Is feminism bad for your health?

Question

As compared to men, women have historically spent more time with their families, worked few hours, suffered less job related stress, enjoyed better health longer, AND lived longer.

But, that trend is changing, especially in countries where feminism has (largely) eliminated traditional gender roles.

Women are spending more time working, are more often in senior management positions, are under increased work related stress, and are thus spending less time with their families (can't be in two places at once).

Does this promote better health and well being for women (and men)?

Note the below findings from Sweden (the global leader in gender role androgeny).

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2390863.ece

What do you think?

The study reports the "inconvenient" facts of gender "equality" (as it relates to women working near on par with men - hours and stress)

In Sweden, women work longer hours and have higher positions than elsewhere in the world.

The result? Increased sickness, disabily, and mortality. The facts are the facts.

"The results showed a strong link between gender equality and levels of sickness and disability for both men and women. One of the findings was that equal financial resources between the sexes was associated with higher levels of sickness and disability.

For both sexes, gender equality in managerial positions was associated with lower life expectancy."

EDIT:

carriep_83: read up on Sweden.

wendy_g and carriep_83:

1) It IS a study and anyone is free to dispute the "findings" or "links". Find another one to dispute them.

They said "Our main finding is that gender equality was generally correlated with poorer health for both men and women."

Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

It is just very interesting that Sweden, the international leader in gender role androgeny, would be seeing "any" negative results.

I would think that open minded people would want more study done, at least, before concluding that Sweden's got it right.

2) Women "have" been working. But, what's the health effect when they're the "boss" as often as men? THAT is what this study considered.

BABA YAGA:

1) I disagree heartedly that childrearing (being "stuck at home" as you put it) is not meaningful.

2) At least cite "some" source for your assertion that men die sooner BECAUSE they wait till their terminal. I suspect it's more complex than that.

EDIT II:

wendy_g: One clarifcation ---- NO ONE (certainly not me), is saying that women, men, or children should be denied "any" choice.

However, our choices should be informed choices. Understand (as well as possible) the potential outcomes of the choices prior to making them.

Casselec:

Your statement is a perfect example of why the feminist's are considered to promote double standards.

You state in Paragraph 1: "Feminism is fundimentally the that women deserve to have EQUAL rights as men."

Then, in Paragraph 2: "Mentally, as women's positions in the workplace begin to gain more respect, they're becoming more entitled to . . . healthcare specific to women."

Which do you want equality or special treatment for being a woman?

If you want the latter, just don't say we want "equal" rights as men. You are asking for "greater" rights than men.

I am NOT saying that women are not deserving of greater rights. I am saying that it is DISHONEST to say "we want equality with men" and then demand more than equality. And then, again, say "we want equality."

Make a decision.

RANAVAIN,

I am neither a feminist nor anti-feminist. I try to be respectful with anyone with whom I disagree - even if they are not.

I am simply asking a question. It would seem that feminists want fathers and mothers/men and women to have identical roles in society and in the family (which is no one els's concern).

Well, Sweden is closer to that than anyone else. The study reports the findings of the outcome in Sweden w/r/t health.

Just the facts, ma'am.

carrie_p83:

The study compares Swedes to Swedes. It has nothing to do with any other country.

The data shows that their relative health has declined with the increase of gender role equality.

wendy_g:

I'm happy that the oppressive patriarchal society allowed a woman to go to university.

I only have a BS in engineering while most of my employees have at least Masters degrees. But, I'm still the boss. So, I'm OK with it.

Now, where exactly did you READ that "I" said that feminism CAUSED the decline in health?

Do you even understand what "coorelation" means? The attributes do not "necessarily" CAUSE the other (but, they may); however they do tend to "vary together". That is, they are "linked" - which is exactly what the study found.

And, you are wrong. (The Professors who performed the study went to colleg too).

Comparing any group (e.g. Swedes) in one circumstance to the same group (Swedes) in another circumstance and comparing the results is much more revealing (and interesting) than the millionth comparison between different countries.

Why not learn something new? Open your mind to knowledge, even if it is not what you want to "hear."

wendy_g:

Of course we can agree to disagree.

Pls check. I simply asked questions. "Link, association,correlation". Never did I state there was causation.

You dismiss the findings. Fine. I don't think it can be totally dismissed without another that disproves the it.

Now, I apologize for the sarcasm, but I think you "asked" for it. We usually fundamentally disagree, but it usually reasonably respectful and friendly.

What happened here? May I replay a couple of your statments?

"Haven't you ever taken a college course? They teach you not to make conjectures that are not suggested in the actual study."

How would you take that?

One more: "YOU, (not even the study) is confusing correlation with causation. One does not imply the other. That is one of the FIRST things you are taught in college."

FIRST things? Implication: No education.

You are proud of your education. Fine. However, to suggest that someone else has little or none might be insulting. See what I'm saying?

Cristy:

I will ignore the "moron" comment.

