Men Die Earlier Because They are Stupid, Apparently.

I was very glad to see some discussion of men's health issues in several mainstream news outlets lately. Personally, I think the gender correlation of lifespan is something which does not get much discussion in the mainstream news. In short: the articles say there IS no genetic reason to explain why women outlive men. The disparity is mainly a result of social constructs.

But even though I was glad to see the issue raised, I was dismayed by the not-so-subtle spinning that was done to the information. And there IS demonstrable spinning involved in presenting this issue-- guess what type? (I hope all these links will still work after a few months.) These were two examples I wish to use, and I'm sure that other mainstream media was along the same lines. The AP new service also had a news release similar to these...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030512-449501,00.html

http://www.msnbc.com/local/rtfli/shorterlilike.asp

Note the language? Notice the emphasis? The big point they are trying to push is that that the major factor in males dying earlier is they are dumb. The analysis did not penetrate much farther than that, even though the journal they are referencing contains a lot of different and varied pieces of relevant information. If anybody bothers to even look at it, that is.

So men do not go to see doctors regularly because they want to show how macho they are. Men do not understand that risk-taking behavior brings the possibility of injury. They do not understand that smoking and drinking are bad for health. They do not understand that going to the doctor regularly is important. They do not understand the ramifications of ingesting unhealthy foods. You'd have to be pretty damn stupid to never realize those things, wouldn't you? One wonders how such completely stupid males even learn to tie their shoes!

Going to the Source...

http://www.ajph.org/

It was very wonderful of the American Journal of Public Health to public an issue devoted to men's health, and I understand they did so partially because they were approached by a number of men's health activists who wanted them to compensate for the fact that they've published SEVERAL special issues focusing on women's health in the past few years. (Ahh, activism! Sounds like a good idea, does it not?)

If you look at the May edition (you might have to hunt around their website for it after this month) which is referenced by both Newsweek and Time, there are a variety of topics covered in the contents section. The abstract for the article entitled "The Health of Men: Structured Inequalities and Opportunities" is quite clear on their conclusions on the poor state of men's health: "These include economic marginality, adverse working conditions, and gendered coping responses to stress, each of which can lead to high levels of substance use, other health-damaging behaviors, and an aversion to health-protective behaviors." But the articles in Time and Newsweek overwhelmingly emphasize a couple of these categories.

Predictably, Time magazine says: "a new study published in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health suggests that men's behavior may also be to blame… (men) are accidents waiting to happen."

The Newsweek article is pathetically short, so it's probably perfect for American news audiences... it states "Men generally don't like to appear weak, needing advice, not being in control," said Louis Sullivan, former secretary of the Health and Human Services." So in both cases, we see the blame is mostly masculinity itself.

The Time and Newsweek articles are very interestingly structured: they mention a lot of shocking things very early-on, but mention them quickly. Passing over them hurriedly in order to get-down to the important highlighting of stupid/macho men haplessly killing themselves. This tactic serves the purpose of burying ideologically-unacceptible truths in a mass of information, like one might bury nuclear waste deep beneath the earth's crust.

Underreported Facts:

Newsweek indicates up-front that black and latino males are severely under-insured. This is certainly not a dumb male issue, is it? It is a poverty issue or an insurance-industry issue. If anything, this underscores the fact that the U.S. is the only industrialized country on the planet without a national health insurance system. Quite a heavy issue in its own right, but it does not detain the reader. Then, it mentions the liklihood of men dying from heart diseases, accidents and cancers of all types. Gotta mention all those things really quickly and pass-on to the good stuff: dumb men.

There are, by the way, relevant bits of information entirely unmentioned by Time and Newsweek at all. There is no mention in Time or Newsweek of how prostate cancer is under-funded compared to breast cancer funding even though those diseases kill roughly the same number of people every year (even the US MILITARY has a breast cancer research program!) There is no mention of how the Department of Health and Human Services shifted more resources towards a bogus "crisis" in women's health while ignoring the poor state of male-specific health during the 1990s. (The priority given to women's health issues became fairly galling under Clinton's HHS Secretary Donna Shalala.) It doesn't talk about a lack of public-awareness campaigns for male health issues. It doesn't mention that both the House and Senate bills that call for an Office of Men's Health are stuck in committee. In the case of the Senate bill, nobody seems to be interested in co-sponsoring it. This does not warrant a mention.

