Macho Men Die Early

The tragedy of traditional masculinity is that it shortens men’s lives—and that it does so in the name of making them better husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons.

A study last month revealed a truth many of us have long suspected: men with “macho” attitudes are more reluctant to seek health care—and as a result experience shorter life expectancy and greater medical problems—than men who hold less traditional views. According to the Rutgers University researchers, men who believed in rigid gender roles (like the idea that women should be homemakers while men work) were 46 percent less likely than their more progressive peers to seek out vital life-saving preventative health care.

We take it for granted today that women outlive men, forgetting that in pre-modern times the reverse was often true. Death in childbirth was more common for women than death in war was for men; in many societies there were more widowers than widows. Think of the wicked stepmothers and single fathers who are ubiquitous in the Grimm fairy tales, and think about what must have happened to Cinderella’s mom. Women have only consistently outlived men since the advent of modern medicine not much more than a century ago.

Men aren’t dying earlier because their bodies are inherently more frail than women’s. Men die earlier because of poor lifestyle choices, most of which are rooted in the destructive rules of traditional masculinity. Two of the most basic of those “man laws” or “guy codes”:

  1. Don’t display weakness
  2. Take risks

As any insurance agent will tell you, young men are more likely to be reckless behind the wheel and to die in the resulting accidents. They are also more likely to be murdered, to commit suicide, and to overdose. These statistics hold true across racial and class lines. And though we live in a culture that often sees men as more expendable than women, the chief culprit in so many of these untimely deaths is the demanding macho ethos. From small boys “double-dog-daring” one another to jump off roofs to drag-racing teens, that ethos insists that “real men” are heedless of their safety. The toll in blood and heartbreak is incalculable.

Statistically, men take fewer overt physical risks as they transition into middle age. But aging men aren’t immune from the pressures to live up to the guy code. Where once they proved their toughness by driving fast or playing violent sports, they now measure their manhood by their willingness to ignore pain and other signs of illness. As this new Rutgers study has shown, there’s a direct correlation between the degree to which a man clings to these outdated and destructive rules and his refusal to take care of himself.

♦◊♦

This is deeply personal to me. All four of my great-grandmothers reached their 80s, as did both of my grandmothers. My two grandfathers died at 44 and 62, and three of my four great-grandfathers never saw 65. My dad died of stomach cancer at 71. My wife’s father died of a heart attack at 63. My daughter has two doting grannies, but will never know her parents’ fathers. And in almost every instance, these men would have lived longer had they taken better care of themselves. My father-in-law and my maternal grandfather drank themselves to death. My father’s father drove too fast on a foggy English road one morning decades ago and ploughed head-on into a bus. And my own Dad, as sweet and non-macho as he was in so many ways, ignored too many of his symptoms until it was too late.

Both statistics and anecdotes tell me my family isn’t that unusual.

I’m not angry at any of these men who left too soon. The decisions they made to take risks or to ignore pain were theirs, of course, but they were made in concert with an ethos that few of them had the opportunity to question. They weren’t given the opportunity their sons and grandsons have been given: the chance to reevaluate the masculine myth and its cruel insistence on relentless disregard for health and well-being.

In just a few months, I will have outlived my father’s father. That’s a haunting thought, especially as I have a very young daughter. Heloise is only 2; my wife and I took a long sweet time to become parents. If I am to see my little girl grow middle-aged, I am keenly aware I need to make different decisions than my father and grandfathers made before me. I can’t prevent every accident, of course, and even the most careful attention to diet, exercise, and doctor visits isn’t a perfect prophylaxis against untimely death. All any of us can do is improve our odds. And improving those odds means letting go of the foolish masculine ideal that demands we treat our bodies as if they were indestructible.

One of the defenses of the macho ethic is that it encourages men to be strong and tough to protect and defend their families and communities. Even if that were true, you can’t protect if you’re not present. The tragedy of traditional masculinity is that it shortens men’s lives; the scandal is that it does so in the name of making them better husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons.

We need to remind men that part of being a “real man” is being mentally, emotionally, and physically present for the people who love and rely upon us. Being present—and staying present—requires us to be better stewards of our bodies and our spirits. It doesn’t mean hypochondria or endless introspection. It means remembering that our value doesn’t lie only in our capacity to defend or to provide. It lies in our capacity to love, to connect, and to nurture.

We can do none of those things if we aren’t there.

 

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer has taught history and gender studies at Pasadena City College since 1993, where he developed the college's first courses on Men and Masculinity and Beauty and Body Image. He serves as co-director of the Perfectly Unperfected Project, a campaign to transform young people's attitudes around body image and fashion. Hugo lives with his wife, daughter, and six chinchillas in Los Angeles. Hugo blogs at his website

Comments

  1. Frank411 says:

    Oh, Hugo, there you go again. All focus on the problems with men who live by traditional definitions, structures and expectations of masculinity, and yet, despite the second half of the subtitle, and the throwaway repeat of the line at the end of the next to last paragraph, no explanation of how these definitions, structures and expectations come to be and are maintained.

    So, like all the reporting on this study I have seen, and its 15 minutes of fame in a hearing at the Massachusetts legislature, it turns into “Blame Men Again.” (This seems, at least to this reader, to be a common undercurrent in your writing, and the writing of people such as Michael Kimmell and Rob Okun.)

    Hugo, help us out here. Do a piece on why you think women as well as men, children as well as parents, sustain these definitions, structures and expectations of boys and men.

    Why do mothers and (mostly female) teachers in preschool and elementary grades socialize boys to deny pain and weakness? Why do women (well, at least per the data I’ve seen, women who have more sexual partners) prefer controlling, coercive, even abusive men? Why do women generally prefer men who make more money than they do, but then decry that the same, driven men don’t spend enough time with them? Why do daughters, in particular, think daddy is a bottomless ATM (speaking from personal experience)?

    I could go on, but you get the point. Sure boys and men reinforce these codes with each other, but mothers and (mostly female) teachers have a hell of alot more time on task, and girlfriends and wives and kids have a hell a lot more ability to push a guy’s buttons.

    And, in this hypothetical piece I am hoping against hope you will share with your readers, I beg of you not to resort to such mutable explanations as patriarchy, not to do the “homosocial” comeback (which I fear is a feminist ploy to play into homophobia notwithstanding the confusion between the Latin and the Greek roots).

    You see, in the world I live in, my wife wants to hear my feelings until I express them, she wants me to be vulnerable until it means she has to carry more of the economic freight in the household, my kids want to have more time with me but only if I pick up the bill and keep my thoughts and feelings to myself.

    So, get to the hard part, Hugo. ‘Splain it to us, Lucy.

    • Generalizations aren’t going to get you anywhere. Your experiences don’t matter like a piece of dust doesn’t matter in an elephant’s butt. Your experiences alone don’t allow you to ask such questions that make women the enemies. Unless you have statistics or facts, your experiences mean nothing. In my experience, teachers expect everyone, girls and boys, to suck it up and have always touted the whole ‘you’re a big girl/you’re a big boy,’ so you shouldn’t whine. In my experience, most women don’t want abusive men. And in my experience, daddy’s a walking ATM (or even mommy) because parents of contemporary teens, both girls and boys, don’t know how to say ‘no.’

      • Frank411 says:

        Read William Pollock’s Real Boys, Amber. Last time I checked, well respected research, thoroughly documented, admired by educators and feminists alike (although not enough to change the way we raise and educate boys).

        And take responsibility for the way you have set mixed expectations for men in your own life. Own your own projections.

