’t be physically able to smile.
I also think this is a distinctly U.S. attitude
Have you ever heard the Japanese expression “Christmas cake”? It refers to women of a certain age. You know, after the 25th nobody really wants to eat it…
I admit that I really don’t see much of this phenomenon of older men interested only in younger women.
mythago, I forgot about “Christmas cake”. I was thinking primarily of Europeans and South Americans who don’t tend to think a woman’s prime ends at, say, 27. ;-)
Perhaps the older men who are solely interested in younger women is a regional phenomenon. In many parts of the midwest the ratio of single men to single women is way out of proportion. An older man here has the ability to ignore women his own age and still find a date; which isn’t true in more metropolitan areas (or college towns, or areas with large military bases) where the ratio is either more even, or more heavily male.
Too bad also there aren’t more 20 something men willing to date 30 something women. Fools. I did back then twice and learned a lot about life from those women.
mythago said:” Biologically speaking, if you think it’s natural for older men to chase young women, you have to also agree it’s natural for women to be gold-diggers. Though the traditional fate of widows tends to suggest that marrying old guys is not such a good thing.”
mythago, I agree 100% that it’s quite natural for women to seek out men who possess the power and resources with which to support them and their children (aka “goldiggers”). I really wasn’t making any value judgements on the topic, simply pointing out that there’s a decidedly non-feminist male perspective on this issue. As for the plight of widows, here too we agree: I think it’s a travesty that men die on average 8 years earlier than women do, yet there are literally *no* gender-specific programs (that I know of) to address men’s health on the national or state level. At the same time, the Federal government and every state in the U.S. has at least several special programs and offices devoted to women’s health. The public health community is shamelessly female chauvanist, and for me this is an absolute discgrace. If men could look forward to enjoying as long and happy life as women currently do, then there would be a lot fewer lonely widows. Still, there are some widowers, and we see yet again the female chauvanism in the services provided, which greatly favor women; once again, men are neglected. Add to this the fact that men pay the majority of funds into pensions, social security, etc., while women enjoy the majority of benefits, and one sees that old age for men (what little we get to enjoy) becomes a triple-insult vis-a-vis return on our investments.
It’s interesting that during the recent debates on social security the politicians have been highlighting these kinds of problems for minorities (i.e., paying into the system but dying earlier than whites and thus getting ’shortchanged’), but at the same time completely ignoring the inherent gender discrimination. Accidental oversight? Coincidence? I very much doubt it.
I hear about the “older men chasing younger women” phenomenon, and equally re. the “younger woman chasing older man” phenomenon. Both players are out to get what they want: For the men, a ’sweet young thing,’ and for the women ‘a rich old sugar daddy’ or someone else that can provide her with what she wants (e.g., an easy A in a class, status, etc.). And while I think both phenomena are about equal (based on sound anthropological and primatological research), neither scenario seems to play out with any great frequency, so I think that is much ado about nothing.
People act on their instincts, and in this case they’re acting on the desire to get what they want. Big deal. As most of us seem to agree, seeking to get what we want is a fairly natural thing for most higher mammals, including humans. The difference is that women talk about the “old man chasing young woman” while men discuss the “young woman chasing older man” phenom. However, because men are for all practical purposes ignored when it comes to gender issues, the women’s perspective is the voice we hear. Thus, the stereotype of “old man chasing younger woman” is reinforced while the opposite one is suppressed and dismissed as ‘rare’ and/or ‘insignificant.’ I think this explains why it may appear that the phenomena are not balanced, when in fact I think that they are, as predicted by the work of Goodall, Mead and other primatologists and anthropologists.
I think it’s a travesty that men die on average 8 years earlier than women do, yet there are literally *no* gender-specific programs (that I know of) to address men’s health on the national or state level.
I couldn’t agree more. Infant mortality, especially in the African-American community, is a national tragedy, and as we all know, male babies are more subject to infant mortality. But it’s just more exciting to talk about obesity as the “#1 health crisis” in America, isn’t it?
(That, and frankly, you men need to stop this crap where you think ignoring your health problems and refusing to see a doctor is Manly and Brave. This is some of that same-gender policing Hugo often talks about.)
But as you probably knew, by ‘widows’ I was referring to the fact that in a society where women are dependent on men for resources, marrying an older man is good in the short-term but not the long-term. His effective ‘provider life’ is shorter than a young man’s, and the woman ends up a widow with no means of support for herself or her children.
mythago wrote: “That, and frankly, you men need to stop this crap where you think ignoring your health problems and refusing to see a doctor is Manly and Brave. This is some of that same-gender policing Hugo often talks about.”
Actually mythago, one of my areas of expertise is healthcare systems, so I can say with confidence that the “macho” stereotye is a myth. Biased and cynical musings by Hugo and others notwithstanding, the main reason men don’t avail themselves of healthcare is a lack of services and education provided to them. That’s why I can say with great surety and conviction that the public health community is infused with a shameless level of female chauvanism. To them, only women and children matter, to hell with the men. As we hear from many corners of the feminist world, the most frequent response when pointing this out is “Let them do it themselves.” As if women made all their progress by themselves, without men’s help.
“But as you probably knew, by ‘widows’ I was referring to the fact that in a society where women are dependent on men for resources, marrying an older man is good in the short-term but not the long-term. His effective ‘provider life’ is shorter than a young man’s, and the woman ends up a widow with no means of support for herself or her children.”
I don’t think this is true - there’s more logical, simple explanation that squares more with reality: The older man usually has already lived a relatively long and productive working, ‘provider’ life, and thus has accrued more assets than a younger man. Most of the impoverished widows are likely ones whose husband died young, and/or also impoverished. Most of the time, women immediately enjoy a higher standard of living going into these marriages than they would if they had to ‘wait out’ the period which the man built his career. And when he dies, most of the time she inherits his money; that’s the main explanation for the majority of female millionaires. They aren’t ’self-made,’ they got their millions from their man/men. Anna Nicole Smith, Theresa Heinz Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, et al. immediately come to mind.
