The New York Times just published this article about a recent study of men's attitudes and healthcare. According to the study
Men who strongly endorsed old-school notions of masculinity -- believing the ideal man is the strong, silent type who doesn't complain about pain -- were only half as likely as other men to seek preventative health care services, like an annual physical or a flu shot.
What the article does not mention is the relevance to the current debate about health care in the United States. If we do end up with a public option for health insurance, men who cling to traditional beliefs about masculinity may end up costing taxpayers more, because preventative care is often far less expensive than treating preventable illnesses. In other words, traditional conceptions of masculinity are unhealthy, expensive, and detrimental to the public good!
How can we turn this insight into good policy? How can we change our society so that men (and people of all genders) are encouraged to lead healthy lifestyles? If we do decide to have a public option for healthcare, how can the government try to undermine traditional gender roles and encourage men to seek preventative care? How can feminists frame this issue as an instance where traditional gender roles are bad for men AND the general public?
Any insights from readers in countries which have a public option or universal single-payer healthcare? Does your government try to undermine traditional gender roles and encourage men to seek preventative care?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Masculinity and the cost of health care.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15522
Preventative care is cheaper than actual care, but traditional masculinity demands that you eschew both, so it doesn't cost more money this way.
In Canada, for instance, where we have a single-payer system, men spend more on healthcare as babies and young children than women do (because there are more of us, it's the same per capita), and then women consistently spend more per capita (and in total) until death. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/pubs/expen-depens/2001-exp-depen-1980/2001-exp-depen-1980-1-eng.php A little over 56% of healthcare dollars are spend on women, who make up a little over 50% of the total population.
In the UK, with free health care at delivery, men behave in just the same way - they seek treatment later and are reluctant to seek advice.
The kind of health care policy in place seems to make little difference to men's attitude.
The problem is, a LOT of doctors are rude, condescending assholes who may be very good scientists and diagnosticians, but are HORRIBLE at customer service!
For a lot of men - including myself - going to a 12:15 appointment but not being seen until 2 and then being told a whole lot of stuff that I already know AND having to deal with medical arrogance is insufferable!
Add to that that I'm fat, African American and working class and multiply the rudeness factor x 20.
I know I'm going to be accused of being a fat pig and a glutton and will be branded as a liar if I comment on what I eat - I know the doctor won't give a damn if I give him/her an accurate description of how I got fat in the first place - and I know that I will be blamed, guilt tripped, shamed and not listened to - why would I want to subject myself to that bullshit (AND have to pay a $ 20 co pay!)
If I want to be insulted for being fat, I can find some neighborhood elementary school kids who will do it for free!
Like a lot of men, I would NEVER tolerate that kind of rudeness in any other type of social setting, so why would I put up with it from some douchebag wearing a white lab coat?
I suspect women are socialized to tolerate much higher levels of disrespect and verbal abuse than men are - which might explain why they have a higher tolerance level for the verbal and psychological abuse that many doctors inflict on their patients.
They'd have to - because, from what women have told me, female medical exams are not only filled with insults and rudeness but procedures that are actually physically painful (like the mammogram and the speculum).
So, if doctors want male patients to come to get routine checkups, they need to learn how to talk to their patents with courtesy and respect - especially their fat patients, who need more medical monitoring than our skinny counterparts, but are more likely to avoid the doctor's office because of all the bullshit that many doctors put their patients through.
The same goes with African Americans - we get a double dose of condescension and rudeness, get less pain management and in general get worse medical care than our White counterparts.
I actually had a White doctor at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital accuse me of "fraud" when i came to have a knee injury treated - and he also ordered me to "go to the clinic across the street, where the neighborhood people go" (that is, CPMC's medicaid clinic, who's patient load is almost entirely Black and Latino, as opposed to the clinics at CPMC, that treat affluent White patients from other neighborhoods).
In short, it's not a "masculinity" problem - it's a medical rudeness problem - and men are just more likely to avoid doctors to get away from the rudeness and verbal abuse!
You've made some good points.
I'm curious though about your assertion about threshold of tolerance for disrespect and, as you put it, verbal abuse. That runs counterintuitive to the purposeful use of belittlement and sometimes rather extreme verbal abuse in military training and to a lesser degree in the more aggressive contact sports.
I wonder if for medical care, it has more to do with not wanting to feel vulnerable. I was at the dentist the other day, cowering like a baby! I won't lie. He came at me with the needle and it's like you have no choice but to surrender to the person with the scary, loud tools. It sucked big time.
I don't know, I'm just not comfortable with framing this as a discussion of how much of a burden certain groups are in a universal health-care system. Firstly, becasue labelling universal healthcare a system that distributes individual's inability to manage their health is the sort of thing that many people against universal healthcare say. (I know that's not where you're coming from but still, the whole point of UHC is that it means people get treated *regardless* of the cost, not regardless of who pays the cost.)
Second, in my experience marking groups as "a burden on the system" is often used as a veil for fatphobia, abelism, racism and other discrimination. Also, there may be facors other than "male stubborness" preventing some men from getting preventative helthcare, eg- he might live in a remote area where there isn't a healthcare provider.
Besides all that, traditional masculinity is destructive enough to society regardless of the financial cost of individual men failing to get a prostate check.
My husband is one of those guys. Silent-type that doesn't complain. He has been to the doctor twice in our seven-year marriage (that I can recall). Once for walking pneumonia (for which he still brags that he didn't miss a day of work), and once for acute appendicitis (which was so inflamed by the time he mentioned it that the surgeon was surprised it didn't burst).
But, just an observation, medical self-reliance often correllates with social "self-reliance". These are also the type of guys that don't want the government to pay for their healthcare anyway. So, he'd likely say mind your own business -- and he certainly wouldn't want someone (government official or otherwise) scrutinizing how often he sought medical care.
As an aside -- I am a feminist, but generally more moderate than most users of a feminist forum. I wanted to comment about how welcome I have felt here, even despite my occasional political disagreements.
kbz