Is Modern Medicine Sexist?

PAGE 2 OF 2

For an interesting and witty take on why breast cancer has received so
much popular attention, when apparently lung cancer kills more women, and
heart disease kills far more women, check out Merge Magazine's take on
Yoplait's breast cancer campaign at
http://www.mergemag.org/oct9/yoplait1.html followed by
http://www.mergemag.org/oct9/yoplait2.html .

Jim Steiger, in his unrelenting and curious competition with women, says
that prostrate cancer gets less attention and fewer funds for research. I
wonder why he doesn't start up a grassroots campaign for greater funding
for research and prevention, as women did beginning in (I believe) the
early 80s.

Women were not afraid to wage this campaign because they were not
reluctant to have women's breasts the object of public discussion, and
seen as vulnerable and sources of vulnerbility (cancer). Women are used to
the private parts of their bodies, objectified in public discussion and on
public display. The medical objectification of breasts is not such great
leap from there. Most women do not seem to feel uncomfortable with the
constant discussions and public diagrams and photos, especially when in
this case, it is for saving lives.

But would men feel comfortable having testicles similarly discussed,
diagramed, displayed, all as part of a campaign for prevention and
increased funding for research? My guess is that men in general would
rather risk a shortened life span than risk the public association of male
genetalia with disease, vulnerability, and death, rather than power,
superiority, potency, and invulnerability.

Which brings us back around to the question of why men have shorter
lifespans than women, despite all the advantages they receive, including
greater economic and social power.

Adriene Sere

Said It: feminist news, culture, politics
http://www.saidit.org

Jenea,

Thanks for your interesting comments, many of which I (at
least partially) agree with. There is much food for
thought there, and you've stimulated my thinking in a number
of directions. Keep that in mind, as there is a
strong "rebuttal" element in some of the following comments.
Also, keep in mind that I'm not a doctor, not
a medical historian, and others can comment much more
perceptively than I on many of the issues you raised.

1. Realize that just as the perceptions of men might be
altered by their existence within a male dominated
profession, so might your perceptions be altered by your
current situation within a Women's Studies framework. For
example, in one of your
recent postings you referred to the enthusiasm of students
who found themselves, within Women's Studies, in a world
made "as if women mattered."

Yet you attend UBC in the Faculty of Arts. The Faculty of
Arts has about 67% female undergraduates, more than half the
graduate students are female, the two of the last 3 deans of
the faculty were female. The president of the university is
female, the faculty representative on the Board of Governors
is female, the dean of science is female, there is a Women's
Student Office (but no Men's Student Office), there is a
Women's Studies Program (but no Men's Studies Program).
There are special Women Only lounges (in Brock Hall, for
example) but no Men Only lounges. A recent literary
conference at UBC banned male reporters. Similar action by a
conference of men would be unthinkable. Indeed, former
President Strangway resigned from a local club on the
grounds that it had not yet admitted women. It seems that
UBC is indeed made "as if women mattered," perhaps more than
you realize.

2. I never argued that modern gynecology was "built from
scratch" by men. (Would you call this a "straw woman"
argument?) It is the goal of feminist scholars to emphasize
the contributions of women. Trying to have one's cake and
eat it too is a fundamentally human motivation (shared by
men and women), but one must protest when, practically in
the same breath, such scholars blame male doctors for the
failings of medicine, credit nurses and midwives with the
successes, and ignore many of the facts. I wouldn't deny
that MMM (modern male medicine) drew on whatever knowledge,
from whatever source, was deemed appropriate, then shifted
the credit on itself. Modern science and propaganda are
intertwined. However, after the centuries of knowledge
development by midwife-practitioners, you are still left
with the sad facts of childbirth-mortality rates such as
existed in 1900. Compare that to the rates that exist now,
and try to seriously argue that work by female
midwife-practitioners had any serious impact on the major
scientific factors that caused the rate change. Identify the
factors, and tell me explicitly where the credit should be
given which scientists. Vague arguments won't do here.

