Misandry At The Lancet - Women's Own Group Bias On Display...
The Lancet, of course, is given to Feminist leanings. Everything is. But look at their intriguing web page below:
The article also uses its Feminist bent to insert a bit about helping 'women in poverty'. Four of the Lancet article's writers were women - Prof Tamsin Ford, PhD, Prof Stephani Hatch, PhD, Prof Ann John, PhD, and Holly Hope, PhD. Perhaps they could do with a look at the research that has been carried out regarding women's own gender bias? In studies, women tend to back other women in debates - and, funnily enough, men tend to back women as well, over their own gender!
Oh dear. I'm afraid The Lancet article is typical - and about as much as use as The Beano. As it infantilizes women, perhaps that's appropriate. Or perhaps we should conclude that the group which complains the most gets the most - and forget all the nuances of human nature? Link below.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30308-4/fulltext
The Lancet has been looking at The UK (why does Scotland have its own? it's not the 'UK' without it) Household Longitudinal Study findings to try and gauge the impact of lockdown and the Covid-19 scenario in general on the mental health of the populations of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.The Study, a long running Feminist ideology-friendly venture, is largely conducted by web surveys, and the Lancet uses it to conclude that priorities should be as in the screen capture above (women first, of course) and says within the body of the work:
Other sources of inequalities have widened, with pronounced increases in younger (but not older) age groups, and in women (but not men). New inequalities in mental distress have emerged, with those living with young children and those in employment at the start of the pandemic being at risk of larger increases in mental distress.
Um. But men are not as likely as women to complain about their problems. They are taught to 'man-up'. Usually by women. But the article and research, apparently by medical professionals, ignores that fact to prioritise women as in need of help (even ahead of young people) and totally ignore men in its recommendation. And 'inequalities'? What a strange word to use in this context! No, no. Different groups, different responses. An older person or a man might be more sanguine in their responses, but that's not to say they are not experiencing the same - or perhaps worse - levels of distress as those who complain of it the most. They may just view and categorise it differently. We're talking about web surveys here, for goodness sake!
Surely, mental health services should be just as readily available for men, and men should also be prioritised - particularly with the male suicide rate being what it is?
The article also uses its Feminist bent to insert a bit about helping 'women in poverty'. Four of the Lancet article's writers were women - Prof Tamsin Ford, PhD, Prof Stephani Hatch, PhD, Prof Ann John, PhD, and Holly Hope, PhD. Perhaps they could do with a look at the research that has been carried out regarding women's own gender bias? In studies, women tend to back other women in debates - and, funnily enough, men tend to back women as well, over their own gender!
Oh dear. I'm afraid The Lancet article is typical - and about as much as use as The Beano. As it infantilizes women, perhaps that's appropriate. Or perhaps we should conclude that the group which complains the most gets the most - and forget all the nuances of human nature? Link below.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30308-4/fulltext
Comments
Post a Comment