Why it’s time to stop ‘nannying’ women (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Why it’s time to stop ‘nannying’ women
11:05am Wednesday 29th September 2010
By Jo Chipchase - Letting off steam »
Women… just when we thought we’d achieved a decent level of “emancipation” (remember the suffragettes, anyone?), and that we could exist relatively free from the likes of ‘Sid the Sexist’ in our lives, certain health professionals are trying to ‘nanny’ us and lay on ye old guilt trip once again. According to recent news, it’s not good enough for us gals to spurn saturated fats, bin hideous binge drinking and try out that aqua aerobics class: no, if we are of childbearing age, we should moderate our lifestyle and behaviour in case we become impregnated in the future and, hence, we can slightly reduce the chances of any offspring we produce developing cancer in later life.
While we all know that excessive eating, drinking and smoking is bad for us, and that we shouldn’t put lard on our breakfast or play with battery acid, the recent words of wisdom from Professor Ricardo Uauy, an adviser to the United Nations and World Health Organisation, is enough to set my hackles rising re women’s personal freedom and choices.
As Uauy’s advice goes, women who aren’t even pregnant shouldn’t drink alcohol or smoke, they shouldn’t expose themselves to environmental toxins, and they should watch the quality of water they drink. It seems that less than perfectly healthy behaviour may slightly increase the chance of a baby that may never be conceived being more inclined towards cancer. Furthermore, tinned food is off the menu as it’s slightly carcinogenic. The man from Del Monte says “no”.
Um. Some people can’t help that they live, for example, near a busy ring road that creates air pollution, an industrial plant that puts dioxins into the environment or that the English tap water is a tad yukky – not everybody can afford to move to a rural conservation area or drink endless Evian water. And the older generations of my family are relatively cancer-free despite decades of eating tinned peaches, fruit cocktail and even Spam.
Uauy goes on to dictate the correct body mass that women should achieve before they conceive. Most women enjoy a good munch when they’re preggers but Uauy says expectant mothers shouldn’t eat too much… so throw that apple crumble in the bin, dear, and get yourself down to ‘Fat Fighters’ if you have any untoward cravings for chocolate and cheese. And that’s not all. According to Uauy, parents shouldn’t insist on kids clearing their plates at mealtimes as that might cause obesity. So it’s OK for kids to waste food when people are starving in the world, is it? What’s wrong with serving an appropriately-sized portion in the first place?
Uauy’s advice smacks of the attitude displayed by the more extreme “federal guidelines” released Stateside in 2006, which asked for all women capable of conceiving a child to be treated as “pre pregnant”, regardless of whether they wanted a baby or not, and to take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep asthma and diabetes under control. Surely everybody in the population should be encouraged to keep these conditions under control, not just women of childbearing age? Where is the gender equality in that advice?
Women these days are playing the role of housewife, breadwinner, primary carer, cleaner and taxi service – all at once. They really are doing it for themselves and can make their own darn choices. Yes, women should exercise common sense about their lifestyles and health levels, especially if they’re pregnant, but there’s nothing more galling than having the ‘men in white coats’ (or any men at all) trying to dictate what you put into your body.
Speaking as a mother of two healthy boys, I can honestly say that the only people who have ever passed comment on my birth and feeding options and, for example, compared me negatively with women who were more ‘successful’ in completing a natural birth, were… you’ve guessed it… men. It’s not as if they have to do it themselves! I bet if men had to take hormone-loaded contraceptive pills, were being told that they shouldn’t drink their pint in case they procreated sometime in the future, and they might have to experience pain as excruciating as having a leg sawn off without anaesthetic, they might think differently about the guidance issued to women of their acquaintance!
Babies have been born since the start of time and will continue to be born. Life expectancy now is better than ever. So it’s time to stop trying to control the behaviour of women with the idea that if they want to be healthy ‘breeders’, they should sit quietly in a glass tower (with germ proof seals, if you please) sipping nothing more exciting than dandelion and burdock and administering folic acid to themselves. Save the nannying for the baby, please!
Comments(29)
Number Six
says...
2:15pm Wed 29 Sep 10
Burgess901 wrote:Yes, but you are not a tabloid journalist, are you?
Fair blog, I enjoyed, but I think you have some issues with men, would you have been so annoyed if a woman was to publish this advice. Scientists, physicians and eminent scholars have been telling us ALL not to do this, not to eat that, but more of this, take a bath at x o'clock etc etc. When a woman publishes advice with regards to men's health that appears to be spurious, I will not attack her because of her sex, or claim she is harbouring a grudge against men, but for her evidence and logic.
This one does seem to be caught in a time warp. When you are being given advice it hardly matters whether is's a man or woman giving. I thought that the world had moved on from this kind of pointless attitude
Tinfoil
says...
