MOD NOTE: Please note the following part of the forum rules:
The initial OP posted below covers it well enough: the premise of this thread is that men's issues exist. Don't bother posting if you don't believe there is such a thing.
Here's hoping this isn't considered too redundant. I've noticed that our existing threads about sexism tend to get bogged down in Oppression Olympics or else wildly derailed, so I thought I'd make a thread specifically to talk about discrimination issues that disproportionately affect men.
No Oppression Olympics here, okay? No saying "But that's not important because women suffer X which is worse!" And no discussing these issues purely in terms of how much better women have it. Okay? If the discussion cannot meaningfully proceed without making a comparison to male and female treatment, that's fine, but on the whole I want this thread to be about how men are harmed by society and how we can fix it. Issues like:
- The male-only draft (in countries that have one)
- Circumcision
- Cavalier attitudes toward men's pain and sickness, AKA "Walk it off!"
- The Success Myth, which defines a man's desirability by his material success. Also The Myth of Men Not Being Hot, which denies that men can be sexually attractive as male beings.
- Sexual abuse of men.
- Family law.
- General attitudes that men are dangerous or untrustworthy.
I could go on making the list, but I think you get the idea.
Despite what you might have heard about feminists not caring about men, it's not true. I care about men. Patriarchy sucks for them as much as it sucks for women, in a lot of ways. So I'm putting my keyboard where my mouth is and making a thread for us to all care about men.
Also? If you're male and think of something as a men's issue, by golly that makes it a men's issue fit for inclusion in this thread. I might disagree with you as to the solution, but as a woman I'm not going to tell you you have no right to be concerned about it. No "womansplaining" here.
Edited by nombretomado on Dec 15th 2019 at 5:19:34 AM
Her with the hat
I think some of it comes down to public perceptions around the body and how it is shown in the media - for whatever reasons, talking about breasts is seen as more socially acceptable than male genitalia.
And you also get things like, if I'm recalling what I read correctly, while the number of men with weight issues is a greater proportion than that of women, something like 90 percent of advertising for weight loss programs is targeted towards women.
Though I've also heard that it's supposedly much more difficult to get men to go the doctor than women. Which may come down to stereotyping again: men are expected to be all macho and tough it out unless the problem is really bad.
The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.
That's the thing. What is with "toughing it out" in everything?
I would rather be wise than strong.
Now using Trivialis handle.
Flying Dutchman
I daresay, based on what I've read, that the problem in this case does not lay with the medical industry, but rather with our society, which treats mental illness as making one "other" and shames men for being emotional or needing emotional help and incentivizes their silence on emotional issues.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yeah... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Some male friends of mine can't be convinced to go even to the dentist when they're clearly suffering. It's not macho to tough out toothache... it's stupidly risking septicaemia, you daft ha'porth! Both of you!
And, the words "therapist", "psychologist" or, worse "psychiatrist" get stronger negative reactions than the sodding tooth-puller. 
edited 26th Jun '12 10:50:43 AM by Euodiachloris
Which reminds me, I need to get a new dentist. Been rather lazy about it.
On the topic of cancer, as I've always found that interesting:
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/ProstateCancer/DetailedGuide/prostate-cancer-survival-rates
- The relative 5-year survival rate is nearly 100%
- The relative 10-year survival rate is 98%
- The 15-year relative survival rate is 91%
(I'm not comparing against women but rather breast cancer is the most publicised)
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/OverviewGuide/breast-cancer-overview-survival-rates
http://www.imaginis.com/general-information-on-breast-cancer/breast-cancer-statistics-on-incidence-survival-and-screening-2
- Five years after diagnosis 89%
- Ten years after diagnosis 82%
- Fifteen years after diagnosis 77%
So generally speaking, I would suggest that money goes proportionally to cancers that have lower survival rates and their rate of incidence.
I think that I need a list of cancers specifically affecting males disproportionately and then I'll gather statistics on that, then we discuss more.
edited 26th Jun '12 11:23:13 AM by breadloaf
Unchanging Avatar.
I...don't think that's exactly correct, breadloaf. Breast cancer probably does more fundraising than all other types of cancer combined. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that it's certainly uneven.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
It's why I was comparing against breast cancer, it receives the most funding so I wanted to see how those dollars performing versus the very small amount of fundraising done for (in my example) prostate cancer. It's not entirely out of the question to say that we should fund something that has near 100% 5-year survival rate much less than one that has a lower survival rate.
That being said, I think my edit on my post was too slow so I'll repeat:
I think that I need a list of cancers specifically affecting males disproportionately and then I'll gather statistics on that, then we discuss more.
edited 26th Jun '12 11:24:45 AM by breadloaf
Agreed. I'm friends with our chief head doctor at the base, and she frequently comments that getting soldiers to come to her to talk about what they are going through is like herding cats. Was surprised though when she told me that like 7 or 8 people from my unit are actively seeing her. It's good to know that a lot of our guys are getting help, even if I only have a faint inkling of who they are, I was really surprised at the number.
