BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Women! Your Man's Health Depends on You!

 
 
Cat Chant
10:14 / 25.03.02
Alas pointed out (in the 'marriage is your patriotic duty' thread) that

quotemarried men live longer and make more money than any other demographic)

Which just reminded me of three snippets of 'research' I've seen recently. From the women's weekly Chat:

    Shopping raises men's blood pressure to such a degree that it puts their lives at risk

    Asking your man to talk about his emotions similarly puts his life at risk, so you shouldn't do it


And from the Saturday Guardian's 'Editor' supplement:

    Looking at breasts for 20 minutes a day is as good for men* as 20 minutes exercise.


*presumably straight men, since they assume this will be sexually arousing. Whether it works for lesbians they did not mention.

I'll look out the precise quotes when I get home, but this is genuinely the gist of them. So, okay, aside from the obvious heterocentrism - well, call me naive and foolish, but I really did hope we'd gotten over all this 'women must make themselves available for men and do all the shitwork otherwise <gulp> men might... die...' nonsense. What next? Scientific proof that 'blue balls' exists and the only cure for it is to have sex with that minx in the short skirt who made you get the erection in the first place?

Separatism (the withdrawal of all energy from men) is looking more and more like the only sensible option.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
10:31 / 25.03.02
surely an important point here is why do women's magazines still insist on coming out with this rubbish? heterosexual women can be their own worst enemies: why encourage your own oppression?

the other main point is what on earth is deva doing reading chat? and should we be worried?

[ 25-03-2002: Message edited by: shortfatdyke ]
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:38 / 25.03.02
In a similar vein, there is a series of ads on the tube at the moment for Cosmopolitan vitamins (for the woman who is too brainless to work out which own-brand vitamins to buy...). In the blurb on the ad it says something very much along the lines of 'Making life more healthy, for the benefit of you AND YOUR MAN' (outraged caps mine).

Because obviously lesbians and others with same-gender partners, or women with no partners, don't need to be healthy or take vitamins in order to become healthy (not necessarily a given connexion, but let it pass for the time being). And only heterosexual women with partners read Cosmopolitan. And all they want to do is make thing better for themselves AND THEIR MEN.

I know it's not quite syaing that women must take vitamins for the good of their men or else they will die, but I do think 'UGH' every time I see it.
 
 
Sax
10:39 / 25.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Deva:
[QB]Looking at breasts for 20 minutes a day is as good for men as 20 minutes exercise.


This is probably true. If a man stares at a woman's breasts for 20 minutes he is going to get as much exercise as he needs from either a) defending himself from a severe beating or b) running away very, very quickly to prevent (a).
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
10:44 / 25.03.02
quote: Shopping raises men's blood pressure to such a degree that it puts their lives at risk

Ah, that explains all the bodies in the ASDA freezer section. Jaysus

Not entirely sure who should be more offended by this kind of garbage.

Next up, men must talk about football for at least an hour a day or their brains seize up, while women are genetically incapable of driving a car safely.
 
 
Cat Chant
12:09 / 25.03.02
Here are the actual quotes from Chat:

KEEP IT CALM
Find it frustrating that your man always walks away from a row? There's a good reason for it - it's too much for his heart. His body takes longer to recover from sudden stress than yours, so he's programmed* to walk away from confrontation. In fact, studies show that in over 80 per cent of marriages, it's the wife who tackles difficult relationship issues.


*by who? the Archons? the Men's Rights movement? Joan Bakewell?

SHOPPING CAN KILL!
If you want to keep your man happy - and healthy - leave him at home when you hit the high street. Research shows that men are actually risking their health by going on shopping sprees! Dealing with all the queues and stress in shops can raise men's blood pressure to dangerous levels. So leave him on the sofa - and enjoy your shopping trip in peace!


Actually, the implications of that one are kind of interesting. If men can't deal with 'queues and stress' and should be left on the sofa, why don't they just STAY THE FUCK HOME and leave women to fight the wars and do those stressful managerial jobs?

SFD, there are probably many deep psychological reasons why I read Chat, but I suspect it's the same reason I read all the crap I read: because I have a searing hatred of reading stuff that's marketed at my economic/educational/class/age bracket. Hence I will read Agatha Christie and Chat but emphatically not Sebastian Faulks and Cosmo. Dunno what that's about.
 