9:21pm Wed 29 Sep 10
Jo Chipchase
says...
11:07am Thu 30 Sep 10
I'm planning another blog entry at some point soon about the tendency towards nannying everybody in Britain.
Burgess901
says...
12:13pm Thu 30 Sep 10
Probably because women specifically give birth, whereas men do not.
Looking forward to your next blog, state nannying is just another form of controlling the masses.
dunderheads
says...
2:15pm Thu 30 Sep 10
Jo Chipchase wrote:Although let us be perfectly honest. Some people really need Nannies... If only to stop them taking their little People to licensed premises and to teach them manners.. Did you know that they believe their is a link between ADHD and Pregnant mothers drinking... Google it Jo..
I fully admit to having issues with men (in a slightly, errr, humorous way) and, no, I'm not a tabloid journo. Fair point that the advice should be applied to everybody and health advice is, indeed, usually handed out equally. However, in this case, it was applied specifically to women and seemed a tad excessive, which was my main objection.
I'm planning another blog entry at some point soon about the tendency towards nannying everybody in Britain.
DreamSculptor
says...
9:15am Fri 1 Oct 10
The thing is... science requires paying attention and quickly becomes really really boring to most women, generally women prefer to look at sparkly bright coloured things than analyze data. Unless it's a text message on their boyfriends phone of course, which is how they best put their forensic skills to use...
Science and mathematics cause women to get quickly confused they have hissyfits and shout or scream, it's just natures way, which seems to be the case here! lol
Burgess901
says...
10:02am Fri 1 Oct 10
DreamSculptor wrote:PMSL, sad thing is in many cases I have seen this to be true, some just will not accept or even listen to scientific evidence (often reasoning that science is dominated by men, who are obviously all liars and want to control women).
I think saying YUMMING mummy would be more inappropriate Jo...
The thing is... science requires paying attention and quickly becomes really really boring to most women, generally women prefer to look at sparkly bright coloured things than analyze data. Unless it's a text message on their boyfriends phone of course, which is how they best put their forensic skills to use...
Science and mathematics cause women to get quickly confused they have hissyfits and shout or scream, it's just natures way, which seems to be the case here! lol
Soirore
says...
11:08am Fri 1 Oct 10
Women are highly capable of understanding scientific evidence. But we are also used to evidence being twisted and misapplied in order to control and disempower us (especially in the fields of medicine and health). This has made a lot of women more critical of scientific 'evidence' and advice.
If Prof Uauy were really only interested in health for future generations then he'd advise everyone of child producing age to not smoke (for example). Sperm is affected by the man's health, and as men can be fathers into retirement perhaps the guidelines should be no smoking for women under the age of 45 and none for men under 70.
But that's ridiculous. Oh wait; so is the original premise.
Burgess901
says...
12:20pm Fri 1 Oct 10
Proof please, or are you just highlighting the unfounded resentment that some women hold towards men.
GENERALLY, women are neither interested or engaged in science, but if you would believe some this is because men somehow make it difficult if you are female.
If in doubt blame men.
Soirore
says...
1:10pm Fri 1 Oct 10
You only need to look at gender differences in psychiatric diagnoses over the last century to see that medical science has been used to discriminate against and/ or punish women. Whether the medical professional is male or female there has been sexist discrimination against the patient.
Some reading:
The female malady: women, madness and English Culture 1830-1980
Showalter, E
Women's madness: misogyny or mental illness, Ussher, J
http://www.eurekaler
t.org/pub_releases/2
009-03/afps-hah03030
9.php
Basically there's a history of women being diagnosed as insane because they got pregnant when unmarried or for many other reasons which are not real signifiers of mental health merely of not being traditionally feminine. I understand that I haven't given you the 'proof' you asked for but if you search on the internet you can find lots of academic, scientific studies being conducted about gender bias in medicine.
In my experience women are just as scientifically curious as men and just as able to understand science. Perhaps I'm just luckier in meeting more intelligent folk than you have been.
DreamSculptor
says...
3:47pm Fri 1 Oct 10
Womans main defense is men can't multitask well, multitasking allocates poor attention to detail and so tasks are completed at a lower standard thus making the work counter-productive as a recent scientific study shows...
Men just don't say anything cos you can't handle the truth! lol
here's the research...
http://asia.cnet.com
/crave/2009/08/26/ne
w-research-shows-mul
titasking-is-coun...
ter-productive/
DreamSculptor
says...
3:51pm Fri 1 Oct 10
http://asia.cnet.com
/crave/2009/08/26/ne
w-research-shows-mul
titasking-is-counter
-productive/
Burgess901
says...
12:40pm Sat 2 Oct 10
Thankyou for enlightening me about women being misdiagnosed, as if I did not already know, it is old news, it USED to happen, why do certain women feel the need to rake up the past about how oppressed you were, get over it, as it probably did not even affect you (if it did I apologize).
