i just read that stupid "feminism is bad for your health" article via drudge. what a crock. don't women already live longer than men on average? it's outrageous that any media outlet would treat this as real "news" when it's nothing more than propaganda.

It's like these writers sit down and think, "The paper I write for sucks so bad they can't even give me a good article to write. SO I think I'll bash feminism today!!! Everyone likes that!"

But really, where the hell do they get this shit? Cause it's complete shit if it's anything. It's definitely not worth sitting here reading it when I could be doing other things like dying in a hospital from childbirth because the doctors don't care if I survive, that the baby's life is the only important one. Or having my genitals ripped apart with some glass so I become what some ridonkulus tribe in the desert thinks is womanly. Darned equality!!!

hey, here's an example of how good for your health male dominance is: http://www.ansa.it/ansamed/news/nations/morocco/20070321160534241486.html

On the blog Queersighted there was a bit on a "scientist" who had studies that he said proved gays had a much lower life expectancy - which is not only ignorant and biased, but will be used by conservatives everywhere as another valid source of skewed reasoning.

It's awful that they can publish this as science.

Wow. That is completely ridiculous.
Plus, when I see the words "strongly linked" or "associated with" I cannot help but be suspicious. Strongly linked probably means correlated, and any one who has ever taken a psyc course knows that correlation does not mean causation. They even use the word correlation in the article. What a lazy, stupid and misleading mistake.

I loved the quote from Feminism is Bad for Your Health:

"The scientists said possible explanations for the correlation is that men's health may be adversely affected by a loss of what had been seen as traditional male privileges."

Duh. Damn uppity women spoil everything!

Hmm . . . if given the choice between equality/death and misogyny/life . . . gee. I'm pretty sure I'd choose feminism every time. Not everything that's good for your health is good for your soul.

Law Fairy,

I remember you mentioning feminist jurisprudence a while back and I'm curious: do you actually believe in that load of sexist crap? I sure hope you don't.

Feminists are supposedly responsible for promiscuity

Claim it!

TLF, sister my sister, that's trolling if ever I saw it. Remember Donna and stay strong!

I'm pretty sure that this is the study that we're talking about: http://tinyurl.com/3x4mlz . I'm suspicious of the results, because the authors seem to use sick days taken as one indicator of poor health. I take sick days whenever I want a vacation. Maybe an increase in the number of sick days taken actually indicates that a person feels secure enough in their job so that they can afford to take sick days? The article also is talking about Sweden, an extremely sex-equal country. The authors of the original study themselves say that similar studies in America show the opposite effect, ie, an increase in sex equality is better for women. Are there any social scientists around here who can read the original study and comment? I'm sorely under prepared to do so.

I thought that headline (Feminism is bad for your health) just rocked. I really did. I know I'm now convinced. After months of media telling me that feminism is bad for me, that it will cause me to go out and have lots of meaningless sex, and that I'll die younger because of it... I know I'm convinced.

Is there a secret handshake or do I just get to wear an "I'm A feminist - Ask me how!" badge?

Seriously, though, I read the article and thought that they were trying to prove that lack of pirates causes global warming.

One of the things you find when doing data sets and statistical regressions on social-science topics is that many variables and "stand ins" for other factors. For example, the variable "black" in a regression on income might have a negative effect in predicting how much money you will earn over time. That's because "being black" as a variable stands in for a lot of other things such as inadequate access to education, health care, weak political representation, crime rate, and a host of other factors. It takes a certain skill to understand how certain variables like gender, race, and other factors impact your life.

In this particular case, the study looked at things like "equal income" and "equal managerial positions" and then projected life expectancy. The problem with using this approach without a great deal of caution is that it may look at a variable like income and not understand how it relates to other factors in the work environment, and how it impacts a persons life. Without looking at the data it's hard to say where they may or may not have gone wrong, but I suspect we need to know a lot more details before making an informed comment on their methods, procedures, and conclusions. Nevertheless, a strong degree of skepticism is warrented.

But more broadly, the problem with how the media has picked up this story is that it suggests that "rights" and "equality" have detrimental affects on the human condition. And if that is the case, then you can just nix the whole concept of Democracy.

