Thursday, April 16, 2020

Even more men dying of the COVID-19 than women is an excuse for some to launch a "gendered" attack on them


Donald Trump is back at it again, this time blaming the World Health Organization for his failure to take the COVID-19 situation as seriously as it deserved, desperately trying to deflect attention away from the fact that according to the Worldometers’ statistics, the daily number of those people who are testing positive for the virus, have died and are in critical condition not only shows that the virus is far from peeking in this country, but is expanding at a faster rate. Meanwhile, the Fox News watchers in Michigan who are making clown shows of themselves protesting Gov. Grtetchen Whitmer’s “stay at home” order are apparently unaware that Michigan has the third most deaths from the virus in the country.

The last thing we need is for ignorant people to play politics with people’s lives. Unfortunately, that is what is feminists and gender activists are doing.  Of course that is hardly a shock the way the media is currently trumpeting Elizabeth Warren as Joe Biden’s running mate, having painted himself into that corner. Warren has the same character issues as Hillary Clinton does, which she has tried to fog over with claims of “sexism.” Clinton herself probably should have taken the advice of many by just “going away,” since it appears increasingly likely that she will have to give sworn testimony in a deposition concerning her email server, although some believe she will have an attack of “amnesia” rather than blatantly lie once more. Bernie Sanders is claiming that his campaign was damaged by negative media coverage, and if you look at the way he was treated in the media and the way Warren has been, it is clear that the coverage did have a “gendered” angle to it that Warren benefited from.

That new term being bandied about—“gendered”—is of course if you are a male can’t be anything good. What is worse is when it is used to soft-ball the health issues of men. I mentioned the distinguished British science journal The Lancet in my last post, which unfortunately sometimes devolves into gender social engineering which has more to do with opinion than science—to the point where a line is crossed between what is done in the name of “equality” and what is morally and ethically reprehensible. In the U.S. and throughout the world a significant majority of deaths from the COVID-19 are male; in some circles, this is a matter of “rejoicing” because it allegedly shows that women are “superior” for having two “X” chromosomes and thus their “superior” genes allow them allegedly greater disease fighting capacity. Does this mean this mean that the medical establishment should be more responsive to men’s “peculiar” medical needs during this pandemic, just as it is of women’s? Not according to this “editorial” in The Lancet, apparently written by an indignant gender activist, entitled “The Gendered Dimensions of COVID-19”:

SARS-CoV-2 does not discriminate, but without careful consideration, the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic might. Demographic data from small studies are already informing political decisions and clinical research strategies. Women and men are affected by COVID-19, but biology and gender norms are shaping the disease burden. The success of the global response—the ability of both women and men to survive and recover from the pandemic's effects—will depend on the quality of evidence informing the response and the extent to which data represent sex and gender differences.

Sounds “benevolent” enough so far, although I always wonder why some insist on the politically correct “women and men” when “men and women” rolls off the tongue so much better. Is it because we should insure that the health needs of women come first?

Global Health 50/50 tracks sex-disaggregated infection and mortality COVID-19 data from the 39 most-affected countries. Some countries, including the UK, the USA, Russia, and Brazil, have yet to report such data. From those that have, it is unclear whether women or men are more likely to become infected, but more men are dying from COVID-19. Adverse outcomes of COVID-19 seem to be associated with comorbidities, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and lung disease. These conditions are more prevalent in men and are linked to smoking and drinking alcohol—behaviours associated with masculine norms.

Misinformation drives so much of the “gendered” discussion. In fact, contrary to what is said here, many localities in the U.S., such as New York City, are reporting that as many 60 percent or more of the fatalities are male. But far more despicable and contemptible is the suggestion that we should not care all that much about men dying of the virus because of “behaviors associated with masculine norms.” A "sexist" view, anyone?

