I agree. It's just that in my experience, that openness (of men) works better amongst a group of all men - a woman or two in the mix and everybody gets very cautious, and the jokes stop. We (in my volunteering) are not a group of people with successful family histories - perhaps there's a bit of 'once bitten twice shy'.
(It's funny how my most intimate friends have turned out to be the most extreme people, in the main. I suppose chatting over dinner in mixed company with successful people (well, *they* might be successful, I'm leaving me out of it!) is always going to be a bit more carefully calibrated).
It's why I've always been in favor of having some same-sex groups. There are people who simply can't be themselves in the presence of women (/men)--who retreat into shyness, or social manners, or worse. Of course, what would really be great is if we could have a choice of groups, including mixed, so everyone could pick what pleased them. But that's often not possible.
Yes, I agree. I don't want to stop the ladies' keep fit class, or ban the mixed one - but a choice is great. I'm lucky that my choices of things to do sort of automatically set that up - lots of things with just men, some things which are mixed.
I wonder if it is worth mentioning the 'men's spirituality group' I go to at another church (prayer and shared bible study, And a bit of singing). I'm pretty sure that we (the men) would speak up a lot less in a mixed group of 'spiritual sharers'.
I wonder if it is worth mentioning the 'men's spirituality group' I go to at another church (prayer and shared bible study, And a bit of singing). I'm pretty sure that we (the men) would speak up a lot less in a mixed group of 'spiritual sharers'.
I find that in men's groups, there is more pressure to be stereotypically male - to like sports, for example, because men's groups seem to assume that this kind of one-dimensional idea of manliness is common ground. Mixed groups, IME, don't have that same pressure because many of the members aren't male.
I've done bible studies in mixed groups and in groups of men only, and I've more often found thoughtful discussion in the mixed groups, because there tends to be a wider range of perspectives.
Oh - that's interesting; I could see that could happen. Our group is very disparate - RC and prod (me!), charismatic and not, black and white, middle-class and not. I'm a 'male man' in an old fashioned way most men find extremely boring (oily old shite) and therefore I don't share that stuff, apart from occasionally trying to excuse the state of my finger nails, and the odd sport conversation is fine and I nod and smile and ask daft questions. Just about the only thing we have in common is an interest in prayer and studying the text, and this becomes painfully clear if we attempt to socialise around anything else.
I've known a few blokes like that now - brilliant company and someone you look forward to meet in a bible study, and sod-all to talk about between you outside of it. I suppose that's to be expected.
One of the things I enjoy - actually one of the chief things I enjoy - about my running club, is that there's a bit of bants at the start, but once the session gets going, we're all hammering too hard to hold a conversation. There's the shared experience, and the safety aspects - no one gets left behind, especially in the grimmer parts of our town, and very especially the problems of 'running while female' which are mostly mitigated by a mixed group - but very little is said.
I should socialise with them more, but have got out of the habit of doing it with anyone, really.
but have got out of the habit of doing it with anyone, really.
I know the feeling
Actually, I have been wondering if the lockdown offers the opportunity for a bit of 'meeting up, just because we can' when it is finally safe to do so. Though recent zoom experience suggests that my riveting repartee is going to need quite a lot of work to hold even my own attention for more that 20 mins. Maybe I'll wait a bit until something happens to talk about. No, hang on a minute...
Though recent zoom experience suggests that my riveting repartee is going to need quite a lot of work to hold even my own attention for more that 20 mins. Maybe I'll wait a bit until something happens to talk about. No, hang on a minute...
I find there is pleasure in simply being, in company. Zoom rather forces one to interact - you feel a right wally all sitting around staring at each other on computer screens. Sharing a beer, cup of tea, or whatever with someone is lower pressure - you can simply be, together, and not feel pressured into making conversation.
Very, very slowly while doing something together that gives you a cover for no conversation at all. IME. The 'doing something' might include delaying something I could do myself, if another seems interested in helping. Or borrowing something I could make do without, if someone has one / offers. Or accepting a gift I don't really want, because someone wants to give me something. (This can be good - I was recently given a musical instrument I didn't want and thought would be unplayable, which turns out to be excellent and which has got me playing again ).
The need or desire for gender-based spaces are in large part because of the implies separation of gender and the lack of communication between that is enforced by culture.
