The sexist reality of being a woman with ME

[Barry53]

its a very complicated topic that takes thousands of hours to look into properly but to summarize there are evolutionary psychology and physiological differences that cause differences of behavior on average which is blamed on culture / gender roles etc but its mostly innate. Also feminists usually can't win academic debates so they avoid them and use other strategies to convince the public.

Is this a wind-up

 

[Barry53]

Yeah I am genuinely intimidated by the degree of intellect on this forum. I have never noticed that gender plays a role in who I regard as the most intimidating

Quite so!

 

[Woolie]

its a very complicated topic that takes thousands of hours to look into properly but to summarize there are evolutionary psychology and physiological differences that cause differences of behavior on average which is blamed on culture / gender roles etc but its mostly innate. Also feminists usually can't win academic debates so they avoid them and use other strategies to convince the public.

Yes, there are differences. But not of the kind you imagine. It is sobering to examine the assumptions we have made about gender over the course of history. For centuries, women were believed to be too intellectually weak to be able to take formal education, more prone to madness, more emotionally fragile. We have been wrong about all of these things. Women outperform men at school, on average. And there is nothing more "emotionally fragile" than a violent man who rages at the fear that he might not be omnipotent, who hurls bricks through the windows of cultural groups he fears might threaten him. That's not terribly objective behaviour either. Although men might cry less than women (for reasons that are probably both cultural and biological), don't mistake this for them being less emotional.

What appears to be innate often turns out to be cultural. We would be wise not to assume that in 2017, we have suddenly "corrected" all our mistakes, and now got everything right (we at PR see that this is certainly not the case for medicine). In 100 years, we will see much more clearly how wrong we have got it.

I dearly hope you don't apply this same sort of reasoning to race, and imagine black people are also less objective/rational (or not smart enough or whatever). The same caveats apply. We must watch for our own inherent biases in these contexts, and confront the lazy thinking and that leads us to these places.

Rationality and objectivity are things that all humans struggle with, and it takes a lot of training and skill to overcome the emotional aspects of our nature to be truly objective. Some current neuroscientists/psychologists believe objectivity is not in our nature, that we are designed to make judgements and decisions based on emotion, not reason (see Damasio's "Descartes' Error"). Only a small few manage to achieve, and even then, only in some domains.

Your job, @ash0787, is not to judge the rationality and biases of others - certainly not a whole gender - but to seek out and confront your own biases. What beliefs and emotional needs have led you to your current views on gender and objectivity? Have you had some relationships with women who acted "emotionally" and you couldn't quite understand what you did wrong?

 

[ash0787]

" I'm more interested to see the evidence he has come across in his thousands of hours of research that justify gender roles. "
- I said I think its a natural occurence, so the justification would be the survival benefits of specific genetic mutations on a localized community which then compounds itself

"is it because all the long words will blow our tiny minds"
- no its because many of the arguments made don't stand up to closer scrutiny

" Virginia Woolf and Simone de Beauvoir as starting points. "
- both first wave feminists and as such not at all relevant

" I find it interesting that you claim to know what modern feminists think... "
- because I've observed thousands of them

" You only have to have been a regular reader of this forum for a few months to know that's not true. "
- sure but theres a thing called representative sampling

" someone who believes women can't debate... "
- I never said that

" And is it only feminist women who are incapable of winning academic debates, or are you really talking about all women? "
- feminist male or female, they do sometimes win but its usually due to a failure on the other sides part in terms of debating approach, something similar happened in the first Trump vs Hillary debate.

 

[ahimsa]

Divide and conquer.

I think it's the opposite. It's pointing out intersectional bias.

1. Doctors treat women patients differently than they treat men patients.
2. Doctors treat ME (cfs, SEID, etc.) patients differently than they treat other patients.

Those two biases *combine* into something unique for women ME patients.

There are also other biases - race, religion, class, weight/fat - that affect how doctors treat patients.