I am not arguing anything. I am just citing the study. Reach your own conclusion.

YOUR argument is with "feminism", which demands that women be encouraged to seek 100% parity with men in terms of pay and career achievement.

To acheive that Sweden has created an environment of gender-role androgeny. Men and women are largely interchangable. Men have big jobs. Now women have big jobs almost as often. Same hours and stress on both men and women.

This study reports the health data under this circumstance as compared to the past - in Sweden only. Their has been a decline. No other study disputes that.

wendy_g:

OK, you get the last word. Thanks.

Answer 1

I'm a feminist and in perfectly good health. It would appear, from your source, that it is workaholics and people of BOTH genders with stressful jobs that are "unhealthy." That men suffer more from health problems cannot be linked to "feminism" (and the actual study does not do that) despite the attempt the article makes at doing so with a lot of conjecture, (such as men suffering from perceived loss of "male privileges) but none of that was actually proved in the study, or analyzed at all. Correlation is not causation. The actual study that was done seems to suggest that certain jobs create more stress, and thus health problems, but that is a choice that every person makes for themselves. And feminism has given women all sorts of choices that they didn't have before, and that is better for women and society, in general.

Oh, and Carrie and Beth bring up a good point. To think that even MOST women did not work before the advent of feminism, and were able to stay home all day is very incorrect. Only the wealthy and privileged have EVER been able to "afford" the luxury of a "stay-at-home-mom," previously known as "ladies." Poor women worked in the field, right along side their husbands, and when the Industrial Revolution came about, poor women went right into the factories alongside their husbands (making less than half of what men were paid, of course). Anyone who thinks MOST women have not always worked, throughout history, lacks a good grasp of history.

EDIT- Again, correlation is not causation. The study itself does not suggest that gender equality actually CAUSES more stress, sickness and lower mortality rates. It suggests a correlation, which doesn't PROVE anything. So, indeed, facts are facts, but those are not the "facts" in this case. Haven't you ever taken a college course? They teach you not to make conjectures that are not suggested in the actual study. The article does that, but IT is not a reliable source.

EDIT-"They said, 'Our main finding was that gender equality was generally correlated with poorer health for men and women"....AGAIN..."correlated" is the key word there. Don't confuse a correlation with causation. NOWHERE do they say that gender equally CAUSES poorer health. Just that there is a correlation (in Sweden). The study seems very limited in scope. In college I was taught to read everything critically. That is what is needed here (and always). For this study to truly demonstrate anything, I think there would need to be comparisons among other countries. As Carrie pointed out, Sweden has one of the highest mortality rates in the world. Compare that to other countries that are FAR less egalitarian, and you quickly see that mortality rates are far lower in the countries that are the least egalitarian.
Again, as I've pointed out, YOU, (not even the study) is confusing correlation with causation. One does not imply the other. That is one of the FIRST things you are taught in college.

EDIT-Steve, YOU asked if "feminism is bad for your health." THAT was the context of your question. You go on to say "the facts are the facts" in reference to women and men suffering from more health problems, etc. The point is, it is NOT a fact that "gender equality" causes these problems. THAT is the premise of your question. Again, a correlation was shown (yeah, I know what it means), which PROVES nothing. This study was too small in scope to demonstrate anything other than "correlation." We can go round and round with this all day, but the only FACT that can be gleaned from this study is that it PROVES NOTHING. You could at least admit to that, otherwise it is YOU who needs to open your mind and learn to think more critically, and not believe everything you read because you WANT to.
And spare me the sarcasm. We are trying to have a friendly debate here. No one said that you were "stupid," I just suggested that you seemed to be implying that the study found a "cause" instead of merely a correlation. I think we can manage to respectively agree to disagree, don't you?

Edit--Yes, I can see how my comments could have been taken as implying you are "uneducated." However, I never believed that, it's obvious you are educated. I think I was just trying to draw you out and get you to see how the article doesn't "prove" that "feminism is bad for your health." Sorry for any offense. It wasn't intended.
BUT...(lol)...It's not necessarily required that I find another article to disprove this one. Critiquing the scientific rigor of this one, and calling into question the validity of methodology used, does enough to disprove it.

Answer 2

Well, there are a lot of questions in there I'd like to answer.
1. Women have almost always worked more hours than men in America. Because of the burdens of housewifery, and economic troubles, most women are saddled with the burdens of working both inside and outside the home. This is not because of feminism. This is because America refuses to provide affordable healthcare, refuses to stop the outsourcing of good-paying jobs, etc. If you asked all women who work outside the home why they do it, I'm guessing at least 80% would answer "Because I have to to pay the bills and feed myself and my children" rather than "Because I'm a Feminist."

2. It seems that the health problems pointed out are not unique to women. Are you suggesting that it would be far better if men took all those problems upon themselves, so women could stay at home (though I've obviously pointed out before that this is not possible)? That only creates a worse situation when the man of the house dies his early death and the women is left with no work experience and ends up in a terrible service-sector job.