      • Frank411 says:

        PS, the data for how women who have more sexual partners end up with more abusive men? Look at the 2007 study that is the sole (as in one and only) basis for the US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights to change the legal standard to make all college men presumed guilty of rape. Again, you can’t have it both ways, and love ED OCR for using this one study to expel the pitiful 43% of men who have managed to survive the educational system long enough to make it to college, and hate it for telling the rude truth. BTW, ED OCR totally ignored David Lisak’s work. Have you heard of him?

        • Girls who are depressed, unhappy, come from unstable or abusive families, etc are more likely to be promiscuous and have many sex partners. Those same girls are also more likely to have low self esteem and to confuse abuse with love, which leads them into abusive relationships. You are making the mistake a lot of men make in thinking that women with a lot of sexual partners must be happier or luckier or more attractive or whatever. Actually in my experience, women who are happier and have healthy self esteem are more likely to have long term happy relationships with non-abusive men, whereas women who are insecure, have “issues” and so on ride a merry-go-round of bad relationships. Obviously there are individual exceptions but I think the science supports the above as a general rule.

          As for treating dad like an ATM, kids treat both parents as an ATM. Most kids are pretty entitled and narcissistic. Humility and gratitude are a function of maturity.

          Finally, while it is true that many women want a man who makes more money, there aren’t very many men who are comfortable with being an a relationship with a woman who is more successful or earns a higher salary. Men are usually looking for a woman who has feminine qualities, not a woman who is ambitious and career oriented. If you marry a woman who has no life of her own and is looking for a meal ticket, well don’t be surprised if she sees you as a wallet/sperm donor.

    • GladToBeInThe21stCentury says:

      “You see, in the world I live in, my wife wants to hear my feelings until I express them, she wants me to be vulnerable until it means she has to carry more of the economic freight in the household, my kids want to have more time with me but only if I pick up the bill and keep my thoughts and feelings to myself.”

      Choices in who we marry, and in not learning the skills necessary for dealing in equal relationship with women, and in not learning how to parent children (rather than being the baby yourself and expecting them to listen to your thoughts and feelings) do have consequences, don’t they?

      Me, me, me doesn’t get anyone very far in relationship and you are an excellent example of this.

      Stop crying about your “mommy and daddy needs” and whining about how you can’t compete with better quality husbands and dads like Schwyzer, Kimmel and Okun, and grow up already.

      • Frank411 says:

        Dear Glad,

        “Choices in who we marry, and in not learning the skills necessary for dealing in equal relationship with women, and in not learning how to parent children (rather than being the baby yourself and expecting them to listen to your thoughts and feelings) do have consequences, don’t they?

        “Me, me, me doesn’t get anyone very far in relationship and you are an excellent example of this.

        “Stop crying about your “mommy and daddy needs” and whining about how you can’t compete with better quality husbands and dads like Schwyzer, Kimmel and Okun, and grow up already.”

        What an interesting response to an article that basically went after men for not thinking of themselves and not caring for themselves. Yet itl sounds like you also prefer men who don’t think of themselves and don’t care for themselves and don’t speak up for themselves.

        You can’t have it both ways. Good luck in your (future?) marriage(s?) and (future?) childrearing.

        And Hugo, oh Hugo, Mssing in Action again. No response to the request for how women (e.g. Glad) help perpetuate this sorry state of affairs where men are massively conditioned by women to just shut the fuck up, sacrifice to the point of martyrdom, and then are blamed by women.

        Reminds me of the old riddle: If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, why it is a man’s fault?

    • “You see, in the world I live in, my wife wants to hear my feelings until I express them, she wants me to be vulnerable until it means she has to carry more of the economic freight in the household, my kids want to have more time with me but only if I pick up the bill and keep my thoughts and feelings to myself.”

      Choices in who we marry, and in not learning the skills necessary for dealing in equal relationship with women, and in not learning how to parent children (rather than being the baby yourself and expecting them to listen to your thoughts and feelings) do have consequences, don’t they?

      Me, me, me doesn’t get anyone very far in relationship and you are an excellent example of this.

      Why don’t you stop crying to the public about your “mommy and daddy needs” and whining about how you can’t compete with better quality husbands and dads like Schwyzer, Kimmel and Okun, and get some help. You are a perfect illustration of the article – a man who denies his health care needs – in your case emotional and mental health care needs, apparently.

  2. GladToBeInThe21stCentury says:

    Contrary to myth, I suspect there are really very few women (or even girls) left who want “macho men.” We much prefer that you stick around with us into old age. Amirite, ladies?

    Also, could someone please send this to Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Eric Cantor, (he does seem sometimes to try to drop the macho thing, albeit unsuccessfully), and their friends, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Andrew Breitbart et al? David Koch (now desperately seeking a cure for prostate cancer) so he may be interested as well.

    • Gladtobe..

      You want macho men as soon as something needs fixing, you need to be rescued and to keep all the moder conveniences that make your “equality” possible running smoothly.

      Go work in a sewer for a few decades because you have to make ends meet, see how much younger you die and how you develop and toughness to cope with it, one thing is for sure, men like Hugo aren’t out there doing the hard and dangerous labour that keeps the rest of us comfortable and safe.

      • Huh?

        You don’t even know me. It’s none of your business, but I assure you I don’t look to men to “fix” anything but themselves, and to take care of their children.

        I have dug many ditches, not for sewers but for other purposes like fences and trees. Last year I had a sewer repair and it was a woman engineer who worked on it.

        I suspect you aren’t working in a sewer yourself but instead are using the men and women who do.

        If all you’ve got is sewer work, which you don’t likely even do but just pretend to identify with, no wonder you are being left behind.

        • Disappointed says:

          Oh, and I’ve changed many diapers. That’s a bit like working in a sewer.

          • Thats hilarious.

            Ive been a stay at home dad, a dad at the weekends, spent weeks at a time being the sold parent and I’ve works in building, which is much better than sewers and being a stay at home parent is a lovely life by comparison to 50 hours a week on a building site in all weathers.
            You have no clue about these sorts of jobs, you just take it for granted that so man will being doing them for you.

      • Would you ever even consider dating a woman who worked on a sewer crew? Or would you think she was repulsively unfeminine and perhaps even a lesbian? Do you date women who pursue “unfeminine” jobs or careers, or are you one of those guys who always points out the unfairness of men taking the majority of hazardous, physically demanding jobs (which, by the way, usually pay a lot more than being a secretary, waitress etc.), while at the same time you complain about the lack of docile, traditionally feminine women who will cook your dinner, raise your kiddies and give you BJ’s on demand? Don’t tell me you have a mail order bride because American women are too “masculine” — you sure sound like the type.

  3. I agree with Frank. I also think that defining ‘machismo’ is going to be different for different people/cultures. And I thought ‘macho’ cultures such as Italy and Spain had longer life-expectancy than other places. Also things like ‘war’ could be considered macho, and do lead to loss of life of men, but often the most macho men in the army-the generals and commander in chiefs, have a long life, compared to the ‘cannon fodder’ of the soldiers on the front line.

    I understand that being scared to go to the doctor/admit weakness is an issue for men. But I’d say that could be due to many numbers of reasons and ‘machismo’ is a very simplistic way to look at it.

    Finally,isn’t it just a bit ‘macho’ to pitch one kind of man against another, and say that one type is ‘superior’ and has more of a chance at longevity? If so, why doesn’t this attitude actually lead to a shorter life expectancy in itself?

  4. Anonymous says:

    First off, kudos for Hugo for reminding people that life expectancy is a product of all sorts of behaviors and values and is not strictly biologically determined. I suspect he is right about many men choosing to take more physical risks than average, and I think the stats are pretty clear that women are more likely to seek medical help than men are on average. I agree with most of what he wrote here. But, a few points of contention or expansion:

    One, there’s the quality of life issue that must be weighed with the security of life issue. Taking no risks and seeking medical help for every little thing with the express purpose of living a long time may lead to a long boring life. I think most of us would agree the number of years you live may not be the best indicator of the quality of one’s life.

