Is framing issues in terms of "men and women" necessary in the 21st century?

[Night FM]

My view is that most human issues (e.x. mental health support) are applicable to all humans, regardless of whether they are men or women. I see a tend of fragmenting issues into "men's and women's issues" (e.x. "men's mental health support or women's mental health support). While there might be specific issues, such as mental health issues, which are more prevalent specifically in men or in women, I think most would agree that promoting mental health in all people is a good thing, so I don't automatically the this fragmenting of issues along the lines of sex/gender necessary.

[iNow]

Sounds like the replies we hear like “all lives matter” in response to reminders that “black lives matter.”

It ignores the underlying baseline and status quo where equality is very much not already present. 

Is mental health important for all? Of course! Are there reasons mental health might be harder for women? Of course!

When’s the last time you had to accept 80 cents on the dollar for the same work? When’s the last time you got accused of being a DEI hire or slut shamed and accused of sleeping your way to the top even though you were twice as smart and worked twice as hard as everyone else? When’s the last time you had to question whether it was safe to be alone at a gathering where everyone else was a different gender from you?

Yes, mental health for all is important, but not everyone is working from the same starting position.

See also: Hatred and violence shown toward LGBTQ communities. There’s good reason we tend to focus more on mental health for them than middle aged entitled white men with a fluffy 401K.

 

https://morganemichael.com/for-educators/middle-school-resources-grades-6-8/privilege-and-empathy-lesson-how-your-socio-economic-position-impacts-how-well-you-do/

Edited August 30 by iNow

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I see a tend of fragmenting issues into "men's and women's issues"

Can you provide a couple of examples you've seen where this trend holds true?

[Night FM]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Can you provide a couple of examples you've seen where this trend holds true?

Here's an example:

https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/mens-mental-health-month

While there might be some mental health issues that affect men more than women, "mental health" itself is primarily a human issue. Other examples I've seen would be "men's self-improvement" or "men's fitness", where I find it debatable that the actual content isn't mostly just as applicable to women as to men.

[CharonY]

This is not helpful. In many areas of health, but especially in public health there is increasing recognition that we need more fine-grained approaches to address pervasive equity challenges. To do so, one needs data with more resolution, not less. Aggregating information removes the ability to develop targeted counter-strategies. You might as well say that everything is biological so we should address all issues, mental, infectious diseases, aging, and so on just under the banner of biology. Especially, when it comes to mental health, men and women have different types of challenges and barriers and there is a cultural overlay that needs to recognized while trying to deliver care.

Ignoring all that really doesn't do anything helpful and can be harmful. One prominent example in a different health area, is the high mortality of black mothers in the USA, something that would not have been noticeably if one collected data while ignoring racial backgrounds.

On thing that has to be mentioned is that  in the past (and to a lesser degree currently), folks have divided information along lines that were not well established and/or were colored by stereotypes. Certain types of mental health issues were disproportionately attributed to some groups, but without sufficient data to establish that this is actually the case, for example. In other words, we need more data to figure figure out where the lines really are. Which is additional work, for sure. But the benefit for figuring that out is the ability to develop new approaches to deal with challenges rather than trying (and failing) with one-size-fits all attempts.

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

My view is that most human issues (e.x. mental health support) are applicable to all humans, regardless of whether they are men or women. I see a tend of fragmenting issues into "men's and women's issues" (e.x. "men's mental health support or women's mental health support). While there might be specific issues, such as mental health issues, which are more prevalent specifically in men or in women, I think most would agree that promoting mental health in all people is a good thing, so I don't automatically the this fragmenting of issues along the lines of sex/gender necessary.

On the contrary, there is increasing recognition that too much research on health matters, and consequently too much health provision,  has failed to take into account sufficiently the differences between the sexes.

Like many people, I detest identity politics, but health provision is an area in which there are obviously big differences between the sexes, so recognition of this is not playing politics.

 

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, exchemist said:

On the contrary, there is increasing recognition that too much research on health matters, and consequently too much health provision,  has failed to take into account sufficiently the differences between the sexes.

Like many people, I detest identity politics, but health provision is an area in which there are obviously big differences between the sexes, so recognition of this is not playing politics.