Don’t most millionaires, male or female, get their millions from someone else?
Lynn asked: “Don’t most millionaires, male or female, get their millions from someone else?”
Lynn, I’m assuming that you’re talking about inheritance here and not capitalism (i.e., a system where most people get their money from ’someone else’ via services, trade, etc.). I really don’t know. But of the people who are self-made millionaires I think that you’ll find that the vast majority are men. Think of Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Donald Trump, etc.
> Actually mythago, one of my areas of expertise is healthcare systems, so I
> can say with confidence that the “macho” stereotye is a myth. Biased and
> cynical musings by Hugo and others notwithstanding, the main reason men
> don’t avail themselves of healthcare is a lack of services and education
> provided to them.
Mr. Bad,
It seems to me that you’ve been dealing with a vastly different group of men than those I know. Can’t expect a man to go to the doctor and lose a day of work, now can we? OI!
And then there are the cowboys. Wouldn’t want to let the folks in the stands see that the bull hurt you when he stepped on you. That just wouldn’t be right, no matter how much pain you’re in. Gotta be TUFF.
OK, maybe I’ve spent too much time helping my husband when he works as a rodeo medic. But the other men I mentioned are just every day joes, blue collar, working for a living. They know they need to go to a doc, but they don’t want to take the time off work to do it. After all, if you ignore it, it’ll go away, right? They know it won’t, but they keep acting like it will.
And when he dies, most of the time she inherits his money
In our modern society, she does. That has not always been the case–surely you’re familiar with “dower,” which guarantees a widow’s portion of her husband’s estate. That was developed to prevent the problem of widows being left without any inheritance or, indeed, any means of support. (The Bible doesn’t tell us to set aside your fields for widows and orphans because the widows are comfortably living off their husband’s estate.)
So the younger woman enjoys a higher standard of living up front, but it drops to nothing if her husband leaves or dies.
the main reason men don’t avail themselves of healthcare is a lack of services and education provided to them
If I were saying this about women, you’d be all over me about how women expect men to do everything for them and should get off their asses and get educated.
Are you saying that you do not believe there is any sexist, societal pressure on men to ’suck it up’ and refuse to admit to illness, or to see a doctor regularly?
As one with a great deal of first-hand experience in being a man, I do not believe there is any general sexist societal pressue on men to suck it up and refuse to admit illness. Having said that, I believe that there is a tendency among men to work through pain, injuries, and illness, but not because “society” pressures us to do so. I have never felt judged for seeking medical attention, nor have I harshly judged any man for doing so.
I believe that this reluctance to seek needed medical attention has nothing to do with societal pressure to suck it up, but is an indirect result of other factors: early childhood training to be “tough”, and the very real pressure on men to “do a good job” and be good providers for their families (which in turn can lead to a lack of balance, working long hours, neglecting family for work, and working through illnesses). There is no societal pressure on men to neglect their children in favor of their careers but it happens, as a result of other pressures. Same with the medical thing.
I actually believe “societal pressure” is increasing in the other direction, and we may soon see an easing of this phenomenon. How about we put it out to male readers here: Have you ever felt embarrassed to be visiting a doctor because of how you perceived others to be judging your manhood? I have not, but perhaps that’s just me.
mythago,
First, while your reference to times long-past is interesting, IMO it’s irrelevant to this conversation. I could just as easily bring up the ‘good old days’ when men were held completely responsible for women, such that when a woman committed a crime, he was the one who was punished. Or more recently, the male-only draft. But what do these things have to do with the current events we’re discussing? We’ve already ventured far afield from the Pluss issue, so let’s go any further Ok?
Second, you state: (me first)“the main reason men don’t avail themselves of healthcare is a lack of services and education provided to them”
Now you (in bold): “If I were saying this about women, you’d be all over me about how women expect men to do everything for them and should get off their asses and get educated.”
Um, no I wouldn’t - I love how folks like you make these kinds of assumptions to try and validate your predjudices. And the fact is, the deed’s already been done - men have indeed provided substantial, crucial financial and other help to women - most of the time voluntarily - so this is a strawman argument.
“Are you saying that you do not believe there is any sexist, societal pressure on men to ’suck it up’ and refuse to admit to illness, or to see a doctor regularly?”
Sure there is, but IMO it’s not the most strong or important factor affecting men’s behavior vis-a-vis utilizing healthcare services. Education and availability are much more important.
Really mythago, we men do care about our health - there are simply very few male-specific and/or openly male-friendly clinics or other places for us to get primary care. And I’m sure you’d see it differently, but then you’re a woman so of course you don’t have a problem dealing with all the front office people, nurses, etc., before seeing your (likely female) doctor. But think about it: Since most all the people in the office are likely to be women (many times these days the only exception to this is the actual doctor), such places aren’t really very male-friendly; in fact they’re quite feminized. And because of this, many men are hesitant to go to such places until they’re really sick. Now you could say “well suck it up, be a man and get with the program,” but you’d simply contributing to the problem. And further, I could say that same thing re. women’s clinics, domestic violence shelters, etc., that were run by men and be just as correct as you.
As you feminists have been saying for decades now, such things really do make a difference.
> And I’m sure you’d see it differently, but then you’re a woman so of course
> you don’t have a problem dealing with all the front office people, nurses,
> etc., before seeing your (likely female) doctor.
OK, you’ve just verified it for me, Mr. Bad. We live in two vastly different worlds. lol… Most of my are now in the medical field family (mother’s side - Mom, both sisters, and both female cousins are nurses; stepdad is a pharmacist; bil, husband, and ex are paramedics; and we spend lots of time with our medic friends), and I *still* see far more male doctors than female. The local medical director for the EMS is female, though.
stanton asked: “How about we put it out to male readers here: Have you ever felt embarrassed to be visiting a doctor because of how you perceived others to be judging your manhood? I have not, but perhaps that’s just me.”
