Advanced search

BMJ where are the women?

(19 Posts)
MammothMashup Thu 26-Nov-20 15:14:24

Where the fuck indeed?

The dissonance is strong with this one!

OP’s posts: |
WarOnWomen Thu 26-Nov-20 15:30:16

I tried to read the article but had to give up because it was
It reminds me of a BBC news bulletin on the radio from a few short weeks ago. BBC 2 announced the possibility of a vaccine which was effective in "all genders". hmm

Lancelottie Thu 26-Nov-20 15:58:50

It's quite the mix, isn't it?
'When a crisis hits, the WHO as an institution also needs to be more cognisant of gender' immediately followed by
'Firstly, there needs to be a commitment to the collection and publication of sex-disaggregated data.'

I think they got style-manualled. Some poor sod will have been tasked with going through the report and carefully adding in 'and other genders' wherever possible, but couldn't quite bring themselves to do it to 'sex-disaggregated'.

I work for various science publishers. I've seen some bloody awful instructions about how to handle gender 'sensitively' which are going to make the actual job of publishing clear, reproducible, scientific reports quite a bit harder.

MammothMashup Thu 26-Nov-20 18:43:12

It's like it's been written by two people isn't it.

And you have to swap words about in your head to make it make sense.

OP’s posts: |
HecatesCats Thu 26-Nov-20 18:51:49

My brain hurts after reading that. It's so...unclear.

UnaOfStormhold Thu 26-Nov-20 19:00:02

I think this is fairly standard use of the distinction between differences arising because of biology (e.g. female immune systems responding differently) and differences arising due to social roles (women more likely to be in healthcare or expected to pick up childcare).

MammothMashup Thu 26-Nov-20 19:16:23

I entirely understand the use of "gendered impact" in this situation; it's the appropriate use of the word gender.

Economic Gender roles arise from stereotyped roles linked to the sexes. As a result, women have been impacted in a specific way through economics as well as biological needs.

It was the non binary guff at the beginning that makes no sense:

Research fromthe Ebolaa* andZikaa* epidemics clearly demonstrated that disease outbreaks affectwomenn* differently to men, while also differentially impacting non-binary genders and transgender persons. The impacts have been amplified now by a wealth of studies and experiences from covid-19 across the world. Importantly, these effects are not the result of the virus per se, but a result of the policies that are created and implemented to respond to emerging pathogens, which are gender-neutral. This exclusion of gender considerations masks an explicitbias against womenn*.

OP’s posts: |
NiceGerbil Thu 26-Nov-20 19:24:46

There is a much more basic problem with the article than the random non binary stuff.

The much more basic problem is that the author/s seem to think that women bearing the brunt of it when things go to shit is an oversight.

It's not, it's our role. It's not an accident that it happens like that.

MammothMashup Thu 26-Nov-20 19:28:45

It's a constant that the epidemic has revealed.

OP’s posts: |
NiceGerbil Thu 26-Nov-20 19:52:47

It was known before the epidemic though.

Austerity for eg.

Both the ww we were expected to step up when needed and back out of work when the men came home etc etc

It's not a new revelation or anything.

HecatesCats Thu 26-Nov-20 19:54:24

To tackle the downstream effects of disease outbreaks on women and other excluded genders

These things are different. It's incoherent. Women getting lumbered with the domestic burden because of gendered roles is not the same as whatever other 'excluded gender' people are experiencing. Whatever that means. The BBC report out today on the data from UN women notes that before COVID for every one hour of unpaid work done by men, three hours was done by women. Now that figure is higher. That's because, as Gerbil says that's our role.

NiceGerbil Thu 26-Nov-20 19:57:14

I can't really be bothered to get in a tizzy about the other genders stuff because of that.

I mean they don't actually have any serious data to show how non binary people globally are affected by this stuff do they. Women OTOH.... Plenty. More than plenty.

NiceGerbil Thu 26-Nov-20 19:59:45

I'm not sure I like the label 'excluded genders'. Women and other excluded genders.

It takes male primacy as an absolute default iyswim. It's very blunt.

If feminists went around saying as blunt as that 'we are excluded' we would get a load of shit. We usually need to say from what, where, at which points of life, what the underlying causes are and what needs to be done. And then we're still told to fuck off. But at least we did some homework. Or something.

aliasundercover Thu 26-Nov-20 20:30:58

As the key normative framework and international legally-binding mechanism for global health security, amendments to the IHR and as a result, WHO’s efforts in health emergencies, would set precedent for meaningful gender mainstreaming in global disease control efforts.

None of that makes any sense to me anyway. How do peopled up writing like this?

MammothMashup Thu 26-Nov-20 20:58:44

I agree with you gerbil, by reveal, I mean they're all suddenly saying in a surprised way that this is a thing when it always was/ is.

It was already a thing.

A nurse friend is trying to work out childcare so she can return escape from maternity leave (local nursery she used previously currently has 9 self isolating staff with Covid and she was told it probably wasn't the best idea) only to be told by both her mother and mil "why don't you stay off for a bit?." Why the fuck dont they say that to the father?

I'm too tired to be coherent as, unsurprisingly, I'm knackered from having to look after self isolating kids and a fucking messy house while trying to work remotely.

OP’s posts: |
MammothMashup Thu 26-Nov-20 20:59:20


*As the key normative framework and international legally-binding mechanism for global health security, amendments to the IHR and as a result, WHO’s efforts in health emergencies, would set precedent for meaningful gender mainstreaming in global disease control efforts.*

None of that makes any sense to me anyway. How do peopled up writing like this?

Blue sky thinking crap?

OP’s posts: |
Al1langdownthecleghole Thu 26-Nov-20 21:34:02


noun doesn't give a fuck how you identify

NiceGerbil Sat 28-Nov-20 00:00:15

Oh alias I have a great answer for that!

Read a book of his essays recently. This was the last and best.

The language he was criticising here has won. I said to DH after I read it. What he hates so much is the standard language in business communications now.

Enjoy smile

NiceGerbil Sat 28-Nov-20 00:04:29

Here's a quote

'The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing.'

Have a read. Man was a genius obviously. But i only knew 1984 and animal farm. This is shock awesome. I didn't know about all the other stuff.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in