 
Sax
12:21 / 25.03.02
Doesn't Cosmo pretend to look like a magazine for women in their mid 20s to early 30s but is actually aimed at 21 year olds who like to think they're more sophisticated, though?
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
12:25 / 25.03.02
Go younger than that. Cosmo and some other mags of that ilk are pretty much pitched at the 16-17yo end of the market. They take over directly from stuff like J17 or the like which're aimed at preteens to about 14/15 yer-olds.

[ 25-03-2002: Message edited by: The Return Of Rothkoid ]
 
 
Ariadne
13:47 / 25.03.02
Yeah, by the time you get to 34 you switch back to reading Jackie, with the odd Twinkle for light relief.
 
 
Sax
13:53 / 25.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Ariadne:
with the odd Twinkle for light relief.


Sorry, that made me laugh. Don't know why. Apologies for threadrot.
 
 
Ariadne
13:53 / 25.03.02
To get back on-topic, you do see this stuff all over the place - I seem to read similar articles every few weeks in the Express or Mail (over people's shoulder on the Tube, I promise)

I suspect it's actually true that married men live longer, are healthier etc because they do tend to get better fed and looked after than men on their own. But that's not the women's problem surely - rather than saying 'look after yer man' we need to be teaching eveyone to look after themselves, including the women who are wearing themselves to a frazzle doing all the house/food stuff.

BUT is this still valid to the younger generation? My mother does most of the stuff in the house, but do women my age? None of the women I know do the whole cooking/ironing thing. So are their partners going to peg out earlier?
 
 
Ariadne
13:57 / 25.03.02
And, Sax, it was meant to. Silly. Time you got married and properly-looked-after.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
14:02 / 25.03.02
Well, of course the questions one must ask when reading about such studies (besides your basic who was interviewed/how many people/over what period of time sort of questions) include "What was the motivation of the researchers?" and "Who paid for it?" And of course, "Have there been other studies that should perhaps the opposite link that are simply not being covered by the media?"

Yes, these sorts of things ARE infuriating, but I do have a hard time taking some of them seriously. I was also under the impression that married couples live longer, but I hazard a guess that that has more to do with feeling loved and supported and safe in a relationship, and getting a decent amount of regular sex (one hopes!) than any actual benefits of marriage (other than the legal ones, of course).
 
 
Sax
14:03 / 25.03.02
Any man worth his salt surely does his share of the housework/shopping/whatever in a co-habiting relationship these days? Or is that a generalisation? I know people my age from "back home" - ie a working class environment - who have married/set up home together and who have automatically adjusted to "traditional" male-female roles. Presumably through upbringing or conditioning at home.

And you'd rather hope that with the PR industry being made up of people in their 20s and 30s that they wouldn't pander to the stereotypical standards of their parents' generation, wouldn't you?
 
 
grant
14:25 / 25.03.02
On the other hand:

Bad marriages kill.

quote:Now, the findings from a 9-year study indicate that men with an "above average risk" of heart disease who reported high levels of job-associated stress and a marriage that ended in divorce increased their risk of death by as much as 69% compared with men in low-stress jobs who remained married.


The science here seems iffy (pairing up variables rather than taking them independently), but still... better never to have loved at all?
 
 
alas
14:57 / 25.03.02
There may be a difference in cultures, here, but in the u.s. there's been a lot of info, disguised as "neutral" but actually often funded by right-wing think tanks to show a strong "marriage benefit" for both men and women, although they'll concede that in the us, married men make more money and live longer than do married women. however, here's an excerpt from a report from "[American] Women in Science" that looks at professional marriages more in depth, that complicate the "surely things have changed, no?" picture--
quote: The worst thing a professional woman can do is marry and have children. For men, by contrast, marriage has brought distinct
advantages; married men with families on average earn more, live longer, and
progress faster in their careers than do single men.2 The conflict women encounter
between family and career is not just a private matter. Since the 18th century, what
North Americans have called individuals have been male-heads of households.

Professional culture has been structured to assume that the professional has a
stay-at-home wife and access to vast resources of unpaid labor. Our meager initiatives to hire dual-career couples and our feeble parental leave policies all leave the basic structures favoring traditional arrangements in place.