Bias against patients can result in poorer patient care than what would be given to patients without these factors. Or may even result in harm/death.

Pointing out issues that women have is not a denial that male patients with ME have a horrible time getting proper diagnosis and treatment. It's just pointing out that women patients (with and without ME) have unique issues with systemic sexism.

And systemic sexism absolutely includes sexist acts by both men and women. It's in the system. Patriarchy. You're soaking in it.

That does not take away from the pain and horror of how men with ME are treated. In fact, men may have have different issues with doctors due to sexism (not seen as manly, derided more for not working since men are traditionally the source of income, and so on).

I'm not an expert. I'm sure there are huge numbers of papers written on this that can explain it much better than I can. I just wanted to add a few thoughts. Not up for a lengthy debate.

Sending hugs to all patients - male, female, nonbinary - who have this horrible illness.

 

[me/cfs 27931]

I think it's the opposite. It's pointing out intersectional bias.

One's spoons are ones spoons. If one wants to use those limited spoons fighting directly to overturn the patriarchal society we all live in, that is their choice.

But consider this. We are at a very special moment in ME/CFS history, on the verge of a diagnostic test and effective medical treatments. Let us stay united and not lose our focus.

I suspect that once ME/CFS sufferers receive effective treatment and start becoming well again, they'll have many many more spoons available to fight the patriarchy.

Sending hugs to all patients - male, female, nonbinary - who have this horrible illness.

Same.

 

[Dolphin]

One's spoons are ones spoons. If one wants to use those limited spoons fighting directly to overturn the patriarchal society we all live in, that is their choice.

But consider this. We are at a very special moment in ME/CFS history, on the verge of a diagnostic test and effective medical treatments. Let us stay united and not lose our focus.

I suspect that once ME/CFS sufferers receive effective treatment and start becoming well again, they'll have many many more spoons available to fight the patriarchy.

I remember having a discussion about donating to research on another forum.
One person said she gave all her spare money to a local animal shelter.
When she had been well she had volunteered there.

This is certainly not the worst thing to spend your money on. But like what you said if we all invest a little or more of our money and resources (time, etc.) into helping the cause, we have a better chance of getting our lives back which would give us more time and money (if we get back to working or work more hours) to give to whatever causes are close to our hearts. So in the example I gave if the woman improved she might be able to get back to volunteering for the shelter and/or have more money to donate to the shelter.

 

[trishrhymes]

I take your point, @Webdog. We do indeed have to ration our spoons.

Personally, this conversation has been an enjoyable diversion while I wait for the historic changes in MEresearch and treatment to happen. It doesn't feel divisive to me, just a civilised exchange of views and experiences.

Lying in bed for most of the day, I don't feel able to do much about either patriarchal society or ME research, apart from the odd donation, petition signed and letter.

Chatting here on PR is a lifeline and enjoyable way to pass the time, whether disagreeing or agreeing about sexism, writing silly limericks, slagging off BPS clowns, or learning about research or sharing in each others highs and lows.

Or rambling on inconsequentially as I am now, probably completely off the point, but I don't care.

I think I'll leave overthrowing the patriarchy till next week.

Hugs to all.

 

[ash0787]

patriarchy is a conspiracy theory, it gives people a nebulous reason to protest against something which makes them feel they have some sort of meaning to their lives, which makes them feel good.

 

[Woolie]

"
" someone who believes women can't debate... "
- I never said that

" And is it only feminist women who are incapable of winning academic debates, or are you really talking about all women? "
- feminist male or female, they do sometimes win but its usually due to a failure on the other sides part in terms of debating approach, something similar happened in the first Trump vs Hillary debate.

Unfortunately, in a forum, where everything is written down, you can't backtrack like this. You said women were generally less objective. Women, not feminists. Period. Here you contradict yourself within the same paragraph - you say first that you never claimed women can't debate, then say they win "sometimes", but only when the other side is so astoundingly weak that they essentially gift their victory to the woman.

