Depression
Depressed Females
So. Stress in men is linked to heart attacks and strokes.
But why should women not suffer from the same consequences of stress as men?
Could it be that women simply suffer less from stress than men?
No. No. No.
After all, their reported stress levels would have been
factored out in the statistics!
(In other words, the researchers would have compared the 'cardiovascular
ills' of men only to those of women who reported experiencing the same
amount of stress as those men.)
And the good doctor has not a clue why men should suffer worse effects from
stress than women
when they report the same amount of stress.
Here is what he says - apparently. ...
As for the weaker findings [i.e. the fewer negative side-effects from stress] among women, Ohlin said this is likely due to
the fairly low number of heart disease and stroke cases among women, rather than
a resistance to the health effects of chronic stress.
In other words, the doctor is saying that women suffer less heart disease and fewer strokes from stress because they, er, well,
... because they suffer less heart disease and fewer strokes!
But, of course, with it being unacceptable for the victimhood of women ever
to be outshone by that of men, the good doctor basically tells us that women do,
in fact, suffer the
same negative effects of stress as men - they do not develop a 'resistance', or
anything like that - it's just that they, er, well, it's just that they suffer less
heart disease and fewer strokes!
But I have another explanation for why women might not suffer from so many
'cardiovascular ills' as men for any given level of reported
stress.
And it is this.
Women - being professional victims - exaggerate their levels of stress, while
men - being professional heroes - downplay it, when they are filling in their
questionnaires.
In other words, the good doctor is not actually comparing men and women with
the same stress levels at all!
He just thinks that he is.
You know; we are constantly being told how very different are men and women in the social
and the emotional sense (for whatever reasons; biological, genetic, hormonal,
environmental, etc etc) and, indeed, men are continually lambasted for all these
differences. Men are more violent. Men are more abusive. Men are more
controlling. Etc. Etc.
Women, on the other hand, are far more sensitive. They are more emotionally
adept and socially skilled. And they are oh-so-much-better, both morally and verbally.
And they are oppressed, discriminated against, and treated badly.
The two genders are a mile apart!
And yet, when people fill in the various questionnaires that researchers
thrust under their noses from time to time, it is taken for
granted that the responses from men and women will actually mean the same thing!
But how can it be that it is only in the area of questionnaire-filling
that men and
women are considered to be the same? - especially when it comes to questionnaires
about 'feelings' - whereas in just about every other sphere to do with feelings, they are deemed to
be so very different!
The whole idea is foolish.
So, for example, if a questionnaire requires people to rate such things as
their levels of, say, pain, depression, anxiety, hurt, state of well-being, etc
etc, then any gender differences supposedly found between men and women might, in
fact, simply be generated by gender differences in the way in which they answer
the questions.
It is often found, for example, that women are about twice as likely to rate
themselves as depressed as men on questionnaires. But it simply does not follow from this that women are twice as likely as men to be
depressed.
It could be, perhaps, that women are far less depressed than men but -
because they are professional victims - they give higher scores than men for
equivalent levels of depression.
And given that women are far more likely to make a fuss about their own state
of well-being than are men (and there is a mountain of evidence to support this
contention) the notion that researchers can glean very much about the true
differences in such matters between men and women from simple questionnaires is
absolutely ludicrous.
Furthermore, if - in the above study - it had, indeed, been the case that women were found to
be suffering more from 'cardiovascular ills' than men as a result of stress, you
can bet your last dollar that this would have been taken as confirmatory evidence that women
actually did suffer more than men from the ill-effects of stress because they were, in fact, more
stressed!
But because it is men who demonstrably suffer
more than women from the consequences of stress, the good doctor dares not
suggest that this might be the case because men, in fact, have to put up with
more stress.
Anyway. It has now been decided that women suffer more from depression than
men, but, once again, most of the methods used to measure 'depression' are
suspect. ...
... Depression Between
the ages of 11 and 13, female rates of depression climb sharply, and by the age
of 15, girls are twice as likely to have experienced a major depressive episode
as boys.
... The question of how depression is actually
measured by researchers has a major bearing on the issue.
Presumably, much, if not all, of the data comes from questionnaires.
And, presumably, at least some of the questions have something to do with
'feelings'.
Ah yes. Feelings. Apparently only women have them.
How are they measured, eh?
Well. Here are a few facetious guesses about the questions that are asked by
researchers that might explain how young females are reckoned to be more
'depressed' than males.
Do you cry more than once a week?
Have you got an eating disorder?
Do you ever read depressing books?
Do you often find yourself watching depressing soaps or chat-shows filled
with tales of woe, violence and abuse?
Do you constantly worry about getting pregnant?
Does the perpetual gossip of your friends depress you?
