When A Man Is In Pain...

[Maeght]

Men often do make more fuss.

Like if they get flu.

Women are often expected to just get on with it, and are often just expected to cope.

(With other unwell or in pain family members as well. )

Interesting though that studies have shown that men may be worse hit by viruses such as flu as their immune systems are not as strong due to the effect of testosterone. It has also been shown that although women may accuse men of exaggerating when they are ill women are 16% more likely to say they are ill than men.

Of course, if you get flu you don't 'just get on with it', male or female - a cold maybe yes but not actual flu.

[Rhiannon]

If a woman has a period or is menopausal she may well feel unwell, and often with symptoms not immediately associated with them - back pain, stomach upsets or migraine for example. I'm not sure anything is provable in these studies. But man flu seems to me to be another form of mother-in-law joke.

[ProfessorDavey]

What's your evidence for that, Rose?

Crude stereotyping of the worst kind I suspect.

The equivalent of claiming that women are worse drivers than men.

[ProfessorDavey]

Life

Nope crude stereotyping Rose.

If you actually check the evidence rather than it being women who soldier on when ill, it seems to be the opposition. Women are much more likely to take days off work sick compared to men - indeed over 40% more days off work and this isn't just a one off, but a consistent effect supported by data for over 20 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/10660612/Women-are-almost-42-per-cent-more-likely-to-take-sick-days-than-men.html

Oh and by the way the evidence fits with my (relatively limited) experience of men and women in the workplace. And I speak as a man who hasn't taken a day off sick (i.e. unplanned rather than a planned doctor's appointment etc) since ... hmm ... well I can't remember when - years certainly.

[ProfessorDavey]

As for days off sick, I'd say it's about balanced between men and women except if a child is ill convention tends to put these things like going home on women.

Just because it's not scientifically proven doesn't make it less true.

What are you on about.

The ONS has measured the proportion of days worked lost to sickness for men and for women, and has done so for the last 20 years. And the findings are absolutely unequivocal - women take far more days off sick than men - currently 42% more, so not even as small amount.

Your vague, anecdotal and stereotyping (actually sexist) views are hogwash - proven to be wrong. Accept it Rose.

But you are actually already changing your tune (which isn't surprising given it is based on hot air) - earlier in this thread you were claiming that men were more likely to go off sick, while women soldiered on - now you are accepting (at least) that 'As for days off sick, I'd say it's about balanced between men and women'.

Which is it Rose - are men more likely to go off sick while women soldier on (your original claim - laughably wrong when actually looking at the evidence) or is it about balanced (still very clearly wrong but at least you are ovine in the right direction).

[ProfessorDavey]

No women are better drivers, according to the insurance companies anyway

So you accept evidence when it suits you (or panders to your sexist views) but reject it when it doesn't (or rather doesn't pander to your sexist views).

For the record I fully accept that in insurance terms women are less likely to have accidents leading to a claim than men. Why are you so unable to accept the even more convincing evidence that women take a far greater proportion of their working days off sick?

[ProfessorDavey]

Stereotyping exists.

It's partly convention.

What is expected of you because you are a mother for example

Sure I accept that stereotyping (sadly) exists, but we are also able to think for ourselves and to use evidence. So where there is evidence that clearly debunks a stereotype (for example women are worse driver than men, or that men are more likely to throw a sickie than women) we should reject those stereotypes, because they aren't true.

[ProfessorDavey]

Men in pain tend to expect to be waited on hand and foot.

No they don't - they head off into work as usual, or at least that is what the evidence tells us.

If you look below the headlines of the absentee data you will note that one of the reasons why men take less days off sick is greater 'presenteeism' by men - i.e. a greater likelihood that a man will go into work when ill and when perhaps the shouldn't (but that's another discussion). Hardly fits with your crude stereotype of the 'man flu' - the bloke who at the drop of a hat will ring in sick and take a couple of days off work while a women in the same circumstance would valiantly soldier on. The evidence suggests exactly the opposite Rose.

[ProfessorDavey]

What's worse, you label anyone giving a different opinion or perspective to yourself a sexist.