If you want to learn to debate, the first rule is: no backtracking, denial of you previous claims or arguments. The second rule is: counterargument and evidence.

Bring it on. I love a debate, me. And the more outrageous the claim being debated, the more I love it. Yours is a pure gift! I could not have wished for better - only perhaps if you'd said black people were intellectually inferior to whites.

 

[Snow Leopard]

The only modern twist is that feminism now often also means there shouldn't be the expectation to conform to the ideal of the stereotypical feminist.

"Shouldn't"...

The most vocal and visible feminists are still able-bodied, middle class white women. Women with disabilities are notably absent from mainstream discussions.

Despite increased awareness of intersectionality, people with disabilities are still deliberately sidelined or implicitly excluded due to poor accessibility.

Australian examples:
http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2013/04/26/3745990.htm
https://theconversation.com/destroy...minism-must-include-disability-politics-51119

 

[flybro]

The phrase, 'white male privilege', makes me cringe a bit. There are many white males, who aren't benefiting a great deal from the privileges that their race, and gender confer on them.

However I have seen 'white male privilege' in action, and it is surprising how deeply ingrained and subtle it can be. Which makes challenging it difficult, especially with the men we care for, who are quite probably, unaware of the subtle manner in which it manifests itself, in their decisions and behaviour.

Great thread btw.

 

[flybro]

This book would be a great source for this thread, and it's by one of our own.

Authors of our own misfortune?: The problems with psychogenic explanations for physical illnesses

 

[Valentijn]

patriarchy is a conspiracy theory, it gives people a nebulous reason to protest against something which makes them feel they have some sort of meaning to their lives, which makes them feel good.

I'd prefer a source which isn't associated with "alt-right" hate groups. And even in the first 2 minutes that video is ridiculously inaccurate, claiming that "People hate feminists because feminists hate men." That is a rather disgusting lie used to undermine any push for equality.

 

[OverTheHills]

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.

While we're being nice, can I just publicly compliment TiredSam on his unfailing devotion to sarcasm and satire, on many threads of this forum.

Way to go Sam, your posts are a beacon of amusement for this sarky Brit unfortunately hobbled by brainfog.
OTH

 

[Barry53]

While we're being nice, can I just publicly compliment TiredSam on his unfailing devotion to sarcasm and satire, on many threads of this forum.

Hear hear! And he does it soooooo very politely

 

[SamanthaJ]

I sort of feel I'm picking a scab by continuing this discussion, but here goes. Drawing attention to the shameless chauvinism of BPS theorists helps to highlight just how outdated their sub-Freudian claptrap is.

It also could help interest journalists in our cause and get some positive media coverage.

Many, many women have encountered some kind of medical chauvinism. You don't have to have ME to be patronised, dismissed and misdiagnosed. I'm not saying men don't experience this, I have no doubt that they do, but women's reproductive systems and childcare roles mean that even healthy women have quite a lot of contact with doctors, and not all of it positive. People may see the psychiatrists in a different light if they can see how our experiences chime with theirs.

I'm a feminist, but I think you can see this from a pragmatic point of view too, in that it has the potential to change some attitudes. The science is the key thing, obviously, but the psychiatrists have been using the ME gender ratio against us for decades, only it's starting to look like a weakness not an advantage now.

 

[sb4]

The current feminist movement has many holes in it and I think tying it to ME would just lead to more doubt, not less.

 

[Valentijn]

The current feminist movement has many holes in it and I think tying it to ME would just lead to more doubt, not less.

What holes are those? Aside from hate-groups trying to equate feminism with man-hating?

 

[sb4]

What holes are those? Aside from hate-groups trying to equate feminism with man-hating?

The way the gender earnings gap is presented, ie women get paid 30% less for the same work. It's just not true, and I believe more people are having the same experience as me. First you think that's outrageous and are angry at the injustice , then you research it and find it's not true at all and feel burned. Then you hear feminist are supporting ME and your first reaction is doubt.