September 19, 2009

"So if, as Michelle Obama says, women are 'crushed' under our health care system, then how come they live longer than men?"

Asks Glenn Reynolds, and indeed,  that was the first thing I thought when I heard what Michelle Obama had to say.

Or actually the first thing I thought — because I was hearing it, not just reading it — was oh, no, she's one-upping Nancy Pelosi doing that feminine "crying" voice. Oh, how my heart has hardened to Crying Voice! I don't know how I'm going to keep going. It's not easy.

But then after I thought that and thought the Instapundit thought (that men have a shorter life span), I saw the First Lady's point. Women may depend more heavily on the health care system, especially early in life when they need to manage their fertility. Childbirth and its alternatives — other than celibacy — require medical help. And babies and young children need their doctor visits, and a lot more women than men take responsibility for getting them.

Men have shorter life spans, but not because they are short-changed on medical treatments:
[N]ew research into why the gap in male and female life spans exists suggests that a natural male propensity toward risky and daredevil behavior may be one reason men don't live as long as women....

More men than women die in car accidents, other types of accidents, homicides, and suicides, the researchers note. They add that in the U.S., the gender gap in death rates peaks in young adulthood and is mainly due to behavior.
And let's not forget that some of that male violence is directed at women — another reason women seek medical care.

Moreover, without advanced health care, the male life span would be greater:
“Up until very recently in human terms, life expectancy for men was greater than for women,” [said] Carol J. Hogue .... a professor of maternal and child health and of epidemiology at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health....

Why did women overtake men in life expectancy?...

“The major killer in early life for women was maternal mortality, and that has been tamed considerably, whereas the major killer for men is violence and accidents, and that has not gone down as dramatically as childbirth deaths have gone down,” Hogue says.

Women shouldn’t take their longer life expectancy for granted. The 2004 gender gap in U.S. life expectancy was the smallest it’s been since 1946. If women continue to adopt unhealthy habits like smoking, the gap may narrow further....
So, I'm going to say that Michelle Obama is right, that health care has a special women's angle, and it made sense to mobilize the rarely-seen female figurehead to tell us so.

If she could just squeeze that crying tone out of her voice. Stop hamming it up. Talk straight using real facts and tie it to actual provisions in a legislative text so we can check your work.

***

As for that belt. I know everyone is talking about the belt MO wore. Some people are perceiving a 3-D quality that make it look like it holds bullets. But it is flat, and it just happens not to be flattering.

Somebody has apparently decided that MO should accentuate what might be the narrowest part of her body, the very high waist. This theory has been taken to an extreme with wide leather belts. But the circumference isn't that small. And the "waist" at that level includes the rib cage. It's right over the diaphragm. You can't cinch that belt tight without restricting breathing. I'm thinking the belt looks bad, worse than her stylists realize, because she's giving herself breathing room.

I'm guessing Michelle is feeling chafed and constricted by a lot of things, and that belt isn't just literally suffocating her, but it's reminding her of all the many ways she's being reined in and tied down. It makes you want to let that belt out another notch. Or take if off all together. Use it as a whip. But no, she really can't. She's got to be First Ladylike. So here she is murmuring feelingly about women's health.

And there she is acting out a show of vegetable shopping:
Though the produce stand was only a block or so from the White House, the first lady hopped into her armored limousine and pulled into the market amid the wail of sirens.

The first lady, in gray slacks and blue sweater, marveled that the people were "so pumped up" despite the rain. "I have never seen so many people so excited about fruits and vegetables!" she said.
Did she say that with admiration? I'm sure she tried. I imagine her thinking: They made me do this. They've consigned me to the vegetable department. Why the fuck are you people here?
The first lady picked up a straw basket and... she loaded up with organic Asian pears, cherry tomatoes, multicolored potatoes, free-range eggs and... two bunches of Tuscan kale. She left the produce with an aide, who paid the cashier as Obama made her way back to the limousine.
There now. Are you satisfied? I am not carrying this thing, and I am not doing any money transactions. