|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:11 PM November 22nd, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"A study in Australia found that men take more narcotics than women even when the pain level is the same. "
I'm not a doctor, but couldn't this just be because men are bigger on average than women?
Or maybe that men take more of the narcotics while in pain to also get high because this is how some men escape their mental pains, like they sometimes do with alcohol? Whereas women have emotional support?
And how does one discern if two different people are experiencing the same level of pain?
And if it is true that women handle pain better, why is that in my personal life, my two brother's, and our guy friend's all seem to agree that women can much more easily get pain medication and valium from doctors. whereas guys have to almost jump through hoops to prove we are in pain to get the meds???
I guess we should just face it. When we show that we can be in pain, emotionally or physically, people then go on to prove how much stronger women are than men. Yet, when we hold in our pain, people than go on to show how women are so much more sensitive than men are?
hhhhmmmm I don't know what to make of it all
But I'd like some narcotics though!
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:14 PM November 22nd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
If men are more sensitive to pain than women, then it follows that violence against men should be regarded as more serious than violence against women. This is the opposite of society's view at present.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the opposite of society's view at present.
There’s a lot of truth that is opposite of society’s view at present. I’m almost finished with “The Stronger Sex” a book by Richard Driscoll. In it he references research that shows the reverse of many standard (feminist) beliefs about the relationship of the sexes.
For example the standard (feminist) belief is that men dominate women in relationships. Objective research indicates that on average women are more verbally combative than men and are usually the aggressor in inter-gender arguments and it is men that are more emotionally affected by those arguments. Women tend to blow them off as unimportant.
Men are seen as the aggressor if they defend their position (very unchivalrous) so they tend to do whatever it takes to end a confrontation with a woman, like withdrawing into silence. Then the rare guy that just can’t take it anymore and lashes out is pointed to as proof of male dominance. Like so much of chivalry, the phony belief that men dominate allows us to rationalize increased restrictions for men and expanded freedoms for women.
And our belief that men are (or should be) less sensitive to pain allows us to ignore real male suffering and to insult and shun the males who have the audacity to complain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, since we women have such a high pain tolerance, how about we be the first ones off to die in battle should the draft come back? And we should have the most physically demanding jobs like construction work, firefighter, mine worker, and steel worker. We can't cry DV anymore because since we're so strong we should shut-up and take the pain like a woman. No more sleeping/painkiller drugs for us during surgery--keep us awake the whole way through, even if it's repairing a fractured femur!! Oh and no more drugs during childbirth, no more inducing labor, and no more C-sections! Let's do all natural drug free childbirth like our great-great-great-grandmothers did it and prove to the big mean ole softie males that we are superior once again! What a crock of shit.
Notice that the head of this little research was a typical rad/gen-feminist woman. I smell a minion of the Feminazi Reich. Sheesh, they're everywhere on this planet. Later folks. It's my Thanksgiving Break--finally, and I'll be hibernating.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:15 AM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
So when Men cry DV they aren't strong?thats a stereotype that hinders many men from coming forward. c-sections aren't done for pain as much as for what is best and safest for the newborn child.And the first to die off if the draft comes back? how do we know this? I think its safe to say that men and women have different strengths that need to be recognised. Happy Thanksgiving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:52 AM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"And the first to die off if the draft comes back? how do we know this?"
How do we know men would be the first to die if a draft came back? Possibly because it is men who are of the only gender who has to sign up for selective service??? The "service" which women seem to not want equality with?
Or how about we simply look at history and make an educated guess at which gender would most likely be put of the front lines?
" I think its safe to say that men and women have different strengths that need to be recognised. "
I think it's even more safe to say that mens strengths are devalued and were told how much stronger women are then us on a regular basis. I don't see this being done on the scale( and dishonesty) towards women.
And then when men do show their weaknesses they are again exploited to show that women are superior.
"Happy Thanksgiving."
Men don't thanks.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:00 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think women would be great in the military,as equally great as men. I am one of those who think women should be right there on the front lines.
As for showing your weaknesses? I don't know what you mean by weaknesses. Everyone has strengths and weakness. I do know I use to work with boys to be more sensitive, and express themselves openly, much to the dismay of many of the fathers and mothers of these children, who wanted "strong" boys. I think we use these words in the wrong way, and should try to specify and reduce the gender connotation on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:44 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea if you are the original anon that I replied to.
My point about weakness is that when it is shown--in whatever way---men's weaknesses, it is exploited to show how women are superior and how men are "softies" like in this thread.
Yet, when we do not show our weaknesses, we are insensitive brutes.
So I am saying that when a weakness of men is talked about, it is used not to help men, but to empower women and shame men.