3. Your discussion about the need for recognition of
"sympathetic male practitioners" to be kept in perspective
alongside the important motivating impact of feminists like
"Sangster" is worthwhile, but denies an important reality.
Most men don't need motivation by feminists to want to make
a better world for the women around them. Most men have
several women
in their lives that they love dearly and deeply.  Believe it
or not (are you ever taught this in a Woman's Studies
class?), this love motivates them all the time. This love
was framed within a society that placed certain limits on
both
men and women, but the love was there, and I'm quite sure
that it was much more than pride and scientific ambition
that
motivated many of the men who contributed to the development
of modern obstetrics and gynecology. To deny that is simply
bad social science.

4. I couldn't agree more that we need not move women "from
the center" of modern sensitivities to have a fine science
of medicine. However, declaring that they are "at the
center" while maintaining that medicine is anti-female seems
slightly contradictory. I'm simply arguing for a balance.
So, for example, while your feminist-historian mentors argue
that
HIStory denied the real contributions of female pioneers (a
view I am *extremely* sympathetic to, by the way),
do they tell any stories about male medical practitioners
who lost wives (they dearly loved) in childbirth, and were
inspired to try to make a better world? Surely such stories
exist, somewhere.

--Jim Steiger

James H. Steiger
Department of Psychology
University of British Columbia
2136 West Mall
Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4
Voice and Fax; (604)-822-2706
EMAIL: steiger  @  unixg.ubc.ca

>The analyses
> we develop can be enriched
> with the study of men's experiences, but we do
> not have to move women from
> the centre to do so.
>
> Cheers,
> Jenea Tallentire
> PhD student, History
> University of British Columbia
> Canada
> jltallen  @  interchange.ubc.ca
>

>However, I know of no one who would deny that
>women get the bulk of the gender-specific funding.

The problem is, the supposedly non-gender specific studies (funding
included) have historically focused on men, and the situation doesn't seem
to have been fully remedied even now. That's the historical background, by
the way, for why breast cancer research funding grew so rapidly in the past
15 years: women jumped into activism to remedy the lack of research on
illnesses that affected females only, or disproportionately, and the fact
that such research often (as in the case of breast cancer research, for
example) used male subjects. The assumed male "norm" caused medical
scientists to exclude female subjects on the grounds that their hormones
would throw off the results.

>To simply
>denounce the fast-evolving medical profession as
>"male-dominated" and "sexist" is an oversimplification

That's an oversimplification itself. The profession is changing, but it
can't evolve fast enough to suit me. Read Dr. Frances Conley's book on her
experiences in neurosurgery: they turned a non-feminist into a committed
activist.

Max Dashu    <www.suppressedhistories.net>
International Women's Studies since 1970
 <maxdashu  @  lanminds.com>

Concerning Max Dashu's comments:

Max, I don't think the facts are in line with your
assertions. This issue (that of alleged pro-male bias
in research designs) has been examined carefully. Claims
that the problem is widespread and general appear to be
wrong, the product of ideologically-driven research.

Let me quote you from Cathy Young's article:

"A search of Medline, the electronic index to medical
literature which provides data on the gender of subjects in
articles,
shows that over two-thirds of studies and trials since 1966
include both sexes---and 55% of single sex studies, even
pre-1991, are of women."

This next quote is relevant to your theory about the
importance of feminism in sparking a major growth in breast
cancer research:

"A database search of English-language medical journals for
1966-91 shows 17,951 entries on breast cancer---*ten times*
as many as as prostate cancer, and more than twice the
number on lung cancer. Long before women's health was
politicized, breast cancer was the subject of more funding
and research than any other malignancy.  Nor is there any
evidence of "neglect" of such predominantly female diseases
as osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, or lupus."

Within the medical profession, I am sure you can find
commissions and studies that examine the issue of alleged
underrepresentation of women in clinical studies. I would
wager that you will find many female physicians contributing
to these studies, and that the results will support my
assertions. As Cathy Young notes,

"Dr. Ruth Merkatz, special assistant to the commisioner for
women's health issues at the FDA, reported in
the *New England Journal of Medicine* in 1993 that 'FDA
surveys...in 1983 and 1988 found that generally, both sexes
had substantial representation in clinical trials.'  Women
were 69% of subjects in tests of anti-inflammatory drugs
approved
in 1988, 44% in tests of cardiovascular drugs, 30% in tests
of anti-ulcer drugs."