Nope. I too have a lot of firsthand experience at being a garden-variety male human, and I’ve never felt embarassed about visiting a doctor or other healthcare professional for prevention or other services. However, at times I am uncomfortable with the decidedly feminine environment, and the attendant disrespect and outright contempt that some of the female staff seem to have towards me and other men in most medical clinics I’ve been to. Therefore, I would appreciate a more diverse environment where the people there look more like me (i.e., male front office workers, nurses, physicians assistants, etc.). I feel that the personnel would be a lot more considerate, respectful and compassionate towards me and my concerns if they were male.
Catriona said: “OK, maybe I’ve spent too much time helping my husband when he works as a rodeo medic. But the other men I mentioned are just every day joes, blue collar, working for a living. They know they need to go to a doc, but they don’t want to take the time off work to do it. After all, if you ignore it, it’ll go away, right? They know it won’t, but they keep acting like it will.”
Hi Catriona, sorry for missing your post in my first go-around.
I think that what you’re noting is important: Most workplaces hold men to a much higher standard than they do women vis-a-vis hours worked, time off, effort, productivity, etc., so they are not nearly as encouraging or accomodating re. men taking time off work for rountine non-emergency doctor’s visits. While many workplaces promote women’s health, “well baby” programs, breast cancer awareness and funding initiatives, etc., none that I’ve heard of provide similar services for men. In fact, some research has shown that when men take time off from work they pay a higher price for it than women do vis-a-vis promotions and other career-advancement measures. I wish I could cite the study - it was published just a few months back in a British journal and reported shortly after it came out. Let me look and see if I can find it.
Mr. Bad,
I’d like to see that study, because your comments are STILL far from what I’ve seen. In most workplaces where I’ve been (schools, factories, offices, etc), women were held to just as high an attendance standard as were men. If a child needed to stay home from school because of illness, the woman was expected to somehow find a babysitter so that she could be at work. If she missed too many days due to illness (her own or a child’s), she lost her job. Women are held to just as high a productivity level. If they can’t do the work, they lose the job. Simple as that.
Caitriona said: “Mr. Bad,
I’d like to see that study, because your comments are STILL far from what I’ve seen. In most workplaces where I’ve been (schools, factories, offices, etc), women were held to just as high an attendance standard as were men. If a child needed to stay home from school because of illness, the woman was expected to somehow find a babysitter so that she could be at work. If she missed too many days due to illness (her own or a child’s), she lost her job. Women are held to just as high a productivity level. If they can’t do the work, they lose the job. Simple as that.”
Well, we have greatly different workplace experiences, don’t we? That’s why personal anecdotes are so very unreliable for making generalizations, policy, etc.
At my workplace, childcare is provided by the institution both on campus and at home. Further, in childcare ‘emergencies’ as you describe, the institution will send a staff childcare worker to the parent’s home on a moment’s notice. And here, while technically we all play by the same rules re. attendance, women are excused much more easily and readily than men are. It’s that “subtle discrimination” and bias in the workplace that many women complain about; trust me, it’s just as bad - if not worse - for men. We have similar experiences, however, only women’s concerns are taken seriously and addressed, which in and of itself is another example of the subtle bias and discrimination that men face. And finally, where I work I have to say that women are held to a much lower standard of productivity than men are. That’s probably why they flock to this sector of the economy (i.e., education).
Mr. Bad,
When I was teaching in the public schools, I was held to the same attendance standard as were the male teachers. Same when I was teaching in a private, Christian correctional facility and when I was teaching in a private, Christian school. I’ve also worked in daycares (predominantly women), factories, and convenience store/fast food facilities. They all had pretty much a “no work, no pay” policy, across the board.
Perhaps you’re working in a different socio-economic environ? That seems to be the difference I’ve seen with these sorts of differences.
Mr. Bad, I have to second Caitriona here; in construction (which has probably a higher-than-average number of single custodial fathers) the same standards apply to males and females. When you’re not on the job, you don’t get paid…period. Both men and women take time off when necessary, no big deal. Men do tend to take more time off on average for hunting though; they’re not penalized for it. ;-)
I’ve seen a difference over the years in terms of men’s willingness to have medical tests or screenings. It seems that years of health fairs, educational materials, and other forms of consciousness-raising on men’s health issues has paid off; most of the men I know are very well educated on health issues, and do go in for regular screenings. This wasn’t really the case fifteen years ago; then, the only men who talked about health concerns at the break table were the old timers, one step away from retirement.
There’s still a bit of the old attitude that Caitriona speaks of around (my father would be “exhibit A”; he won’t see a doctor until it’s about time to call a priest), but it’s going away. I think the change can also be attributed to the need to be proactive in your own health care, because of how the health-care system is formatted today…if you aren’t aggressive about your own health, you can suffer for it later.
I can’t say I’ve heard any men complaining about the feminine environment of health care before. I wouldn’t think that would be such a problem now, with tight strictures on health care privacy. Gone are the days when the receptionist announces, “Ms. Lubu, the doctor will see you about your diarreah now.”
La Lubu,
Your father would have gotten along well with my grandfather. Pawpaw was clearing some brush one day and cut his brow so that the skin was hanging down over his eye. My grandmother wanted to take him to the doctor to get it sewn up. He told her, “I’ve got no time to go to the doctor. I’ve got work to do. Just clean it up and put a butterfly on it.” So she did. It healed just fine.
I miss him.
Oh my.
When I was in kindergarten, I was playing ball in the house (not allowed!) by bouncing the ball off the front door (definitely not allowed!) and acting like I was running bases. My mom was busy cooking in the kitchen (an odious concoction of garlic, onions, tuna, spices and olive oil served over pasta….this stuff stunk to high heaven and after eating it, your breath could single-handedly stop a buffalo stampede. It took me a long time to like tuna again after eating this stuff once a week like clockwork).