    Two, I realize this may be small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, and generally seeking medical care is a good idea, BUT as I understand it “medical error” is the 5th leading cause of death in the U.S. This includes both mistakes that doctors make and mistakes that patients make with their medications. Of course it’s better to get expert advice than to try to heal yourself of serious problems, but part of the reluctance to seek help may be a lack of trust in the health care options. (My grandfather noted all the time how many of his friends went into hospitals and never came out alive.)

    Three, on a related note, there may be a difference in the way that men and women view the cost/benefit of going to see the doctor. Many men may just not want to pay through the nose for something that did not really require a $500, two-hour wait for a recommendation to take two ibuprofen and get some rest. It could be the high cost of health care and men’s tightwad-ness as much as machismo.

  5. Who do we run to when something goes wrong or needs fixing, who is doing all these dangerous and difficult jobs?
    Liberal males and their superiour female class? No. A tough, under and working class that is predominantly male keeps it all going and they die younger.

    Risk talking is biological (dopamine d4 gene), risk taking is what drives evolution the gene associated with risk talking is more commonly found in men, there are rewards built in for risk talking and that is what drives are evolution and what has brought us to the point that your moral betters can enjoy ful control over their repooductive systems and populate all the modern, user friendly jobs that male risk talking has created.

    As usual, its a little more complicated than the feminist gender role engineers would have us believe.

    Perhaps women and liberal males should start working in sewers, on roads and on oil fields, then we can throw stones at them for devoloping toughness and dieing younger than the rest of us?

    • “Perhaps women and liberal males should start working in sewers, on roads and on oil fields,”

      I’m guessing you yourself are not a man who works “in sewers, on roads and on oil fields” but you just use them for your purposes.

      What makes you think (a) women don’t do dangerous or risky work (such as pregnancy itself), (b) dirty work (isn’t nearly every maid a woman? and many nurses?), or (c) scummy work (I’ll leave this to your imagination)?

      Also, what makes you think men working in sewers, on roads and on oil fields are “conservative,” i.e. Republicans in the US? These are often union men, which is the traditional liberal base.

      And finally, since you wish to stand in for “machismo” – I really couldn’t care less if you die young and have no interest in “throwing stones.” You are an adult and responsible for your choices. I assure you that I have no interest in a man with this attitude and would never even have sex, much less have children, with such a man. We just want you to get out of the way in the political system because you are imposing intense costs on the rest of us, with the welfare programs you make necessary with the women you promise to provide for and then abandon, with the health care system you bloat with your mismanagement of your own health and demands that you be “cured,”, with your greed and avarice in the business world that caused the Great Recession, with your bigotry that causes religious wars, with your child abuse & neglect that creates so many problems in our educational system,

      The rest of us want to have healthy and successful families and a robust and thriving economy. Get out of the way, please.

      • “What makes you think (a) women don’t do dangerous or risky work (such as pregnancy itself), (b) dirty work (isn’t nearly every maid a woman? and many nurses?), or (c) scummy work (I’ll leave this to your imagination)?”

        The facts that women live longer and make up 4% of work place deaths, being a maid, is luxury by comparison to working on an oil rig for 6 mts at a time, or working on the roads in all weather.

        The fact that you cant appreciate that, demonstrates your unchecked privilege and objectification of men as sacrifice and work objects – you expect the sacrifice.

        You are right, I don’t do these jobs, but I have done them and I know who is doing them.

        • “with your child abuse & neglect that creates so many problems in our educational system”.

          Women are societies main child abusers.

          • In your world “women are the main child abusers” because you refuse to admit male culpability. You are a baby yourself.

            Your world is not the world the rest of us live in.

            • No, statistically women are more likely to abuse children.

              So according to your logic, its you thats culpable for child abuse.

              Mothers carried out almost 68 per cent of cases of emotional and psychological abuse committed by parents, about 53 per cent of physical abuse and more than 94 per cent of neglect cases.

              Cases of substantiated abuse jumped from 960 in 2005-06 to 1505 in 2007-08. In 2005-06, mothers committed 312 cases, while fathers were responsible for 165.

              In 2005-06, mothers were responsible for 161 neglect, 72 emotional and psychological, 76 physical and three sexual abuse cases against their children. In the same financial year, fathers were responsible for 37 neglect, 41 emotional and psychological, 65 physical and 22 sexual abuse cases against their children.

              A DCP spokesman said figures between years were not comparable because measuring methodologies may have changed.

              Of the total substantiated cases of abuse in 2007-08, including by parents and where the gender of the perpetrator was determined, 463 were carried out by women and 353 by men.

              University of Western Sydney academic Micheal Woods said yesterday that the statistics debunked the myth that fathers posed the greatest risk to their children.

              Mr Woods, co-director of the university’s Men’s Health Information and Resource Centre, said if similar data was available in other States it would show similar trends.

              htt p://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/6089613/mum-not-dad-more-likely-to-neglect-kids/

            • If you’re so concerned about abuse/neglect, why don’t you get in there and take care of children?

            • Also, even if women abuse/neglect children more – and I suspect the greater degree of neglect has to do with the fact that paternity has not be able to be proven and so neglect is difficult to establish with men – that does not mean men do not abuse/neglect children. If something is less frequent, it doesn’t exist. What kind of logic is that? Narcissistic logic.

            • “Narcissistic logic” meaning “I want it to be true so it is true even if the facts – and any logical conclusion – state otherwise.”

        • “The facts that women live longer and make up 4% of work place deaths, being a maid, is luxury by comparison to working on an oil rig for 6 mts at a time, or working on the roads in all weather.”

          If being maid is such a luxury, why don’t you become one?

          Oh wait, because you don’t even “work on an oil rig for 6 mts at a time, or work on the roads in all weather.” You’re just using the men and women who do.

          Seriously, stop whining and deal.

        • Also, you say “The facts that women live longer” – completely ignoring that this article is about a solution to this problem! What a jackass.

  6. Ugh, what an exercise in responsibility dodging and misandry.

    “with the welfare programs you make necessary with the women you promise to provide for and then abandon”.

    Women instigate 70 – 80% of divorces and are 100% responsible for chosing to bring children with unknown and unwilling fathers into the world.

    “with the health care system you bloat with your mismanagement of your own health and demands that you be “cured,””

    Women use most health care and make 80% of all health care decisions, in one European country, women take 500% more out of the welfare state than they out in and men put 133k more than they take out.

    “with your greed and avarice in the business world that caused the Great Recession”.

    Thats was JP Morgan and other banksters, not men in general. More recently, women held most sub primes and a woman at goldman sachs, invented the “credit default swap” which is the instrument that brought everything down.

    “with your bigotry that causes religious wars, with your child abuse & neglect that creates so many problems in our educational system”.

    Religion causes religious wars, and women are leading the calls for invasions in the middle east.

    You clearly, are the bigot here.

    • “Women . . . are 100% responsible for chosing to bring children with unknown and unwilling fathers into the world.”

      Last time I checked it took sperm to make those babies. Those men are making a choice as well – it may precede the woman’s choice whether to abort or not, but it is there. Seriously, take a sex ed course. And paternity can now be proven – and disproven- genetically.

      I have had it with you “misandry” wimps.

      You don’t appear to take any sort of adult responsibility for anything, including sex; you don’t hold other men, whether “babydaddys” or men on Wall Street or in politics accountable; and you use other men to do your violence and dirty work, such as those sewers and oil fields (which you are too arrogant to work in). You don’t support sex/gender equality or do the work necessary to handle it yourselves, and then you complain about the consequences and pretend as though you played no role. You leave boys behind in school because you refuse to do childcare and parenting of young boys, you refuse to connect emotionally with your children, and you refuse to teach in preschools and gradeschools.