I love the trolls who zero in on feminists who can speak the male language and call the rest of the commenters idiots even though they're saying the same thing. The most loathesome troll ever on Pandagon, Robert, said he only admired Amanda even though most of her commenters were saying the same thing because she speaks like a male academic. Ivy is illogical, irrational and biased oh my and is most threatened on this site by my empirical evidence of women as an oppressed class. He also hates Thom Hartmann, the anti-Ayn Rand.

The article says that Sweden, which has the greatest gender equality, has stressed out women and men with lower esteems because of their lower profiles as traditional males. It just means that equality has not been achieved yet and that when work-family policies are truly equal and men also gain self worth from raising children, women will not be overly stressed and men will feel good about themselves.

haydin: you use sick days whenever you want a vacation? In Denmark (which is very alike Sweden), we have at least 5 weeks of vacation, and many many people have 6 weeks and some also 7 and 8 weeks. We don't need to play sick to have a vacation. Of course, some people always want to cheat on the system, but I think it is more an exception.

That women are addapting more of the risky behavior that used to be male-things, is unfortunately correct. We drink more, we smoke more and we work more.

The way to complete equality is not easy, and I think that the study in some way is right. Looking at my life, I can see that I have all hands full: a full time job, two kids and a house and garden to hold. I decided to get divorced because my ex-husband thought that his need for golf, working late, not taking care of the kids when they were sick etc. was more important than building an equal life with me. And so is life for many many women. We are NOT equal, and the WAY TO equality may be bad for our health.

However, I am sure that sincere equality is good for our health (men and women).

bloulouilou:
Well, my situation is a little different than most - I'm speaking of being a technical intern at an engineering company, and only having 2 weeks vacation per year (besides some holidays and a week for christmas). So - I took sick days to run errands and relax!

bloulouiloui - I think you raise important issues, but there's a deeper philosophical and political point to be made about the nature of "rights" and "equality."

The study clearly leaves the impression that inequality, bias against women, might be "better for them." And thereinlies a distinction between your post, and their study, which is that you talk about choices, and the consequences of those choices, which fits into the larger scheme of feminism which promotes choice and opportunities for women to decide for themselves what path they seek in life. If they choose to be a CEO, and that's the optimal path to their happiness, then so be it. Nobody should question their choice because it's based on individual preferences.

However, this study leaves the impression that perhaps we should create an unequal society, deny women choice "for their own good" and impose society's idea of happiness onto individual women. And in my view, that's a dangerous and paternalistic concept which runs contrary to any person who believes women are smart enough to choose the right path for themselves.

ITS TRUE!!!!

Since joining here, my vag has dried and closed up.

I beat men into submission.

I target inebriated males, cut off their cocks, and spend their money.

I drink every night now, and beat my kids when they protest my behavior.

I now fuck anything that moves.

Now, please excuse me so I can go have promiscuous sex.

I don't think that the study indicates that we should not have equality. On the contrary. They just want to discuss on what kind of premises. I quote from the authors:

"Sweden may have reached a critical point where further one-sided expansion by women into traditionally male roles, spheres and activities will not lead to positive health effects unless men also significantly alter their behaviour. Negative effects of this unfinished equality might be found both for women, who have become more burdened, and men, who as a group have lost many of their old privileges. We propose that this contention be confronted and discussed by policymakers, researchers and others. Further studies are also needed to corroborate or dispute these findings."

Yet another example of a perfectly good study ruined (and I mean RUINED) by a "science journalist" who wouldn't know a volumetric flask from an Ehrlenmeier flask. Okay, so I'm a geek.

Why do journalists have this need to turn every study about men and women into a headline about scary feminists? I remember an article we talked about a while ago from the New York Times regarding Neanderthal women engaged in hunting. The study was perfectly valid and gender neutral (not to mention rather boring if you actually read it), but the numbskull who did the reporting managed to turn "Society Fails Without Specialization" into "Society Fails When Women Hunt."

"The danger is that the data will be interpreted as a warning against shaking up divisions of labour. In fact what Sweden needs is complete gender equality with, for example, men entering the private sphere to the extent that women have entered the public."

