The sexist reality of being a woman with ME

[TiredSam]

By having a "women's" disease, men are being viewed with the same contempt. As far as many doctors are concerned, you may as well have sprouted ovaries and developed a nice case of female hysteria.

Whilst I don't deny having developed a nice case of female hysteria, my first doctor missed it completely and diagnosed me with the much more manly "burnout".

In 1968 twice as many men as women were diagnosed with peptic ulcers. A nice manly thing to have, proof of how hard you worked, with all the cares of the world on your shoulders, living on a diet of whiskey, coffee and tobacco. 45 years later, since finding out that H Pylori is the culprit, the diagnosis rate for men and women is now 50:50.

Maybe once the science has overtaken the BPS crap we will have a diagnosis rate of 50:50 for ME. Men might not be diagnosed with ME as much as women at the moment, but the reasons for that may well be social, political, due to diagnosis bias based on sexist assumptions, different diagnostic criteria used etc etc. So much is unknown about ME that at the moment there aren't many things we can be sure about.

But one thing I do know is that men have the right to have ME just as much as women, and by being diagnosed with ME I consider myself ahead of my time and at the forefront of this struggle for justice and equality.

 

[Kalliope]

I got quite surprised when reading a graphic biography on Freud called "Hysteria" where Freud towards the end sums up the content of the book in a conversation with princess Diana and this appeared..

This was published in 2015! It's unbelievable..

 

[ash0787]

I think its part of it but its probably less significant compared to the difficulty of measuring the disease with standard instrumentation like electron microscopes etc

The thing about sexism is it can easily be overstated in the sense that it can be perceived as general when its actually individual, so if a doctor has trouble communicating with a certain type of person and instances similar to that person happens to be one gender rather than the other it could be viewed as sexism towards one gender.

It shouldn't necessarily be relevant but I think men on average are better at objective analysis and as such can present the case for the illness in a more convincing way, not that it necessarily gets them anywhere due the psychobabble monopoly.

It might not be wise to tie your cause onto modern feminism as it is fast losing favor especially with the under 20s demographic, and Trumps presidency looks like it might accelerate that process.

 

[Woolie]

Yes, but domestic violence comes in many different shades, including the subtly psychological as well as the more obvious physical abuse. The latter is far more likely to get recorded into official figures, and is much more likely to perpetrated by men. But the former is perpetrated by both men and women

I'm sympathetic to you here, @Barry53. Reporting rates for abuse by women against male partners are still lower, and that goes not just or psychological but also for physical abuse too (although domestic murder rates, where the reporting rates are likely to be much higher, reveal an overwhelming predominance of male perps).

Besides, I think you understand the point I'm making. Psychological problems take different forms depending upon culture and gender. No gender is more f**ed up than the other, but the genders do have very different norms and options regarding how they choose to behave (whether to "act out" or "act in" for example). And the way society classifies and interprets those behaviours is also likely to be different for the two genders.

 

[AndyPR]

It might not be wise to tie your cause onto modern feminism as it is fast losing favor especially with the under 20s demographic, and Trumps presidency looks like it might accelerate that process.

Citation please, otherwise I'll assume that's just an overstatement, based on your individual perception.

 

[Woolie]

It shouldn't necessarily be relevant but I think men on average are better at objective analysis

Hmm, I wonder if you're being entirely objective there, @ash0787?

Don't worry. Being on this forum will help you to become more objective. And teach you to carefully assess any stereotypes and biases you may have that could cloud your objectivity.

 

[Cheesus]

Citation please, otherwise I'll assume that's just an overstatement, based on your individual perception.

I actually agree that there is a growing resistance to third wave feminism, though I do not have any data to back that up. Anecdotally I would point to the rise of the likes of Milo Yiannopolous - a man who is staunchly anti-feminist and has a considerable degree of online support.

If it were up to me I would not pursue the feminist line of advocacy in ME specifically. My rationale would be that we are already fighting hard enough on one frontier, and politicising a topic will inevitably cause new opposition. Fighting a war on two fronts is much more difficult than fighting it on one.

 

[trishrhymes]

It shouldn't necessarily be relevant but I think men on average are better at objective analysis and as such can present the case for the illness in a more convincing way, not that it necessarily gets them anywhere due the psychobabble monopoly.

As a female science graduate and daughter of another female science graduate who was remarkably sensible and objective, and with female friends, colleagues and students over the years who were just as capable of being objective and analytical as the next man, so to speak, I'd be careful about making such assumptions.

 

[AndyPR]

I actually agree that there is a growing resistance to third wave feminism, though I do not have any data to back that up. Anecdotally I would point to the rise of the likes of Milo Yiannopolous - a man who is staunchly anti-feminist and has a considerable degree of online support.

If it were up to me I would not pursue the feminist line of advocacy in ME specifically. My rationale would be that we are already fighting hard enough on one frontier, and politicising a topic will inevitably cause new opposition. Fighting a war on two fronts is much more difficult than fighting it on one.

So the argument is that we shouldn't fight against the sexism that hinders research into ME because we are fighting too hard to get research into ME? I would suggest fighting a war while ignoring an enemy that is attacking you from behind is far more difficult than fighting on two fronts.

 

[Cheesus]

@Kalliope

Was that comic tongue in cheek or are they being deadly serious? I skimmed over it at first but when I gave it a read I was also very surprised!