An especially glaring omission: there is only a passing mention of male suicide- a total of one word in each article. In 2000, suicide was the 8th-largest killer of males in the U.S. (it was only the 19th leading killer of females.)

Does anything unusual leap-out from this chart?

And even if male suicide was emphasized more, I assume that these articles would again attempt to frame the issue as being because of dumb, macho men. Men don't cry, they are emotionally retarded, they refuse to see psychologists, etc. They kill themselves because they are male. Ho hum. Pass the butter?

Interestingly, the Time article mentions a couple of distractingly irrelevant bizarre factoids: that men are more likely to die in flash-floods or be struck by lighting. (Perhaps this is so because men are too stupid and macho to seek cover in lightning storms?)

These articles also refer to how males are more likely to have problems with alcohol and drugs. Those bits of information are quite true, but there is no attempt to ask why or try to probe for underlying causes. In the abstract, the American Journal of Public Health has a possible reason: they link it to socioeconomic factors and "gendered responses to stress."
I would have to conclude that substance abuse in males is not merely because they are just stupid and inherently self-destructive. WHY do males disproportionately feel the need to deaden the pains of existence? Perhaps there are conditions in a male's life which would cause him to WANT to escape through drugs or alcohol? Perhaps men's lives actually SUCK, and this causes many of them to behave in self-destructive ways? Maybe this might be correlated with the suicide issue as well? This is a significant question, but the connections between a man's living conditions and his propensity to substance abuse are explored in neither Time nor Newsweek.

An Atomized Approach to Male Health? Are They Serious?

So we are presented with the idea that men are at fault for their poor health, therefore they do not deserve sympathy or greater understanding. They do not deserve more health resources or special research programs or more socially-widespread efforts. The situation does not even require a more nuanced understanding of underlying factors such as poverty or the maldistribution of health insurance or the complexities of suicide. Men are stupid. Men have to admit they are stupid and become as smart and sensible as women. Only then they will live as long as women. The health of women should be the responsibility of all society, but the health of males is up to the individual men. These are the ideas which are unwittingly articulated.

Now, they are right to say that males need to pay more attention to their heath and doctors need to be more aware of men's health issues. Those are paramount concerns, to be sure. Naturally, one's health is one's own responsibility first and foremost. But do you also notice that these are basically the ONLY recommendations that the articles make?

There is, for instance, no urging Congress to pass the bills needed to create an Office of Men's Health as a counterpart to their myriad women's health programs already in existence. There is no recommendation that there should be greater funding to research male-specific diseases such as testicular cancer. There is no recommendation that suicide-prevention programs should be oriented to become a bit more male-specific. There are no recommendations to improve workplace safety. There are no recommendations to tailor public health-info campaigns to reach more male audiences. These are all relatively SIMPLE steps that could have very positive medium-term impacts!

In short, there are no recommendations in these articles to build or expand institutions that might improve men's health. The underlying yet unstated belief of the authors is that the relevant systems and institutions are ALREADY male-dominated and do not need to change in ways that would benefit males. Men die earlier because they are just too stupid and too macho to properly utilize the institutions that they dominate.

There is a very stark form of ideological polarization in action, is there not? Even to the extent that the authors ignore about half of the articles in the journal that they examine! The only articles that received attention were ideologically-acceptable or could be presented in a way that agrees with ideology.

In this case, the only explanation I can think of is the presence of a doctrinal 'filter' of sorts. This is the assumption of, in the words of Glenn Sacks: "The social norm of woman good, man bad. Woman right, man wrong." This presupposition is clearly present in both of these articles, and others as well. Although perhaps unintended by the authors, this is a definitely propagandistic tactic.

In gender-specific topics like this, this assumption portrays men as dominant but as having the worst possible motives mixed with a special brand of incompetence. This is, actually, quite standard for the portrayal of gender issues. If girls get poor grades in school, it is because they are discriminated-against. If men get poor grades, it is because they are stupid. If a woman gets hit by a man, it is a shocking event and she is a victim. If a man gets hit by a woman, it is a humorous event and he probably deserved it. The examples of this filtered sentiment are everywhere and are literally too rich to sample. This doctrinal filter functions with total indifference to facts, even when it goes-against all available data.