I think we'd perceive the need of safe spaces if we focused on breaking down those walls.
Or it could be because some of the time, men like hanging out with men, and women like hanging out with women!
I think that loads of that is because of the way society constructs what a man or woman is supposed to be.
But even if I am wrong, those walls need to go.
Why do those walls need to go? Not everything need be perfectly transparent. Experience suggests to me that we need complexity and a degree of mystery to thrive, even though these things have a price, and single-sex spaces are part of that complexity.
I don't object to the Leeward Islands People's Association at church having events which are all about being Leeward Islands People. If they have a special event to explain themselves to non-Leeward-Islands-People and present their culture, I'll be glad to go - it will be fun. Some of my best friends are Leewards Islands People. But I don't want to become one, or for them to change their meeting so that I, as a non Leeward Islands Person, will enjoy it more. After all, there are other church activities I can join. Or even non-church activities. It's great - there are so many different things I can do, while not objecting to the activities of others from which I exclude myself by nature of the fact that what they do is not as interesting to me as something else I could be doing. Getting out more turns out to be really stimulating - I can recommend it!
Why do those walls need to go? Not everything need be perfectly transparent. Experience suggests to me that we need complexity and a degree of mystery to thrive, even though these things have a price, and single-sex spaces are part of that complexity.
Id the price worth it? Men's high suicide rates, date and spouse rape, hidden abuses of both men and women...
If we see peole as people, I think we will have better outcomes. Perhaps, on average, there may end up being mannish things and womanish things that engender separate spaces. But if we think of that as something inherent, we build the walls that support the problems that this particular board tends to deal with.
I am an oversharer. But I do it in a bi-polar type way I suppose. Sometimes, I'm babble babble babble babble babble. Sometimes I am overcome with anxiety and don't even make eye contact. I do have to be comfortable to babble, and among friends, male or female. The gender doesn't matter, mostly. I've mentioned before that I can push away from people I find sexually alluring, kind of like Mike Pence. I don't find Mike Pence sexually alluring, to be clear. But I would be beastly to Mitt Romney.
Why do those walls need to go? Not everything need be perfectly transparent. Experience suggests to me that we need complexity and a degree of mystery to thrive, even though these things have a price, and single-sex spaces are part of that complexity.
Id the price worth it? Men's high suicide rates, date and spouse rape, hidden abuses of both men and women...
Whoa those are all caused by men's bible studies? I assume you have some documentation of this?
Why do those walls need to go? Not everything need be perfectly transparent. Experience suggests to me that we need complexity and a degree of mystery to thrive, even though these things have a price, and single-sex spaces are part of that complexity.
Id the price worth it? Men's high suicide rates, date and spouse rape, hidden abuses of both men and women...
Whoa those are all caused by men's bible studies? I assume you have some documentation of this?
Right. Because that is what I was saying. I'm talking about the way that society shapes and portrays men and women furthers the divide and some of that increases those problems.
Whilst I do not wish to give up safe spaces for women just yet, I do want them to become less needed.
Why is it that you think it's all right, then, to strip men of their safe spaces now? Because that is the clear implication of your words. You think they don't need any?
Why is it that you think it's all right, then, to strip men of their safe spaces now? Because that is the clear implication of your words. You think they don't need any?
This is the crux for me.
I think you’re right, @lilbuddha, that gender barriers need to come down in a lot of places, most even.*
But as to where we are in society right now, men need safe spaces just as much as women. And I’d go as far as to say that if one isn’t a ‘correct’ kind of male**, who doesn’t fit into what society says we should look like, then there are even fewer safe spaces then there are for women. And that’s a big part of why there are all the problems with male mental health in the first place.
I get you want change, and that change is good, but are those suicides and mental health problems just collateral on the path to utopia? Or can we support men as well as women as we try together to transition to a society with fewer barriers?
* But does that mean everywhere? There are areas where physical differences separate us - competitive sports, for example.
** And actually, this is a huge chunk of men. It’s just a lot of us have been conditioned to think that we should look like something else, as @RooK touched on here:
I strongly feel that clear divide in relating is an unconscious cultural aspect we have mostly been groomed to carry.