      You guys are being bred out of existence, thankfully.

      • “Last time I checked it took sperm to make those babies. Those men are making a choice as well – it may precede the woman’s choice whether to abort or not, but it is there. Seriously, take a sex ed course. And paternity can now be proven – and disproven- genetically.”

        Men are 50% responsible for the decision to have sex, women are 100% responsible for the decision to have a child without a father, or have one with and unwilling father, women should stop making unilateral decisions to have children without fathers, and then blaming men for their own decisions.

        “I have had it with you “misandry” wimps”

        Translation – I hate you on the basis of your genetics and if you complain, you are not a real man.

        “You don’t appear to take any sort of adult responsibility for anything, including sex; you don’t hold other men, whether “babydaddys” or men on Wall Street or in politics accountable; and you use other men to do your violence and dirty work, such as those sewers and oil fields (which you are too arrogant to work in). You don’t support sex/gender equality or do the work necessary to handle it yourselves, and then you complain about the consequences and pretend as though you played no role. You leave boys behind in school because you refuse to do childcare and parenting of young boys, you refuse to connect emotionally with your children, and you refuse to teach in preschools and grade schools”.

        If course im not going to take responsibility for what other people do, do you take responsibility for all the child abuse that women commit? Do you expect people of a certain race to take responsibility for gang violence? Getting men out of teaching was a feminist agenda, we cant be around children because of the hate speech that is circulated about us. Feminism is also behind the drive to screw boys in education.

        You dont really know anything about this, all you know that men collectively are to blame for everything, its the perpetual state of child hood that many feminist occupy. If you want to talk about dysfunctional adults, well just the male ones I suspect, you have to look at the fact that women commit most of the child abuse.

        “In 2005-06, mothers were responsible for 161 neglect, 72 emotional and psychological, 76 physical and three sexual abuse cases against their children. In the same financial year, fathers were responsible for 37 neglect, 41 emotional and psychological, 65 physical and 22 sexual abuse cases against their children.

        A DCP spokesman said figures between years were not comparable because measuring methodologies may have changed.

        Of the total substantiated cases of abuse in 2007-08, including by parents and where the gender of the perpetrator was determined, 463 were carried out by women and 353 by men.

        University of Western Sydney academic Micheal Woods said yesterday that the statistics debunked the myth that fathers posed the greatest risk to their children.

        Mr Woods, co-director of the university’s Men’s Health Information and Resource Centre, said if similar data was available in other States it would show similar trends.

        htt p://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/6089613/mum-not-dad-more-likely-to-neglect-kids/

        More on women, the main child abusers here – htt p://thenononsenseman.com/nonsense/child-abuse/

        • How is it that women are 100% responsible for the decision to have a child with a unwilling father? That is illogical.

          Ever hear of a man not having sex in the first place? Or getting a vasectomy if he does want to have a sex and doesn’t want to be a father?

          As I mentioned, you don’t even know basic sex ed, this debate is not even worth having.

          I never said women didn’t commit child abuse/neglect. I said that men were perpetrators of it, which the authority you cite establishes.

          What the authority does not mention is that men are often indirect contributors to it when women do it. They do this by not learning basic sex ed, not taking care of their children, not doing all the other things I’ve mentioned in these posts, seeing women as the enemy constantly and everything as a zero-sum game between men and women. How is it helpful for a child to have a father who sees his mother – and all women – as the enemy? What if that child is even a daughter?

          Perhaps some women are indirect contributors when men abuse/neglect – although men’s greater physical size can make it difficult for women to stop child abuse when it is happening or get a man to take care of his child if he has been neglecting it.

  7. Anyway,

    Women need to step up and start doing the glass cellar jobs and also being more prepared to support men. The figure from male bread winner families show that women arent exactly getting in to the spirit of things.

    “When it comes to controlling money, there are some disturbing statistics about who controls the money in a marriage. “A recent PEW study of 30-to-44-year-olds showed that when a husband is the primary or sole breadwinner, household spending decisions are divided roughly equally. He makes about a third of them, she makes a third, and they make a third jointly. But, in the 22% of households studied in which the wife earned more, she made more than twice as many decisions as her husband about where the money would go. The more money women earn, the exponentially more money they manage.” (Luscombe, Belinda; “The Rise of the Sheconomy,” Time Magazine, Nov. 22, 2010″.

    • “‘I have had it with you “misandry” wimps’

      “Translation – I hate you on the basis of your genetics and if you complain, you are not a real man.”

      No, I hate men who expect women to “support” them and who acknowlede nothing about doing child care and parenting (meeting abuse/neglect standards when they do it). I hate men who don’t know sex ed and take responsibility for their role in creating children. I hate men who have no relationship skills besides fighting with women – and, presumably, their children.

      It’s the wussiest form of fake “masculinity” I’ve ever seen. Poor narcissistic me, poor narcissistic me, boo hoo, boo hoo. No wonder you are called “baby men”

      And, no it’s not genetic – much as you would like it to be so you can avoid dealing with your problems. You are, however, correct about one thing regarding genetics; YOUR genes will not be reproduced.

      • Im sorry, but you are just a typical feminist, verbal violence, no concept of female responsibility, collective male guilt and prejudice is all you want to contribute here.

        Its you thats not thinking, and from the age you sound, and the fact that your entire pov is made up of the official feminist construct, that I have at stage in my life, reproduced more than you have.

        There is no point in making accusations of domestic and child abuse, when you are the one who is being abusive on the internet, there is no point in accusing all men of being responsible for child abuse, when women are the main child abusers and domestic abusers, according to the non politically biased research. There is no point in accusing others of not being responsible when you are blaming men for the child abuse that women commit.

        I’m sorry that you are in pain, I suggest that you deal with it on an internal level inad of projecting it onto me, or men in general.

        Id rather not continue this conversation with you, you too much emotion, ideology and not enough thinking.

        • I am not accusing all men of this. I was speaking directly to you and what you have said about yourself in these posts. Nor am I in any pain; I’m actually kind-of enjoying this. I do see your self-pity, though. I would pity you – or have some compassion for you – but you are apparently an adult and it is your responsibility to get help you need. I am arguing with you more for my own practice dealing with guys like you in abuse/neglect and paternity cases. Like them, your fallacies in logic and your self-pity and your walled-off refusal to look at your own problems are very evident and very easy to refute in front of knowledgeable people.

          So, yes, I imagine you are having trouble with your emotions, these challenges to your ideology and your inability to think logically about this issue. Why don’t you get professional help instead of trying to use a message board like this where you ignore what the original article was even saying?

          Some men have no independent identity as people and so have a desperate need to identify with all men, take offense at words like “patriarchy,” and see words with “fem” in the name as some kind of enemy thought. It’s a type of severe anxiety disorder. They are thought to have a high tolerance for pain and a low tolerance for anxiety, probably borne of abuse/neglect they suffered as children, most likely from both their mother and father.

        • You’re a joke man. You take no responsibility… for even your healthcare.

          Who is supposed, God on high?

          Also, this has nothing to do with blue collar dangerous work… which is mostly done by disenfranchised Mexican migrants now, not the ‘Poor white menz’ your MRA whine about day and night.

          Rush Limbaugh is not working on an oil rig. But his life expectancy is low… because he keeps shoving burgers into his gaping hole and popping oxycontin like candy. No one else is to blame for his own demise except himself.