 

I think the critical bit is finding the correct differences, be it sex or gender on its impact on health. There are complicated overlays at the intersection (and gets really complicated when we talk about health in practice, as sexism and racism has a surprisingly high impact there). As I mentioned before, assuming differences without sufficient evidence is as damaging as ignoring real differences. Unfortunately, medical training is only slowly starting to get rid of the bad parts and introducing new good parts (with good an bad refering to the level of available evidence).

Edit, I just remembered some seminars that I took years back,  there were a lot of examples provided for assumed differences and stereotypes, predominantly in women, that led to worse health outcomes.

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Is mental health important for all? Of course! Are there reasons mental health might be harder for women? Of course!

 

Are there reasons mental health might be harder for men? Also, of course!

As others have implied it's important to understand the differences while not assuming they apply to a particular individual.

[swansont]

There are some examples of men and women being treated differently by the medical community, both in research efforts and in diagnosis and treatment. Studies that focused on men, and the tendency to discount pain complaints from women are two that pop to mind immediately. Not all symptoms manifest the same in women as in men (e.g. heart attacks)

https://www.qualityinteractions.com/blog/what-is-gender-bias-in-healthcare

Since this bias exists and there are gender-based differences, yes, such framing is necessary.

[J.C.MacSwell]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Since this bias exists and there are gender-based differences, yes, such framing is necessary.

Somewhat of a catch 22. Especially where in health care where both economics and efficiency are almost always essential, even while personal stakes can be very high.

Edited August 30 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Somewhat of a catch 22. Especially where in health care where both economics and efficiency are almost always essential.

How is it a catch-22? There are actual physiological differences, and the system pays less attention to roughly half the population 

[MigL]

Mental health is not a gauge condition ( physicist will know what this implies ).
IOW, how you measure, or your starting point, does not affect the assessment of it.
It is an absolute; you have mental health or you have varying degrees of mental disorder.

One more point ...
It can also be argued that men and women, blacks and whites, straights and all the letters of LGBQT+, have different life experiences, and would need an education more suitable to those shared experiences.
Who is in favor of bringing back segregation ?
( or should we be sharing those life experiences in order to better understand each other as people )

Most of the problems we have with gender, group color, sexuality and even religion stems from our tendency to make it an 'us vs them' issue because we don't recognize it as simply an 'us' problem.

 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are there reasons mental health might be harder for men? Also, of course!

As others have implied it's important to understand the differences while not assuming they apply to a particular individual.

Harder, no, not for the reasons the OP listed. Different, yes. The only thing that's harder about men's mental health is that they usually ignore it due to peer pressure.

Like many things in our society, women lack privileges that men take for granted. No doctor is going to tell a man that he's being hysterical. Women's mental health issues have been misdiagnosed for centuries, usually based on the idea that their hormones are somehow imbalanced. Many women these days have physical pain that gets diagnosed as a mental problem when the doctor can't find an underlying cause. Rather than a referral for further testing, the doctor tells them it's in their heads, and I have yet to find an example where doctors diagnosed men this way. If a man says something hurts, the doctors believe him.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

IOW, how you measure, or your starting point, does not affect the assessment of it.
It is an absolute; you have mental health or you have varying degrees of mental disorder.

That is not the way it is generally assessed. Mental health is a continuum, and a disorder starts when it interferes with daily functioning. Everyone faces element of stress, distress etc. but if manageable, it generally does not rise to the level of a disorder.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

It can also be argued that men and women, blacks and whites, straights and all the letters of LGBQT+, have different life experiences, and would need an education more suitable to those shared experiences.
Who is in favor of bringing back segregation ?

This is a weird way to look at things. If one approaches this situation from a lens of inclusiveness, the result should be a pluralistic perspective, no? It is not a zero-sum game where we can only have one or the other.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Most of the problems we have with gender, group color, sexuality and even religion stems from our tendency to make it an 'us vs them' issue because we don't recognize it as simply an 'us' problem.

That is exactly the point. If we do not recognize folks that are different from us and going as far as denying their individuality, we are not really trying get to the "us". In the past, the "us" would be a demand to become invisible to the majority, as to not upset them. A demand that ultimately is not feasible, puts an unfair pressure on those who cannot assimilate, and ultimately still led to to fission, as the demand was usually done in bad faith (being one of the good ones is often the best many could hope for).