Anyway…..remember that furniture of the seventies? The kind with all the weird angles? We had end tables like that….triangular numbers that looked like a wooden acid trip. I slid into “home plate”, right into one of the points on the end table, slicing me right under the eyebrow. My mother had me down on the living room floor, sitting on top of me, her knees on my shoulders, while I howled and she plastered butterflies on (cursing me all the way). She denies this, of course, and tells a much milder version. Trust me, my version is the truth!
And you can’t tell it now. Butterflies are handy, and they do work.
Your Pawpaw sounds like quite the character!
And I’m sure you’d see it differently, but then you’re a woman so of course you don’t have a problem dealing with all the front office people, nurses, etc., before seeing your (likely female) doctor.
If by “likely” you mean “possibly,” that’s true. But if you mean “probably,” you’re wrong. We’re moving close to parity when it comes to new medical school graduates, and frankly it’s hard for me to see why that would be a problem. But the pool of doctors is also made up of people who finished med school thirty or forty years ago. The overall pool of doctors still represents the biases that were in the system in the 60s and 70s. I have a lot of doctors, and most of them are men. I get my care at a teaching hospital, and the residents are pretty evenly split. But the attendings are overwhelmingly male, because women haven’t had equal access to medical school for long enough to be equally represented in the highest ranks of the medical profession.
As for the front office people and nurses being women, that’s true, but I don’t think that makes doctors’ offices a “female atmosphere.” Women are concentrated in relatively-low-status service jobs like nursing and office administration. In my doctors’ offices, there’s also a huge racial divide: all the front office people and most of the nurses are African-American, while very few of the doctors are. I suppose I could think of it as an African-American atmosphere, but that seems about as smart as thinking that airplanes are female atmospheres because the people who hand you your drinks are mostly women. And men don’t seem to have problems getting on airplanes. They seem to have been able to fly even back in the days when all flight attendants were women.
Re: the future Mrs. Pluss. I certainly hope she isn’t marrying him in hopes of getting an A in his class: it would be very unethical to allow your girlfriend to take a class you were teaching. And unless that’s the case, I just can’t see how she’s a gold-digger. A moron, sure: I mean, we’re talking about someone who is engaged to a Nazi. But if she’s just after money or security, she’s picked a really poor prospect, quite apart from his politics.
La Lubu wrote: “I can’t say I’ve heard any men complaining about the feminine environment of health care before. I wouldn’t think that would be such a problem now, with tight strictures on health care privacy. Gone are the days when the receptionist announces, “Ms. Lubu, the doctor will see you about your diarreah now.”
Well of course they wouldn’t complain to you - why would they? Not only aren’t you a front office worker or other person who could actually do anything about it, but frankly La Lubu, based on your posts here IMO you would not provide a “sympathetic ear” for airing such concerns. And re. the issue of privacy, many times it’s not as blatant as you describe (although in my experience sometimes it is) but is an issue of ‘comfort.’ Feminist have made valid points about ‘level of comfort’ issues in your fight for more women doctors, lawyers, etc., so I’m always flabbergasted (although never surprised) that you all dismiss men’s similar concerns. We’re just a human as you all are, despite what some extremists in your camp might say.
Now, as for lower workplace standards, I’m not just talking about attendance standards but also performance standards. And I’m here to tell you that in my experience in fields as varied as education, construction, etc., etc., women are given many more breaks vis-a-vis performance than men are. We’ll just have to once again agree that our experiences are different and thus our anecdotes are interesting but prove nothing. Also, I must take exception to your equating scheduled vacation time used, (e.g., to go deer hunting, etc.) vs. things like sick time (personal, family and otherwise), emergency time off, etc. Men are more likely take scheduled time off and go to work when sick, while Women will use their vacation time and a lot of extra sick time, etc. There’s a big difference between the two.
Anyway, back to the original topic, I think that it’s none of our business who Pluss’ fiancee choses to hang out with. If she’s old and mature enough to choose abortion, to enter into contracts, vote, etc., then she’s old and mature enough to make that decision too. If not, then perhaps we need to raise the age of majority for women.
Mr. Bad, this may be hard for you to believe, but the vast, overwhelming majority of the people in my social circle are men. So, when I say I haven’t heard of men being afraid of going to the doctor because of the inevitability of having to speak to female personnel, I’m not coming way out of left field here. I’ve had an incredible number of in-depth conversations with male friends and colleagues about health, including the gory details. Being reticent to deal with female health-care workers or their female office personnel has never been an issue. Jeez louise, man! How do you manage to go to the grocery store? Most of the checkers are women! And they might see what you’re eating!!
Lower performance standards for women? Nonsense. Certainly not in construction. In my field, women are given extra scrutiny, and have to go that extra mile to earn the respect that is routinely given to male workers from their first day on the job! The flip side of that, is that once you have proven yourself, the brothers on the job are quick to step up to your defense if some Neanderthal tries to bad-mouth you for “stealing a man’s job”. I’ve said it many times, and I’ll keep saying it; the sexism problem is not coming from the brothers on the jobsite, but from the higher-echelon men in the office who almost never work with women in non-traditional positions. Their attitudes are entrenched because they never have the opportunity to challenge them.
Anyway, women in any occupation do not use up more time off than men. Period. Women who do, get dismissed from their job. I didn’t mean to offend with the equation of sick-time with vacation time, but in my industry there isn’t any separation of the two. In most Locals, holidays are not paid. And there is no such thing as paid time off….in other words, you can take off a sick day, or considerably more time if needed. It works the same way for “vacation days”, or “personal leave”; contractors won’t bat an eye if you say, “hey, I’m taking off a week in January to go skiing”. They tend not to care if or when you take time off, because they aren’t paying for it anyway. They will care if there is a pattern of taking Mondays and/or Fridays off, because that is one of the prime indicators of a drug or alcohol problem.
Construction is different from most workplaces, and usually I try to do a better job of illustrating that. I didn’t do so up above because I didn’t want to extend the post, as I did here!
And I’m here to tell you that in my experience in fields as varied as education, construction, etc., etc., women are given many more breaks vis-a-vis performance than men are.