Much of my adult life has been based around coming to terms with how I am "warm" and not "cool", despite the pressures to avoid emoting I now recognize that my emotional sensitivity is perfectly normal. Being middle-aged, it is rare to find male peers who are willing to be as vulnerable as I am, so I do gravitate towards female friends. Still, even my male friends tend to come out of their shells in conversation with me - over time - and reveal a deep need for the exact same kind of experiential emotional discourse we stereotype women as being better at.
Whilst I do not wish to give up safe spaces for women just yet, I do want them to become less needed.
I think I would describe 'safe spaces' as being a small, important subset of the kind of separation we have been talking about more generally. 'My' (well, 'not-my') Caribbean social club is a wider exemplar - come in, but be aware that if you don't want to talk about things people talk about in a Caribbean social club, you're going to find it tedious, and if you insist on re-setting the agenda yourself, you're going to put peoples' backs up. If you see what I mean.
This happens in men-with-men groups of my experience too, of course - someone comes along who needs to be the centre of attention or who wants to change things as soon as they come in. Very often this turns out to be an unfortunate defence against their exposed social situation as an incomer, and it dies down after a bit. Where it doesn't, the failure of the group to bend over backwards normally means the new person moves on in a huff. But at least the women miss out on the mansplainers, and vice-versa, when men and women meet apart. And, who knew, pass meeting after meeting without mentioning the other sex at all.
I’m in a group of men that occasionally meet up / have a WhatsApp group. A while ago, one guy sent a message to the group very late at night, saying, essentially that things were tough / his family was struggling.
The next evening, we were all at the pub together, except that guy wasn’t there. No-one had replied to his message (I guess mainly because it was late at night / we’d all been at work that day, and no-one had got round to it / knew what to say / had time to formulate the right thing to say).
One lad raised the issue of the message, saying “What was all that about?”, and described it as oversharing, a bit emotional / bit much for me. He said, well, it’s too late now to reply, so it’s just a bit awkward isn’t it?
Most people looked a bit sheepish. But a couple of us said, no it’s not too late, we should have replied before - and there and then sent the original guy a couple of messages on the group saying we’re here for you / sorry things are tough etc.
I think that speaks into the dynamic we face. The one ‘typical’ male’s voice could have easily become the dominant dynamic in the group (men don’t ‘overshare’). But the reality is that it was one person’s perspective (and who knows why he said it - maybe it’s even because it’s what he thought he should say as a man). It was clear from body language that most of the men in the group didn’t agree with him, wanted to be supportive, but maybe didn’t know how, and needed someone to just vocalise what they thought.
And that’s in an all-male group. I’m glad the original guy had the guts to reach out to us. I think there’s very little chance he’d have said anything at all in a mixed group. In the end, that group was able to be a little bit supportive and be helpful. But with men, it’s definitely an uphill battle.
One lad raised the issue of the message, saying “What was all that about?”, and described it as oversharing, a bit emotional / bit much for me. He said, well, it’s too late now to reply, so it’s just a bit awkward isn’t it?
Most people looked a bit sheepish. But a couple of us said, no it’s not too late, we should have replied before - and there and then sent the original guy a couple of messages on the group saying we’re here for you / sorry things are tough etc.
I've met fellas like your first bloke; one could imagine him raising the issue as he felt odd, didn't know why, and wanted the group to make the feeling go away. A strong figure in a group who acts like your 'couple of us' is a great asset, and I think can sway the way the group feels about itself and acts, in time. That 'sod it, let's do it now' is something I've grabbed on to once or twice in my volunteering - I'm an awful prevaricator.
You've brought up an important thing about single sex groups as a venue for getting family shit off ones chest when one really needs to. Family life is hard, and a group of men, or women, who know about our struggles, can be invaluable.
I don't think the fact that men are dying far more from coronavirus has been raised in here. There are other variables, but this seems to be the case from the statistics I have seen. It's very strange, to me at least, to which my hormones make me more vulnerable. Is this being ignored because we'd rather die than have our vulnerabilty exposed to scrutiny?
I don't think the fact that men are dying far more from coronavirus has been raised in here. There are other variables, but this seems to be the case from the statistics I have seen. It's very strange, to me at least, to which my hormones make me more vulnerable. Is this being ignored because we'd rather die than have our vulnerabilty exposed to scrutiny?
I don't know what we might do or say?