  8. Richard Aubrey says:

    What nonsense. You make a contract and then you don’t complain when the bill comes. What’s the big deal?
    I am reminded of a piece from Kipling’s “Epitaphs of The War” [WW I]

    The Refined Man

    I turned aside for my needs.
    I was seen from afar and killed.
    Why is this a reason for mirth?
    I paid the price to live with myself
    On terms that I willed.

    The macho guys slip away three or five years earlier, whatever. It’s the last three or five years. The ones where they may well be catherized out of the ability to get more than two hours away from somebody qualified to deal with the plumbing. Or maybe can’t get out of bed. Or can’t remember his own name. Not much loving/nurturing/ done then. And to stretch out one’s life into helplessness because you did not attempt something that, in retrospect, you should have, something that might have helped a loved one or friend, something that would have fulfilled an obligation, is a hell of a price to pay in remembering during those last, miserable, helpless years.

    • Disappointed says:

      I trust you’ll not be having children – or making any promises to women about anything you are going to provide – either monetary or otherwise – to them?

      Some people do like to live their lives alone – that’s fine. Just please be clear with others about your wishes so they do not get the wrong idea.

      I’m not sure who is going to bury you, though – that is a problem. Oh wait – you’re going to be a burden on the state?

      • Richard Aubrey says:

        Disappointed.
        If you’re referring to me, I have two kids, three grandkids and lots of life insurance. One thing I promised my wife is that I would not spare myself if something requiring me arose. She seems to think that’s okay. Alternative is I stand aside, guarding my precious mortality, while something bad happens to those I love.
        But you seem to have a good deal of attitude about something.

        • Disappointed says:

          I said that because you say you are living your life on a plan where you do “not attempt something that, in retrospect, you should have, something that might have helped a loved one or friend, something that would have fulfilled an obligation,”

          You don’t help loved ones or friends? Doesn’t sound much like “love” or “friendship” to me.

          You see “obligations” as optional. isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

          I suspected a lot of you guys who object to the GMP’s articles – especially those on sex/gender equality – are older men – as Hugo astutely observes as well.

          These are open boards but I wish you would keep your death wish feelings to yourself and not make younger men in your image by posting on these boards. They are still figuring things out and are vulnerable to older men’s posts – and since you are, by your own words, unloving, unfriendly, and exploitative and unethical (i.e. by incurring obligations and not honoring them), I don’t think you should be making younger men in your image. Don’t you agree?

  9. Richard Aubrey says:

    Disappointed.
    Reading comprehension. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
    I said it was a bad thing to remember failing an obligation or failing to do all that was necessary to help a friend of loved one. Particularly bad if you were remembering it as you ended your life in a nursing home, thinking you got your last three years because you failed to do all you could, even stuff Hugo would sneer at as “macho”.
    IOW, doing the right thing irrespective of the cost–to mortality or anything else–is the better way to go and if it costs you your life, or some years off it, that’s the deal. Don’t complain.

    • Disappointed says:

      It’s the other way around . The inability to learn sex/gender equality means you live the final years in poor health – and have those final years happen earlier.

      Hugo’s original text citing the study: “A study last month revealed a truth many of us have long suspected: men with “macho” attitudes are more reluctant to seek health care—and as a result experience shorter life expectancy AND GREATER MEDICAL PROBLEMS—” (Emphasis mine.)

      Reading comprehension. Learn it. Live it. Love it.

      I’d be surprised if your wife or children really like macho – I hate it and know many women who do as well. You are doing macho for your own fantasies most likely, not for hers or theirs. Some people like to play around with sex in sado-macho stuff – but that is typically in already established equal relationships and with well-established boundaries.

      • Disappointed says:

        One of the problems with “macho” is that it’s difficult for a “macho” man to get candor from his family. “Macho” men often fantasize that they know what their families want from them, when it’s really just what the man wants.

        This is because he doesn’t really want to hear from his wife and children and they don’t want to cross him by saying something he doesn’t want to hear. They don’t want to cross him because, on average, men are bigger physically and have more upper body strength, and many women “need” the relationship more than men do, especially women who do not have economic autonomy and/or older women who may have had “macho” fathers who did not see them as having the potential to become their equal, did not empathize with them, mentor them, relate to them.

        • Disappointed says:

          Maybe your wife really doesn’t want you around, though – and just wants the proceeds on the life insurance policy – or whatever financial rewards she gets from your not “sparing yourself.” Sorry if that’s true.

          One of the things men get from sex/gender equality is real love, friendship, ethics and non-exploitation from women. Sounds like you missed that boat – again, please don’t get in the way of younger men getting it.

  10. Richard Aubrey says:

    Disappointed.
    Now you’re insulting my wife. You must have a serious issue with…practically everybody.
    I finished up a spell in the bump shop–physical therapy–a couple of weeks ago. Thats why we have them. Get yourself messed up, get fixed up. Crap about macho men and doctors….
    Anyway, I suggest you get yourself some instruction on how to deal with human beings. Might be a foreign concept, but it will be useful, eventually.
    In the meantime, if you have any interest in sex gender equality, recuse yourself from the discussion. Do the rest of the folks the favor of not having to cover for your meanspiritdness.

    • Disappointed says:

      Not insulting your wife – just suggesting that you may be missing something – as may she. Some women really do dislike their husbands but are dependent on the money, want the children to have some kind of a father around (even if he does have trouble dealing with human beings), don’t have the kind of adult psychology they need for shared parenting/shared earning with men. I’ve seen it many times – the merry widow is usually the result – provided there is insurance or some other financial provision for her and she has trained her children to take care of her in old age.

      How are you going to have a discussion about sex/gender equality without women? More fantasizing about what women want?

  11. Did anyone actually look into the study Hugo is describing?

    Given his reference to “Rutgers Researchers” I’m assuming it’s:
    “Macho Men” and Preventive Health Care: Implications for Older Men in Different Social Classes
    by Kristen Springer and Dawne Mouzon.

    This study has significant flaws. (sorry if you can’t find a copy, I’m at a university and have access to it, but I don’t think a free copy is available yet)

    According to the regression analysis, the Chi-Squared test failed (value <19 with 13 degrees of freedom) for 2 of the items being tested for (prostate exam and physical exam), and as a result, was only a "good fit" model for whether or not men got a flu shot. Furthermore, the conclusion is based on whether men got all three things (physical, prostate exam, and flu shot), so it remains unclear if the conclusion is simply spillover from the flu shot.

    Even worse, the model includes income and education level, and for most of the tests these end up being statistically significant. Indeed, when testing to see if someone received a flu shot or not, a college degree ended up being MORE significant than how "macho" their beliefs were.

    So, the exact same statistics can be easily read to argue that men who get college degrees are more likely to get flu shots. No case is made for causality related to college degrees, so it is unclear if holding a college degree makes you less likely to hold "macho thoughts" or if holding "macho thoughts" makes you less likely to go to college.

    It's disheartening to see this sort of report widely quoted without an indepth discussion of whether or not the researcher's conclusions are definitive.

    • Disappointed says:

      This is not the only study to show this. David Schnarch’s book “Passionate Marriage” as well as some work by addiction counselors discuss how health issues, including even things like erectile dysfunction, correlate to “macho” attitudes, i.e. emotional unavailability, fear of weakness, high risk-taking, lack of respect for women that Hugo describes. Terry Real talks about this as well in “I Don’t Want To Talk About It.”

    • This often happens Mike. People with an ‘agenda’ quote ‘research’ just to suit their agenda without really analysing the data. See also: practically all feminist writers especially online!

    • Frank411 says:

      Thank you Mike. Appreciate your review of the data. Indeed, that is the article, and when you follow Hugo’s link to it, it is hidden behind a $32 pay wall, Again thank you for clearing away the smoke and removing the mirrors. Do you think if we all chipped in we could buy Hugo a remedial statistics class (I am assuming he read the article and not just the abstract)?