No I don't - I labelled you sexist due to you gender stereotyping which is completely blown out of the water by the evidence and your refusal to move from your sexist view even when presented with the evidence.

Thats seems to me to be sexist.

You might want to do one of the many tests of unconscious bias that are available on the web to check out your levels of unconscious gender bias. Although actually thinking about it you bias seems all too conscious.

[ProfessorDavey]

Convention which is stereotyping hasn't gone away at all.

I agree - but that doesn't mean we must pander to it.

Women are still seen as responsible for anything to do with domestic.

Are you still living in the 1950s - there has been a massive move away from that notion over the past few decades.

It's not my sexism, because I have never said I thought it was right, just that as a convention it still exists.

But you pander to it by making stereotypical and sexist comments that are refuted by the evidence, such as ...

Men in pain tend to expect to be waited on hand and foot, whether this is just due to convention I don't know, but it's true.

No they aren't - as the evidence shows they are more likely to be soldiering on in work (whether that's a good thing or not is another matter) than women.

If you think things are totally equal, I think you are misguided.

When did I ever say things were equal - I didn't. I merely refuted your claim that women soldier on when ill, while men take to their beds - you have no evidence for this, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just looking at research from Finland which found exactly the same thing - namely women taking far more days off sick. There were some interesting additional findings:

1. The increase was not associated with women taking time off for family reasons - with family related factors having a minimal effect.

2. There was no difference in serious and long term sick leave - the difference was in the likelihood of taking the odd day, or couple of days off sick - with women being 46% more likely than men to call in sick for a few days.

[jeremyp]

No women are better drivers, according to the insurance companies anyway

Strictly speaking, women make fewer claims for less money. There may be any number of factors contributing to this.

Anyway, insurance companies operate entirely by stereotyping groups of people in this way. If each of us paid our premium based on the losses that we as individuals were going to incur, our premiums would be the same as our losses.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again I am posting about men in the home, not in the workplace.

But if they are less likely to take time off work when ill then they won't be at home looking for attention, will they, they will be at work.

And frankly there notion that men will soldier on and be greater 'presentees' in a work context, but will somehow be the opposite at home is a rather bizarre notion, and one that you have failed to back up with the slightest evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

No it's not in the 1950's but now in 2016

Indeed it is, but you seem to be stuck in the former along with gender stereotyping that should be and for most people has been long confined to the dustbin of history.

Some of the conventions are still live and well, you just seem blind to it.

We aren't talking about 'conventions' Rose, we are talking about your stereotypical view that men sit around feeling sorry for themselves at the first sneeze, while women valiantly soldier on. That is classic gender stereotyping and without a shred of evidence to back it up. Indeed, as I keep pointing out, and you keep ignoring, the best evidence we have suggests the reverse to be true.

But the broader point is that sexist gender stereotyping that has no basis in evidence will continue while people chose to continue to promulgate that stereotypical myth. It is quite reasonable (indeed perhaps our duty) for those of us that don't pander to crude, unevidenced, gender stereotypes to 'call out' those that do in exactly the same way we would for casually racist or homophobic stereotyping comments.

[ProfessorDavey]

What a complete load of old self righteous xxxxxxxx.

So you don't think that people should question someone who makes unevidenced and derogatory stereotypical comments about other groups then. So for example someone who comes out with the stereotype that black people are lazy, or that women can't park or that muslims are terrorists. Do you know what, I think we should, because sufficient peer pressure is the best way to make people think again about whether their stereotypical comments are fair or reasonable, or (and most importantly) true.

Typical man 

Hmmm.

[Maeght]

There is very much a growing tendency amongst posters on here to avoid ever saying 'yeah I might have got that wrong' or 'you might be right' but to rather try to belittle those who make perfectly valid points which they disagree with. Seems like you're another to add to the list sadly Rose.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is very much a growing tendency amongst posters on here to avoid ever saying 'yeah I might have got that wrong' or 'you might be right' but to rather try to belittle those who make perfectly valid points which they disagree with. Seems like you're another to add to the list sadly Rose.