I agree entirely? I would put my life on the line to argue that most women today are expected to uphold the traditional, mothering, companion roles of yesterday as well as the capitalist, working roles of today, but men are not entering or expected to enter the role of private life maintenance. Isn't this a goal of feminism, for men and women to share equal responsibility in the home and workplace? My only argument is that this should be applied to, not just Sweden, but the entire world.

And I think Jessica may have missed the point.

Actually, I think Rodger Dobson missed it even worse. I mean, seriously. A blind miss.

Shoot, I wanted to make the obligatory "pirates" comment, but Anna beat me to it!

Okay, so I'm a geek.
Me too, Bearcat. (I find the volumetric ones more aesthetically pleasing).

Another Ivy observation to add to Donna's:
He also seems to have difficulty commenting on topic.

Scilian, you rule! Sorry again about what went down on that other thread--I think it really was just a case of inadvertent hot-button-pushing, but in any case, glad you stuck around to leave witty comments like the one above. ;)

I suspect the writer of the article takes most of the blame for turning the study's conclusion into: Feminism is bad for your health! The study itself may have some merit, but that conclusion could be easily refuted, as there's ample evidence to prove the opposite. I'm in the "still in transition" camp myself, along with ikkin. We've made progress, yes, but we're not done.

He also seems to have difficulty commenting on topic.

He only talks about himself and other men.

This article is misleading but it comes down to the same old women have changed, men have not. Why haven't men changed and in Sweden no less? Women need to be harder asses and demand our rights everywhere.

My god you people are pathetic! I asked ONE person a question and everyone here feels like they gotta chime in, as if their words have any actual substance. Get a life, people. Stop blaming men for all your problems.

"Ivy is illogical, irrational and biased oh my and is most threatened on this site by my empirical evidence of women as an oppressed class."-Donnadarko

What evidence? Everything you've presented has too many confounds to support your thesis. Go up and read the post made by Steven Guess. Maybe you'll listen to one of your own.

Ivy whined:
My god you people are pathetic! I asked ONE person a question and everyone here feels like they gotta chime in, as if their words have any actual substance. Get a life, people.

...And irony was reborn. Ivy ought not judge the substance of others' words until he reviews his own. And, as a troll, Ivy really has no authority to chastise people for not "having a life".

Shorter Ivy: "What do you mean I can't just show up on a thread and insultingly deflect it to be about what interests me? I'm the most important! How dare you question what I do!"

I know enough about Sweden to say without yet reading the study that the basic premise is very problematic. The researchers are comparing mortality and morbidity figures between very small units, almost like neighboring towns, and people do move around a lot. To associate mortality figures to gender equality differences between these tiny geographical units really doesn't make sense, unless we are absolutely certain that the people never moved at all and unless, and this is a very BIG unless the researchers also controlled for all those factors which make places less healthy to live in.

As an example of the latter, larger cities are likely to be both more egalitarian and to have higher rates of illness for reasons of pollution and the stress of urban living.

Now, perhaps all that is taken into account in the study, but I can't quite see how it would make sense. We'll see.

Are there any social scientists around here who can read the original study and comment? I'm sorely under prepared to do so.

I'd be glad to read it but they ask thirty dollars for it. If you have access to the original article, I'd love to see it. My e-mail is vtybg@netzero.com

Ivy knows there's nothing confusing or disputable about the fact women own one percent of the wealth in the world based on the 1986 UN Commission on the Status of Women report. It shatters to hell all his claims women would be equal based on individual "attitudes and personal freedom."

i think when you post a question towards one person on the comments of a posting on a public blog, it's pretty unrealistic to think no one but that one person's gonna notice.
and i know you're not looking to make friends here, but when you say "you people," "as if [your] words have any actual substance," and "get a life," you are chiming a bell to get folks who aren't even involved in this thread's nastiness (hi!) crowded around the table.
i have a life. my words have substance. thanks.

I thought that this story in The Guardian was a pretty apt op-ed on the matter of blaming feminism.

Ok, I got hold of the study. It does NOT control for urbanization which is probably the real reason why gender equality on more sick days would be correlated, assuming that cities are more gender-equal places. Cities are also more polluted and in general show more illness all over the world.

Also, the mortality data they use is from the same year, roughly as the equality data. This means that there is no way of saying that the equality caused the mortality. As a joke the reverse could be equally true, yanno.