Sunday, April 29, 2012

Pro-Choice Masculism

The men's rights movement is gaining some steam in good ol' Germany. One thought that I found was worth repeating (and I am really too lazy to link right here, but I believe it was from an anon interview with Arne Hoffmann on Cuncti) was the following.

If the emancipation of women meant freedom to work, the emancipation of men means freedom from work

I really like that quote although another masculist pointed out that what we are fighting for is not freedom from work but freedom of choice. That got me thinking as I have sawn this idea formulated elsewhere, too. For instance Warren Farrell:

As the book's title implied, The Myth of Male Power challenged the belief that men had the power—in part by challenging the definition of power. Farrell defined power as "control over one's life."

A similar belief was brought forward buy another article I found while looking for links on misandry:

Book Review of Anthony Synnott, Re-Thinking Men: Heroes, Villains and
Victims


Synnott’s argument is further advanced by his discussion of gender
relations in the context of power. Here, he asserts that the focus has
been particularly myopic, often pitting women against men in a struggle
for power. This conception tends to overlook the various meanings of
power, ignoring that power can be oppressive (having the power “over”)
but also liberating (having the power “to do”)
. Synnott offers a more
complex and diagonal theory of power and gender relations that consid-
ers gender and power as more “fluid” concepts, with multiple lines of
power (including gender, race, class, religion, culture, etc.) criss-cross-
ing each other, contributing to the overall power dynamic. In addition,
and perhaps most importantly, Synnott lays down a solid argument that
empowering women to achieve gender justice need not entail toppling or
bringing down men.

Certainly an interesting topic.


Friday, April 27, 2012

Fat positivity, BMI and some surveys

I am torn on the issue of fat positivity. I get what feminist do and how they try to help people, but sometimes I get the feeling health issues are overlooked. Here is some stuff I found via reddit:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-03/health/31280839_1_obesity-bmi-body-composition

Body-mass index BMI, the 200-year-old formula widely used by medical experts, health insurers and the fitness industry, may be categorising almost half of women and just over 20 per cent of men as healthy when their body-fat composition suggests they are obese, a US new study has found. [...]

To measure fatness, they used a costly diagnostic test called dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, or DXA, and calculated subjects' level of obesity based on fat-composition standards used by the American Society of Bariatric Physicians.

The results also suggest that the BMI is a poor measure of fatness in men - but not always in a way that underestimates their obesity. In all, 20 per cent of the study's men shifted from normal and healthy into the obese column under the new measure.

But far more frequently than was the case among women, men who were obese by the BMI standard were reclassified as normal and healthy when they were measured with the DXA.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7771450

Abstract Obesity, android fat distribution, and other anthropometric measures have been associated with coronary heart disease in long-term prospective studies. However, fluctuations in weight due to age-related hormonal changes and changes in lifestyle practices may bias relative risk estimates over a long follow-up period. The authors prospectively studied the association between body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2), waist-to-hip ratio, and height as independent predictors of incident coronary heart disease in a 3-year prospective study among 29,122 US men aged 40-75 years in 1986. The authors documented 420 incident coronary events during the follow-up period. Body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, short stature, and weight gain since age 21 were associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease. Among men younger than 65, after adjusting for other coronary risk factors, the relative risk was 1.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-2.69) for men with BMI of 25-28.9, 2.61 (95% CI 1.54-4.42) for BMI of 29.0-32.9, and 3.44 (95% CI 1.67-7.09) for obese men with BMI > or = 33 compared with lean men with BMI < 23.0. Among men > or = 65 years of age, the association between BMI and risk of coronary heart disease was much weaker. However, in this age group, the waist-to-hip ratio was a much stronger predictor of risk (relative risk = 2.76, 95% CI 1.22-6.23 between extreme quintiles). These results suggest that for younger men, obesity, independent of fat distribution, is a strong risk factor for coronary heart disease. For older men, measures of fat distribution may be better than body mass index at predicting risk of coronary disease.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7988316