--Jim Steiger


James H. Steiger
Department of Psychology
University of British Columbia
2136 West Mall
Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4
Voice and Fax; (604)-822-2706
EMAIL: steiger  @  unixg.ubc.ca

Uh oh, you mean women have been subjected to medical experimentatation with
unproven drugs??  Just what one would expect from a patriarchal society!  D.

---------------------------------
daphne.patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

Daphne:

I catch the irony of your remark, however, without resorting to conspiracy
theories, it has always bothered me that men DO have an undeniable
self-interest and political interest in reproductive/contraceptive
strategies.

I, myself, was a very temporary (about one hour!) guinea pig in the IUD
debacle when I was 22 years old in around 1973.  My middle-aged male doctor
made it sound quite plausible, okay, and convenient as a reproductive device
for those of us who could not tolerate the pill.

I remember in the culture of those times, I was feeling quite the failure
because I could not continue to take the pill and thereby "liberate" my own
sexuality and that of my husband.

I believe that the same may be true of many women who were and are placed on
the likes of valium and prozac.  They are often told that taking such drugs
will make things "easier" for others - their husbands and families.

Carol Tavris has done a great deal of work on the opposite phenomenon as
well, that is, how anti-depressant drugs in particular, were/are? tested on
the average 160 lb. man with his body chemistry and then dispensed primarily
to women.

It's not a patriarchal plot.  It is simply a matter of practices that are
aligned with the habitus of the creators of the dominant discourse.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, James H. Steiger wrote:

> 5. One list member, a registered nurse, corresponded with me
> privately about her view that some of the life-expectancy
> disparity is due to the unwillingness of men to take charge
> of their own health. This is, of course, an important issue,
> one that the medical profession itself neglected until
> recently. In Canada, for example, there are organizations
> with substantial funding that correspond with women to
> remind them to have periodic mammography exams. These
> mammography exams are funded by the socialized medicine
> system. They are free. On the other hand, there is no such
> program for PSA exams for men, and the exams are not funded.

This is an interesting point, and one I'm well aware of.  In 1995 my
father died of prostate cancer at the age of 81.  I had no idea he had the
disease until a few weeks before his death.  I had last seen him two
months earlier, when he seemed fine.  I later learned from a cousin that
he had known about the disease five years earlier but later denied it.  I
have no doubt that had mother lived longer (she died in 1992), she would
have badgered him to get regular exams, back when the cancer would have
been mild and treatable by medication.  But when he lost her, he let
himself forget to take care of himself.  If he got any warnings from his
doctor, I''m not aware of them.

This may be a matter of relationship, though, rather than of gender.  My
parents cared about each other, and probably each was a factor in keeping
the other alive as long as they could.


Marc Sacks
msacks  @  world.std.com

>Max, I don't think the facts are in line with your
>assertions. This issue (that of alleged pro-male bias
>in research designs) has been examined carefully. Claims
>that the problem is widespread and general appear to be
>wrong, the product of ideologically-driven research
(snip)
> As Cathy Young notes,
>
>  "Dr. Ruth Merkatz, special assistant to the commisioner for
>  women's health issues at the FDA, reported in
>  the *New England Journal of Medicine* in 1993 that 'FDA
>  surveys...in 1983 and 1988 found that generally, both sexes
>  had substantial representation in clinical trials.'  Women
>  were 69% of subjects in tests of anti-inflammatory drugs
>  approved
>  in 1988, 44% in tests of cardiovascular drugs, 30% in tests
>  of anti-ulcer drugs."
>
>  --Jim Steiger

FDA was my day job until last May, when I retired.  I was employed there for
more than 20 years, long before Ruth Merkatz appeared on the scene (in the
mid 1990s, I believe), and also way too long before "women's issues" became a
priority. I worked in FDA's offfice of public affairs and was editor first of
a publication sent to all physicians and other health professionals, called
at the time "The Drug Bulletin." I then became editor of the magazine for the
general public, "FDA Consumer." One of my proudest achievements while there
was increasing the coverage of women's health issues in the regular issues of
this magazine and producing several "special issues" of the magazine
dedicated to women's health.