Over compensation by women is what grates me. Eg: there is not an equal number of women to men in a lot of occupations for various reasons (often nothing to do with men knowingly excluding women), but if you were to believe some it is for this reason alone.
This anti-men idea is prevalent amongst a number of my female friends, they feel that it is their right to do whatever they want because women have been repressed for so long.
Just for your information I know two female scientists, both of which are extremely good at their profession and treated equally by their male counterparts, perhaps I am just luckier than you by meeting more intelligent less bigoted men than you.
Dreamsculpter: I am glad you wrote about the neurological differences as I couldn't be bothered, as even these proven facts are not readily accepted by some people.
Sums it up, women can be better at some jobs, and men at others, simply due to the way our brains process information and how we then translate it.
anubis
says...
2:17pm Mon 4 Oct 10
There are many differences in the brains of human males and females; Differences between the two brains extend far beyond the hypothalamus, involved in feeding and emotionally provoking images: proportionately females have larger frontal lobes, limbic cortex and hippocampus -- so the regularly cited pejoratively against females on 'direction finding' is quite out of place. Men use the right side of this pair of almond shaped neuron bundles, while women use the left – indicating the two sexes process information received using different mechanisms. In spite of the age-old myths invoked by Dreamsculpter and others, there are many studies testing males and females “giving directions”; overall, THE SCORES DO NOT DIFFER significantly between the sexes, BUT the woman will use 'strategies' around, say, bakeries, post office etc. as cues ….
THe male will use his parietal cortex, 'spatial' strategy (this cortex is marger in the male).
Likewise, the ‘women are great talkers’ is just another of these ancient myths that don’t stand up to the testing – on average, in the UK, both men and women say 16,000 words a day. Of course, as we know, women's linguistic skills are developmentally vastly superior to the male.
The hippocampus is just the opening shot of today’s physiology. A recent Harvard study of both sexes (n=100) compared 45 brain regions – ironically, the found the parts of the frontal lobe, housing 'decision-making' and 'problem-solving' functions being proportionately LARGER in females (as is the cortex regulating emotions). It is reasonably to assume size differences reflect differences in function. Soirore is accurate in describing the differing ‘standards’ used by the archaic ‘male doctors’ vis-à-vis psychiatric disorders
(S is spot on! -- and it is true, it's all rather 'old hat') but the biology tells us much more; while it is true the female is twice as likely to be diagnosed with depression, it is not surprising that their brains produce ONLY HALF as such serotonin, a linked neurotransmitter – but females also have significantly fewer serotonin transporters – and although this, in itself, might not mean they are more prone to depression, it is of research interest as the receptors function to handle antidepressants, such as Prozac.
Whatever the reason, maybe males are less affected by depression, but they sure make up for it with autism, Tourette’s syndrome, dyslexia, stuttering, attention-deficit disorder and early onset schizophrenia!
Put bluntly, if size proportion means anything, I'd be quite happy in a debate to be arguing females have the ‘superior’ brain. Amazingly(!), in the research labs, disproportionately it’s the male of the species (especially rats) that are the ‘subjects’ used in the research. Yes, in 2010!
Burgess901
says...
12:34pm Tue 5 Oct 10
If the information came from a study by MH. Mehl, only 400 people were used, they were all University students, and the 16,000 words was an average.
Average is the keyword here.
I do not feel the number of subjects were anywhere near enough (1000 minimum) and of varying ages and occupations to give a convincing answer. I also wonder what the confidence interval was.
anubis
says...
6:36pm Tue 5 Oct 10
Yes, most probably -- I know it sounds daft, but it's a figure I've used a couple of times in the past and certainly matches the Mehl et al study. Sorry to continue the old theme ... but it's another common complaint/criticism of most socio/psychological studies -- they too often use university students as subjects.
That the study was carried out over six years (in USA and Mexico) suggests a lecturer and a series of undergraduate students (I'm only guessing!); there is no reason to suspect these individuals are not 'representative' of the general population (albeit in North America) ... but then you could always change the title into "supporting the view that male and female university students use the same number of words daily in general conversation".
A sample size of 396 (we must assume randomly selected) seems more than adequate to me -- and the matching scores in each of the six years strongly supports my point of view! No idea where you might have culled your magic 1,000 ideal from; sample size should relate to the nature of the study and it's counter-productive to just 'have more'. To take an extreme example, if I were researching the theological views of long-standing Jehovah's Witnesses, a sample of ONE person would be more than adequate. The Mehl study is on the web and provides all the necessary data, including the rather large s.ds.
I am assuming you agree with me that the popular myth that "women speak nearly three times as many words as men" is just plain balderdash?!
DreamSculptor
says...
