Have we read the articles or are we just going off the headlines? Because she won’t have written those headlines and they might not be the best representation of what’s being said by the author.
The articles also appear to be discussing different topics, the first mask wearing and the second vaccines. Is it hypocritical to say that two different phenomena have their own causes?
Women’s health problems are often under researched, for many years research would be conducted on men because they were considered the default and it was assumed that what worked for men would work for women. This kind of thing will cause some to mistrust medicine, or at least be wary of it.
You obviously can’t say the same for men, so that couldn’t be the reason for why they might refuse to wear masks.
This couldn’t be more anecdotal tbh, not sure how much meaning we can take from it in a wider discussion.
I agree with the point of your post, but I don’t like this line. Women get called this too often in any industry that is male dominated. It’s not nice.
It is totally anecdotal, but it’s funny because it’s the complete opposite of those article headlines. People not wearing masks has nothing to do with looking weak or “toxic masculinity” and it’s not just women who don’t trust the health industry, there’s plenty of men who don’t trust it and aren’t just wacko conspiracy theorists.
I actually don’t think either headline is inaccurate. A lot of men don’t want to wear masks because it’s a sign of weakness and a lot of women’s health concerns are dismissed - and that ultimately leads to a lot of women generally not trusting the health services in this country.
I don’t have any data and this is anecdotal but in my family 90% of the people who go GP or use health products are women. I would say on a wider scale it evens out and it’s a similar proportion, but why would anyone think wearing a mask is weak, I’ve never heard that one before bro.
It’s more subconscious than anything else I think. Tbh with you bro, I think as men are far more inclined to “work through sickness” or “ignore pain until it goes away” than women are. So in that regard, a lot of men may subconsciously not want to wear a mask simply because they don’t really care too much for the virus nor do they think it’s ever going to be strong enough to do any damage to them. But I do think that, by and large, it’s going to be more men than women who don’t wear masks because they consider it weak.
Women certainly are more inclined to use health services but there is plenty of data that suggests the health concerns of women aren’t always taken seriously.
But also lots of men’s health issues are dismissed especially when it comes to mental health. From young were raised to always just man up and get on with it.
It’s hypocritical because if men don’t follow health guidelines or don’t trust medical advice it’s because they are “Toxic Males” but if women do the same it’s because they have no reason to trust the health industry as it has let them down before. That could be true for both sexes, if toxic masculinity kills then toxic femininity does the same.
I’ve seen this before from journos on Twitter and it’s lead to some controversy where the writer of the piece has had to defend themselves by saying the headline is wrong and not written by them.
Why is it that they don’t get to write their own headline/subheader?
But the two articles are about different things. I’m not an anti vaxxer, but people having concerns about putting a vaccine in their body is totally different to people not wanting to wear a mask. However unlikely we may think it is, a vaccine can irrevocably change people’s lives. Wearing a mask doesn’t have anything like the potential implications for your well being in terms of potentially causing harm. They’re just not the same thing, at all. So I don’t see how it’s hypocrisy for one to be dismissed and the other to be treated with more seriousness.
If article one said “toxic masculinity is to blame for men not getting vaccines” and the second piece defended women doing the same, then I could begin to understand claims of hypocrisy. But thats not what is happening here.
So, given that they are two entirely separate issues, why do you demand that a journalist treat them in the exact same way?
But it’s not that men don’t trust health advice it’s that they actively seek to ignore dealing with health issues. From personal experience, the women in my life (mother, sister, cousins, aunts, previous partners) will run to the phone to book a GP appointment for the smallest issue whereas the men are far less likely to want to bother going through that concern and would much rather just work through the pain / concern until it subsides.
It’s not as simplistic as the above but the articles aren’t hypocritical. They’re pulling on two different points which necessitate two different answers. The data supports that men are less likely to be treated and that men are less likely to take certain precautions. and the data supports that women have issues being listened to by health services and being dismissed.
Because it’s clear that if the majority of men had concerns about the vaccine they would be called “anti vaxxers” and it would be put down to “toxic masculinity”. The subjects are different but it’s the sentiment that’s concerning. Why do men have to be toxic but women are logical? Why the labels, headline could of just been that men are less likely to wear masks because of so and so, not because of some weird derogatory label.
Right, now we are into the territory of hypotheticals. This isn’t what she wrote an article about, so it doesn’t have any bearing on accusations of her being a hypocrite, does it? This is what you think would happen, but it’s not what she said lol.
As I said, if she had said that men are toxic for not wanting the vaccine, I could begin to understand where you are coming from. But she didn’t, they’re two different phenomena being talked about as if they are two different phenomena. So it’s probably a bit much to call her a dumb bitch and accuse her of being a hypocrite based on headlines.
But she has two separate articles, one where men are labelled as toxic and one where women are logical for having concerns. Doesn’t matter the subject the way she describes the two different sexes for behaving in the same way is Hypocritical.
Sorry OA bros I respect your opinions and understand your arguments but I can’t agree with you guys on this one. Going to have to agree to disagree. Man like me has to keep “100% Halal”, especially on Ramadan.
Haha. So what you’re saying is that all concerns must be treated in exactly the same fashion despite the varying levels of validity to the respective concerns? Come on man.
You honestly sound a bit triggered to me here, not your usual logical self.
As I already said:
Men apparently not wanting to wear a mask because it’s a sign of weakness is about as good an example of toxic masculinity as you could wish to find. Any man who doesn’t want to wear a mask cos of perceived weakness doesn’t deserve to have their concerns taken seriously. But you think that not taking this seriously therefore means that all concerns of women need to be treated the same, regardless of the actual context of the concerns, regardless of the topics under discussion being different to each other. Thats nonsense.
But yeah, I’m quoting myself, meaning I’m basically repeating myself at this stage. So let’s agree to disagree mate
Because this is the point of the sub editor. The headline is what draws people in. The writer usually gives it a headline, but it’ll be a shit one. So the sub editor’s job, as well as to correct spelling and grammar, is to make sure people will be like “oooh I want to read that”. They legally can’t fabricate a headline, but as long as the words they put in the headline are in the story, it’s fine. So often 2 sentences will get merged.
No evidence of any substantial size to suggest men are not wearing masks.
Simply have too if your in the workplace, shopping or travelling. That’s lazy or simply disingenuous stereo typing.