Close to the time I first arrived there in 1979, I remember talking to highly
placed scientists at FDA about certain drugs and asking why women were not
routinely included in the studies drug companies are required to do before
approval.  I was told this was because you never could tell when a woman
would get pregnant and they didn't want to include potentially pregnant women
in drug studies. The thinking was that any study done on men would be
applicable to women, so why put women (and their fetuses) in jeopardy? In
addition, I was told, women's hormonal cycles in general would skew the
results. This information was presented to me in a very authoritative tone of
voice (from someone with a great deal of authoritative knowledge about drug
studies) that would make any questioning of this wise scientific reasoning
indicate that I was uneducated, uninformed, and not thinking scientifically.

It was not until about a decade later, responding to the persistance of
women's health activists and others outside of FDA that FDA (and NIH)
re-examined their policies and found that indeed women could be included in
drug studies.  When they began doing this they began finding that women often
respond to drugs differently than men.  Today I believe that there is a
requirement that most new drugs be tested on women, and often also that tests
be done to ascertain safety and efficacy in various ethnic groups and age
groups, all of which may vary from what used to be the old standard  of
"healthy white male."

So the bottom line of what I'm saying here is that there is a definite
history of shutting women out of drug studies. This situation no longer
exists in new drug studies (at least to the same extent) thanks to women's
health activists. But this still leaves a whole lot of drugs approved a long
time ago that have never been tested on women.

I also agree with others who say there is a history of not treating women
with the same seriousness for illnesses (heart disease is an excellent
example).

Judith Laura
known at FDA as Judith Levine Willis

mornin' Jim :)

At 09:32 PM 10/17/00 -0700, Jim wrote:
>Let me quote you from Cathy Young's article:
>
>"A search of Medline, the electronic index to medical
>literature which provides data on the gender of subjects in
>articles,
>shows that over two-thirds of studies and trials since 1966
>include both sexes---and 55% of single sex studies, even
>pre-1991, are of women."

i did the same search on Medline --- except i got a different result --
searching by "study subjects"  (Young doesn't disclose her methodology),
1966-91: 32037 studies female (45%) versus 37800 male (54%).  Searching
"subjects", same time period as Young argues:  73611 female vs 88023
male.  Tried searching by "subjects" limiting to clinical trials
only:  6635 female vs 8997 male.  Extending to include through 2000,
searching "subjects", limited to clinical trials:  25256 female vs 30475
male.  Searching "subjects", 1991-2000, all publication types:  110085
female vs 119488 male.  Given:  Young may have used a different set of
search criteria, generating (substantially) different results ... she
doesn't reveal her experimental.  i wouldn't have as much issue with that
if i could (marginally) reproduce her results.  My analysis & conclusion
are somewhat different than hers.

>"A database search of English-language medical journals for
>1966-91 shows 17,951 entries on breast cancer---*ten times*
>as many as as prostate cancer, and more than twice the
>number on lung cancer.

Same database, 1966-91: "breast cancer" 42918 entries, "prostate cancer"
14538, "lung cancer" 32954.  This kinda correlates (?) Young's reporting
(3x as many as far as prostate cancer, 1.3 x lung cancer).

She criticizes a report that fails to include the female-only, Nurses'
Health Study (initiated in 1976) while disregarding mention of previous
long-term studies that were originally (i.e. Framingham) or remain
male-only.  (Is this a shade of 'wanting to have her cake & eat it too'?)

So, generously, Young has a ~50% reproducibility rate.  Does this lend
credibility to her?