I thought your expertise was in health care? You’re quite the renaissance man!
However, at times I am uncomfortable with the decidedly feminine environment, and the attendant disrespect and outright contempt that some of the female staff seem to have towards me and other men in most medical clinics I’ve been to.
Please direct me to these medical clinics that fawn over women; I would love to have a positive experience in a medical clinic. I have found that medical staff are disrespectful and contemptuous in a pretty equal-opportunity fashion. Yes, including such feminine environments as an OB/gyn’s office.
Interestingly, my husband’s experience with being a ‘family man’ at work confirms Mr. Bad’s, though probably not in the way Mr. Bad would like. Indeed, women at his previous workplace were more excused for childcare duties. It was a largely male workplace, and the men running the business were very suspicious of a dad taking time off to be with his kids. (When he explained that he was not staying late because he had two sick kids at home and I was pretty exhausted caring for them, one co-worker asked “Who wears the pants in your family, anyway?”) Strangely, his few female co-workers thought this made him Dad of the Year.
The price women paid for this ‘benefit’ was that all of them were perceived as being not very serious workers and little effort was made to promote or retain them. So their time off (which from my understanding was no greater than their male colleagues’) was allowed, because not much was expected of them anyway. A man taking time off, though–dude, that’s what you have a wife for!
I actually think it would be fab to have more male nurses, just as it would be terrific to have more female electricians. Ultimately, I think women suffer more than men do because of the way our society assigns occupations to one gender or the other , but men would benefit, too, if we stopped doing that. It’s another good reason for men to support feminism.
La Lubu, mythago and Sally: Thanks for the comments - this has been enlightening. While we all have our personal experiences, they really can’t be used to understand general societal trends, so we’ll just have to agree that our experiences are different and leave it at that.
La Lubu, you wrote: “Being reticent to deal with female health-care workers or their female office personnel has never been an issue. Jeez louise, man! How do you manage to go to the grocery store? Most of the checkers are women! And they might see what you’re eating!!
Oh please, spare me. Equating going through the checkout lane at the grocery with having to tell the female receptionist you’re there to see the doctor about your erectile dysfunction, alcohol/drug abuse issues, hemmoroids, or other very personal issue is so ridiculous and inappropriate it’s beyond belief that even you would really take it seriously. But then again, you were the one equating the guy who joked about “the Freshman 15″ with the hate rally where the radical feminazis promoted Lorena Bobbit-style revenge on men, so perhaps you really don’t see how inappropriate those comparisons are. I respectfully ask you to please try and get a clue.
As for your experience in construction, you outline out nicely the point that Dr. Warren Farrel made in his most recent book: When men and women do the same dangerous, risky jobs togeter, even though the women have the same job title and thus theoretically do “the same job,” the men almost always shelter the women from the really dangerous tasks. You described well how the “brothers” protect you, so even if you’re not aware of it, you’re being held to an easier standard than the men.
As for your description of sick time, etc., that’s interesting and frankly, refreshing. My experience has been that women are given much more breaks and consideration, but then I work in an ultra-PC “family friendly” workplace, which seem to be code for “coddle the women.” And it’s interesting because the single, childless women who work here are very resentful of how coddled and spoiled the mothers are, and how much slacking and outright crappy work they’re allowed to get away with. Perhaps your workplace is extraordinarily fair with its policies because construction is not a feminized workplace, but rather, a decidedly masculine occupation and therefore, IMO, more inherently fair and egalitarian. Have you ever considered that?
mythago, not that it should matter, but actually yes, I have been described as a renaissance man. I’ve had three careers over my 50 years of life: I starting out in my youth working in a union shop in manufacturing while earning money to put myself through my early years of college, went on to be a healthcare provider, and now work in policy, management, and research at a university (thus my educational experience). I’d like to think I’ve climbed the ladder vis-a-vis intellectual rigor career-wise.
Good women’s clinics, women’s hospitals, programs addressing specifically women’s health, etc., abound, so all you have to do is simply take a brief look around. I don’t know where you live, otherwise I’m sure I could find at least one clinic or hospital in your area devoted exclusively to women’s health. Trust me, I know a lot about this issue.
I appreciate that fact that men are held to a higher standard vis-a-vis taking time off for family - that’s one of the points I was trying to make. Men are held to higher standards in most all aspects of our society. And taking time off for extended family takes an especially heavy toll on single men (referencing your “dude, that’s what you have a wife for” comment). However, notice where the support is given: Single and/or working women are provided all sorts of encouragement, mentoring and other help from public and private sources, while men are ignored. This is an unfair and unjust situation which needs to be changed. But pointing out that it’s “men discriminating against men” (i.e., you men in the high-level management reference) is no excuse for dismissing it, any more than dismissing back-alley abortions just because women were the ones doing them would be.
Sally, if you can’t see the difference between an electrician vs. a nurse vis-a-vis personal issues, then there’s really no hope for you. I really don’t care if my electrician is male or female just as long as they do a good job, but when, e.g., being examined for a hernia, you better believe the gender of the examiner damn-well matters. Question: Is your Ob/Gyn male of female, and does it matter to you? Please answer honestly.
So for me, men in nursing is a priority, while women in, e.g., science, engineering and as electricians is a non-issue.
Mr. Bad: I do exactly the same hard, tough, physically dangerous work as the men. I lift the same amount of heavy material, hoist the same extension ladders, throw the generators on and off the truck, climb the same tall ladders, use the same scissor lifts, the same jackhammers, hammer drills, etc. I both can and do everything on the job that the men do. There is positively no doubt in my mind that I could get more done on the job than both you and Warren Farrell.
The “protection” I was referring to, was as I said earlier….the protection against being bad-mouthed. In other words, every time a Neanderthal steps up and says “women shouldn’t be here”, the brothers step up and say “why not? She does the same work we do!”