You are sitting here saying that we all share strengths and weaknesses. Yet, as this thread points out, men's weaknesses--or suppossed weaknesses--are women's strengths. And just as well, women's strengths, are men's weaknesses. This is not done in the reverse for men.
you say----"Personally, I think women would be great in the military,as equally great as men. I am one of those who think women should be right there on the front lines"
The point was not if women would be equal to men on the front lines. But that if women are superior to men when it comes to handling pain then they should be the ones put there, not men. For this is the reason for putting men on the front lines, because we are so "insensitive and strong".
Yet, none of these people who say how since women can handle pain better than men they should then be put in the more pain producing roles that men have, and also have been put in.
Women handle pain better than men only when saying so is beneficial to women.
You seem to understand the part of society wanting "strong boys", yet you don't seem to be grasping the fact that at the same time women are shown as superior in strength to men (to the point of dishonesty). they are at the same time still superior for their ability to show their weaknesses. And that when their "stengths" are shown to be superior to men, they will only use this superior strength when it is beneficial for women, but not when there is any sacrifice or risk.
That is the point. what's yours?
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I am saying that when a weakness of men is talked about, it is used not to help men, but to empower women and shame men.
And when a strength of men is talked about, it is used not to help men, but to empower women and shame men. The conclusions are the same. It is the heart of feminist hypocrisy.
Whether men’s strengths or weaknesses are discussed it’s framed to empower women. If there’s a male strength / female weakness it’s framed as an injustice of the patriarchy, and if there’s a men’s weakness / female strength it’s a “you go girl” empowerment party.
Challenge the status Quo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:01 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Before too long we are going to be hearing from these same people that women can leap tall buildings in a single bound, they're faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locamotive, able to bend steel in their bare hands. and who, disguised as Clark Kent, leads a never ending battle for...
Oops. Sorry, got carried away, guys.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whats more than a little tiresome is that our connection to reality is so easily severed by continous social pressure. This notion put forward by Prof. Mari Botti that men are " big softies when confronted with pain" is yet one more feminist construction accepted and promoted by society simply because women want it to be true. But it is of course a lie. In fact it is the precise opposite of the truth.
As we all know, and as every study ever done on gender and pain has shown, men have a much higher tolerance for pain than the "weaker" sex. But this simply reality doesnt serve the female agenda, so a new lie is constructed, and since women keep repeating the lie its now accepted as real.
Whether or not we use higher doses of medication to treat pain, can easily be accounted for as a result in the differance of size, as has already been pointed out.
The link is to just one of the many studys done on the issue of pain and gender.
HIGHER PAIN TOLERANCE IN MALES
CAN’T BE BOUGHT
http://www.hbns.org/news/pain04-09-03.cfm
"Men’s higher tolerance for pain is not just macho posturing but has a physiological underpinning, suggests a study in which subjects were given a monetary incentive to keep their hand submerged in ice water."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There actually is some truth to this, at least as far as morphine after surgery. There is some medical evidence that women respond better and can get relief from kappa (and possibly delta)opioids and men can not get pain relief from them. They are actually able to use things like suboxone/subutex in women & get good pain relief, it just doesn't do much for men in serious pain. In fact they can give women full Mu agonist with strong Kappa effects, completely eliminate the Mu part of it with an antagonist (naloxone) and the women will still get some pain relief just from the kappa effect -- and this has been demonstrated with a couple different agents (not just morphine and suboxone). There really are some physiologic differences in the sexes folks! Morphine is very high in kappa opioids which is why it creates such dysphoric effects and hallucinations...etc It really isn't that great of a pain killer IMHO & experience. Better observations could be made by using a drug like oxycodone, or fentanyl -- which tend to work more equally between men & women, adjusting the drugs on a mg/kg basis, and then use time as a measure if they wish.
The real interesting stuff about pain though is the effect of combinations of pain relievers vs single agents like a morphine drip after surgery. One study I read looked at knee surgeries, and the people who got the combinations: cox-2 inhibitor, tylenol, lidocaine(it's a local), an alpha drug like clonidine, a muscle relaxer, morphine, and another short acting pain killer (usually oxycodone) did tons better a year later than the folks who just got the morphine drip. They recovered faster, substantially less RSD/CRPS, less allodynia & hyperalgesia, better recoveries, and a 20% difference in the ones that got the combination over the drip in those that still had pain a year later...even though the combination analgesia was only used for a short period of time after surgery. Cost more to use the combination, but the improvement in results more than makes up for it. It makes sense when you realize pain causes atrophic changes in the nervous system (a recent study even found it decreases grey matter the longer chronic back pain is untreated at a rate comparable to 20 years of aging for every year chronic pain is un/undertreated.). A certain percentage of people have always ended up with chronic pain as a complication to surgery - and the data vindicates that aggressive management is the way to go to prevent sensitization to pain. Far too many people are going to suffer needlessly before most doctors & insurance companies catch on though.