The assertion that womyn have reached parity/near-parity as far as nominal
inclusion in clinical research trials in the last 10-20 years, i do feel is
valid & is supported by evidence.  i'm not finding substantial evidence for
this alleged 'pro-female' bias in the scholarly literature.  One recent
citation:  "Reports See Progress, Problems, in Trials" Helmuth, L.
_Science_ Volume 288, Number 5471, Issue of 2 Jun 2000, pp. 1562-1563.
(first paragraph)
"Ten years after its scathing report on the National Institutes of Health's
failure to
  include women in clinical research, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has
  concluded that the NIH is doing much better. Women are clearly taking part in
  clinical studies--in even greater numbers than men. And the amount of money
  devoted to diseases, such as breast cancer and depression, that
disproportionately
  afflict women has risen steadily, outpacing increases in the NIH's
overall budget.
  But NIH-supported researchers aren't always putting their data on women
subjects to use."

For a more balanced (than Young) & referenced (!) examination of the data
as far as inclusion of women in medical studies, i recommend: Merkatz, Ruth
B. RN, PhD, FAAN. "Inclusion of Women in Clinical Trials: A Historical
Overview of Scientific, Ethical, and Legal Issues". JOGNN - Journal of
Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing. 27(1):78-84, January/February
1998.  (This is the same author that Young quoted & Jim selected.)

>Within the medical profession, I am sure you can find
>commissions and studies that examine the issue of alleged
>underrepresentation of women in clinical studies. I would
>wager

"wager" ... whatz the ante? <g> (See _Science_ article above.)

>that you will find many female physicians contributing
>to these studies, and that the results will support my
>assertions.

if they don't, do i still win the bet? <g>

Now Merkatz isn't a physician , so her direct work is excluded, however,
she does lead us to some that do qualify under your conditions:  "In a 1983
survey of 11 pending new drug applications, the agency found substantial
enrollment disparities, with women and the elderly significantly
underrepresented in some disease study categories, including cardiovascular
studies (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
Administration. (1993). "Guideline for the study and evaluation of gender
differences in the clinical evaluation of drugs: Notice. Federal Register,
58(139), 39406-39416.).  Subsequent surveys, undertaken by the FDA's
independent researchers revealed similar findings (same report). Although
the 1977 FDA guideline had excluded women of childbearing potential only
from the first and the earliest part of the second phase of clinical trials
(when drug safety is the primary focus), sponsors often interpreted the
restriction more broadly and limited entry of women into the later phases
of drug trials."

Also see Pearl, M., Banzhaf, M., Leger, A., & Long, I. L. (1992). "Women in
U.S. government clinical trials." VIII International Conference on AIDS,
8(2:B235), Amsterdam, Netherlands detailing the initial exclusion &
subsequent underrepresentation of womyn from AIDS drug clinical research
trials.

>As Cathy Young notes,
>
>"Dr. Ruth Merkatz, special assistant to the commisioner for
>women's health issues at the FDA, reported in
>the *New England Journal of Medicine* in 1993 that 'FDA
>surveys...in 1983 and 1988 found that generally, both sexes
>had substantial representation in clinical trials.'  Women
>were 69% of subjects in tests of anti-inflammatory drugs
>approved
>in 1988, 44% in tests of cardiovascular drugs, 30% in tests
>of anti-ulcer drugs."

Nowhere in this article do those percentages appear; i suspect that they
are from specific studies but the reference(s) is (are) NOT obvious ...
what the authors do write is "Women tended to predominate in studies of
nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, whereas men predominated in studies of
coronary artery disease. Roughly equal numbers of men and women were
included in trials of most antibiotics, antihistamines, and hypnotics.
Despite adequate participation by both women and men, however, few analyses
of the data were being conducted to detect possible differences in
effectiveness or safety between men and women."  (Merkatz, Ruth B.. Temple,
Robert. Sobel, Solomon. Feiden, Karyn. Kessler, David A.. "Women In
Clinical Trials Of New Drugs -- A Change in Food and Drug Administration
Policy." New England Journal of Medicine. 329(4):292-296, Jul 22, 1993.)

