In the United States, life expectancy for men is 5.9 years less than it is for women. A number of factors contribute to this sex difference. Deaths from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and occupational and motor vehicle accidents are all more common among men than women. Men are also more likely to use alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, leading to greater lifetime prevalence of drug-use disorder. Men are also more likely to end their own lives. Seventy-nine percent of all suicides in the United States are committed by men.
Given these health data, along with greater prevalence rates of a myriad of other health conditions and negative life outcomes among men than women (e.g., homelessness, criminality, lower educational attainment, antisocial personality and conduct disorders, autism spectrum disorder, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) one might expect significant and explicit attention directed by universities and state and national health offices toward boys’ and men’s health. Yet, this has not been the case. Why not?
A major contributing factor is feminism. Feminism, which is often ill-defined, tends to refer to a set of ideas concerned with the advancement and equal treatment of women in society, culminating in greater female autonomy and power, achieved through political activism. Though some feminists from earlier generations might have had some laudable goals, contemporary feminism is associated with an epistemological framework that often distorts reality and produces some of the most incoherent writings in academia. Here, I suggest multiple pathways by which feminism is negatively impacting boys’ and men’s health.
Feminism has led to false and damaging narratives about men and masculinity. “Male privilege” is one example. Men are more likely than women to be homeless, and 8% of men report being sexually abused before the age of 18. How then are homeless men or sexually-abused boys privileged? Feminists do not have good answers to such questions because “male privilege” is an a priori assumption that is made without going through empirical, data-driven, and inductive processes, which would lead to a conclusion that both men and women can be victims and can experience hardship.
“Toxic masculinity” is another example. Dr. John Barry of the Centre for Male Psychology in the United Kingdom surveyed individuals about their opinions on toxic masculinity. Most respondents said the concept is probably harmful to boys and men and unlikely to improve health behaviours. In a followup study, Barry found that poorer mental wellbeing was associated with the belief that masculinity negatively influences behaviour.
Feminism can also alter clinical treatment of boys and men. One study found that psychotherapist’s views of masculinity and patriarchy correlated with their clinical approaches. Moreover, the Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men, published by the American Psychological Association in 2018, showed signs of a substantial feminist influence. Some of the guidelines were interpreted by experts as sensible, but other guidelines, such as those suggesting that masculinity is primarily a social construct, and that men’s mental health problems are caused by masculinity and patriarchy, received criticism. That the Guidelines expressed negative views of masculinity, and that the concept of “male privilege” was referenced throughout the document, illustrates how feminist concepts influence mental health services provided to boys and men.
Feminism has also changed the way that research is organized, conducted, and funded. In 1990, the Office for Research on Women’s Health was created within the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The major original goal of this office was to increase the number of female participants in NIH-funded clinical trials. This goal was based on the claim that women were systematically excluded and thus underrepresented as participants in medical research. This claim was later found to be untrue, and annual reports from the Office show that women comprise 55-60% of all participants in NIH-funded clinical trials every year. Moreover, after 30 years of existence, the Office for Research on Women’s Health still states that the inclusion of women in clinical trials is one of its top priorities. Meanwhile, no equivalent office for research on men’s health has been created, though men fare worse than women on various health outcomes, culminating in earlier mortality.
Because of its negative views of men and masculinity, feminism has also prevented widespread recognition of fathers and family structure as social factors that impact a child’s development. This is somewhat ironic given the push for research and action on the “social determinants of health” over the past 20 years. In 2005, the World Health Organization established a Commission on Social Determinants of Health. The goal of the Commission was to put forward evidence for a global “health equity” agenda. This agenda, which is still active, is grounded in environmental determinism and minimizes the roles of biology and personal choice in health outcomes. It advocates for social engineering of health outcomes via public policy. However, due to the politicized nature of this agenda, family structure has not been listed as a key “social determinant.” Its omission is indefensible given the substantial literature that shows children from fatherless homes generally have poorer health outcomes than children raised in two-parent households where the biological father is present. Family structure has been omitted from this discourse because its inclusion would require feminist-minded public health researchers to acknowledge that (a) fathers and their masculinity generally have a positive influence on a child’s development, and (b) a structural or social factor that is not government-based or controlled (i.e., the fatherless home) has consistent and significant impacts on health.
Feminism has also led to blatant discrimination against boys and men. One of the most egregious examples comes from the World Economic Forum and its Global Gender Gap Index. This index, which purports to measure gender equality, penalizes a country’s index score only when girls and women fall behind on various domains. It does not penalize a country’s score when boys and men fall behind. Similar discrimination against boys and men has been found to occur at the United Nations, which has a feminist branch called UN Women. The United Nations does not have branch that represents the issues facing boys and men. Moreover, in the United Nations’ and World Health Organization’s report on the social determinants of health, an entire chapter was dedicated to “gender equity” in health, without mention of boys and men.
Has feminism perhaps also done some good for men’s health? If this is the case, the results are not obvious and are unlikely to balance the harms already mentioned. At a surface level, the push for increased paternal leave might be seen as something good done for men from somewhat feminist-minded individuals. Increased paternal leave probably is good for fathers. However, the main motivator for feminist-minded individuals who champion increased paternal leave is not necessarily to facilitate the bond between the father and baby but to relieve mothers of their unpaid work as caregivers. This is a subtle yet important philosophical difference. It is the difference between the gynocentric and androcentric approaches to men’s health.
Contemporary feminism is preventing objective recognition of male suffering, disadvantage, and neglect. It is exacerbating the male gender empathy gap. The list of topics and pathways I have provided is not exhaustive. It does not include, for example, false allegations of rape against men or the continued lack of recognition of roughly similar rates of male and female victimization in intimate partner violence. Nevertheless, the list should suffice to illustrate that feminism is often associated with misguided ideas that impact healthcare research, policy, and practice in ways that are harmful to boys and men. Explicit rejection of tenets of contemporary feminism will need to be part of future intensive approaches to address boys’ and men’s health issues. Approaches that claim to want to address men’s health through achieving “gender equality” (i.e., better outcomes for women) merely represent a feminist wolf in sheep’s clothing. These approaches should also be rejected. Androcentrism, not gynocentrism, should guide future thinking around boys’ and men’s health issues.
If you appreciated this content, please consider supporting The Nuzzo Letter with a one-time or recurring donation. Your support is greatly appreciated. It helps me to work on independent research projects and fight for more evidence-based discourse. To donate to The Nuzzo Letter, click the DonorBox log below. In two simple steps, you can donate using ApplePay, PayPal, or another service. Thank you.
Share this post