Women carry a different kind of burden from COVID-19. Inequities disproportionately affect their wellbeing and economic resilience during lockdowns. Households are under strain, but child care, elderly care, and housework typically fall on women. Concerns over increased domestic violence are growing. With health services overstretched and charities under-resourced, women's sexual and reproductive health services, as well as prenatal and postnatal care, are disrupted.

More men are dying, but women are the “real” victims because of “sexist” social mores that they have to “suffer” from. How does the author know that women are under “disproportionate” inequities? I bet this person is working and getting paid for doing “homework” like many women of the author’s privileged work status. But more contemptible is the suggestion that women are more in “danger” due to things that have nothing to do with dying of the virus. Men are dying from the virus in greater numbers, but women are the “true” victims just by the simple fact of staying home and taking it easy.

The European Association of Science Editors  and other organisations urge all involved in collecting COVID-19 data to follow guidelines (eg, CONSORT, STROBE) and include age and sex in demographic data. We echo this call and encourage a gender focus in all research efforts. Obscuring sex and gender differences in treatment and vaccine development could result in harm. Incomplete reporting compromises meta-analyses. Addressing the health needs of men and women equally will help societies recover and resist future human tragedies.

This paragraph sounds a bit out-of-place, as if it was either written by another person, or the author just wanted get personal “feelings” out-of-the-way. The author “encourages” demographic data to address the health needs of both sexes “equally.” But note that the editorial omits race as a data point; in the U.S. there is growing evidence that blacks and Hispanics are being infected and dying at much higher rates than whites—which just shows you how “gendered” views are so selfish in their vantage point that racism can clearly be ascertained, because white feminists can’t stand the “competition,” and any discussion of racism indicts them as well. Are white women receiving better health care than minority men (and women) in regard to the virus, not to mention health care generally? You can’t have that conversation, can you?

The fact that such a “distinguished” scientific journal would publish a feminist hit piece in the midst of a pandemic is just more evidence that at least in the “western” world, it has become “necessary” to build up women by tearing down men—or steering blame to minorities who supposedly benefit from “affirmative action,” when it is white women who have benefited from “affirmative action” policies in the name a phony form of “diversity”; when I see an office wall adorned with the faces of all the tenant’s employees and only one out of about 150 is a black person (a woman), it is not just a self-serving claim that an organization strives for “diversity,” but one of a very limited purpose.

None of this is surprising. In this “gendered” country, almost every advertisement or billboard concerning health needs feature women and/or girls. In office environments, “diversity” almost exclusively refers to women in the workforce, not underrepresented minorities. Claims of “sexism” seem most prevalent with females with over-active, easily “hurt” egos; people who work in so-called “low-skill” warehouse or production work don’t have time for that nonsense—unless of course they are looking for excuses to “explain” their bad behavior and why people don’t want to work with them. Most just want to get their hours in and go home—which is why the celebrity-driven “MeToo” movement doesn’t really resonate that much outside its own privileged bubble. 

It is a fair question to ask where one draws the line when it comes to anti-male attitudes. Fred Medinger, a psychotherapist, wrote in the  Baltimore Sun that he had observed “greeting” cards with such commentary as "Not all men are annoying. Some are dead," “Men have only two faults: Everything they say and everything they do" and "Women must be twice as good as men to be thought half as good. Fortunately this is not difficult." Dr. Anthony Synnott in Psychology Today wrote one of the rare articles in that publication that wasn’t about alleged misogyny, observing how cultural misandry is the accepted “norm”: “T-shirts say: ‘Women Rule. Men Drool’ and ‘Boys are smelly. Throw rocks at them.’ (An advocacy of violence which would be unconscionable were the sexes reversed.) ‘Dead Men Don't Rape.’ Nor do most living men, of course. ‘So many men. So little ammunition.’ ‘What do you call a man with half a brain? Gifted.’”