Somehow the original authors' don't seem to have quite the emotional
rhetoric power that Young attempts to convey?

Each is left to draw one's own conclusion(s) w/r/t Young's hypothesis and
Steiger's campaign w/r/t this alleged  anti-male bias.  One opinion (owned
as mine) that i have had re-inforced is the need for more timely
dissemination of information coupled with explanation and public
interaction by those in & associated with  medical fields (which i'm
not.)  i personally found Carol Tavris' article that accompanied the pdf
file to be infinitely more interesting :)  And, as usual, i thoroughly
enjoy Jim's challenges!

blue skies,
marg


Margaret E. Kosal
Department of Chemistry
School of Chemical Sciences
University of Illinois
600 S. Mathews Ave. 38-6
Urbana IL  61801

phone: 217.333.1532
fax: 217.333.2685
email: nerdgirl  @  s.scs.uiuc.edu

I must say that I too am enjoying this sparring match!

| 1. Realize that just as the perceptions of men might be altered by their
| existence within a male dominated profession, so might your perceptions be
altered by your current situation
| within a Women's Studies framework.

Sure. Though I ask why (pace Dr. Patai) that is a problem? I would say that
WS is an excellent field to learn how to analyse such perceptions and
develop methods to combat, work with, etc. - this is because we (as white
women or as part of the white academy) spend much time (working with Black
and Third World feminist thought)  exploring how our privilege and positions
affect other women and men in terms of race, class, gender, sexuality,
ability.... This may not be the experience of WS even ten years ago (others
can speak to that), but it certainly is now. My training is to identify the
positions within the frameworks of power that people occupy and see where
that may influence their (and my own) thought. It's eye-opening and very
hard to take when it's yourself you have to look at. But I'd take a 'Women's
Studies' perception over any other any day, because I think it's the most
'open' one going. It has to be, if we are to look at women in the
multiplicity of their experiences, and not just replicate the old norms.
(yes there are problems but I think we are trying to grapple with them.)

| Yet you attend UBC in the Faculty of Arts. The Faculty of Arts has about
67% female undergraduates, more than half the
| graduate students are female,

I believe the current numbers are 11% female doctoral students.

| the two of the last 3 deans of  the faculty were female. The president of
the university is
| female, the faculty representative on the Board of Governors is female,
the dean of science is female...It seems that UBC is indeed made "as | | if
women mattered," perhaps more than you realize.

What about department faculty numbers? How about Psychology? Or Political
Science? What about the Faculty of Science ? A few women here and there does
not mean we've 'made it.' When representation is at least 50-50 in all
areas - or 60% female, if we go by the numbers getting a university
education - then we can sit back. You said nothing about the ethnic
representation (the dean of grad studies is a woman of colour, missed her)
especially First Nations. No persons with disabilities that I know of. Only
know of 2 queer 'out' faculty.

My background is mostly in History, which is not by any means a
'woman-dominated' profession. I am a PhD student in History at UBC. (I also
consider myself  in Women's Studies, from my scope of studies, career goals,
and my WS program at Simon Fraser University). In fact, there are hardly any
graduate or undergrad courses devoted to gender or women's history, or do
not have a mere 'day' or week on such in a 8-month course. There is no core
field in gender/women studies (I'm making it up as I go) and there are only
5
female profs out of 29 and 4 sessionals out of 19. Only 7 profs even 'do'
gender or women's history in any way as far as I can find out. Only 2 grad
courses have been offered on gender have been offered in the last 2 years.
In 'The Status of Women in the Historical Profession' in the Canadian
Historical Review 81/3 (Sept 2000) women remain underrepresented in History
departments across the country, are slower to be promoted to full
professorship than men, and their numbers are less (24% female vs. 48% male
respondents). However, the overall situation of women academics and women's
history is considered better than 10 years ago (except for rank ratios,
which stayed about the same), when this survey was first done.
One of my fellow students was confronted with a consensus (by male students)
in her class that 'gender didn't matter' as a category of analysis. The
topic was autobiography, one which it is hard to see how gender cannot
matter, or even be brought up. (One of the male profs leading the class was
appalled but did not counter the class' direction.) A similar situation has
been reported for several fields at this university by women students and
profs. I have found one male prof who wanted to bring more gender/women into
his
work, but did not have the background - or the departmental push - to do so.
(I applaud his efforts but the lack of a _requirement_ to at least factor in
some gender analysis is disheartening. ) I gave a detailed seminar on some
key topics which I was told by the students (and prof) was really useful and
something they had not encountered at all. It is clear that one can go
through the entire graduate experience not having one drop of gender
analysis or women's history.