RESULTS: We found a strong positive association between overall obesity as measured by body mass index (BMI) and risk of diabetes. Men with a BMI of > or = 35 kg/m2 had a multivariate RR of 42.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.0-80.6) compared with men with a BMI < 23.0 kg/m2. BMI at age 21 and absolute weight gain throughout adulthood were also significant independent risk factors for diabetes. Fat distribution, measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), was a good predictor of diabetes only among the top 5%, while waist circumference was positively associated with the risk of diabetes among the top 20% of the cohort. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18830075 RECENT FINDINGS: Current epidemiologic evidence suggests that waist circumference and waist-hip ratio, as indicators of abdominal adiposity, are positively related to coronary heart disease in men and women independently of body mass index and conventional coronary heart disease risk factors. But the magnitude and shape of the associations for these abdominal adiposity indices varied with adjustments for mediating and confounding factors. Interestingly, hip waist circumference was inversely associated with coronary heart disease after adjusting for waist circumference. Because waist and hips are positively correlated but have separate and opposite associations with coronary disease, using waist circumference alone may provide underestimated risk estimate if hip girth is not accounted for in the calculation of this risk. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9098178 Abstract Obesity is an established risk factor for non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). Anthropometric measures of overall and central obesity as predictors of NIDDM risk have not been as well studied, especially in women. Among 43,581 women enrolled in the Nurses' Health Study who in 1986 provided waist, hip, and weight information and who were initially free from diabetes and other major chronic diseases, NIDDM incidence was followed from 1986 to 1994. After adjustment for age, family history of diabetes, smoking, exercise, and several dietary factors, the relative risk of NIDDM for the 90th percentile of body mass index (BMI) (weight (kg)/height (m)2) (BMI = 29.9) versus the 10th percentile (BMI = 20.1) was 11.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.9-15.9). Controlling for BMI and other potentially confounding factors, the relative risk for the 90th percentile of waist: hip ratio (WHR) (WHR = 0.86) versus the 10th percentile (WHR = 0.70) was 3.1 (95% CI 2.3-4.1), and the relative risk for the 90th percentile of waist circumference (36.2 inches or 92 cm) versus the 10th percentile (26.2 inches or 67 cm) was 5.1 (95% CI 2.9-8.9). BMI, WHR, and waist circumference are powerful independent predictors of NIDDM in US women. Measurement of BMI and waist circumference (with or without hip circumference) are potentially useful tools for clinicians in counseling patients regarding NIDDM risk and risk reduction.



Trafficking victims in the UK

I am not really surprised judging by previous surveys I have seen. Here is the article:



Men account for more than two-fifths (41%) of adult victims of human trafficking in England and Wales helped by the Salvation Army, contrary to the public perception that the crime almost exclusively affects women.

The finding comes in a survey by the charity, which provides specialist support for the adult victims of trafficking on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.[...] The charity's survey found that 45% of those it supported had been forced into sexual exploitation, 43% were involved in labour exploitation and 8% were trafficked into domestic servitude. [...] Minister for justice, Crispin Blunt, said: "Human trafficking is often seen as predominantly affecting women – meaning that male victims are often overlooked and are forced to go without the support they so desperately need."

Thursday, April 26, 2012

The Most Dangerous Jobs in America

Via the NYT, Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2010:

“Fishers and related fishing workers” died from workplace injuries at the rate of 200 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers in 2009, according to the B.L.S., 60 times greater than the rate of 3.3 per 100,000 for the overall American work force. For loggers, the fatality rate was 61.8 per 100,000 and for aircraft pilots and flight engineers, 57.1 per 100,000. [...] Other dangerous occupations include farming and ranching (38.5 fatalities per 100,000 workers), roofing (34.7), structural iron and steel work– those who put up the steel frames for skyscrapers (30.3) and refuse and recycling (25.2)

[...T]he fatality rate from workplace injuries is more than nine times higher for men than for women: 5.5 per 100,000 for men, compared with 0.6 per 100,000 for women. The B.L.S. reported that 4,021 men died from workplace injuries in 2009, compared with 319 women.