And as far as my work being a “masculine” occupation, and thus inherently more egalitarian, don’t make me laugh! No, I think the difference comes from (a) in construction, it is painfully obvious who is and who isn’t producing. If you’re not producing, you won’t be missed; if you are, they’re glad you’re coming back, (b)like I said before, they aren’t paying for any of the time off, and (c) if they absolutely need to have someone to replace a missing person, even for a short time like a week or two, it’s a simple matter of calling the union hall—a qualified person will be sent out immediately, no fuss, no bother.
In other environments, where god-only-knows how many people may be working on a project, there’s more opportunities to “hide”, and take advantage of one’s co-workers. Or so I hear. Where I work, one’s work is visible each day. And goldbricking knows no gender or parenthood status.
There is evidence of changing trends in construction, as far as men being more willing to take family time off. The “old school” superintendents who would show up at the shop and work for sixteen hours are either dying or retiring. The younger men are simply unwilling to spend that much time away from their families. Hell, it’s sometimes hard to get some of the younger guys to be foremen, lest their week be longer than forty hours. Trade magazines have recognized this as a problem when it comes to attracting the next generation of workers, and are addressing these concerns in workplace policy and in contracts. There are predictions of a shortage of electricians as the Baby Boomers retire, and fewer younger workers are available to replace them. Making our workplace one that will attract these potential workers, means making our workplace more family friendly, for both men and women. Family-unfriendly workplaces have men voting with their feet, also.
And as far as my work being a “masculine” occupation, and thus inherently more egalitarian, don’t make me laugh! No, I think the difference comes from (a) in construction, it is painfully obvious who is and who isn’t producing. If you’re not producing, you won’t be missed; if you are, they’re glad you’re coming back, (b)like I said before, they aren’t paying for any of the time off, and (c) if they absolutely need to have someone to replace a missing person, even for a short time like a week or two, it’s a simple matter of calling the union hall—a qualified person will be sent out immediately, no fuss, no bother.
In other environments, where god-only-knows how many people may be working on a project, there’s more opportunities to “hide”, and take advantage of one’s co-workers. Or so I hear. Where I work, one’s work is visible each day. And goldbricking knows no gender or parenthood status.
There is evidence of changing trends in construction, as far as men being more willing to take family time off. The “old school” superintendents who would show up at the shop and work for sixteen hours are either dying or retiring. The younger men are simply unwilling to spend that much time away from their families. Hell, it’s sometimes hard to get some of the younger guys to be foremen, lest their week be longer than forty hours. Trade magazines have recognized this as a problem when it comes to attracting the next generation of workers, and are addressing these concerns in workplace policy and in contracts. There are predictions of a shortage of electricians as the Baby Boomers retire, and fewer younger workers are available to replace them. Making our workplace one that will attract these potential workers, means making our workplace more family friendly, for both men and women. Family-unfriendly workplaces have men voting with their feet, also.
Sorry for the double post!
Sally, if you can’t see the difference between an electrician vs. a nurse vis-a-vis personal issues, then there’s really no hope for you.
Straw person argument there. I never said that. When people put words in my mouth, I generally assume it’s because they’re not smart enough to argue with what I actually said.
I really don’t care if my electrician is male or female just as long as they do a good job, but when, e.g., being examined for a hernia, you better believe the gender of the examiner damn-well matters. Question: Is your Ob/Gyn male of female, and does it matter to you? Please answer honestly.
I don’t have an Ob/Gyn, but my internist, who does my paps, is female. However, I have a whole bunch of doctors, and as I said above, most of them are male. I have to disrobe in front of male doctors all the time. And I don’t actually have any choice in the matter, because my health insurance is an HMO, and I have to go with doctors who are in my plan. I have pretty specialized needs, and in several specialties there’s only one qualified doctor in my plan. When that doctor is a man, I’m stuck with him. I also see a steady stream of residents and med students and what have you, and I don’t have any say at all over who they are. So I’m not really sure what you’re getting at here. Questions about health care aren’t particularly hypothetical to me, and my experience doesn’t come close to the feminist utopia you seem to think women inhabit.
So for me, men in nursing is a priority, while women in, e.g., science, engineering and as electricians is a non-issue.
Golly. Why does that not surprise me?
> I appreciate that fact that men are held to a higher standard vis-a-vis
> taking time off for family
Mr. Bad,
IMO, expecting men to *not* take their share of time off when a child is ill is expecting men to live at a LOWER standard. Family is MUCH more important than one’s employer, no matter how much said employer may disagree. That’s why the moms in workplaces think so highly of men who will stand their ground and take time off for family-related issues.
Mr. Bad,
I’ve never been to a female doctor. *Ever.* My mother’s a CCU nurse, and I can only think of one doctor she talks to me about who is a female, a young lady from Pakistan, I believe.
Sally said: (quoting me first)“Sally, if you can’t see the difference between an electrician vs. a nurse vis-a-vis personal issues, then there’s really no hope for you.
(Sally): Straw person argument there. I never said that. When people put words in my mouth, I generally assume it’s because they’re not smart enough to argue with what I actually said.
Not true. You said in your previous post: “I actually think it would be fab to have more male nurses, just as it would be terrific to have more female electricians.” You made a direct comparison (i.e. just as it would be terrific…”) of male nurses and female electricians. I heard and responded to exactly what you said; just because you didn’t like my response doesn’t make it less true.
Sally, Caitriona and La Lubu: We all have our experiences, etc., but this doesn’t mean that it applies to the world at-large. I have female doctors (where I am the ratio is about 10:1 female:male) and it doesn’t really bother me all that much, but the fact is that it does bother some men quite a bit to have so many women working in medical offices and clinics, and that’s one main reason they don’t visit those places unless and until they’re sick. You don’t have to believe this - I don’t care - but being an honest-to-goodness, real guy, I believe that I have a lot more direct experience at how guys feel in these situations than you do. But since you all seem to be dismissing the idea that men may not like to deal with intimate matters in a majority female setting, then you’ll have to concede that it doesn’t matter whether or not there are any doctors, nurses, etc., that are of the same sex/race/gender identity/gender expression, etc. for anybody. In other words, you seem to making the case that “it’s not at all important to have doctors or other professionals who ‘look like us.’ We should all grow up, get over it and act like, well, men.”