| there is a Women's Student Office (but no Men's Student Office), there is
a
| Women's Studies Program (but no Men's Studies Program) .....

There's only one thing I say to this statement when it is brought up: build
one! Women fought hard to have these things (thought the Women Students
Office originally was founded by the administration to handle the
'special' - read: problematic - needs of women). If there isn't a bunch of
men wanting these things, why do you want it? If there is, why don't you
build it? I'll offer my support and aid to anyone who wants to do this - but
it is not the job of Women's studies/women's groups to organize such things
for men.

| you are still left with the sad facts of childbirth-mortality rates such
as
| existed in 1900. Compare that to the rates that exist now,
| and try to seriously argue that work by female
| midwife-practitioners had any serious impact on the major
| scientific factors that caused the rate change.

You are assuming here that the failures of medicine were not those of
'modern male medicine' but some shadowy other - which makes no sense if MMM
had the lock on medical practice in 1900. The successes of the late 20th
century should not mask the failures of the earlier period.  (Thalidomide is
a good example.) Sure, women practitioners of the earlier era had many
failures - but so did the men. Its the assumption that male medicine is this
'advance' with perhaps some blips while non-male/modern is a disaster that
is the problem.
You could argue that for some areas in 1900, midwifery was the prominent
mode of care, and that's the cause of the stats. Unfortunately my midwifery
stats are at the Women's Centre in Regina, but I recall that the midwives'
mortality rates were less than doctors/hospitals in Saskatchewan in the
first half of the 20th century (but I'll have to rely on others for
confirmation.) In the early modern period, midwives were highly trained and
sought professionals (especially in urban areas) and the English maternal
mortality rates in this period were about 1% per birth, 5-7% over lifetime
(Merry Wiesner, _Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe_ has a good general
discussion). The point here is: to assume by default that modern male
medicine is
competent, and any female-run medicine is incompetent, or at best
ineffectual,  is a fundamental part of the systemic sexism of medicine.

| (are you ever taught this in a Woman's Studies class?)
I invite you to take a course in feminist theory (Sue Wendell runs a great
set of courses at Simon
Fraser University) and see for yourself.

| Most men have several women in their lives that they love dearly and
| deeply.  This love as framed within a society that placed certain limits
on both
| men and women, but the love was there.... To deny that is simply bad
social science.

If this love is a real factor in men's lives,  I really need an explanation
of the continued entrenchment of patriarchal norms, the performance of
dominance-based masculinity by males, the staggering levels of violence
against women, and the continued gender inquality in work, academia,
politics, and the family. To deny these is simply bad social science.
(sorry, just had to do it.) I wonder what 'framed within a society that
placed certain limits' means - are you saying that within the 'father knows
best' model, this 'love' is performed for those women who merit it through
the adherence to their assigned roles? 'Placed certain limits' implies that
men (and women) had no ability to resist or change their frameworks and
behaviours.

| I'm simply arguing for a balance.
| So, for example, [do] your feminist-historian mentors.... tell any
stories about male medical practitioners...