Can we somehow correlate this with wage data?:

Median yearly wage (bls.gov data):
Fishers and Related Fishing Workers $30,220
Loggers $32,870
aircraft pilots and flight engineers $118,070
$60,750
farming and ranching $60,750
roofing $34,220
structural iron and steel work $44,540
refuse and recycling $34,420

Wiki gives us an overall median income for men and women based on US Census Bureau, 2003 data:

Male, age 25+: $33,517
Female, age 25+: $19,679

How pregnancy affects fathers

Some interesting datapoints:

Research shows that male marmosets and cotton-top tamarins—primates that, like humans, split child-rearing duties between the mother and father—gain as much as 20 percent of their body weight while waiting for the birth of their offspring. [...] The hypothesis about the marmosets and tamarins is that the pregnancy paunch prepares a dad for the extra energy he'll expend in helping to rear his baby.

In addition, dads-to-be have elevated levels of cortisol and prolactin, hormones that are also present in high levels among mothers who are attached and responsive to their children. A father's testosterone level also drops by about a third, on average, in the first three weeks after his child is born. These hormonal shifts, which are likely sparked by exposure to the pregnant woman's hormones (there is correlational evidence that dads who spend time with moms experience the changes), mirror those experienced by mothers and may similarly prepare men for parenthood. [...]

A 2006 study found enhancements in the prefrontal cortex of the father marmoset. After childbirth, the neurons in this region showed greater connectivity, suggesting that having young children could boost the part of the brain responsible for planning and memory, skills parents need when having kids gives them more to keep track of. The neurons also had more receptors for vasopressin, a hormone that has been shown to prompt animal fathers to bond with offspring. (Receiving an injection of vasopressin, for instance, prompts a male prairie vole to cuddle and groom a youngster.)

And as usual with topics about men:

And yet despite these findings, few scientists treat the physiology of fathers as a serious subject in its own right. [...] Between 2000 and 2006, the journal Hormones and Behavior published nearly three times as many studies of mothers as of fathers, and this year the count so far is 16 to three. A 2000 review framed research into physiological fatherhood as "an opportunity to better understand maternal behavior, by studying parental behavior in the absence of pregnancy and lactation." Interest in how men's bodies prepare themselves for fatherhood only seems to matter to the extent it sheds light on mothers. Meanwhile, the ways in which dads screw up their kids is a thriving area of research.

Gender identity discrimination now covered via Title VII

Via Feministing:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has ruled that employment discrimination based on gender identity is covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. From Metro Weekly:

The EEOC decision, issued without objection by the five-member, bipartisan commission, will apply to all EEOC enforcement and litigation activities at the commission and in its 53 field offices throughout the country. It also will be binding on all federal agencies and departments.

In the decision, the EEOC states, ”[T]he Commission hereby clarifies that claims of discrimination based on transgender status, also referred to as claims of discrimination based on gender identity, are cognizable under Title VII’s sex discrimination prohibition ….”

Finally...

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Black women with a bachelor's degree outearn white women with a bachelor's degree

As the headline says:

New census figures offer dramatic evidence of education's big payback: Income for African-Americans with a four-year college degree has increased so much since the civil rights advances of the 1960s that we have almost closed our historical income gap with four-year, college-educated whites.

In 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, blacks with a bachelor's degree had a median income of $36,694, which is almost as high as the $38,667 median income of whites with a bachelor's degree.[...]

The median income of black males with a bachelor's degree was $41,916, almost 20 percent lower than the $51,138 median income of similarly educated white males. Similarly educated black women had a median income of $33,142, which was lower than black male graduates, but about 10 percent higher than the $30,082 median income figure for similarly degreed white women.

White women's income appears to be lower than that of black women partly because college-educated black women are less likely to leave their careers in order to raise children, according to Census Bureau surveys.