Propaganda is how the powerful protect their interests without physical coersion. Whether women know it or not, this social norm is a powerful propaganda tool they benefit from enormously.

In fact, Dr.Gupta almost admits his thinking is biased. He states it very clearly right up-front: "I used to accept the disparity, assuming it was part of our collective genetic inheritance, more nature than nurture." (Ahh yes, he assumed that was true! The Master Race always loves to convince the world of their superior genes, do they not? But I will lay that issue aside…)

"Although medical research has traditionally concentrated on men, the emphasis seems to have shifted…" mumbles the suddenly mealy-mouthed Dr. Gupta, without providing much of an explanation. This is the closest he gets to even hinting that anything systemic might ever need to be reformed.
BUT tell me-- if medical research has traditionally "concentrated" on men, why have women's lifespans constantly been rising above that of men over the past 50 years? Wouldn't the opposite be true? (Hmm, now there's a real conundrum!) A statement like his requires a damn good explanation, does it not?

I have nothing against Dr. Gupta. I think he is very sincere about wanting to promote good health among the public, that is always commendable. But he needs to be told that he has internalized a social norm of female moral superiority which has caused him to de-emphasize a great deal of the journal he has just reviewed. He has presented a partial and fragmentary portrayal of the situation facing those who might benefit from reformed health programs and improved care, to say the least.

Unwittingly, he has done his job of protecting female interests. Thought control has indeed worked well on him.

Alternative Views:

By painting the entire issue as one of dumb macho males, these articles dismiss underlying ideas that are unacceptible to their women readers. Namely-- that perhaps the sorry state of men's health would indicate that it is NOT a man's world after all? Perhaps women get unfair levels of protections and subsidies in our 'male-dominated' society? Perhaps there are areas in which men are disadvantaged because of reasons other than stupidity? Alas, these ideas need to remain unstated because women will find these ideas either laughable or unbelievable. Plus, they disagree with doctrine.

Here is a big question: perhaps it is not machisimo that is the main cultural barrier to better male health... Perhaps the main cultural barrier is because male life is valued less than female life? Perhaps it is because men are considered disposable in western society? Could that be it?

No, never. Women must be the victims in all cases. And even though they live longer and healthier lives, it is certainly not because women are favored by society. That could never be a possibility. Men are stupid and if they ever complain about pain of any type, they are crybabies to boot.

Men's Health Crisis... (Yawn!) Somebody Change the Channel, Please?

This is not a harmless state of affairs, obviously. Neglect in this area of men's health has been wreaking a massive toll which is visually-apparent in the graphs…

(And women are supposed to be victims?)

The above graph was taken from a study called Women's Health USA 2002. And it is very important to notice what the lines indicate.

As you see above, a black woman is likely to outlive a white man. Their lifespan has shot-up like a rocket, although its not yet as good as that of the white gals. That in itself is very remarkable considering that black women are supposed to be doubly-oppressed because they are both female AND an ethnic minority. Furthermore, we can see that the life expectancy of black women ZOOMED past that of white men in the 60s and 70s while that of black males remained horribly low. In fact in the 1960s, black males witnessed a decrease in life expectancy while that of black women was increasing. Only female blacks were able to improve their health so incredibly quickly, something quite powerful was acting in their favor.

I mean- look at the damn chart! How is it possible for the female half of a disadvantaged ethnicity to outlive the male half of the ethnicity which has been disadvantaging it? If black women have managed to improve their health so much, then black men must die earlier only because they are really REALLY stupid! Is that what we are supposed to think?

In fact, how the devil is it possible for ANY oppressed classes to outlive their respective oppressor classes?? It all makes you go 'hmm', doesn't it? Perhaps this is all an illustration of Dr. Gupta's teensy "shift" in "emphasis"(!)

Perhaps this little "shift" is actually indicative of a massive allocation of scarce health resources and protection towards those who already HAD better health to begin with?? You don't need a PhD to make that sort of connection. It is analogous to the rich stealing from the poor. Analogous to overfed hogs snatching bread away from the starving.