  12. “our value doesn’t lie only in our capacity to defend or to provide”

    You’re describing what SHOULD be – not what IS. The reality is very different. Of course, some men might luckily find a woman who values them for something else. But that doesn’t mean any man can afford to stop focusing on his capacity to provide/defend. That would be a logical fallacy which is often made in these sort of articles.

    As long as men compete for women’s favor, it is the WOMEN who decide what men are valued for. But as usual, Schwyzer will never hold female behavior responsible for anything. You see, that’s HIS way of competing with other men – ‘who defends women best (and wins their approval)’. It’s just his particular version of pickup artistry. His “provide and defend” utility.
    I said it before and I’ll say it again: Hugo Schwyzer is a fraud and a hypocrite.

    Please remove him from this site.
    Let him preach away in his stupid blog about how bad men are and how innocent women are.
    This site is NOT the place for someone who just wants to get female admiration at the cost of men.

    • Disappointed says:

      You say that “it is the WOMEN who decide what men are valued for” and then you say “This site is NOT the place for someone who just wants to get female admiration at the cost of men,” presumably referring to Hugo. Hugo has indeed been exploitative of women before, but he’s acknowledged this, and I see only scant evidence of it in his current behavior.

      You, on the other hand, appear to be display an intense anxiety disorder, where you are so afraid of rejection by women that you try to write them out of the picture entirely. You can only tolerate other men, and then only when you can maintain your fantasy that they see everything the way you do.

      It is so costly to you to be in an adult relationship, because you’ll have to deal with some programming from your parents likely, and also deal with the pain of their mistreatment of you, that you just can’t do it.

      Isn’t it sons who also decide what is valuable in men, i.e. in their fathers?

      • Wow. So much ad hominem and so little sense. Why so much hostility? I haven’t upset you have I? Such aggressive infantile anger doesn’t help much in any discussion really. All it does is provoke more hostility.

        I’m not even going to answer your silly attempts to discredit me because anyone can see that they’re just a pathetic way to try and make me look biased rather than address my points.

        The only actual point that you made was this:
        “Isn’t it sons who also decide what is valuable in men, i.e. in their fathers?”

        Fallacy. You’re mistaking one individuals parent with all members of that gender in society as a whole. Everyone can decide for themselves what value they see in one person in their lives. But that neither has to be actual value nor does it influence how society values a group of people. But, if you really think that sons (or daughters for that matter) decide what makes their gender valuable to society then you have demonstrated such immense short sightedness that I wouldn’t even know where to begin. But it certainly matches the rest of your comment here.

  13. elissa says:

    The question of mortality (first world) is less difficult then is being positioned in the article and within the comments. The current gap is roughly 5 years, and it has been the lowest gap we’ve experienced in the last 60 years. It has been shrinking since the early seventies and there is plenty of solid evidence that the shrinkage is due to smoking rates between the sexes: men’s rates have been declining at a larger rate relative to women. Smoking was also one of the key factors why the size of the gap was as it was prior to the relative decline in the smoking rates. There are obviously compounding factors that can be grouped into chunks: biological, social and behavioral. On the biological front, that magical fluid called estrogen protects against heart disease, while testosterone butts heads against the very same (it also suppresses the immune system). Homicide and suicide are lopsided as well, in the “young”, as many understand and acknowledge. If there is a “macho” component, then it tracks up to a younger age only, and then fades away. It does not accumulate and ossify, strangely enough, and I’m sure social scientists have a plausible explanation for the absence of “macho” accumulation effect over time.

    • I think we should be very careful from using biological differences as an explanation. Those are, at best, assumptions and nothing more. And they prepare the ground for making discriminatory policies and judgements. For example, boys commit suicide far more often than women but because it’s more a male typical act, it therefore requires not so much attention.
      Biological differences are always the ground to justify genocide and other atrocities against a group of people so it’s best to just do without. Besides, even if the findings about the ill effects of testosterone are true, other studies will reveal benefits of testosterone. It’s the same old story as with coffee. Whatever you research, you find.

      What is however interesting, is that life span is often used as a measure for living standard because there is a direct correlation. It is not used to compare the genders which I find odd. If there is anything safe we can assume about the cause for such a difference, then it must be due to lower living standards among men.

      • Male Positive says:

        Nice study here, the charts show that men and women had a very similar life span until the 1950s.

        “In conclusion, if there is a biological difference, the difference is very small (about 2 years). To answer the question why men die earlier, we have to look at many different factors and I will eventually do so in another post. Nevertheless male health does not have the same focus female health has and without a doubt the difference in mortality rates is another reason we should have a closer look at men’s health”
        htt p://feck-blog.blogspot.com/2009/11/cloisterstudy-or-is-there-biological.html

  14. Ha! Quiet Riot Girl is present.

    Keep an eye on her men – she wants an end to sex -:)

    http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/letters-from-an-alien-the-end-of-sex/#comments

    • Male Positive says:

      .. because threatening the witholding of sex as a means to get what you want is reasonable behaviour, to you.

      seriously tgmp, can we lose this woman worshiping writer and his group of misandric moral superiours that follow him here?

      • Yes PLEASE get rid of that fraudster. That fake women’s empowerment proponent, that misandrist, sexist preacher who doesn’t care how many men he has to hurt just in order to win female approval.

      • elissa says:

        I’m thinking you’re misunderstanding both QRG and moi….but please, go on

        • Male Positive says:

          No, I believe I understood you perfectly..

          You don’t want men to listen to QRG and you used the threat of no sex in an attempt to convince them.

          • elissa says:

            Hmmm…no – I like QRG and her opinions very much, and the link was to one of her posts, which you obviously have either not read, or possibly, not understood.

  15. Richard Aubrey says:

    Get flu shots?
    I can recall when there were shortages in our area–possibly local, possibly not–and the public word was that only the most vulnerable should get them.
    If a man were to avoid a flu shot–not necessarily because the last time he got a flu shot he got flu–but because he thinks his generally good health will protect him from serious consequences and he can afford to let the more vulnerable have it, is that “macho”
    And how many cases like that would it take to show that men, macho or otherwise, are less likely to get a flu shot?
    How lame.

    • Probably a poor idea, given that cytokine storms are far more likely to kill healthy and able-bodied young men, which is a real danger from the flu. I’d be insisting that young and healthy people (particularly men) should be the target of flu vaccination programs.

      • But science is so un-fun, compared to whining about how men are so mistreated.

        Cytokine storms really don’t care.

  16. We need to remind men that part of being a “real man” is being mentally, emotionally, and physically present for the people who love and rely upon us.
    And while we’re at it can we remind everyone else too? Because while I can’t speak for every man I can say that in my experience women are worse than men when it comes to pushing the macho ethos. This seems to be a trend around here. If something bad is happening to women then its men that need to change and when something bad is happening to men its men that need to change. Apparently all only men engage in bad, damaging behaviors.

    • Male Positive says:

      And again, its women saying what a real man is and isn’t. A “real man” is whatever is best for a woman at any given time.

      Men need to collectively diverge from masculinity defined by women, IMO.

      • Yes. Better abandon any attempt to be a “real man”:

        http://hubpages.com/hub/Dont-try-to-be-a-real-man

        • Male Positive says:

          Nice anit, thank you.