Hey, you and all other "anti-feminists" out there: If you want women back in the kitchen, there is one thing that must happen: Wages MUST be high enough to eliminate the neccessity of two wage earners. Healthcare must stop bankrupting America. Unless this happens, the natural tide of "feminism," ie women having to work, will continue forever.

Answer 3

The Swedish feminist thinking is that men and women only look different - sometimes.

Given the same set of circumstances, they're interchangeable - and should be.

Now, this study zeros in on the health outcomes of this in action.

The Swedes're still healthier than most other nations, but some of 'em ain't what they used to be and can thank their feminist ideology for it.

Answer 4

I would actually say that feminism is better for not only women's health, but everybody's health; both physical and mental health.

Feminism is fundimentally the that women deserve to have equal rights as men. As women began to gain more rights in society, when we report incidents of our rights being violated, people are starting to listen to those cries and starting to examine how things are being done and whether or not those ways of doing things are right, things like old medical practices, laws regarding consent on certain etc are being changed. Thus improving women's health physically.

Mentally, as women's positions in the workplace begin to gain more respect, they're becoming more entitled to things like maternity leave, nursing in the workplace, healthcare specific to women...etc. Because of this women are now more likely able to feel that they can be who they wanna be and still have a family if they want that and look after them.

I think as society begins to respect women as fellow human beings, women's stadard of living and living conditions are improving, so it's actually contributing to the improvement of women's health.

Answer 5

When women try to live out all their roles at once, it can be detrimental to their health. I think that we are protected from heart disease up to a certain age because of our hormonal make-up and the fact that we bleed every month. After menopause, the heart attack rate goes way up on par with men.
Women must make good choices to maintain their health and sanity. Working a 70 hour week plus caring for a home and family is not doable in a healthy way.
Figuring those things in, though, I have to say that believing in ones' ability to provide for ones' self, equitable pay, having less fear of rape, being able to work and travel, are all positives in mental and physical health, and they are side effects of the Feminist movement.
Good luck

Answer 6

Beth is right. Women *have* been working for centuries. It was only after the Industrial Revolution that having a wife at home was a sign of wealth and being middle-class, and even then, only wealthy people could afford to have the woman stay at home. "Lower" class women still did work, even in your precious 1950's.

Also, I think the quote at the end sums up these findings well:

Anastasia de Waal, head of family policy at the think-tank Civitas, urged caution in interpreting the findings: "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.''

EDIT: Can you prove that Swedish women have the lowest life expectancy in the Western World? I was always under the impression that it was the U.S, which also has one of the highest rates of gender inequality in the Western world.

Can you also give some insight into the rates of mental health problems in Sweden?.
EDIT II: Wendy is right - this is a case of correlation vs. causation. This article is propaganda.

Okay, I did go and find some life expectancy stats. Here are the links.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Okay, so let's see... Sweden has the ninth highest life expectancy in the world, above Canada, France, and the U.K. The U.S. (which has much higher gender inequality than most other Western countries) ranks #48.

Answer 7

The problem isn't 'gender equality', moron - it's the monomaniacal obsession that our societies place on career. Working overtime? That'll kill anybody! Does that mean women should go home and cook and clean? Nope... Are you arguing that both men and women should become workers in the home? Nope ...

Answer 8

Well those who own companies and make money by emplyoing people to work for them dont care really what happens as long as the job is beeing done.

Answer 9

Yes. But feminists are lemmings in every way.

THE PILL CAUSES BREAST CANCER
http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/pillcanc.htm

In 1989, Anderson et al. [174], published a classic paper regarding the influence of the OCPs on the rate of breast cell division. They found that nulliparous women (i.e. women who have not had children yet) who took OCPs had a significantly higher rate of breast cell division than nulliparous women who did not take them. This was especially important since it is known that cells which divide more rapidly are more likely to become cancerous.

81-PERCENT INCREASE IN BREAST CANCER SINCE 1971
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-09/29/content_5154954.htm

"Having fewer children before the age of 30, early menarche, late menopause and being obese or overweight after menopause are said to be all factors behind the increase."

[ Children before 30 and breast feeding is THE primary means of preventing breast cancer. ]

HOUSEWORK CUTS BREAST CANCER RISK
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2522050,00.html
[ Hot picture in the top one. ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6214655.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/29/nhsewk29.xml

Something as lesbian as feminism could only last a couple of generations anyway before it got weeded out of the gene pool. Typical single high powered career women have an over 80% rate of childlessness, couple that with their shorter lifespans and a feminist is one of the biggest evolutionary dead ends there are.

Answer 10

I see where you're coming from.. but I don't think it would actually effect their health... of course stress can effect your health if it occurs frequently, but I don't think the average woman is effected by stress enough that it could have a big impact on her health.