Most of what I know about chronic pain is from experience... I honestly feel like I would be better off most of the time if I could just go to the chemist and purchase what I needed without the middlemen with their legalized monopoly. The whole experience of having to go in every month and beg for the pills I need to keep the pain even modestly in check is corosive to ones sense of sovreignty. It takes too long to find doctors that will help, it adds thousands of dollars a year in expense & time off from work, you risk losing them, it makes it hard to travel, they can pull the rug out from under you at any time without regard to your livelihood, and most of them are far too conservative or simply don't know what they are doing to manage the problem. It's a pretty sad state of affairs. Add in the DEA wanting to practice medicine and pure profiteering by the majority of drug companies as long as the prescription monopoly remains in check and it can make it very difficult for anyone with chronic pain to get by.
I find a lot of doctors tend to treat men in pain like they are junkies (they do women too though, just slightly less IMO). Interestingly enough the most common prescription pill addict in a general practice is a 30 to 50 year old female. The usual addictions are benzodiazepines and vicodin. Princess valium/xanax with a vicodin chaser is a lot more common in suburbia than people think. She's the one with the 3 year revolving script for xanbars from 3 different doctors...but she gets them RX, so it isn't a problem...ho ho ho The 2nd most common are young men in 17-26 range...and after that, women again in the 50-70 range. Not who you would expect...
What it means to you when you go to the doctor even though the numbers don't reflect the actual prejudices held by a majority of the doctors I've encountered... All men are immediately suspect is the view I encounter most often, and if you are under 60 you will get extra scrutiny. What it means to you as a man seeing the doc: The doctor is less likely to give you a script for a pain killer than he is the woman, but if he writes it you will probably get a higher doseage of it and/or more of it. Women tend to walk out with a script for a much shorter period of time, but have a higher percentage change of getting opioids prescribed. Women also use the services a lot more, and have a higher degree of somatic complaints in general, and that isn't just true in the west, it's true world-wide.
Maybe this 'bias' in prescribing has something to do with the kinds of jobs people with chronic pain tend to have. Men with chronic pain are often doing physically demanding work, and something like tylenol #3 just isn't going to cut it for the person stacking 70lb boxes all day or digging trenches with back pain, but it might be enough for the person sitting at a desk. Pretty much the majority of doctors tend to severely undertreat pain, most of them are clueless about how to manage pain long term, and the amount of training they recieved in medical school about how to manage pain is nearly nil. Even cancer pain is severely undertreated.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read some stuff about the basic yet funamental differances in brain make up between the genders. I was a little surprised to see our response to pain killers was so differant. Interesting stuff. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't believe the so-called academic community is again trying to sell this old junk thought.
This intellectually tiresome folderol about men being more sensitive to pain than women and being infantile about it has been around for some time. It has been debunked some time ago too. Men and women react the same to the pain stimulus. It has to do with the individual not the gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting thing about this study vs. the misandrist one I submitted for this thread: I heard about the latter through the news broadcast on a radio station in Omaha, Neb. Meanwhile, this cold-water study came out of Florida and Alabama, and I didn't learn about it until I came to Mensactivism.org. Never mind that Omaha is much closer to Florida and Alabama than it is to Australia.
Just a coincidence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the press spinning a story to make it more inflammatory. I find it all a bit weird. Perhaps the journalist is trying to convince the reader that despite the portable pharmacies the women you actually know carry around and use constantly, it's men who take more pills. Except for the men you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:51 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds like the same junk sience from the same type of people that reported that men's brains shrink as they get older. But women's do not.
Trouble is, they forgot to mention that men's brains are generaly LARGER than women's to begin with and that while it is true that the male brain does, indeed shrink with age it then matches the smaller size of the female brain. They also conveiniantly forget to mention that brain size has absolutely NOTHING to do with intelegence. Albert Einstien's brain was markedly SMALLER than the average brain of the average man. Yet we all no that ol' Al was no dummy.
In this case, I've heard similar studys saying men can't take as much pain as women. As usual something is left out. And that is that it is EXPECTED of men to remain stoic regardless of the intensity level of any and all pain. If a man gets a nail through his foot and so much as says; "OWCH" he will be seen as a "softie". But if a woman gets a nail in the foot and screams bloody-murder, then no one will condem her. In fact she will be pityed. The man will not be. He will be shamed.
It all has more to do with the socialy constructed way that the two genders are percieved. Nothing more.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measuring a phsyiological change from aging is real science not junk. If the news services chose to pick this up as 'Ha-ha! Men get stupid!' that's junk jounralism.
Just as with this article, in which the science appears to prove that men either experience more pain or are less receptive to pain medication, yet the reporting turns it all into a snickering bit of misandry.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