That’s what you all seem to be telling me. Either that or you’re just applying this rule to white, heterosexual men.
So, which is it?
You made a direct comparison (i.e. just as it would be terrific…”) of male nurses and female electricians. I heard and responded to exactly what you said; just because you didn’t like my response doesn’t make it less true.
No, actually. I was implying that the gendered division of labor is a system, and that the thing to do is to get rid of the entire system, not just the aspects of it that hurt men. You care about men and not women, so you only want to address the aspects that you believe harm men. I’d like to do away with the entire system, to the benefit of everyone. I’m not implying that the harm done to men is identical to the harm done to women. I’m arguing that we must dismantle a system that harms everyone, albeit unequally. It harms women more than men, but it would still be good for men to get rid of it, as the male nurses example makes clear.
Sally, Caitriona and La Lubu: We all have our experiences, etc., but this doesn’t mean that it applies to the world at-large.
Yes, but my experience, unlike yours, does reflect the world at large. In the U.S., at least, male doctors still outnumber female ones. Assuming that you’re accurately reporting your experience, it’s atypical.
I freely admit that men might not like to discuss intimate matters in a majority female setting, although I’m not sure why you seem to think it’s a national tragedy when they have to do it and no biggie when I do. But hey, I don’t like having a category of disease that’s signficantly under-researched because it mostly affects women (and disproportionately women of color,) since most medical researchers have been white men who didn’t notice that women existed apart from their breasts and reproductive organs. So yay. Let’s all be feminists, and maybe we can fix both things.
Rarely have I seen a thread wander farther than this one has… especially from such a short post!
Keep it up, folks, it’s all good.
Sally: You tell us that “most medical researchers have been white men who didn’t notice that women existed apart from their breasts and reproductive organs.”
Is this hyperbole, or do you really know that white male medical researchers for the most part, have this attitude toward women? Have you ever actually had a conversation with one of these white male researchers?
It’s hyperbole, and I’m sure that white male medical researchers are (and have been) lovely people who have not realized that there were biases in their professions. That’s not a capital offense: I’m sure there are biases in my profession that I don’t see. But the fact remains: for a really long time, medical research was overwhelmingly done on men, so nobody knew how heart attacks or AIDS presented differently in women. Sickle cell anemia continues to be vastly under-studied. Lupus is doing better, but that’s only because it’s received money specifically earmarked for under-studied diseases. Do you really think that’s just a coincidence?
Coincidence? I don’t really know the dynamics of how the research targets are determined, so I cannot really say. I do know that more males die of prostate cancer than women do of breast cancer, yet breast cancer gets several times the research dollars. Is this a coincidence? I don’t know the answer to this either. But it does seem to me that it is easy to make whatever case you wish about society based on a piece of the evidence. What I see is advocates of position X searching for evidence to support position X, and finding it.
Sally, if your position is strong, and you have truth and right on your side, you don’t need the hyperbole.
I don’t really know the dynamics of how the research targets are determined, so I cannot really say.
Well, you might want to look into that. It’s depressing, whatever your gender.
I do know that more males die of prostate cancer than women do of breast cancer, yet breast cancer gets several times the research dollars.
Ok, but people tend to assume that breast cancer is typical, and in fact, it’s not. First of all, it’s historically been the main target of feminist medical advocacy, to the neglect of all sorts of other diseases. (I’m going to get pounced on for saying that. Sorry. I’m not saying that it’s unimportant: just that it’s dominated the agenda.) And also, medicine has recognized that women have breasts and reproductive organs. Until recently, we’ve pretty much been reduced to our breasts and reproductive organs, as far as medical research is concerned. Diseases that affect other parts of our bodies haven’t received a lot of attention.
Sally, if your position is strong, and you have truth and right on your side, you don’t need the hyperbole.
Right. Because your men’s rights cronies are just champions of understatement.
“But since you all seem to be dismissing the idea that men may not like to deal with intimate matters in a majority female setting, then you’ll have to concede that it doesn’t matter whether or not there are any doctors, nurses, etc. that are of the same sex/race/gender identity/gender expression, etc. for anybody.”
Careen down the slippery slope often, do you?
First of all, no one here said anything of the sort. I can imagine that it can be embarrassing or humbling to have to deal with intimate matters with strangers, regardless of gender. When I was twelve, I thought it was embarrassing to buy maxi-pads from the male neighborhood grocer….but not as embarrassing as the results if I didn’t buy them. Good thing I got over it, because by the time I gave birth to my daughter, the entire SIU School of Medicine got an eyeful of my cucciniddu, as I was Exhibit A for what footling breech, PROM, 25 wks. gestation looked like.
Thing is, since the passage of HIPAA, you’re less likely to have to explain intimate details to office staff than at any other time. I don’t know how well they’re obeying HIPAA provisions where you live, but here the receptionists won’t even ask you what you are seeing the doctor for. You can’t even stand behind anyone in line at the pharmacist, either. So yeah, color me skeptical.
What makes me most skeptical though, is your belief that white males will be disrespected and abused if they have to deal with anyone other than a fellow white male in a medical setting. Historically, there are issues why women, especially rape survivors, prefer female doctors. Women have been molested and raped by male doctors. I have not yet heard of even one case of a female doctor raping her male patient. There are white doctors who have been contemptuous and/or dismissive of the health practices or religious beliefs of their nonwhite patients; I have not heard of this happening in reverse. White males have quite little to fear in terms of bigotry and/or disrespect from the medical establishment, regardless of who happens to be wearing the face of the “medical establishment”. Medicine is, and has been historically, a safe place for you; that has not been the case for everyone. Also, keep in mind that most of the issues surrounding race and gender in the medical field have not been about patient comfort level, but job opportunity for qualified personnel. Women and people of color had an extremely difficult time getting hired, or getting hospital privileges in years past.