But I ask: is it the job of 'women' to educate 'men'? should I turn from my
studies of women, to study instead the male experiences you want to have
heard? This is a tricky question, because asking men to include women in
their analyses seems to imply that women must include men in theirs. But the
power differential is the key: we are immersed in a world where men 'matter'
and are the universal human. To study women goes against the grain of this
tendency to study male-as-neutral-human in all things (for the same reasons,
masculinity/men's studies has been neglected as well.) We need the energy
and work of feminist scholars (female and male) to do our project: the study
of women. Asking us why we aren't studying men can mean why aren't we doing
a 'real' study - women do not count. Demanding an 'inclusion' of men can
also mean demanding we split our energies and attention from our project of
women. Both perpetuate the masculine-centred ideal of academia. (I point out
that we _have_ studied men, exhaustively, from primary school on. Women's
Studies is about the _experience of women_, a completely legitimate study in
its own right, something that many people just can't get their heads
around.)

Why do you ask the women's studies scholars to study men? Why not ask the
male historians, and the scholars of the male-as-neutral-human, to study
men? We can take up the study of masculinity if we _choose_ (I do), but it
is not 'fair' or 'balanced' to _require_ a women's historian/women's studies
scholar to also study men before you will validate her work.

Cheers,
Jenea Tallentire
PhD student, History
University of British Columbia
Canada
jltallen  @  interchange.ubc.ca

A very good reader from a feminist perspective is --

Sabo, Don and David Frederick Gordon (eds.). 1995. Men's Health and
Illness: Gender, Power and the Body. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

****************************************************************
Judith Lorber, Ph.D.            Ph/Fax -- 212-689-2155
319 East 24 Street               jlorber  @  worldnet.att.net
Apt 27E
New York, NY 10010
Facts are theory laden; theories are value laden;
values are history laden.   -- Donna J. Haraway
****************************************************************

Some responses to Adriene's comments:

> Jim Steiger, in his unrelenting and curious
> competition with women, says
> that prostrate cancer gets less attention and
> fewer funds for research. I
> wonder why he doesn't start up a grassroots
> campaign for greater funding
> for research and prevention, as women did
> beginning in (I believe) the
> early 80s.

It is indeed curious why Adriene personalizes a simple
intellectual exchange as an "unrelenting and curious
competition with women." [Didn't Daphne Patai have something
to say about the way WS members subject intellectual
challengers to personal attacks and labels?]

> My guess is that
> men in general would
> rather risk a shortened life span than risk the
> public association of male
> genetalia with disease, vulnerability, and death,
> rather than power,
> superiority, potency, and invulnerability.

The question of why women receive the bulk of funding is a
complicated one. Several writers have discussed the
unwillingness of men to admit their own vulnerability.

Others have dwelt on the "women and children first" norm
that holds in many societies. This norm "advantages" women
and children in many ways, including the competition for
life-saving resources.

Still others have pointed to the endless training (starting
with their mothers) men receive to "not cry," "not whimper,"
and not admit "fear." Since boys spend most of their waking
lives with a female caregiver, it is surprising that Adriene
ignores it.

It is an interesting facet of WS that it relentlessly
complains about situations where it sees male advantage,
indicts men for not rectifying the imbalance, then chides
and disclaims responsibility when men respond in kind! Then,
when critics like Daphne Patai point out this relentless
inconsistency, people like Adriene are outraged. Curious.

>
> Which brings us back around to the question of
> why men have shorter
> lifespans than women, despite all the advantages
> they receive, including
> greater economic and social power.
>

As Warren Farrell ("The Myth of Male Power") documents in
extensive detail, the view that men are "advantaged"
in North American society is a gross exaggeration. The
shorter lifespan of men is just one of dozens of ways that
women are advantaged over men.

--Jim Steiger

James H. Steiger
Department of Psychology
University of British Columbia
2136 West Mall
Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4
Voice and Fax; (604)-822-2706
EMAIL: steiger  @  unixg.ubc.ca

A small contribution to the discussion of sexism and medicine:

"298 ex-inmates sue over Philadelphia prison medical studies"
CNN.com, October 19, 2000
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/10/19/guinea.pig.inmates.ap/index.html

Best,
Adam Jones

Adam Jones, Profesor/Investigador, Divisi=n de Estudios Internacionales
Centro de Investigaci=n y Docencia Econ=micas (CIDE), Mexico City
Executive Director, Gendercide Watch <http://www.gendercide.org>
Personal website: <http://adamjones.freeservers.com>