Of course! It’s teh girleez’ fault!

I’ve been muttering about this to myself for days, wondering would I / wouldn’t I write about it. After all, the person I am about to criticise is someone I respect, and whose work I enjoy. But really, Poneke? Is it all teh girleez fault?

A few years back, Poneke delivered an address to the Sceptics Society conference, which is now posted on his blog. It’s a fascinating piece, showing that our mainstream media is far more sceptical about Western medicine and medical science than it is about new age nonsense, like homeopathy and iridology and feng shui. I find that a worrying trend too – why on earth is all this non-scientific crap getting a free pass? So I agree with the basic concerns raised by Poneke in his post. Moreover, I choose Western medicine over acupuncture, herbalism and prayer, every time. As for psychics and astrologers and other such charlatans who prey on other people’s tragedies, don’t get me started.

It’s when Ponoke stops reporting and analysing, and starts blaming, that I get upset. Why, he says, does the MSM give this kind of nonsense a free pass?

His answer – it’s all because there’s more girlies writing these days. He starts with the women’s mags, pointing out that they are full of stories about the alleged efficacy of the various alternative charms and spells. From there, he deduces that women are taken in by this stuff, and they like it. And that leads to saying that women journalists must believe in it. On top of that, it turns out that journalism is being feminised, even in the big newspapers. So the poor silly chookies have taken their uncritical belief in witchcraft and spread it right through the media.

The trouble is, Poneke’s analysis is based on what was published between September 2003 and August 2004 in 13 daily and weekly newspapers, including all the ‘big’ newspapers in New Zealand. Whatever the gender makeup of the newsrooms, aren’t most newspaper editors men? I know that the Sunday Star Times is edited by a woman, but as far as I can recall, during the time that Poneke used for his analysis, most of the other big newspapers were, and indeed still are, edited by men. So there must be a whole lot of mennies who have been brainwashed by the women’s mags too.

Of course, there is a much simpler explanation as to why the new age stuff gets this non-critical acceptance, even in the MSM. It sells. Rather than blaming the women writers for these pieces, it might simply be better to follow the money. Who would bother publishing a piece on feng shui if you couldn’t also sell the eyeballs to the advertisers?

That of course begs the question – why does this stuff sell? There must be an audience for it, or the women’s mags wouldn’t be full of it, and neither would the pieces in the MSM be so silly.

Poneke gives one highly plausible reason; following the cervical cancer debacle at National Women’s Hospital, many women, and presumably many men too, became deeply sceptical about doctors’ “authority”. But I think he misses another plausible explanation, to do with the way that women acquire and pass on information. And it’s not by listening to words of wisdom delivered from on high by people who can’t be bothered treating you with respect. Blue Milk has some words of advice for medical specialists, enthusiastically endorsed and added to by her commenters. Here’s the thing; if doctors treat you with contempt, brush aside your questions, tell you to just believe in them and trust them, and all the while, you know of far too many cases where trust in doctors has been rewarded with on-going contempt, then just how likely are you to go to them for further information, to feel that if you ask a question, it will be answered in a way that you can understand, without at the same time making you feel that you are stupid and small. In recent years, there’s been plenty of noise about the need to get men to see their doctors more often. I’m guessing that one of the reasons that men don’t like seeing doctors is not just that they don’t like admitting to ill health, but also that they don’t like being talked down to, and patronised. Their response? Avoid doctors. But what do women do in the same situation? Talk to each other. Gossip – pass on information and ideas. And that’s exactly the function that women’s magazines serve. Women connect with each other through them, get and pass on information, in an environment of equals.

So I think we can look deeper than the silly girlies when it comes to trying to explain why the MSM is so accepting to alternative medicines. I think that the explanations lie in the money trail, and in the failure of doctors and health professionals to treat women with respect, instead of treating them as a problem to be solved.

(As an aside, I’m not even so sure that the women’s mags are full of it. Last time I read one of them, at the hairdressers’, I found it was full of diet and weight pieces. Every celeb story commented on whether the person was looking too fat or too thin. And guess what? According to the mag, not a single person was looking good. I felt quite ill reading it.)

I see misogyny lurking in Poneke’s causal analysis. I wish he had dug a little further, thought a little harder about what might underpin the women’s mags, taken the time to look at the gender of people editing papers, not just writing them, and followed the money, rather than just blaming women. Of course I will continue to read and recommend Poneke to other people; I wouldn’t bother with this sort of analysis of some of the material presented on some of the other blogs around town. And no doubt he has plenty of issues with stuff that I write. In this case, however, I think he has just gotten it wrong.

So what finally pushed me to post on this? This charming bit of misogyny from Tumeke, where a woman is reviled for daring to have a baby. No mention of the baby’s father, who might just be held responsible too. No attempt to understand just how extraordinarily difficult it might be to care for a child in this woman’s circumstances. No idea that the woman might have had the baby because you know, that’s what people do. No – she is immediately dumped on for what the writer assumes to be her motives. What a great strategy – assign a motive to someone, then attack them for having that motivation. Fantastic. And there seems to be a nasty intersection of racism and sexism here too – would the writer have had a go at a white woman in quite the same way? I find it very odd, not least because the writers on Tumeke are often outspoken about racism, and the extent to which issues aren’t issues that the world should be concerned about if they only affect brown people.