I do think a negative impact on a privileged group is less news worthy.
It's taken me a little while to get my head around the fact that I am more vulnerable than others. This goes with a tendency to auto-immunity and being somewhat overweight. Also, ironically, reduced activity is increasing vulnerability. I think all of this needs saying, and I do wonder if it is not being said because it isn't affecting women, who are far more used to advocating in their own cause when it comes to health issues.
I do wonder if it is not being said because it isn't affecting women, who are far more used to advocating in their own cause when it comes to health issues.
I'm not sure this is correct. Many, many studies demonstrate that women who advocate for their health concerns to their doctors are dismissed, but if they have a man with them when making this claim and the man affirms their claims, then they are believed.
The virus remains so new and unknown that all aspects of its strangeness can't be covered comprehensively in news reports. Also, the damage it wreaks among historically disadvantaged communities is more noteworthy than its damage to one gender.
Under the age of 85, 2/3 of coronavirus death's are male.
Over the age of 85? More women, but then there aren't so many men left...
Yes, that makes us twice as likely to die. I've seen a few early reports of attempts to study why, but no definitive outcomes yet, as per so much else that is going on. Little by little, I guess. Older, male, BAME doctors have stacked up the risk factors in working with Covid cases, and a number have died - ditto bus drivers. Of course being a young white female nurse has turned out pretty dangerous too...
I suppose my quesiton was more how it feels to be apparently in the sights of a novel disease we don't really understand. It means that, for once, we don't have the privilege of detachment and advocacy for others. Again, this feels rather like AIDS. We're protecting our own lives, and fighting for our own lives to be protected in political (allegedly medical) decisions. Perhaps straight men have something to learn from us gays?
I don't know, really - I don't know how advocacy could change anything. I think most men are stoic, and we'll get on and see what happens. Personally, I'm giving everyone a wide berth; some men are allegedly 'risk takers' (which is one suggestion for why the male death rate is higher) and perhaps they'll be quicker back down the pub. That seems vain to me, but then so does most social behaviour when it comes down to it, these days. Including this
What if stoicism kills? Are you prepared to step beyond its confines to protect your life and that of others? Seems crazy to me to be so bound to a particular configuration of identity that you would literally rather die than change it
This morning's Start the Week is entitled The Genetic Gender Gap and is slated to discuss XX chromosomes and why women are surviving coronavirus better.
A quick google suggests that there was a lot written about this phenomenon in April and May, but not so much since.
I don't think the fact that men are dying far more from coronavirus has been raised in here. There are other variables, but this seems to be the case from the statistics I have seen. It's very strange, to me at least, to which my hormones make me more vulnerable. Is this being ignored because we'd rather die than have our vulnerabilty exposed to scrutiny?
As Asher points out, men are dying by a ratio of about 2:1. That's an interesting fact, but it's far from the most important fact about Covid-19, and on the scale of people's personal risk computations, a change in the risk of death by a factor of 2 doesn't signify.
A male friend is currently in hospital on a ventilator with Covid-19. His wife is a nurse, and caught it, and was isolating at home (in a separate room etc.). She's recovering. He apparently caught it from her, and is not doing so well. I'd guess, based on timing, and on the fact that they're both generally competent sensible people, that she likely infected him before she was showing significant symptoms, so I can't imagine that they'd have done anything differently had they been considering that he was at a slightly higher risk of dying.
I guess the alternative is that you just choose not to come anywhere near your healthcare worker spouse for several months, at a time when that spouse is under a lot of stress because of the virus, and could really use a hug. I suspect few people would make that choice.
While there is hardly an established standard for measuring stoicism, this is precisely the sort of sexist garbage that denies the patient tolerance of women and paints men into thinking that they're supposed to be emotionally unavailable.
Males are not the leading cause of violence because of our "stoicism". What we do have, as the bearers of deeply engrained systemic privilege, is the important burden of dismantling the toxic masculinity that fuels most of the horrific bullshit the world is facing.
It was taken seriously enough here that NHS staff were offered hostel/hotel accommodation so they could allow other members of their family to self-isolate (pdf link). It was NHS funded until recently and iirc the YHA offered their more usefully placed hostels for this.