For historical reasons, women in our culture practice hypergamy, the tendency to marry
men of higher (or at least not lower) status than their own. As a result, more women
than men professionals are married to other professionals. A stay-at-home husband is
a rare luxury. While only 6.5 percent of the members of the American Physical Society
are women, 44 percent of them are married to other physicists. An additional 25 percent are married to some other type of scientist, according to a 1 April 1991 report in The Scientist. A remarkable 80 percent of women mathematicians and 33 percent of women chemists also married within their disciplines. Women, as members of dual-career couples, suffer from decreased job mobility. They also shoulder more than their share of domestic labor.3 Within dual-earner families, women continue to do 80 percent of the domestic labor. It is not true that male Harvard Ph.D.s are genetically incapable of doing laundry, they just need mentoring in how to care for fine linens and
silks.

While it is no longer required (as it was at the turn of the century in New England's
women's colleges) that professional women remain single and childless, women are not
as free to choose to have families as their male colleagues. The 13 March 1992 Science
reported that 38 percent of women chemists, for example, are single compared to 18
percent of the men; 37 percent of women chemists over the age of 50 are childless
compared with only 9 percent of the men. Women go to great lengths to "fit in" to
institutions structured around the assumption that scientists do not bear children.
Biologist Deborah Spector displayed perhaps the ultimate dedication to her profession,
having labor induced on a 3-day weekend so she could attend a student's thesis defense
the following Monday. A neurobiologist at Tuebingen's Developmental Biology Institute
reports further that roughly a dozen young women of her acquaintance have had
abortions because they thought that having a baby would end their careers.


I'm interested in this, because, although I'm in a good relationship and for the first time in my life have a "real job", I am frustrated by the exhaustion levels my partner and I both experience . . . and when I see the older male professors with their stay at home wives, the "honorary degrees" and "endowed chairs" being ladled onto them, I admit, I get a little pissed off, still. Does the situation described here sound similar, different to other parts of the world?

There was also an article in yesterday's NYTimes about women being "less committed" to the career path, to defining "success" in terms of career--taking as its starting point the decisions by Oprah, Rosie O'Donnell and a few other high profile media women to call it quits ...

(And of course I recognize that I'm privileged in so many ways, but I think the system that creates these "slight" differences also sustains the more major differences in power, privilege, status, and access to environments that will be life-sustaining/enhancing that pervade all through the culture.)
 
 
Ganesh
15:42 / 25.03.02
Shit. As a gay man, I'm completely fucked...
 
 
alas
17:31 / 25.03.02
deleted because what I said didn't make sense and made some unintended class-based assumptions. and, i now assume 'nesh is referring to the headlines deva cited, rather than what I'd just said. i'm so alas-centric! well, oops, whatever!

[ 25-03-2002: Message edited by: alas ]
 
 
Cat Chant
20:41 / 25.03.02
Ganesh: exactly! I should really be pleased that this research reveals that lesbians will live forever, due to (a) being able to discuss relationships and buy food without keeling over from the stress and (b) enjoying the health benefits of looking at tits every day.

%Hell, we don't need rights, we have biology on our side!%

Sax, according to all the statistics I've seen (which I know this whole thread is calling into question), then no, women still do far more housework than men. And maybe those men who are "worth their salt" are doing housework, but then where does that leave the poor bitches who are married to men who are not "worth their salt"? (I suspect class is a factor here, by the way.)

alas: I will respond to you when I can manage to be intellectual. am tired. What do you think of separatism, btw?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
00:30 / 26.03.02
quote:If you want to keep your man happy - and healthy - leave him at home when you hit the high street. Research shows that men are actually risking their health by going on shopping sprees!... So leave him on the sofa - and enjoy your shopping trip in peace!

...and when his heart explodes from his sedentary lifestyle, I suppose they'll blame his wife for not taking him shopping.

quote:Originally posted by Deva:
Separatism (the withdrawal of all energy from men) is looking more and more like the only sensible option.


I think I'll opt to remove all my energy from shit-filled, vacuous, sexist, style-over-content, fad-addled, bigoted, lowest-common-denominator-lowering, palaeolithic mags instead.