And the lack of a general movement of white men clamoring for folks that look just like them in medicine, leads me to believe that this is not an issue for white guys. It wouldn’t even have to be an organized movement—just general grumblings. Nope. Nothin’ but the sounds of crickets.
I have no requirements of any physician, nurse, medical tech, or anyone else remotely related to health care, except that they be (a)competant, and (b)respectful. If they have those two characteristics locked, then they have the qualifications to deal with me.
So are you saying that gender-targeted medical research dollars are mostly going toward male-specific afflictions?
“Right. Because your men’s rights cronies are just champions of understatement.”
You do not need innuendo or gross generalizations either. Do you? Can your position be supported from a higher level? Then I invite you to come from that place. Otherwise the discussion degenerates to the lowest denominator.
Mr. Bad,
You mentioned things which you have experienced. I have said several times tha your experiences are vastly different than mine, then I told of how things are in the environ where I live. Then you say that the experiences of Sally, La Lubu, and I don’t represent the world-at-large. Does this mean that you feel that your experiences *do* represent the world at large?
You live a different life, in a different environment than do I. If you ignore those differences in an attempt to say that your own perceptions are those of the world-at-large, then you will not come closer to seeing a more complete picture of society as a whole.
There is an old Amer-Indian story I once read that goes something like this. When a young boy in the tribe came of age, a sacred ceremony was held. As part of that ceremony, everyone in the tribe gathered in a circle around a drum. Each person in turn told what they saw when they looked at the drum. Some saw a red drum with a buffalo. Some saw a red drum with a deer. Some saw a white drum with an antelope. Some saw a white drum with a coyote. Some saw a red and white drum. NONE described exactly the same picture.
The drum was actually half red and half white, with different animal designs around it.
The lesson the young boy was to learn from this exercise is that noone sees things exactly as the next person. Those sitting on opposite sides see entirely different perspectives. But everyone is seeing the RIGHT perspective, based on where he/she is sitting. The only way to know the complete picture is for everyone to share his/her own perspective and to work with all the others to put those perspectives together to see what is REALLY before us.
My perspective comes from living most of my life in rural farming or ranching communities in the South or the Southwest, in predominantly blue collar lower-middle to low socio-economic areas. I’ve spent some amount of time in cities. I’ve worked in education, in industry, in the dot-com industry, and in international communications and education.
In each of these fields, it has been very important for me to learn to see the perspectives of others, and for others to learn to see my perspective. Only then could we begin to see the wider picture and to work together with the most effeciency.
Where you are, there may be a predominance of women in the medical field. However, throughout the US, men are still predominant in the medical field. That has been slowly changing for the past 30 years or so. I still see very few female doctors, although I attend church with one whose husband is also a doctor. My mother has been an RN for 22 years and has worked with few female doctors. The national stats still indicate that doctors are predominantly male, although women are entering the medical field at a much higher ratio now than in the past.
My mother also sees very few male nurses, although she likes most of the ones with whom she has worked. I’ve seen more and more female medics, which is a good thing. In the small EMS where my husband worked between programming jobs, the ratio is about 50-50.
I agree that front office staff is primarily female, no matter where you go, medical office or no. For some reason, men just don’t go into that end of administration as much as do women. If you want to see more men in the front office, talk to the young men going into college. Prompt them to go into front office administration and into office management. Don’t just sit there and complain that you don’t see men’s faces behind the desks. Work to change what you see.
Good women’s clinics, women’s hospitals, programs addressing specifically women’s health, etc., abound, so all you have to do is simply take a brief look around. I don’t know where you live, otherwise I’m sure I could find at least one clinic or hospital in your area devoted exclusively to women’s health. Trust me, I know a lot about this issue.
Trust me, as a woman who is a health-care consumer, I also know a lot about this issue. I promise you that the mere fact that a clinic advertises itself ‘for women’ doesn’t mean the dragons guarding the gates are any nicer to me than the the ones at the urologist’s are to you.
but the fact is that it does bother some men quite a bit
‘Some’ men? Would it bother them as much if you pointed out that these women are, after all, working pink-collar jobs? Raise the pay and you’ll see more male receptionists and nurses.
And as has been pointed out, men are not ‘held to a higher standard’ when it comes to taking time off for family.
So are you saying that gender-targeted medical research dollars are mostly going toward male-specific afflictions?
The complaint I had heard was more that most subjects in research on non-gender-specific afflictions were men (possibly because of worries that some female subjects might turn out to be pregnant?), and that for that reason we wound up lacking information on how things like heart disease manifest differently in women. I can’t say I know a lot of specifics about this issue, though.
Caitrona: I really like that story about the drum.
Sally: I am trying to educate myself. I have looked at genomenewsnetwork.org and womenshealth.org, and found things such as this, by medical journalist Barbara J. Culliton:
“What’s important is that gender-based studies now hold an important place on the research agenda. A decade ago, this was not so.”
I also found an article jointly published by the Canadian and American medical associations by three women including an MD and the Assistant Dean of Women’s Issues for Health Sciences at Ottowa University that stated:
“Increasing awareness of gender issues in medical education, research and practice has resulted in a disproportionate focus on women.”
These three women believed that the disproportion was needed to compensate for under-representation in the past, though they admitted that it had been unintentional. But still - there it was… in 1997.
To this, add the far greater expenditures on women’s health issues than men’s, and it does not add up to patriarchy, male privilege, discrimination against women, or any advantage for men in becoming feminists.
Perhaps you have been reading complaints based on old research. Or perhaps I have been unable to locate the current studies that demonstrate how medical research reflects patriarchal values. Can you point them out to me, if they exist?
First, a bit of old business:
Caitriona, I really liked the AmerInd drum tale. It’s food for thought - thanks!
La Lubu: Your “slippery slope” missives show that apparently you feel that white men don’t deserve equal rights or consideration relative to minorities and wo