Do you find your moods alternating on a monthly cycle?
Do you paint your toenails with a dark colour?
If you answer Yes to three or more of the above, then you are depressed!
Well, you get the picture.
Males who are depressed are simply far less likely to respond YES to any of
the above questions. And, as such, on the basis of such questions, researchers
would undoubtedly conclude that females were far more depressed than males.
On the other hand, if they asked the following questions in order to assess
depression, males would likely be seen as more depressed than females.
Have you ever succeeded in committing suicide? (Well, you get
the point; given that males commit suicide some four times more often than
females.)
Do you often feel aggressive and irritable?
Do you think about sex a great deal?
Do you often absorb yourself in video games and sports to take your mind off
things?
Do you often take illicit drugs?
Do you often get drunk?
Etc.
And so my overall point is this.
It is not possible to assess how different the genders are when
it comes to 'feelings' because, firstly, the genders might respond differently
to the questionnaires themselves (with women more likely to exaggerate their
feelings) and, secondly, the questions themselves are likely to be far more pertinent
to one gender than to the other - and there is, currently, no effective way of
'weighting' the answers to them appropriately in order to 'equate' them across
the genders.
As such, how one measures differences in levels of depression between the
genders can easily be influenced by sexist bias.
And after thirty years of such overwhelming and unmitigated sexist bias in
the research purporting to throw light on gender differences - and this occurs especially when
politically-corrected researchers wish to suggest that women suffer more than do men - it is very difficult
indeed to have any faith in what is published nowadays on various
matters that purport to differentiate between the genders. And when it comes to
research based on questionnaires, the validity of any
psychological research on gender differences falls at the very first hurdle.
And look at this! ...
Boys Are Vulnerable Men
treated with kid gloves as young babies are more likely to succeed in work and
relationships, according to a UK psychiatrist.
According to this article, males are more vulnerable to
depression. ...
[Boys] got poorer examination grades, were more vulnerable to depression and were more likely to commit crimes than girls, he
said.
So there you have it.
As I said in the piece above, there is just no way that you can figure
out which gender gets more depressed, or more stressed, or more whatever.
When it comes to matters to do with feelings, questionnaires are no damn
good.
And, to put it bluntly, whenever you see psychologists or social
scientists pontificating unrestrainedly over how different are
the genders when it comes to their inner states and feelings,
you can bet your last dollar that they are talking hokum - and, usually,
politically-corrected hokum at that.
...
Revenge More Satisfying For Men Men appear to get greater satisfaction than women when witnessing retribution, research
suggests.
Basically, this experiment discovered that men were less likely than women to
show empathy towards someone who had cheated others out of money, but they
showed the same amount of empathy as women towards those who had played
'fairly'.
From this finding the researchers concluded that men are more prone to seek
revenge.
But this is just politically-correct nonsense.
All that this experiment really suggests is that women have more empathy with
those who cheat others out of money. In other words, this experiment simply suggests that women do not think
particularly badly of those who cheat others out of money.
Indeed, they empathise with them!
No surprises there!
Furthermore, if the experiment had instead looked at how 'empathic' were women
towards, say, those who cheated in other matters, then their 'empathy' figures
might well have been lower than that of men. And so the idea that
this experiment reveals some fundamental differences between men and women when
it comes to 'revenge' and 'empathy' is completely wrong-headed.
Furthermore, in their paper, the researchers suggested that this experiment
was not designed to look at sex differences in empathy, but it
seems that given that they could spin the results in a way that
cast women in a more favourable light than men, they clearly decided otherwise.
And there are no surprises there either!
Indeed, had the experiment dared to suggest that men were more empathic than
women then, quite simply, it would not have gotten published - and the research
grants would have dried up.
That's the way that it works out there.
And you must understand this.
Nearly all the gender studies 'research'
conducted by social scientists these days is nothing but hokum. It is very
very heavily biased - mostly against men, and mostly in furtherance of an
agenda arising from left-wing, feminist-based politics of the
politically-correct variety. And the aims of the researchers are mostly
ideological and/or based on climbing career ladders.
The 'truth' has precious little to do with
it.
As such, I can assure you that if the results of this experiment had been
reversed - i.e. if it had been found that men had more empathy with cheats -
then the researchers would have attracted further funding simply by arguing that this was an indication that men had more
empathy with 'cheats' because they could easily see themselves as
being 'cheats'.
And they would do this because the only way to keep attracting the funding
is to keep coming up with ideas
that portray men in a relatively unfavourable light.
Well, if anything, the results of this experiment indicate that women and
cheating are close allies, whereas men do not have much sympathy with those who
cheat.
Hmm.
Good experiment!
+ Two new studies find that women may be genetically predisposed to cheating on their
partners.
|