If we move from this viewpoint and accept a broader definition of "us", wouldn't that be the way forward?

Edit: Also to pre-empt potential arguments: I am not referring to things like HR-EDI thingies, which were developed in the business world- I am thinking of intersectional research efforts aiming at creating more detailed, holistic views of society. Similar as in biology we do not view humans separate from the animal world, for example.

 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Most of the problems we have with gender, group color, sexuality and even religion stems from our tendency to make it an 'us vs them' issue because we don't recognize it as simply an 'us' problem.

I could agree with this if it weren't for the fact that people who don't judge others based on these attributes (or try very hard not to) don't have these problems. Living alongside others should mean acknowledging the special problems they face from society. Many of these issues are about "us" acknowledging "our" differences.

Picking up tampons at the store should be an "us" problem, but only men turn it into "us vs them". Religions should be about us, but white Christian Nationalists turn it into us vs them. Sexuality and racial equality should definitely be all about us, but homophobes and racists are the ones who build walls and draw lines in the sand.

[CharonY]

I think it is an error that adversarial attitudes (I am sure there is a better term, but I it eludes me right now) exist because there are categories and that they would vanish if we remove said categories. These attitudes stand on their own and would create arbitrary new ones, to satisfy their urge for hierarchies.

Conversely, identifying useful categories and embed them in an inclusive worldview is what makes a pluralistic society possible. Gay people are able to marry, not because we abolished the notion of homosexuality, but rather by embracing it as yet another aspect of society. Conversely, abolishing the idea of homosexuality (which some societies try) does clearly lead to an "us" that affords everyone the same rights to marry someone they love.

[MigL]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

the "us" would be a demand to become invisible to the majority, as to not upset them. A demand that ultimately is not feasible, puts an unfair pressure on those who cannot assimilate

I don't believe I mentioned anything about assimilation into the societal 'norm'.
We are not Borg, we are people, with individualities, different looks, different beliefs and different yearnings.
But in a lot of ways we are all alike; people who experience hurt and pain if treated unfairly or discriminated against.
Even a white  ( not so much, it's summer ) guy like me winces when Phi puts down white Christian nationalists, even though I lost any interest in my childhood Christian upbringing long ago.
What makes us the same is that we are all thinking, feeling people.
If we all remembered that we wouldn't notice the superficial differences.

 

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I could agree with this if it weren't for the fact that people who don't judge others based on these attributes (or try very hard not to) don't have these problems. Living alongside others should mean acknowledging the special problems they face from society.

My point being that if people didn't judge others based on those attributes, others would not be facing those 'special problems'.
You are trying to rectify the problem after the fact. Unfortunately there's nothing you or I can do to alleviate the suffering of slaves 200 yrs ago, or that women were chattel, to be traded ( never mind equal wages ), or that the God I believe in told me to kill all non-believers.
All I can do is live as best as possible, right now, considering everyone else a thinking and feeling human being, so as to minimize those 'special problems' we currently face, and moving forward.

And that is not an argument against Restitution; any problems currently faced by people should be helped in whatever way possible, but lets not pretend it alleviates the suffering of slaves, or women, centuries ago ( except in your own conscience )
 

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

I don't believe I mentioned anything about assimilation into the societal 'norm'.
We are not Borg, we are people, with individualities, different looks, different beliefs and different yearnings.

I think you misunderstand my point. In the past non-normative elements were considered to be offensive or even a crime. Being homosexual is such an example. Even if tolerated, there is the expectation that it the differences should not be visible otherwise they would be sanctioned. We see variants still exist where folks complain that people force them to a homosexual agenda (or similar themes).

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Even a white  ( not so much, it's summer ) guy like me winces when Phi puts down white Christian nationalists, even though I lost any interest in my childhood Christian upbringing long ago.
What makes us the same is that we are all thinking, feeling people.
If we all remembered that we wouldn't notice the superficial differences.

Yet if they are so superficial, why would it be a problem to incorporate perspectives that arise from them? In America there is clearly a Christian Nationalist group working towards limiting Women's right. Likewise, there are fundamentalist religious groups in the Middle East (and elsewhere), doing the same. Should we not call them religious now?