I agree, of course.

It would have been very easy for her to simply accept the evidence and move on. But she seems desperate to continue to try to defend a position which is indefensible given the evidence. And given that the position she is trying to defend is the most crass of gender stereotypes that really isn't on in today's world.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Now that this is a sexist thread, this quote sure fits.

"Women should be obscene and not heard."   Groucho Marx

YIKES MAN!

[jeremyp]

Labelling someone a sexist and implying they are still living in the 1950's because they don't agree, fits the discription of ' belittling' to a T.

Sometimes the truth hurts (and belittles).

I should have followed Floos lead and recognised intolerant attitudes and backed out at the beginning I suppose!

As far as I can see, you made an assertion and Prof. D refuted it (with evidence). I'm sorry you think that being shown to be wrong is intolerance, it makes it less likely that you'll ever be able to learn from your mistakes.

[ProfessorDavey]

Labelling someone a sexist and implying they are still living in the 1950's because they don't agree, fits the discription of ' belittling' to a T.

Hmm and making generalising and derogatory gender stereotype comments about men isn't belittling Rose? A little self awareness wouldn't go amiss.

I should have followed Floos lead and recognised intolerant attitudes and backed out at the beginning I suppose!

Like she did.

 

Forget what Floo did - why didn't you simply accept the evidence that proves your gender stereotyping to be way off the mark. Sometimes it is best to simply admit it when you are wrong.

[Maeght]

Labelling someone a sexist and implying they are still living in the 1950's because they don't agree, fits the discription of ' belittling' to a T.

Not really. If you post sexist comments it is a statement of fact. For example your post where you say

'Men in pain tend to expect to be waited on hand and foot, whether this is just due to convention I don't know, but it's true.

In the home men don't tend to soldier on.'

I certainly do not expect to be waited on hand and foot, so you have made a generalisation based on gender. You may nopt actually discriminate based on this generalisation so technically it may not be sexism but it is heading in that direction. And it wasn't that people didn't agree with you but people posted evidence which you just dismissed and made assertions to the contrary. This is not the same as posting 'What a complete load of old self righteous xxxxxxxx.' about someones post as you did.

I should have followed Floos lead and recognised intolerant attitudes and backed out at the beginning I suppose!

Like she did.

 

No one (else) is displaying intolerant attitudes - only pointing out the gender stereotyping in your posts and your refusal to even consider that this is the case.

[jeremyp]

Because for it to that, you would all have to be consistent, instead of singling out only some posters while not criticising others.

Who am I not criticising who deserves to be criticised. Please name names and I'll go and rectify my mistakes.

Prof D made a mountain out of a molehill, pity he didn't feel moved to comment on the post Floo made as well then.

Loo ducked out of the thread, you didn't. Assuming she doesn't acknowledge the evidence presented by Prof D, she is just as wrong as you are, but you bringing that up does not absolve you from being wrong (according to Prof D's evidence).

[jeremyp]

Evidence is a news paper report?

You expect me to accept that as evidence?

What's your evidence? Nothing except an old cliché.

Try this one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2796123/man-flu-isn-t-myth-men-sick-don-t-sex-hormones-boost-women-s-immune-systems.html

Now I've put up some evidence as well.

What of? That "man flu" is real? Doesn't that worsen your case?

[Maeght]

No one else?

People here condemn one person, but not another.

double standards.

I hadn't actually seen Floo's post and although it does include a degree of gender stereotyping at least she said 'generally'.

[Maeght]

This one says it's subjective and science isn't clear on it.

http://www.sciencealert.com/do-women-tolerate-pain-better-than-men

You seem a little confused Rose or I'm not understanding you. You suggested that men make a fuss about being ill - which means that they act as if they are more ill than they really are surely. The study I mentioned shows that men generally have poorer immune systems so are often more effected by viruses such as flu. You then link to an article about pain tolerance and suggest the science is not clear - but this is not referring to whether men are effected more by viruses and the like so nopt sure how it is relevant. Can you explain?