Why waste money on women's magazines? You could just as well stand in front of a mirror and scream "I fucking hate you! You are unnattractive, inadequate and generally worthless!" at yourself for a couple of hours. Give me PC Zone or New Scientist- hell, give me the Beano in preference to this crud.
 
 
Sax
05:11 / 26.03.02
I seriously think women's magazines of the Cosmo ilk are secretly marketed at men, what with all the pictures of naked/scantily clad females in them and articles of the type of "keeping your man happy" and "how to blow his mind by tickling that bit right under his bollocks".
 
 
Shortfatdyke
06:05 / 26.03.02
surely we really do have to wonder why women buy these magazines? my mother used to buy woman's own, religiously, because it was 'an easy read', and only stopped when me and my sister became foot stampingly politically aware at around age 13 and began to question everything in existence.

a lot of this, in my experience, seems to come down to the definition of 'feminine' and what it is to be female. hence legions of the more stupid heterosexual women i've come across in my lifetime simply giggling when questioned or challenged or simply asked to think about anything other than clothes, men and make up. because to do anything else means you are not a real woman.

[ 26-03-2002: Message edited by: shortfatdyke ]
 
 
that
06:54 / 26.03.02
I noticed something the other day when I had the occasion to look at a men's magazine - Maxim. The blokes in the fashion pages were fairly ordinary looking, slightly pot-bellied, *unthreatening* to the male readership... the choice of models in women's magazines, on the other hand, seem specifically chosen to make women feel inadequate if they are not 5ft 9, 8 stone, with perfect hair, skin, nails, etc... what the fuck is that about? Why not "ordinary" looking women, and the development of the idea that you don't have to look like a typical model type to be fucking beautiful...if you are even into the beauty thing in the first place. Why do women's magazines perpetuate these damaging myths? The whole thing just seems intrinsically fucked. However, I don't read women's magazines, so I could be wrong. I do occasionally look through my sister's teen magazines though, and it seems to be true of those... I realise this is kinda threadrotty, but I hate it...

I agree with sfd. Women do seem to behave as though to act in a particular way is not feminine. And the really fucking annoying thing is that I fall into that trap myself sometimes - get all quiet and peepy-eyed and *girly*. Like I am caught in a behaviour pattern, somehow like my clothes are hardwired into my brain... it is bizarre. And I don't even go for that whole overly 'feminine' thing at all...so how it happens is a mystery to me.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
08:32 / 26.03.02
But what is wrong with being "girly"? Don't you think that to denigrate certain qualities as overly feminine as inferior slightly misogynist in itself?

I don't know. I'm seeing some stereotyping going on here and I'm actually interested in exploring it.

[ 26-03-2002: Message edited by: Cherry Bomb ]
 
 
Shortfatdyke
08:41 / 26.03.02
hmm. i think cholister is talking about being 'girly' in the way i described, i.e. quiet and unchallenging, as a result of gender conditioning, rather than being anti-female.

however, this does touch on a point that seems to be raging in the dyke community: the traditional anti-femme thing which is partly down to lesbians wanting to be visibly and obviously gay but also, admittedly, to some internalised misogyny and acceptance of the patriachial society we live in. now, though, there seems to be an anti-butch backlash going on. partly femme lesbians demanding their right to exist, but partly a complete lack of understanding of gender boundary blurring i.e 'what do you want to look like a man for? why are you so ugly?'
 
 
that
08:47 / 26.03.02
I was not talking about certain qualities as intrinsically feminine...just that I feel that a certain type of behaviour is expected of women, following behaviour rather than leading behaviour, quiet rather than forward, etc. etc. etc. And sometimes I find myself taking that route, falling into it without evening thinking. And it bothers me, because it is not actually me, just a weirdly constrained role that arises from a certain type of perception of me, or how I perceive people to be perceiving me. Or something... but I am exhausted, and have soooooo much work to do, so this may very well just not make any sense at all. No, there is nothing wrong with being girly, but there is something wrong with me feeling that my behaviour is limited or altered by my outward appearance in certain circumstances. But this is threadrotty anyway, and confusing, and I'm so tired I could cry, so I'll just shut up...
 
 
Cherry Bomb
08:47 / 26.03.02
No no Chollister, I actually think it's really interesting - it's actually a topic I've been thinking a lot about lately and I'm gonna start a new thread about it now.
 
  
Add Your Reply