9:47am Wed 6 Oct 10
Statistically anubis you written an average of about 390 words in each exchange whereas Burgess901 wrote about 90 words each time... from this scientific analysis I would conclude your a woman! lol
Burgess901
says...
11:54am Wed 6 Oct 10
Anibus,
Thankyou for the response, I think the title of the study should indeed be changed to "supporting the view that male and female university students use the same number of words daily in general conversation".
I feel to achieve a true result the subjects would have to be of different ages, races and differing intelligence, and considering there are 6.5 billion people on the planet, 397 all of similar age and location is not representative of the world's population, especially with such a large Std. Dev.
The 1000 was supposed to be 10000, but as you pointed out it was just plucked from nowhere, I learnt how to once as I studied statistics for part of my degree, but a lot of the principles have been lost in the aeons of time.
As I have matured I find myself using less words to convey my thoughts or opinions, and I know that after a day of work when I used to come home, my partner would be still chattering away (after her day at work too), yet I could hardly muster a reply.
This I know is only one example, and I do agree that generally women do not speak three times the amount of words than men do.
Although some women will and some wont, either due to the man's lack of conversing or the females love of it.
Jo Chipchase
says...
12:31pm Wed 6 Oct 10
anubis
says...
1:59pm Wed 6 Oct 10
The ONLY way you could expect "to achieve a true result", would be to test all 6.5 billion of us, Burgess901; inferential statistics is just what it says -- making inferences from samples.
Our discussion (on the stats) has revolved around just the one study, but there have been many others. On the web you can also find bits of the Campbell Leaper review (Nov 2007) which involved others beyond university campuses; his overall review found men MORE talkative, they take up more time in talking and are more assertive in speech -- but gender roles varied with situations.
While on the web, you might like to look at 'Talkative Women' 21st March 2010 -- direct from my homeland!
Ben Goldacre is always worthy of a glance, every Saturday!
DreamSculptor
says...
8:26pm Wed 6 Oct 10
Do I really have to LOOK at "talkative women" but why can't I just follow my own confirmation bias?
Like, apparently carnivorous women in Japan spend an average of 53 minutes a day talking by cellphone compared with 29 minutes for herbivorous males... "chewing the fat" I guess lol
Burgess901
says...
11:16am Thu 7 Oct 10
Other studies will hopefully give me a more conclusive answer, as there appears to be a lot of room for error in the Mehl paper (EAR has been questioned on how affective it is and as already discussed the ages, locations etc of the subjects, and an assumption was made that there is no significant difference between the number of words spoken by a university student and that of any other adult.)
Burgess901
says...
1:05pm Thu 7 Oct 10
dunderheads
says...
11:37am Fri 8 Oct 10
Burgess901 wrote:The male who used 47,000 was Jo's partner saying SHUT UP! repeatedly
I concur after further research. Women do speak more than men but only by approx 500 words, which is not significantly different, the most interesting point was that one male used 600 and an other 47,000 (phew!), I would be intrigued to see if any female only used 600 words per day, if so that would be utterly conclusive for me.
anubis
says...
3:26pm Fri 8 Oct 10
I was left bemused by your final remarks H9 (and you ought to know better having done some stats); you 'agreed' in the final postings, but it wasn't clear WHO you were agreeing with. And then, finally, registered you'd forgotten everything you may have learned, citing studies, ALL OF WHICH agreed there was no difference between the sexes, yet attempted to make the data say the opposite. (When statisticians say the findings were NOT significant, they are saying there is NO evidence supporting a difference -- the findings were the result of 'chance' rather than any difference in the sexes.)
If I'm not talking to the converted already -- do get into the habit of looking at Ben Goldacre every Saturday; he almost always writes on the misuse of statistics in everyday life -- mostly in medicine (he is a medical doctor by trade).
Sorry Jo. Maybe run into you other two elsewhere?!
Burgess901
says...
11:49am Sat 9 Oct 10
Sorry for confusing you, I agree there is no STATISTICAL difference between men and women's lexicon budgets.
Jo Chipchase
says...
10:50am Sun 10 Oct 10
Dunderhead... as suggested yesterday by one of my acquaintances who reads my blog, are you somebody I vaguely know in another realm who is trying 'to get a rise', using an alias?
However, if you did know me well, you would realise that I don't have a partner who says "shut up" 47,000 times. :)
dunderheads
says...
1:36pm Mon 11 Oct 10
......
Back off, men in white coats.
Burgess901 says...
12:14pm Wed 29 Sep 10
Scientists, physicians and eminent scholars have been telling us ALL not to do this, not to eat that, but more of this, take a bath at x o'clock etc etc. When a woman publishes advice with regards to men's health that appears to be spurious, I will not attack her because of her sex, or claim she is harbouring a grudge against men, but for her evidence and logic.