[MigL]

I think you also misunderstood mine.

41 minutes ago, CharonY said:

there is the expectation that it the differences should not be visible

It shouldn't matter whether visible or not; superficial differences should not be relevant, or have any importance.

That being said, I also don't want my right to like, or dislike, people based on personal preference, to be taken away.
I may not like the way you comb your hair, or the color of your skin ( very pale people freak me out ), But I will not show or communicate that dislike because you are a thinking, feeling person, and in that way we are alike; even though I don't have many faults for others to dislike ( 😄 ) I'm sure you could come up with some.

[CharonY]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

It shouldn't matter whether visible or not; superficial differences should not be relevant, or have any importance.

Except, they are. If you are unaware that people can be homosexual, you might create laws that only allow for marriages for people of opposite gender. At which point would you draw the boundary between superficial and non-superficial differences?

I should add that distinction-based research has been instrumental in uncovering the hidden cost of inequity. So while in theory it would be great if our differences didn't matter, but in the real world, they still do. Ignoring them while we are still trying to understand and fix this issue is a bit premature. The following quote from Ginsburg comes to mind

Quote

throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet

 

Also visible was not meant literally, perhaps noticeable is the better term. For example, folks generally have nothing against the occasional foreigner. But if there are more in one place causing a perceived change (e.g. hearing a foreign language), quite a few get upset (with different tolerances in different countries). 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

winces when Phi puts down white Christian nationalists

I appreciate the point you’re making more broadly and don’t wish to pile on, but please recall how another term for this same group is the “American Taliban.”

Its most decidedly NOT equivalent to:

1 hour ago, MigL said:

my childhood Christian upbringing long ago.

There are important differences and distinctions between them and only one was cited here. ✌🏼

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

How is it a catch-22? There are actual physiological differences, and the system pays less attention to roughly half the population 

The catch 22 is the necessity of recognizing the physiological differences, often statistically, on one hand, with the importance of recognizing that not only might some assumed differences be exaggerated or off the mark entirely, or might not apply at all to an individual, on the other.

Many are incapable of holding opposing thoughts in their heads. They like to generalize.

Generalizing can still be an important tool, as long as it doesn't lead to mental blocks.

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Harder, no, not for the reasons the OP listed. Different, yes. The only thing that's harder about men's mental health is that they usually ignore it due to peer pressure.

Like many things in our society, women lack privileges that men take for granted. No doctor is going to tell a man that he's being hysterical. Women's mental health issues have been misdiagnosed for centuries, usually based on the idea that their hormones are somehow imbalanced. Many women these days have physical pain that gets diagnosed as a mental problem when the doctor can't find an underlying cause. Rather than a referral for further testing, the doctor tells them it's in their heads, and I have yet to find an example where doctors diagnosed men this way. If a man says something hurts, the doctors believe him.

There is a lot of truth to this post of course, along with the obvious bias.

I'm not sure what OP list you are referring to Phi. My statement certainly wasn't limited to it in any case.

[MigL]

13 hours ago, iNow said:

appreciate the point you’re making more broadly and don’t wish to pile on

I was in no way offended by Phi's comment, as I mostly feel the same way.
However, I suppose a small subconscious part of this non-believer still feels I belong to the 'white Christian' demographic.

I suppose I still consider my values as 'Christian', although I don't believe everyone needs to share those values, or be punished for having different values.
( as long as those values aren't harmful to others )

I would imagine there are a lot of non-believers who feel the same.

[dimreepr]

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would imagine there are a lot of non-believers who feel the same.

Imagine that, a salon that only cuts hair...

[TheVat]

iirc, De Tocqueville visited America and spoke of the "tyranny of the majority."  It is this often well-meaning tyranny that calls for those distinctions many are so tired of.  As The Onion's famous headline put it, Racism Over, White People Declare!  We have to acknowledge the diverse aspects of humanity in order not to tread upon them - this is true both in civic life and in medicine.  And, as @J.C.MacSwell notes, not exaggerate those differences to where we get a distorted view of individuals.   Kind of a delicate balance, in America right now.