We can presume that most women are not into that kind of reverse sexism, or pretend that it is “nothing,” or we can be allowed to just feel pity for the sad people who compose such hate-filled drivel. The problem is that this kind of thing, even if it reflects the views of a small percentage of women, it has an outsized presence in the media, and an outsized effect on public policy. So much of it has to do building-up women and tearing down men. When I was in college a female student told me that men are only good for two things: “fixing cars and killing bugs.” Yet all she had to do was step outside and look all around her to see that men were good for somewhat more than that. Men don’t necessarily ask to be “liked” by such people and even have to live in the same room with them, but they do appreciate acknowledgement that the world would be a much less comfortable place for women to live in without them. 

Women in other cultures have been frequently portrayed as oppressed even more by males, usually ignoring the fact that poverty knows no gender, and males are expected to give their lives for “causes” they are forced to believe in, especially religious or tribal in nature. Noah Berlatsky The Atlantic writes that “Perhaps most hideously, men through history have been subject to genocidal, or gendercidal, violence targeted at them specifically because they are men…gendercide can be directed against men is much less discussed. One of the worst recent examples of this was in the Balkans war, where, according to genocide researcher Adam Jones, ‘All of the largest atrocities... target[ed] males almost exclusively, and for the most part battle-age" males.’ Similarly, in Rwanda according to Judy El-Bushra  (as quoted by Jones) ‘it was principally the men of the targeted populations who lost their lives or fled to other countries in fear. ... This targeting of men for slaughter was not confined to adults: boys were similarly decimated, raising the possibility that the demographic imbalance will continue for generations. Large numbers of women also lost their lives; however, mutilation and rape were the principal strategies used against women, and these did not necessarily result in death.’” Anthony Synnott also points out that black female authors like Alice Walker and Terry McMillian have found success feeding the misandric and racial stereotypes held of black males by society in general, without acknowledging that black women are not exactly “angels” themselves.

Speaking of “angels,” gender activists like to portray themselves as such, while men are “destroyers” of life. Yet for every Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. and many others who gave their lives for a moral cause, you are hard pressed to find a female of equal stature. As I wrote about before, women can harbor and be the cause of some very morally reprehensible things just from the comfort of their easy lives, like heiress Cordelia Scaife May. Scaife May—ostensibly an “environmentalist,” held racist views and funded during her lifetime and afterwards racist anti-immigrant hate groups which wouldn’t have survived without the hundreds of millions of dollars her “foundation” flooded them with.

The conversation can get more insane and confusing. In The Guardian,  Arwa Mahdawi complains about how in the “MeToo” world men are more reluctant to deal with women in the workplace, for fear that something they might say or do is can be interpreted as a gendered offense.  Oh, but “most men are perfectly aware of the difference between a friendly hug and a creepy hug. They are perfectly aware of what constitutes harassment and what doesn’t.” Oh really?  Amanda Rose in Psychology Today tells women to “beware” of men she calls “benevolent sexists”: “The guy who opens the door, takes her coat, and gets her a drink could be an undercover benevolent sexist. The main difference between hostile and benevolent sexists is that benevolent sexists view women more positively than do hostile sexists. In fact, benevolent sexists see themselves as holding women in very high regard…

…The problem is that the network of beliefs held by benevolent sexists conflicts with gender equality…Benevolent sexism has three main components. Idealized romanticism is the idea that, despite a man’s worldly accomplishments, he cannot feel complete without the love of his woman. The idea of complementary gender roles is that women are kinder, more sensitive, more thoughtful, and more caring than men, which makes them ideal wives and mothers. Third, protective paternalism stems from the first two components and suggests that, as the fairer sex, women should be cherished, protected, provided for, and put on a pedestal.” 

And men should know perfectly well what does or doesn’t offend women? In this world it is damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. But when belittling men because they are dying of the COVID-19 in greater numbers for the “gendered” political rationalization that men can’t be “victims,” just “victimizers,” just shows you how women really do not have any claim to moral superiority. They are as weak as men in that regard; hypocrisy is not a “virtue” any gender should “strive” for.

No comments:

Post a Comment