I don't deny it. Most men (I'll add 'that I know', if you like) are stoic, and are unlikely to find a way to advocate for anything to do with men's higher risk factors in the face of Covid-19, which was the context in which the comment was made. There it is. If I had wanted to say that health advocacy was a kind of hysterical behaviour indulged in by women, I guess I would have said as much.
Because boys must be boys, it's a fact of human nature
And girls must grow up to be mothers
Now things are topsy turvy. Janie wants a football
Peter just seems happy pushing prams along
Makes you feel so guilty. Kids are such a worry
It's not just men who have to unpick this toxic masculinity, women are just as complicit. Mothers have to stop saying "boys will be boys", encouraging rumbustious behaviour, stopping boys bawling and telling boys to stop being little sissies.
I don't deny it. Most men (I'll add 'that I know', if you like) are stoic, and are unlikely to find a way to advocate for anything to do with men's higher risk factors in the face of Covid-19, which was the context in which the comment was made. There it is. If I had wanted to say that health advocacy was a kind of hysterical behaviour indulged in by women, I guess I would have said as much.
(ETA to Rook - x-post with CK)
Most men are stupid when it comes to their health, not stoic. We literally ignore clear symptoms, we ignore them when they get worse, we hide wounds, we self-medicate pain and we refuse advice.
I have, on at least a couple of occasions, nearly killed myself because I've left an easily-treatable problem fester (in one case, exactly that). To call that stoicism isn't accurate in any way shape or form. What it is, is stupidity. I own that, but I'm making damn sure that I'm not passing that on to my son.
Why is it that you think it's all right, then, to strip men of their safe spaces now? Because that is the clear implication of your words. You think they don't need any?
Point to where I said this? Otherwise your interpretation is pulled from somewhere a bit darker, damper and more constricted that what I am writing.
I am saying that if we try to go beyond the Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus bullshit, we will have less need for gender exclusive spaces.
This morning's Start the Week is entitled The Genetic Gender Gap and is slated to discuss XX chromosomes and why women are surviving coronavirus better.
A quick google suggests that there was a lot written about this phenomenon in April and May, but not so much since.
Just to note that I listened to that broadcast, and it was illuminating on generic disadvantage.
This morning's Start the Week is entitled The Genetic Gender Gap and is slated to discuss XX chromosomes and why women are surviving coronavirus better.
A quick google suggests that there was a lot written about this phenomenon in April and May, but not so much since.
Just to note that I listened to that broadcast, and it was illuminating on generic disadvantage.
Why is it that you think it's all right, then, to strip men of their safe spaces now? Because that is the clear implication of your words. You think they don't need any?
Right. Because that is what I was saying. I'm talking about the way that society shapes and portrays men and women furthers the divide and some of that increases those problems.
Whilst I do not wish to give up safe spaces for women just yet, I do want them to become less needed.
If more men are dying because of some attitudinal thing, then it's rather up to men to face that, not be told to face it by women. It's a men's problem and rather needs to be solved by men. The fact that men have privilege in so many areas doesn't mean this one area where they are showing disadvantage doesn't exist, or doesn't matter.
If twice as many women were dying as men, would we say, "Oh well it's just a factor of two"? If twice as many black people were dying as white (proportionately), do we say, "Oh well it's just a factor of two?" But when it's men we say, "Oh well they're privileged. Fuck 'em."
Comments
(It's funny how my most intimate friends have turned out to be the most extreme people, in the main. I suppose chatting over dinner in mixed company with successful people (well, *they* might be successful, I'm leaving me out of it!) is always going to be a bit more carefully calibrated).
I wonder if it is worth mentioning the 'men's spirituality group' I go to at another church (prayer and shared bible study, And a bit of singing). I'm pretty sure that we (the men) would speak up a lot less in a mixed group of 'spiritual sharers'.
I find that in men's groups, there is more pressure to be stereotypically male - to like sports, for example, because men's groups seem to assume that this kind of one-dimensional idea of manliness is common ground. Mixed groups, IME, don't have that same pressure because many of the members aren't male.
I've done bible studies in mixed groups and in groups of men only, and I've more often found thoughtful discussion in the mixed groups, because there tends to be a wider range of perspectives.
I've known a few blokes like that now - brilliant company and someone you look forward to meet in a bible study, and sod-all to talk about between you outside of it. I suppose that's to be expected.