 

[trishrhymes]

Sadly, with Trump in the White House, misogyny is becoming more 'acceptable' in the media and on-line. I don't know whether there is more misogyny, or whether it's just got louder. However, I think this is also prompting a rise of feminist voices, as exemplified by the marches around the world after Trump's inauguration.

This may not seem directly relevant to ME, since there are both male and female sufferers who have been treated appallingly by both male and female doctors.

For me, there are two aspects that make it a feminist issue. Both have been raised here - the tie in with the 'neurasthenia' and 'hysteria' stuff from the past, and the NIH ghettoising it as a female complaint.

Until both of these issues are overcome by biomedical research evidence, I think it continues to be an issue tied up with sexism, and our brother ME sufferers are dragged in with us.

I wonder whether a parallel can be drawn with HIV which, although there are also straight and female HIV sufferers, became a gay cause because it affected so many gay men. I'm guessing this had both a down side, with prejudice against gay people, and an up side in that gay organisations mobilised to fight for better funding and treatment.

Coming back to the subject of this thread, I think the more publicity we get in as many outlets as possible getting the message across that ME is a serious biological illness, the better. If it uses sexism as an issue to get people reading the article, that's fine by me.

 

[Barry53]

It shouldn't necessarily be relevant but I think men on average are better at objective analysis and as such can present the case for the illness in a more convincing way

Not sure how objective a comment that really is. I work with some extremely competent and objective women, and who are very good at getting their ideas across.

 

[Kalliope]

@Kalliope

Was that comic tongue in cheek or are they being deadly serious? I skimmed over it at first but when I gave it a read I was also very surprised!

It was dead serious

 

[Cheesus]

So the argument is that we shouldn't fight against the sexism that hinders research into ME because we are fighting too hard to get research into ME? I would suggest fighting a war while ignoring an enemy that is attacking you from behind is far more difficult than fighting on two fronts.

Well the question is whether or not sexism is still hindering research into ME. Historically that may have been the case, but right now our primary hinderance is the meme that ME is psychiatric.

Even if sexism is still hindering research to some extent - which is certainly possible even if I do not think it prevalent, particularly given the evidence in @Kalliope's comic - the best thing to counter that is simply to continue highlighting the biomedical nature of the disease as evidenced by existing research.

 

[Cheesus]

I want to bring up an interesting topic that has been implicit in this thread, which is that men's disease receive more funding and are taken more seriously than women's diseases.

I am sure that is true in some instances, and I have seen some examples to suggest it is. However there are instances where women's diseases are seemingly taken more seriously than men's. In particular I am referring to breast and prostate cancer, which kill around the same number of people, however in the UK breast cancer receives more than twice as much funding as prostate cancer.

I am not making any particular point with this, I just think it is an interesting addition to the discussion.

 

[Kalliope]

Well the question is whether or not sexism is still hindering research into ME. Historically that may have been the case, but right now our primary hinderance is the meme that ME is psychiatric.

Even if sexism is still hindering research to some extent - which is certainly possible even if I do not think it prevalent, particularly given the evidence in @Kalliope's comic - the best thing to counter that is simply to continue highlighting the biomedical nature of the disease as evidenced by existing research.

I think that as a lot of medical students and young doctors are women, we'll soon see that more reflected in medicine. Maybe the status will decrease with more female doctors, but I am certain medicine as science will benefit from more diversity among practitioners.

 

[Kalliope]

I want to bring up an interesting topic that has been implicit in this thread, which is that men's disease receive more funding and are taken more seriously than women's diseases.

I am sure that is true in some instances, and I have seen some examples to suggest it is. However there are instances where women's diseases are seemingly taken more seriously than men's. In particular I am referring to breast and prostate cancer, which kill around the same number of people, however in the UK breast cancer receives more than twice as much funding as prostate cancer.

I am not making any particular point with this, I just think it is an interesting addition to the discussion.

I recommend Barbara Ehrenreich's "Brightsided" where she (amongst lots of other tings) brings up how infantilised she as a breast cancer patient felt receiving a "care-package" from a local charity containing teddy bears and crayons.

I agree the funding of research on breast cancer has been amazing, but even breast cancer awareness isn't completely unproblematic

 

[trishrhymes]

I think that as a lot of medical students and young doctors are women, we'll soon see that more reflected in medicine. Maybe the status will decrease with more female doctors, but I am certain medicine as science will benefit from more diversity among practitioners.

I hope you're right. But with the likes of Esther Crawley and all the damage she's doing we have a long way to go. And there are lots of female psychologists like Trudie Chalder who are also doing a lot of harm promoting the BPS crap. Sadly, we are victims of women as well as men.

 

[Kalliope]

I hope you're right. But with the likes of Esther Crawley and all the damage she's doing we have a long way to go. And there are lots of female psychologists like Trudie Chalder who are also doing a lot of harm promoting the BPS crap. Sadly, we are victims of women as well as men.

True! This is complex stuff, pun intended.

 

[Cheesus]

I hope you're right. But with the likes of Esther Crawley and all the damage she's doing we have a long way to go. And there are lots of female psychologists like Trudie Chalder who are also doing a lot of harm promoting the BPS crap. Sadly, we are victims of women as well as men.

I was thinking that. Patriarchy is quite insidious in that it recruits women to reproduce their own oppression.