Then there’s this bit of misogyny from The New Republic, analysed on Shakesville, and elsewhere in the feminist blogosphere.

And from Poneke himself, a nasty little jab at women. Not something he said himself, but did he really need to report this tired old sexism?

On top of that, Lyn wrote a nice piece about the web as menz space. Time to claim our space in it, she says.

So all my buttons have been pushed. And indeed, the fact that I sat on it for a few days, hesitating about whether or not to comment on it says something apropos of Lyn’s piece, all by itself.

9 responses to “Of course! It’s teh girleez’ fault!

  1. Deborah, you mistake the simple statement of facts and some academic observation about them as criticism.

    I have spent 20 years of my working life in newspaper and magazine newsrooms and thus my observations of them are based on considerable experience. Most health reporters are now women, as are most general news, feature and magazine reporters. That is just a fact. It is not a critcism. As my piece said, the media is much better for it as it produces a much wider range of stories than when newsrooms were dominated by men.

    There are plenty of women editors. Editors, however, whatever their gender, do not write the news, they manage the operation of the news outlet they work for. Reporters write the actual articles.

    Another major failing in media organisations now, is that most of the reporting staff, whether male or female, are so young as to be childless, and believe me, and I say this as both a parent and a journalist, their lack of experience with parenting and children shows, especially in health and education stories.

    This is a new trend that was not so apparent to me when I did that presentation in 2004… in the past decade, many, if not most experienced journalists of an age to have children have been lost to the industry, and most of the new entrants leave before reaching the age where they have children.

  2. Cheers for the linky-love : )
    I’m noticing a lot of misogyny around at the moment. I don’t think it’s really any worse than usual, but a number of things have prompted me to become aware of it (reportage of the presidential race, blog behaviours especially among commenters, that kind of thing), and now that I am, I’m finding it everywhere. It’s been a classic consciousness-raising kind of experience. This is no reflection on Poneke’s post which I haven’t read, but your comments about it remind me that it’s good to be careful about the way one approaches and analyses things. We’re all culpable in the very gendered universe in which we live.

  3. where was the misogyny in poneke’s post?

    was it the shadbolt joke about the pie?

  4. Simple value free facts? I’ll take a dozen please!

  5. just have to say this: acupuncture and fengshui ARE NOT new age things. in fact their history goes back a long way — only, in a different country. unfortunate, i guess, that it is those who are into new age philosophy themselves who are the ones who picked them up in the Western world.

  6. There is a book called Freakonomics which reveals that doctors are not sued for malpractice because of malpractice. They are sued for malpractice because their patients feel slighted when the doctor does not take time to listen to the patient’s “feelings”. So generally, good doctors who work quickly get sued and bad doctors who take time to stroke their patients don’t get sued.

    That’s also the reason all these quacks get so much eye time. It’s because the people they are taking in like them. It has nothing to do with the quantitative value of the care.

  7. The relevant quote is:
    “She gets herself pregnant as part of her attempts to circumvent the proper immigration process, is that what she did? She marries, on the advice of an MP, as part of her attempts to circumvent the proper immigration process…”
    Note I pose it as a question.

    Given that she had been avoiding the authorities and becoming more desperate over six years as an over-stayer it is fair to attribute that as a motivation for having a child which has automatic citizenship rights and would thus advantage her goal of staying in the country – in the same way that her subsequent marriage was also a ploy. Given the stress that she was under at the time – dodging the law etc. – would having a child in those circumstances be a rational choice for her? But I posed it as a question because it might have been unplanned – it is possible. But in my opinion it is doubtful – given the facts in this case.

    So to answer you in order:
    “a woman is reviled for daring to have a baby.”
    - now that you mention it it is completely reckless to the child for an overstayer to be having them in a country where they have no right to stay.
    “No mention of the baby’s father, who might just be held responsible too.”
    - and you pose that as a question too because it is speculation. He might not be responsible.
    “No attempt to understand just how extraordinarily difficult it might be to care for a child in this woman’s circumstances.”
    - This women’s circumstances are entirely of her own creation. That isn’t in doubt. So, as I said, it is reckless of her to have had it here.
    “No idea that the woman might have had the baby because you know, that’s what people do. No – she is immediately dumped on for what the writer assumes to be her motives. What a great strategy – assign a motive to someone, then attack them for having that motivation. Fantastic. And there seems to be a nasty intersection of racism and sexism here too – would the writer have had a go at a white woman in quite the same way?”
    - You are now assigning motives. If you’ve read my stuff you know perfectly well I wouldn’t hesitate to condemn a white women in exactly the same way – and I dare say that my co-blogger might have even given her less tolerance and highlighted inequalities based on race.

  8. Tim Selwyn wrote (in regard to the baby’s father):
    “He might not be responsible.”

    Huh? Are you saying he behaves in an irresponsible manner, or are you saying this woman budded like a hydra or perhaps reproduced by some type of parthenogenesis?

  9. You know you’re about to hear a very enlightened opinion when you see the phrase “She gets herself pregnant”. And he didn’t disappoint.

    Also thanks for the link, Deb.