I should socialise with them more, but have got out of the habit of doing it with anyone, really.
Actually, I have been wondering if the lockdown offers the opportunity for a bit of 'meeting up, just because we can' when it is finally safe to do so. Though recent zoom experience suggests that my riveting repartee is going to need quite a lot of work to hold even my own attention for more that 20 mins. Maybe I'll wait a bit until something happens to talk about. No, hang on a minute...
I find there is pleasure in simply being, in company. Zoom rather forces one to interact - you feel a right wally all sitting around staring at each other on computer screens. Sharing a beer, cup of tea, or whatever with someone is lower pressure - you can simply be, together, and not feel pressured into making conversation.
On the ship there is an oh-so-easy way of avoiding this thread.
The sad thing is there may be many men who would like to open up, but have been brutalized as boys, as noted above. How to crack those shells?
Very, very slowly while doing something together that gives you a cover for no conversation at all. IME. The 'doing something' might include delaying something I could do myself, if another seems interested in helping. Or borrowing something I could make do without, if someone has one / offers. Or accepting a gift I don't really want, because someone wants to give me something. (This can be good - I was recently given a musical instrument I didn't want and thought would be unplayable, which turns out to be excellent and which has got me playing again
I think we'd perceive the need of safe spaces if we focused on breaking down those walls.
But even if I am wrong, those walls need to go.
If we see peole as people, I think we will have better outcomes. Perhaps, on average, there may end up being mannish things and womanish things that engender separate spaces. But if we think of that as something inherent, we build the walls that support the problems that this particular board tends to deal with.
Whoa those are all caused by men's bible studies? I assume you have some documentation of this?
Whilst I do not wish to give up safe spaces for women just yet, I do want them to become less needed.
This is the crux for me.
I think you’re right, @lilbuddha, that gender barriers need to come down in a lot of places, most even.*
But as to where we are in society right now, men need safe spaces just as much as women. And I’d go as far as to say that if one isn’t a ‘correct’ kind of male**, who doesn’t fit into what society says we should look like, then there are even fewer safe spaces then there are for women. And that’s a big part of why there are all the problems with male mental health in the first place.
I get you want change, and that change is good, but are those suicides and mental health problems just collateral on the path to utopia? Or can we support men as well as women as we try together to transition to a society with fewer barriers?
* But does that mean everywhere? There are areas where physical differences separate us - competitive sports, for example.
** And actually, this is a huge chunk of men. It’s just a lot of us have been conditioned to think that we should look like something else, as @RooK touched on here:
I think I would describe 'safe spaces' as being a small, important subset of the kind of separation we have been talking about more generally. 'My' (well, 'not-my') Caribbean social club is a wider exemplar - come in, but be aware that if you don't want to talk about things people talk about in a Caribbean social club, you're going to find it tedious, and if you insist on re-setting the agenda yourself, you're going to put peoples' backs up. If you see what I mean.
This happens in men-with-men groups of my experience too, of course - someone comes along who needs to be the centre of attention or who wants to change things as soon as they come in. Very often this turns out to be an unfortunate defence against their exposed social situation as an incomer, and it dies down after a bit. Where it doesn't, the failure of the group to bend over backwards normally means the new person moves on in a huff. But at least the women miss out on the mansplainers, and vice-versa, when men and women meet apart. And, who knew, pass meeting after meeting without mentioning the other sex at all.
The next evening, we were all at the pub together, except that guy wasn’t there. No-one had replied to his message (I guess mainly because it was late at night / we’d all been at work that day, and no-one had got round to it / knew what to say / had time to formulate the right thing to say).
One lad raised the issue of the message, saying “What was all that about?”, and described it as oversharing, a bit emotional / bit much for me. He said, well, it’s too late now to reply, so it’s just a bit awkward isn’t it?
Most people looked a bit sheepish. But a couple of us said, no it’s not too late, we should have replied before - and there and then sent the original guy a couple of messages on the group saying we’re here for you / sorry things are tough etc.
I think that speaks into the dynamic we face. The one ‘typical’ male’s voice could have easily become the dominant dynamic in the group (men don’t ‘overshare’). But the reality is that it was one person’s perspective (and who knows why he said it - maybe it’s even because it’s what he thought he should say as a man). It was clear from body language that most of the men in the group didn’t agree with him, wanted to be supportive, but maybe didn’t know how, and needed someone to just vocalise what they thought.