          I pulled out a few good quotes…

          “Being told to be a real man or to man up has nothing whatsoever to do with being a man. It’s purely about control and subservience…”

          “Be a real man and never let anyone tell you to be a real man ;). Seriously though, when people do that, it’s only about manipulating, shaming or otherwise bullying you into the worst form of subservience: the one where you get told what to do but still remain responsible for the outcome – particularly when the outcome isn’t good. It is also dehumanizing, because being a man in the objective sense means being a male human and if that is questioned then so are your human rights. I.e.: “You’re not a real man so you don’t deserve whatever….”

          “And even if you succeed in becoming a “real man”, they will just find something similar to throw at you like “be a good man”. Once you started obeying, they got the taste of blood and will never stop telling you how to be….”

          “…many of the rules contradict each other so it’s impossible to meet all the requirements to be a “real man”. Oh, and in case you think that you’re making yourself more attractive to women by following their demands, guess again. The women who make those demands never do so because they’re helping you become more attractive. And let’s not forget, defining your worth by your subservience and obedience to social demands from strangers is not exactly an attractive quality for any human to have….”

  17. Hugo Retard says:

    Hugo is a retard.

    • No. Unfortunately he’s relatively clever. That’s why he fooled so many people into thinking he’s a good guy for women.
      He’s just a pickup artist in disguise!

      Call him Fraud Schwyzer if you want.

  18. For those who have derailed this article again into some MRA screed:

    You’re a joke man. You take no responsibility… for even your healthcare.

    Who is supposed, God on high?

    Also, this has nothing to do with blue collar dangerous work… which is mostly done by disenfranchised Mexican migrants now, not the ‘Poor white menz’ your MRA whine about day and night.

    Rush Limbaugh is not working on an oil rig. But his life expectancy is low… because he keeps shoving burgers into his gaping hole and popping oxycontin like candy. No one else is to blame for his own demise except himself.

    Personal responsibility – have some… You can’t be going over and over and over blaming feminism for everything, it really makes you start to sound like the strawman feminism you are complaining of.

    • Male Positive says:

      Neil

      the article is bull and references a poor quality piece of political advocacy disguised as research.

      And men do take responsibility for healthcare, who do you think pays for the bulk of the healthcare thats consumed by women and children, the decades of focus on womens healthcare, has been paid for at the expense of mens healthcare.

      Women and children expect this from men, that was the point a lot of the mens rights people correctly brought up. The article fails to investigate the female construction of the male who is only “real” when he is sacrificing to provide for her, men are expected to risk and destroy their bodies for women, by women.

      And there are few Mexican immigrants in this country, and in your the Mexican immigrants that are doing the worst jobs that society has to offer are male working alongside males of all races.

  19. Wow. I’m a little surprised at all the backlash to this one.

    I think the point Hugo is making is a valid one for the most part. I think you’re off-base a little in assuming the only reason guys don’t go to the doctor is because of the “macho man” attitude. I’m not macho by traditional standards. I’m out of shape, my wife out-earns me and I don’t know the first thing about working on cars. Yet I do everything in my power not to go to the doctor’s office. I do it because I don’t like the doctor and I don’t want to hear bad news. But it has nothing to do with machismo.

    But I think Hugo’s main point was men need to take care of themselves so they can be around to take care of their family. And I see nothing controversial about that.

    • Male Positive says:

      For me Its what he is not saying, his track record and the crowd he brings with him.

      His research is political advocacy, which points to a politically correct answer.

      Here is something more helpful, for example…

      The American Journal of Public Health (5/03) has declared that men are in a “silent health crisis.” Almost every chronic illness affects men more often than women. Men account for 80-95% of homeless adults, job deaths and suicide deaths, are more likely than women to have mental disabilities but less likely to be treated for them, and die younger and have higher mortality rates for 13 of the 15 leading causes of death.

      Boys make the majority of special education students and are more likely than girls to skip a grade, be expelled or drop out of school.

      The California Dept. of Health Services recommended a men’s health office, but it never formed. Meanwhile there are numerous federal offices of women’s health and similar offices at every level of government, but virtually no offices of men’s health. Breast cancer is known as a “horde” of cancer funds. The National Cancer Institute spent about four times more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research for decades. All other sources, including the Dept. of Defense, fund breast cancer at far higher and disproportionate rates compared to prostate cancer.

      The claim that women were excluded from medical testing is not only antiquated (from the 60s) but is also a one-sided story that has been refuted by experts like Dr. Sally Satel. Historically, women participated in 95% of NIH clinical trials going back to the early 1970s, and men were underrepresented in research on cancer, reproductive health and sex hormones. Today men represent about 37% of participants in NIH-funded research, and gender-specific budgets favor women by more than a 2:1 margin, according to this report by Men’s Health America.

      For more, see, Young, C., Satel, S., M.D., “The Myth of Gender Bias in Medicine”; Satel, S.: PC, M.D.:, “How Political Correctness is Corrupting Medicine.”
      http://ncfm.org/2009/01/issues/mens-health/

      The bulk of the resources are going to women, and they are bashing men for not using healthcare.

      Also, something to think about – women invented the concept of “man flu”, when men get flu, it doesn’t count!

    • Male Positive says:

      For me Its what he is not saying, his track record and the crowd he brings with him.

      His research is political advocacy, which points to a politically correct answer.

      Here is something more helpful, for example…

      The American Journal of Public Health (5/03) has declared that men are in a “silent health crisis.” Almost every chronic illness affects men more often than women. Men account for 80-95% of homeless adults, job deaths and suicide deaths, are more likely than women to have mental disabilities but less likely to be treated for them, and die younger and have higher mortality rates for 13 of the 15 leading causes of death.

      Boys make the majority of special education students and are more likely than girls to skip a grade, be expelled or drop out of school.

      The California Dept. of Health Services recommended a men’s health office, but it never formed. Meanwhile there are numerous federal offices of women’s health and similar offices at every level of government, but virtually no offices of men’s health. Breast cancer is known as a “horde” of cancer funds. The National Cancer Institute spent about four times more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research for decades. All other sources, including the Dept. of Defense, fund breast cancer at far higher and disproportionate rates compared to prostate cancer.

      The claim that women were excluded from medical testing is not only antiquated (from the 60s) but is also a one-sided story that has been refuted by experts like Dr. Sally Satel. Historically, women participated in 95% of NIH clinical trials going back to the early 1970s, and men were underrepresented in research on cancer, reproductive health and sex hormones. Today men represent about 37% of participants in NIH-funded research, and gender-specific budgets favor women by more than a 2:1 margin, according to this report by Men’s Health America.

      For more, see, Young, C., Satel, S., M.D., “The Myth of Gender Bias in Medicine”; Satel, S.: PC, M.D.:, “How Political Correctness is Corrupting Medicine.”
      ht tp://ncfm.org/2009/01/issues/mens-health/

      The bulk of the resources are going to women, and they are bashing men for not using healthcare.

      Also, something to think about – women invented the concept of “man flu”, when men get flu, it doesn’t count!

      • Yet and still we are supposed to believe that medical care is “all about teh menz”.

        I’m not sure how far its gotten but I’ve seen in a few places where the lifes of Warren Ferrell is trying to push for a Council for Men and Boys in the White House. The things you point out here Male Positive (and others) are serious issues that need to be addressed but good luck with that when everytime you turn around there are people who want to do nothing but whine about all the privilege that men have and tell them to take the back burner (while at that same time claiming that they are the ones that are really helping men).

        • Male Positive says:

          Hi Danny, here is Farrell talking about it..

          “Joshua Dubois, the White House director of Faith-based and Neighborhood initiatives, has said his office cannot take responsibility for moving this through,” said Farrell. “The reason he gave us was that he was focused on fulfilling what he was already assigned to do, which was to focus on fatherhood and marriage, proposals that Obama has suggested for funding as of last Fathers Day.”
          Farrell’s proposal currently is sitting in Obama’s Chief of Staff William Daley’s office.
          “They have acknowledged that they have received the proposal plus about 35 letters of endorsements from organizations such as the Boy Scouts,” Farrell said adding that the administration has been silent since.

