It's a birth defect

[cjsmith]

My X chromosome is acting up again. I'm hunched in a nearly-foetal position, perched on the edge of my chair here at work, waiting for the painkillers to kick in.

Yet again the amazement rolls over me: medical science has so far done nothing about this problem. They don't fully understand its cause, they don't have a cure, they can't even usually mask the symptoms (ok I admit I haven't tried narcotics). If men as a group had anywhere near this much trouble from one syndrome, it would be Medical Enemy Number One. There'd be bazillion dollar grants to try to cure it. Until a cure was found, a man desiring corrective surgery to remove the whole offending area would be supported and empathized with and probably have the whole thing paid for by insurance. (Viagra is covered by many medical plans! That's about as medically necessary as a toupee! That's the type of service GUYS get, while I pay all my OTC painkiller costs AND my birth control pills out of pocket.)

Why are women so hated?

Comments

[cassidyrose.livejournal.com]

Sorry you are feeling so poorly. Many gentle ::hugs:: to you. I hope your cramps subside. I do believe that the only thing that actually works for severe mentstrual cramps are prescription and/or mostly illegal drugs. Not that I would know.

I agree that if this sort of debilitating pain regularly affected men there would have been more research into the issue. I also get crabby about health plans that don't cover bc pills, but cover Viagra. Hell, when I was on my parents' health plan I had to pay out of pocket for my BC pills even though they were being prescribed to treat my ovarian cysts. Fuming mad it made me.

Hope you feel better soon

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Thanks. Yeah, fuming mad is about right. I am amazed more women aren't getting violent about it. I suppose I'd most want to kick ass when I'm hurting, and that's when I'm least physically inclined to do it.

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

Why are women so hated?

*Seeble*

I've been wondering the same thing an awful lot, lately. Not just in the context of the medical establishment. But I haven't been having the greatest luck with the medical establishment either, and the worst has come from a woman doctor.

I use Meclofenimate, an NSAID. It helps a bit, and considering how physical my job is, every little bit helps.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

'Zat a prescription one? I may start Vioxx.

Re:

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

Yep, prescription. My Gyn's nurse-practioner recommended it, and got me the 'script from the doc. It's not the be all and end all, but for me it does take the edge off.

[tsjafo.livejournal.com]

I hope you feel better soon.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Thanks. Four Aleve have calmed it a good bit; it's down to a dull roar, and I'm more or less functional.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

My condolences on your pain. Fortunately for me (crosses fingers, knocks on wood, etc.), my own debilitating pain of this sort went away when I went on the pill in my early 20's, and then never returned, even after I quit the pill. Of course, I did go right on to be pregnant and then lactating for 3 years, so that might have had something to do with it. :^)

Regarding Viagra being "as medically necessary as a toupee," I would have to disagree. I think that for MANY men, it's not necessary at all--that other ways of dealing with the problem would be much better and probably more effective. But for some with certain physical reasons (diabetes springs to mind), it might be the answer to something that would otherwise poison their relationship(s) and emotional health. If you've never been on SSRI's or other drugs that can interfere with this response, then you probably don't have a context for just how damaging this can be. I have had this experience, and I can tell you that, gone on long enough, it can destroy your self-esteem completely, which eventually could lead to all sorts of physical consequences stemming from not thinking you're worth taking care of. I can absolutely see Viagra being covered as a medical expense. And I also agree that it is often flagrantly abused, and that similar attention has not been paid to many "female complaints" that deserve at least equal attention.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Mine's less now, on the pill, than it was in high school. If not for the pill and newer, more powerful painkillers being invented fast enough that I can't become immune to all of them, I'd have committed suicide by now. I'm not making that up. Bad as it is now, it was far worse back then.

I can see - if I stretch my warped perceptions a ways - the self-esteem issues that could be triggered by erectile dysfunction, especially considering how much self-esteem seems to be bound up with maleness in general sometimes. Of course, self-esteem issues can be triggered by a whole host of things (including baldness, maybe?). To my mind, the "real problem" is the linking of self-esteem to hair (or to penis). On the other hand, fixing that costs more and takes more time, and sex is fun, so the Viagra solution is a great one. I just wish my concerns got decent treatment too.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Hey CJ,

I can't answer your questions, because I've been struck more than once by the injustice you're seeing. I have partners and daughters whom I've seen affected by the severe, acute pain.

I don't think it's an active hatred so much as it's 'benign neglect.' But when you're suffering the results of it the difference can be hard to tell.

*hugs* <- if they'll help. I wish I could offer more.

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Benign neglect? While I can't say it's malignant, or hatred, I don't think it's benign either. There's a measure of scorn in the way the medical industry treats women. I'm not sure the reason resides in the medical community necessarily, but rather, I think it's got a lot of causes, many of which exist because of male chauvinism and a reaction against feminism. It's not just the USA where this sort of thing goes on. It's even worse in Asia.