Canada's military, during the 90s, via liberal leadership was pushed to make mental health one of their priorities. We stopped pushing PTSD troops back to the frontlines, started admitting there was a problem and got them mental healthcare. Then it slowed down as we entered the 21st century and war broke out.
Under the Tories, soldiers saddled with PTSD are sent back onto the frontlines maybe 2-3 times and we've seen the issues that come with that. Soldiers that go beserk. People who kill civilians after going crazy and so on and so forth. Not to mention the permanent mental damage that develops and they can't even be with their families anymore.
The military is probably the worst place when it comes to macho-ism.
I think the civilian population is a lot more accepting of mental issues with the military because of the way the Canadian media has been portraying it. But the military leadership and the government still has a major gap in "needs troops for war" and "what's best for the soldiers' health".
Flying Dutchman
Well, it's certainly good that they're getting help.
I wish I could dig up the Reader's Digest articles they ran on the subject back in... oh, 2005, I want to say.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
That's kind of a consequence of how the system works for a variety of reasons Breadloaf. When push comes to shove, the mission takes priority. Also, lots of soldiers with PTSD want to keep going back.
When I came home from Afghan I went through a lot of phases of depression and wanting to go back to the desert. I did talk to our doc about it and keep in contact about how I was doing and how to deal with it. It's because you start to acclimate to the simplicity of life in a warzone, then you come home and life feels so complicated with all these responsibilities and all this shit you have to do, especially if you have a family. I still miss the desert and want to go back at the first opportunity I get.
Machoism is a part of it, yes. Combat arms troops breed a macho male culture of not seeking help when you're going through anxiety, stress, or depression. I feel that based on my experience, however, it's getting better. The problem hasn't so much been the military as the soldiers, most of us don't want help, are too stubborn to go ourselves, or don't want to be looked down upon by our comrades for it. But having sought and received help myself, and seen that our mental health staff, at least in my unit, has been kept pretty busy with helping our troops with their issues, be them military or civilian related, I think things are getting a lot better. It's more of a cultural issue that is fixed by a cultural shift, as opposed to being an institutional issue where the machine is at fault.
This is a very good article on the subject, written by a veteran. Reading it was what got me to go out and talk to somebody.
edited 26th Jun '12 11:56:14 AM by Barkey
Ah, well I don't discount the bottom-up problem with culture but I've seen a lot of Canadian veterans fighting for their rights recently and being ignored by the top brass and the government, so I figured there is still a major top-down component to the issue.
Actually, when you talk about the "simplicity of war", is actually why Canadian soldiers suffer far more PTSD in the past when we deployed them into peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is about the furthest thing away from simple. It's also really frustrating or depressing for our soldiers when they're not allowed to go guns blazing to solve problems because of the political consequence of doing so (short-term problem fixing versus long-term problem fixing). That is combined with our lack of proper diplomatic support of military operations leads to soldiers told not to do something, yet diplomats aren't sent in when necessary leading to soldiers feeling nothing is being accomplished. And they still have to suffer the stress of actual combat, so PTSD rates are far far higher than normal warfare.
I was concerned that the level of funding for soldier support drops like a rock every time there's a war. Right now, we're in war-mode.
Agreed. It's why I'm hesitant about the idea of ever being a Peacekeeper if the opportunity came out. I don't like the idea of painting a target on myself like that and not being able to proactively protect myself until I'm actually being shot at.
Just had a thought: worst of all possible worlds... Peacekeeping Combat Medic. That's a big target to wear. Particularly if the other side has decided that Geneva is only a lake somewhere.
Just got approval for my Doctorate research, once I get those credentials I can start accepting military positions. So this is a very interesting subject for me.
Men are a problem in admitting help, but men are also more likely to stay in treatment. Now they'll fight you. They'll make it hard on themselves and you. They sometimes refuse to do their homework. But in my hospital, male patients are more likely to continue their treatment without lapses, they don't like medication too much, but they'll still take it, and they're actually less violent then the female patients. Men are often more responsive to medication overall then women.
However, due to the stigma, by the time most men get help they are closer to a point of no return then the average female sufferer of the same disorder/similar trauma.
"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc
Yup. Even a man in an acute, externally expressed psychotic break is likely to stick to the bro code and not attack certain areas. A woman in the same situation? No holds barred dirty tactics, so watch everything and get the restraints out. Add senility, and you're in for a tussle.
Combat medics are soldiers and armed just the same (and trained for all combat operations, at least for Canadian Forces), so maybe they're a bigger target maybe not, but for attackers it's the same level of resistance they face.
Men are a problem in admitting help, but men are also more likely to stay in treatment. Now they'll fight you. They'll make it hard on themselves and you. They sometimes refuse to do their homework. But in my hospital, male patients are more likely to continue their treatment without lapses, they don't like medication too much, but they'll still take it, and they're actually less violent then the female patients. Men are often more responsive to medication overall then women.