And that’s in an all-male group. I’m glad the original guy had the guts to reach out to us. I think there’s very little chance he’d have said anything at all in a mixed group. In the end, that group was able to be a little bit supportive and be helpful. But with men, it’s definitely an uphill battle.
I've met fellas like your first bloke; one could imagine him raising the issue as he felt odd, didn't know why, and wanted the group to make the feeling go away. A strong figure in a group who acts like your 'couple of us' is a great asset, and I think can sway the way the group feels about itself and acts, in time. That 'sod it, let's do it now' is something I've grabbed on to once or twice in my volunteering - I'm an awful prevaricator.
You've brought up an important thing about single sex groups as a venue for getting family shit off ones chest when one really needs to. Family life is hard, and a group of men, or women, who know about our struggles, can be invaluable.
Over the age of 85? More women, but then there aren't so many men left...
I don't know what we might do or say?
I do think a negative impact on a privileged group is less news worthy.
I'm not sure this is correct. Many, many studies demonstrate that women who advocate for their health concerns to their doctors are dismissed, but if they have a man with them when making this claim and the man affirms their claims, then they are believed.
The virus remains so new and unknown that all aspects of its strangeness can't be covered comprehensively in news reports. Also, the damage it wreaks among historically disadvantaged communities is more noteworthy than its damage to one gender.
Yes, that makes us twice as likely to die. I've seen a few early reports of attempts to study why, but no definitive outcomes yet, as per so much else that is going on. Little by little, I guess. Older, male, BAME doctors have stacked up the risk factors in working with Covid cases, and a number have died - ditto bus drivers. Of course being a young white female nurse has turned out pretty dangerous too...
A quick google suggests that there was a lot written about this phenomenon in April and May, but not so much since.
As Asher points out, men are dying by a ratio of about 2:1. That's an interesting fact, but it's far from the most important fact about Covid-19, and on the scale of people's personal risk computations, a change in the risk of death by a factor of 2 doesn't signify.
A male friend is currently in hospital on a ventilator with Covid-19. His wife is a nurse, and caught it, and was isolating at home (in a separate room etc.). She's recovering. He apparently caught it from her, and is not doing so well. I'd guess, based on timing, and on the fact that they're both generally competent sensible people, that she likely infected him before she was showing significant symptoms, so I can't imagine that they'd have done anything differently had they been considering that he was at a slightly higher risk of dying.
I guess the alternative is that you just choose not to come anywhere near your healthcare worker spouse for several months, at a time when that spouse is under a lot of stress because of the virus, and could really use a hug. I suspect few people would make that choice.
While there is hardly an established standard for measuring stoicism, this is precisely the sort of sexist garbage that denies the patient tolerance of women and paints men into thinking that they're supposed to be emotionally unavailable.
Males are not the leading cause of violence because of our "stoicism". What we do have, as the bearers of deeply engrained systemic privilege, is the important burden of dismantling the toxic masculinity that fuels most of the horrific bullshit the world is facing.
(ETA to Rook - x-post with CK)
It's not just men who have to unpick this toxic masculinity, women are just as complicit. Mothers have to stop saying "boys will be boys", encouraging rumbustious behaviour, stopping boys bawling and telling boys to stop being little sissies.
Most men are stupid when it comes to their health, not stoic. We literally ignore clear symptoms, we ignore them when they get worse, we hide wounds, we self-medicate pain and we refuse advice.
I have, on at least a couple of occasions, nearly killed myself because I've left an easily-treatable problem fester (in one case, exactly that). To call that stoicism isn't accurate in any way shape or form. What it is, is stupidity. I own that, but I'm making damn sure that I'm not passing that on to my son.
I am saying that if we try to go beyond the Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus bullshit, we will have less need for gender exclusive spaces.
Just to note that I listened to that broadcast, and it was illuminating on generic disadvantage.
Sorry that I missed it.
If twice as many women were dying as men, would we say, "Oh well it's just a factor of two"? If twice as many black people were dying as white (proportionately), do we say, "Oh well it's just a factor of two?" But when it's men we say, "Oh well they're privileged. Fuck 'em."