I'm unsure how we got into a full-blown debate about the definition of the patriarchy. Here are the points to take home:
1) ME/CFS affects more women than men, significantly so.
2) Femininity and feminine traits are considered undesirable, and masculine traits desirable; that is, both men and women expressing traditionally feminine traits are derided, and men and women expressing traditionally masculine traits are praised.
3) An illness that primarily shows up in women will be derided.
If we say we shouldn't bring this up -- that it would cast aspersions on the very scientific nature of the disease, 'distract' from the necessity of finding biomarkers -- then I think we need to ask ourselves
why on earth that ought to prevent anyone from searching for biomarkers. I've even heard scientists say that it's very important we not consider it a 'women's issue'.
Does a disease grow less legitimate if we keep tying it back to women?
I think yes. I think that's the problem.
And so I'm torn between raging because
the fact that I am a woman and simultaneously am sick doesn't mean my sickness is a sign of feminine weakness, and the creeping suspicion that
the more people understand this disease mostly affects women, the less serious they will believe it is.
And that leads to keeping my mouth shut about gender prevalence and what that might have to do with the measly funding, the constant psychologization, and the frequent references to 'woo' like meditation, diet, and yoga as healing modalities.
Today someone suggested that people might develop ME because most sufferers are women, and women go on lots of diets.