However, due to the stigma, by the time most men get help they are closer to a point of no return then the average female sufferer of the same disorder/similar trauma.
Let me know if you have any questions on the military side of things, I'm sure a job on base doing mental health would be something you would want. I've been both a client, as well as having worked alongside mental health professionals in my role as an MP.
There are a lot of areas in society where there is high mental stress yet it seems like people outside of it are just somehow totally oblivious to what is happening. I remember talking to someone acquiring her Ph D in psychological remarking how it was surprising the level of depression and stress that people in Engineering were suffering. She noted how at least 1/3 (and the real number is probably higher) were suffering some form of depression or stress problems.
I shrugged and said "what's new?" and apparently this was really shocking to her.
Afraid that would be my reaction, as well: covered that in my first year of undergraduate Psychology in the mid '90s. It really isn't new.
Barkey, thanks! I'll certainly take you up on it. It'll be a big adjustment going from instutionalized children to grown adults, but if our adoption goes through, I think it'll be best. I see the older youth docs and the police we work with occasionally. This job will suck your soul out.
I think we need a big culture shift. Men need to know being strong means it's okay to be weak.
That engineer or stock broker down the hall getting checked for high blood pressure, spontaneous hair loss, and ulcers doesn't always connect his problems with his preteen son in my office getting help for depression and aggression issues, but it's there.
Which brings me to my next ponderance. There have been a few articles and some conversation, but not near enough, over the effects of men being raised by step dad's and then being step dad's later. The amount of people who fit this mold is astounding where I work.
You would think a generation of men burned by the loss/lack of a good father would be more encouraged to either be good dads or at least keep their legs crossed enough babies don't come out. But the latest report I read said single motherhood because of father abandonment is on a drastic rise.
I know the phrase if you don't have a good father, how can you know how to be one? To me that's just a load of crap. In this age of technology sharing and more and more studies and crusades pushing for Daddy rights, as well as more states adopting Dead Beat Dad laws, and pushing for the marriage and family security one would think the issue of being a present father would come up more.
"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc
Ehrm, don't phrase it like that if you ever want to make progress in that regard. Ever.
On the fatherhood issue: I don't have kids, so I can't elaborate too much, but despite having a relatively good relationship with my step-father, I can see for myself what an affect not having a dad since I was 12 has had on my development. It isn't a good thing by any means.
As a teenager I definitely didn't feel prepared for adulthood, not that any teenager really is in hindsight. I always lamented that I never had my dad around to teach me about cars, or be a role model of what a grown man is supposed to be like. My step-dad came into the picture when I was 16, so he was never really a role model, just a guy who I lived with. We had some rough times when I was a teen, but we've been over that for years. I just didn't really absorb much from him when it comes to my own character as an adult. Having a supportive father around most definitely has a lasting effect on the development of a young male.
edited 26th Jun '12 5:14:04 PM by Barkey
I just think that industrialism has disproportionately hit the father role because of who we regard as the primary breadwinner. It wasn't that long ago that you raised kids with grandparents as well as parents, and some cultures do that even today.
These days people are loathe to even live with their parents (due to personal freedom issues and generational gap) so there's less people around to raise children and then parents have to go work, and with the father as the primary breadwinner in more situations, the father is the usual person to not be around. That builds up relationship debt in the marriage and you get a high divorce rate.
So it's stupid. And moreover, resolving workplace equality (having equal number of males and females in the work force working similarly for similar wages) doesn't help with this problem because you'll just replace "missing father" problem with "missing one parent or the other" problem.
I really think we need to rein in the number of work hours necessary needed to live.
edited 26th Jun '12 5:18:38 PM by breadloaf
But there are many situations where the dad is gone, or hinders the development of the family instead of attempting to be responsible.
I wish to draw lines between fathers who are still in a commited relationship with the mother and just work a lot, fathers who are not in a commited relationship with the mother but are still trying to work in partnership for the best of their kids, and glorified sperm donors.
The first two are not vacant by choice and are only gone because they are working for the edification of the family. I will bet men like this try to make the best quality of their time when they are with their kids and/or partner.
The later is what I think Polar was referring to. This group is on the rise, and I would agree with her on her concerns. My dad was gone 16hrs a day because he was a SWAT officer. The biological father of my son however, ran as soon as I told him I was pregnant and refused termination. I had to take him to court to hold him accountable.
Big difference between the fathers; big difference between the effects on the children.
edited 26th Jun '12 5:58:21 PM by Gabrael
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
@Zeal: Pretty decent ones, actually. Durex, mainly. But, you can't get the too-kinky ones (by that I mean the ribbed, flavoured, and the whatever-the-heck-they'll-think-up-next ones). The basic, vanilla range: all kinds thereof, in short.
edited 26th Jun '12 10:02:44 AM by Euodiachloris