          “At the very top of the administration there is a fair amount of feminist orientation and there are two feminist views. One is that the patriarchy has dominated the system, that men succeed at the expense of women, and that things done for boys and men would dilute the emphasis on women and girls. The second feminist view, more what I express in the proposal, is that we are all part of the same family boat,” said Farrell. “It appears that the feminists in the White House [fit the first view].”
          Farrell is skeptical of the second possibility – that the administration is too busy to take up the issue.
          “My objection to that answer is, the reason we have asked for a council is that it could be done by an executive order,” Farrell said. “It would not need to go through Congress. Second, it is very bipartisan. If there is anything that President Obama can do to give something to the Republicans – who are very pro-family – to to say, ‘I am pro-family too, here is somewhere we can both agree, we ought to be supporting everyone in the family.’”

          htt p://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/the-white-house-council-on-men-and-boys/

    • But I think Hugo’s main point was men need to take care of themselves so they can be around to take care of their family. And I see nothing controversial about that.
      One problem I have with it is that that wording only serves to reinforce the notion that men are only useful for as long as they can provide (so they should work on their health so that they can provide longer). Reminds me of a story I read at the Guardian (I think) a year or so ago where the writer said that men owed it to women to work past retirement age so that their wives could live more comfy.

      Bull.

      How about encouraging men to improve their health for something other than how great it will be for their families? Sure that’s a bonus but it should not be touted as the main feature. Which is funny when you get down do it. A lot of those men to live the macho way do so so they can provide for their families yet in a lot of gender discussion men are portrayed as being selfish (maybe that’s why people are averse to the idea of telling men to look out for themselves). Yeah they are so selfish they work themselves to an early grave

      • Useful = being of use or service, advantageous, helpful, producing material results, supplying needs. (from the dictionary)

        I think both men and women want their spouse/partner to be useful, otherwise what’s the point?

        If your wife doesn’t provide sex or take care of the children, is she useful as a wife/mother? I think most guys would say no.

        • But again it shouldn’t be treated like usefulness is the reason for wanting them to live longer? How would people react if the breast cancer research was pushed as a way to keep women alive longer so they can be around longer to provide for their husbands and kids? Or that breast health is important because a woman loses her breasts to cancer then she is of no use to her husband?

          In fact a lot of the efforts to raise awareness for beast cancer (or many health issues that predominantly or only effect women) are usually from the perspective of telling people to do what they can to help women. Yet here we see that awareness for men’s health is from the perspective telling men to do what they can to stay alive longer for everyone else.

          I just don’t think in the long run that is very helpful in getting rid of the notion that men are only useful for as long as they can provide for others.

  20. Male Positive says:

    Here is another side of the coin, my father started out with little, he got a scholarship to a good school and ended up a CEO. He worked his ass off, thats the only way to become a CEO and he died youngish from a heart attack. The four of us that he left behind got to start off at a certain level thanks to him, none of us have to work in the male glass cellar and risk our health and bodies doing so and my mother has plenty of private healthcare for her later years.

    It was a great sacrifice on his part, and we could have at times done with having a less tired, more present father, but then he wouldn’t have achieved all that he did, and our lives might be more difficult and stressful than they are today.

    If all men worked like women and took as few risk as women, the human race would not evolve.

  21. Richard Aubrey says:

    Bec.
    Ref the flu and young folks. I think the last time that happened was in the Great Flu Epidemic 1917-1919.
    Since then, there have been no reports of disproportionate numbers of flu victims among young men. Either it didn’t happen or it didn’t count, being men and all.
    But, as I said, it was public medical authorities who made the point, not me. Take it up with public health. Maybe they figured young men were disposable in place of women, kids and old folks. Wonder where they got that idea.

  22. Male Positive says:

    Re. the flu, I want to repeat something that I’ve already said in a larger post.

    “Man flu” is a myth that is propagated by women, the idea is that when men get the flu, its not real and its to be mocked. “Man flu” is evidence of a wider problem in the way that women view and objectify the men in their lives and male bodies as work and sacrifice objects.

    • What the hell is “man flu?”

      • Nevermind. Wikipedia to the rescue.

        What a strange term – I’ve always found the exact opposite (and Hugo seems to be saying the same). Personally I’ve finally gotten my husband to believe that I know what I’m talking about when it comes to drugs and sickness, but he still refuses to go to the doctor. I wouldn’t mind if he was a bit more of a hypochondriac so I didn’t have to bug him about it. I refuse to make appointments for him – I’m not his mom.

  23. Men are either buffons if they exhibit male characteristics such as the instinct to hunt, provide or protect or they are weak if they love and nurture.

    How about doing both in a confident and sophisticated manner that is truly the essence of who the man is? Why can’t we give into our instinct to provide and protect the people we love and also show emotion and be there mentally and physically to these same people.

    We need to stop considering men as masculine or more feminine in their ways and just be ourselves.

    We are our worst enemies.

  24. Man Up says:

    Somehow masculinity is never a good idea. For Schwizer men only get better to the extent that they become more like women. And of course every time he denigrates masculinity his articles are echoed all over the feminist blogs.

    Men know better.

    I am 42 now, and I take a lot of risks. I’ve got a fine 130hp motorcycle – and damn does it go fast in traffic. I know actuaries tell me frequent motorcycling shortens lifespan by a good 5%. I shoot guns recreationally. I go to the doctor once per decade whether I need it or not. Maybe I’ll die younger than some – but I will have packed more into that time.

    My first child was born when I was 25. I’ve got two so far, and looking for someone to help me make more. I’m betting that men with ‘traditional views’ about masculinity sleep with more women, and have more children.

    History prefers risk taking men. We go more places, win more battles, hold more land, have more children, and sow the earth with the bones of lesser men.

  25. That is great writeup Hugo. I like it. Am doing some search on such information for a book am writing and your work is great.
    God bless you
    Tony
    From Kenya

  26. lets do better? says:

    I think oth men and women need to grow up and take responsibility for words and communication Many people are using others for weakness and being two faced with other mature good will adults. This is why so many adults complain about the awful exlusiveness in the world …. being popular, mean, and plain Alpha. This is why there is so much disease and unkindness in the world.

  27. Vivek narain says:

    Men are dying early mainly due to the stress of making good money and doing misc. things as well. Making twice the effort than reasonable takes its toll.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] My piece today at the Good Men Project: Men with ‘Macho’ Attitudes Die Early. [...]

  2. News For Men says:

    [...] Macho Men Die Early (Good Men Project) [...]

  3. [...] some comments …. and what they said, really grinds my gears! Why Don't Men Go To The Doctor? Men with 'macho' attitudes are more reluctant to seek health care while talking about the article that was originally posted on The Good men's Project ( which I [...]

  4. [...] the argument Hugo Schwyzer makes on the Good Men Project. He writes about his father ignoring the symptoms of stomach cancer, his [...]

  5. [...] Men with ‘macho’ attitudes are more reluctant to seek health care – goodmenproject… [...]

  6. [...] do men tend to die at a younger age than women? Article explores how traditional “macho” behavior can lead to poor health [...]

  7. [...] it would seem, can add not just months but years to your life. Over at the Good Men Project — Macho Men Die Early — Hugo Schwyzer offers some thoughts on one of the reasons men die earlier, on average: many of [...]

  8. [...] upset they act out with anger or take risks (driving too fast, fighting, etc.) In the article Macho Men Die Early they say that men are more likely to commit suicide because they are more likely to let their [...]

Speak Your Mind

*