(Incidentally, the average lifespan of a Japanese woman is, as of 2002, 84.6 years. On average, they are the longest-living women on the planet. Japanese men are at 77.6 years. Not as good, but better than a black American woman.)

To underscore how vast the crisis in men's health care is-- and it factually DESERVES the name crisis, unlike the bogus 'crisis' in female health which was referred-to by the HHR Department in past years-- there is another article I wish to direct your attention to:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0617F93D5A0C758DDDAA0894DB404482

This appeared in New York Times Magazine from the March 16, 2003 issue. The article in itself is quite interesting because it lists more than 20 ways in which women are healthier than men and it underscores the urgency and scale of the problems that men face. Here is the article in its entirety:

The Weaker Sex
By Maggie Jones

Men start out ahead: 115 males are conceived for every 100 females. But it's downhill from there.

o The male fetus is at greater risk of miscarriage and stillbirth.

o Male births slightly outnumber female births (about 105 to 100), but boys have a higher death rate if born premature: 22 percent compared with 15 percent for girls.

o Overall, more newborn males die than females (5 to 4).

o Sudden infant death syndrome is one and a half times as common in boys as in girls.

o Boys are three to four times as likely to be autistic.

o Boys are three times as likely to have Tourette's syndrome.

o Mental retardation afflicts one and a half times as many boys as girls.

o Dyslexia is diagnosed two to three times as often in boys as girls.

o As teenagers, boys die at twice the rate of girls.

o Boys ages 15-19 are five times as likely to die in a homicide.

o Boys ages 15-19 are almost 11 times as likely to die by drowning.

o Boys ages 16-19 are nearly twice as likely to die from a car accident.

o Men are 16 times as likely as women to be colorblind.

o Men suffer hearing loss at twice the rate of women.

o Though women attempt suicide two to three times as often as men, four times as many men actually kill themselves.

o The male hormone testosterone is linked to elevations of LDL, the bad cholesterol, as well as declines in HDL, the good cholesterol.

o Men have fewer infection-fighting T-cells and are thought to have weaker immune systems than women.

o Men have a higher death rate from pneumonia and influenza than women.

o By the age of 36, women outnumber men.

o Men ages 55-64 are twice as likely as women to die in car accidents.

o Men ages 55-74 are twice as likely as women to die of heart disease.

o In the United States, men are twice as likely to die from parasite-related diseases (in part, some speculate, because their greater average size may offer parasites a bigger target).

o Among people 65 and older, men account for 84 percent of suicides.

o Stroke, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and accidents -- all among the top causes of death -- kill men at a higher rate than women.

o American men typically die almost six years before women do.

o By the age of 100, women outnumber men eight to one.

o The good news? Men who live to be 100 tend to be in better shape than their centenarian female counterparts.

Finished already? That's the article in its entirety. That's all. Is that last line supposed to be a conclusion?

It does not make recommendations for fixing these issues and does not recommend confronting these issues. It does not ask for greater resources or suggest that men are perhaps under-served by the current health system. It does not even urge a rallying of public consciousness. Even the title of the article seems fairly unsympathetic-- I think it's actually intended to be ironic or something. I certainly hope it's not trying to gloat, that would be in really poor taste. The overall tone of the article is something like: "gee, men are the weaker sex because they are flawed starting from birth. Pass the butter?"

If there ARE exhortations for fixing these health problems, they were located in a different article which I was unable to read. (The New York Times, incidentally, is CONSTANTLY eager to highlight areas in which women need assistance.) Few people would be so callous as to make a long list of female health problems, and then just shrug it all off as nothing more than a medical curio.

Well, I should be thankful that the media has at least begun to promote greater awareness of men's health issues, even though they do so in a rather backhanded fashion. Will the promotion be sustained? Will it make a difference? Or will attention suddenly shift to something else like women's hangnails?

Let's see how long it takes for the Office of Men's Health to open… but I won't hold my breath.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Masochism, narcissism, and passivity are the three key characteristics of the female personality." -- Helene Deutsch
"A hallmark of narcissism is a profound sense of entitlement." -- David Buss
"Put them together and draw your own damn conclusions." -- NiceGuy

Back to Home