[rampling.livejournal.com]

I don't see it as active hatred (in general) either; I see it as neglect too -- but I wouldn't call it "benign" (for the most part). I've felt for most of my life that women most often just aren't taken seriously[*]. Especially including anything related to menstruation or female-only issues. There's *often* a patronizing element to how *some* (yet *many*) men deal with "female issues".

Of course there are many male types out there whose attitude one could describe as benign neglect, which may include most of the researchers who could have done some research on ways to improve the situation. Most medical researchers have been male, who probably at least have a grudging respect for the condition. I could see calling this attitude "benign neglect" -- it's not meant *against* women, these issues are just not at the top of their lists.

And, of course, there are quite a few men treat women and their "special troubles" with the serious respect that they deserve. I've been impressed when a guy gets seriously frustrated by his inability to help improve the situation in any way, and genuinely frets over my pain. It's really nice when guys *get it* -- that it can be *really bad* for some women (including me), and treat it as the serious nastiness that it is.

[*] Ironically, I think the fact that women aren't taken seriously in general *contributes* to the fact that lesbian and bi women are hassled less than gay and bi men. This isn't the only factor, of course, but I think it's an important one. The fact that women are usually underestimated has the side effect of giving us more freedom in some ways. But I'm digressing again....

(hey, gotta get to work now...!)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

It's really nice when guys *get it* -- that it can be *really bad* for some women (including me), and treat it as the serious nastiness that it is.

I've found a disproportionate number of guys who *get it* are guys with daughters. Wives and lovers and sisters and female coworkers are, to some extent, expendable and maybe-only-99%-trustworthy and so forth, but a DAUGHTER... a daughter can spark a guy's first deep interest in the quality of women's lives.

Which means there are quite a few guys out there on whom Diety really NEEDS to inflict a daughter. ;) Maybe some researchers.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Interesting observation. While I am a guy with daughters, I 'got it' long before they were born, the first time I saw my dearly beloved curled up in agony. Since then, I have seen her peg the needle on a muscle spasm strip chart, and have the needle stay there for well over a minute before it even began to track again, and not ever come anywhere near the relaxed state before it pegged again. I'm told this condition is not as uncommon as some might think, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Fortunately for my daughters, half of their genetic heritage is through me, and a long line of robust agricultural Irish women who seem not to have been too terribly afflicted with the worst of the conditions. Unfortunately for my daughters, the other half of their genetic heritage is from their mother... When they were minors, I paid premium rates for the optional health insurance that covered their oral contraceptives and OB-GYN care, and counted the money well spent.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Bill, with you I find it absolutely believable that you had clue before you had kids, and that's about the biggest compliment I can think of right at this instant.

The wording of my comment was perhaps unfortunate; I didn't mean to imply that every guy who was a dad gained clue by loving his kids. It just seems sorta disproportionate, and I figure some of 'em do indeed gain clue that way.

Genetics, hmm. I don't take after my mom's side of the family, I don't think. She's never had a twinge of discomfort (and to this day she doesn't quiiiite believe that I do, either). I have no idea about my dad's side. His mom died when he was four...

[wcg.livejournal.com]

with you I find it absolutely believable that you had clue before you had kids, and that's about the biggest compliment I can think of right at this instant.

Thank you CJ. I appreciate that.

I was not interpreting your earlier comment as aimed specifically at me, and intended only to offer my own experience as something of a counter example. In general, I'd agree with you that a lot of men just don't recognize the severity of the situation until they see their daughters laid low by it. (And, alas, some don't even then, though this is usually because their wives and or mothers assure them that the girls don't really feel as bad as they claim.)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I appreciate the sympathy, especially from a guy who is not trying to convince me I am imagining it. You're probably right that it's closer to neglect than to active hatred (although I do think the hatred's there).

I'm a little more emotionally even-keeled at this particular instant. Four Aleve are masking about eighty percent of it, and I no longer feel like it would be A REALLY GOOD IDEA to dig out my abdominal cavity with a dull spoon. :)

Viagara vs. BCP

[abz6598.livejournal.com]

Impotence is an infirmity (so to speak), getting/not getting pregnant is not.

That is to say, Viagara corrects a medical condition; it fixes someting that is not doing what its supposed.

If women believe that BCP should be covered under prescriptions then would they also expect condoms, abortions, and fertility treatments to be covered under them as well?

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I was speaking of the BCPs as a hormonal application for pain. This is the major reason I am on them.

But since you asked, there is a bit of a parallel: Viagra lets a guy have sex, birth control makes it much more likely the gal will say yes to sex. So they're both there for you, John! :-)

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[abz6598.livejournal.com]

As a hormonal app for pain, sure. That makes sense. I can go along with that.

The whole Viagra-is-covered-so-BCP-should-be-too argument, on the other hand, I have a problem with.

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I'm in a feisty mood, so let's put another spin on the Viagra/BCP thing: suffering. How much does the man suffer if he doesn't get Viagra? How much does the woman suffer if she doesn't get the Pill? I contend they're not only comparable, but the woman's got it worse.

I guess the whole argument pivots around what health care is for. Is it about making our bodies work the way "Nature intended"? (In which case, dump Viagra. Nature's fine with some people, especially older people, not breeding.) Is it about making our bodies work the way we WISH they worked? (In which case, cover BCPs and Viagra.) Is it about making our bodies work the way some standard youthful body works? (In which case, cover Viagra, as well as facelifts and arguably sex changes.) Is it about reducing pain? What exactly is it about?

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

If women believe that BCP should be covered under prescriptions then would they also expect condoms, abortions, and fertility treatments to be covered under them as well?


Yes.

Pregnancy may not be an "illness" (although many doctors still treat it as such....), but it is a condition that affects the human body. Unwanted pregnancy costs much much more than condoms. As with so many other medical conditions, our system is completely screwed up. We treat the RESULTS of neglect of our bodies, but not always the less-expensive prevention that would keep it from happening. Case in point, my dental plan underwent a change in policies a couple years ago. Previously, I was covered for 2 exams per year, as should be, since that's what's recommended. They then changed it to cover only one regular exam per year, but increased the emergency visit coverage to 2 per year. Result--if I DON'T take care of my teeth, the treatment is paid for. But if I DO, it's not.

Providing minimal coverage for condoms and even some abortions (incest, anyone?) is logical, as it prevents further costs down the road. Fertility treatments fall under your own stated OK reason for Viagra: "it fixes someting that is not doing what its supposed."

Yes, BCP should be covered, as should access to other forms of birth control, preventive medicine, and a basic level of care for every human being on the planet.

Then again, my political compass (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.html) results put me firmly in the libertarian left quadrant, so YMMV.

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[abz6598.livejournal.com]

Yes, BCP should be covered, as should access to other forms of birth control, preventive medicine, and a basic level of care for every human being on the planet.


Egads! For every human being on the planet? Surely youre not espousing the idea that basic health care is a 'right'? (Which of course leads to the questions - what is 'basic'? At whose expense? etc.)

As for birth control, why not carry it a step further? Will we demand that insurance companies pay for condoms for gay couple to prevent HIV/AIDS since this will "prevent further costs down the road"? If not, then arent you setting up the same double-standard that you seem to think exists for male/female treatments and applying it to straight/gay couples?


Encouraging preventative measures is a good idea, certainly. It makes wonderful economic sense. But if BCP prevents unwanted expense down the road then isnt that also saying fertility treatments, which you say should be covered, would cause unwanted expenses down the road since they both produce exactly opposite results?

Insurance covering abortions for incidences of incest seems even further hair-splitting. Cover abortions for incest but what about for rape? Or contraceptive failure? Or simple change of mind?

In the case of the always alluring cjsmith I could see BCP being covered under insurance if its prescribed as a measure to relieve her pain. Maybe it would make more sense if insurance covered birth control but not the costs resulting from the lack of use of birth control. That is to say, we'll pay for your pills but if you dont use them and get pregnant dont expect us to foot the bill for your delivery and hospital stay.

Additionally, comparing Viagra and BCP seems sort of apples/orange-y.

It might make more sense to compare them as what they are. If they dont cover BCP and tubal ligation then they shouldnt cover condoms and vasectomies.

If they do cover Viagra then they should cover drugs that enable women to have sex. (And dont say that BCP enable women to have sex...thats like saying condoms allow men to have sex. I'm talking about having sex in the physical everything-seems-to-be-working-sense.)

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

God(dess) forbid that every human being should be in good health and have a right to feel good.

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[abz6598.livejournal.com]

My problem is with it being a 'right'. At whose expense? You can certainly feel as good as you want and you can have all the health care you want...just dont expect me to pay for your doctor.

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

That's fine. As long as I don't have to pay for your library, or your postal workers, or your street upkeep, either. Draw the line wherever you damn please. I still maintain that there should be a basic level of healthcare available to all. They manage it in other countries, why not here?

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

That's fine. As long as I don't have to pay for your library, or your postal workers, or your street upkeep, either.

Or your erections.

Come to think of it, there's something particularly *cruel* about asking women to help foot the bill for men's erections -- and then not sharing the cost of birth control. 'Specially considering how poorly men and women share the cost of parenting.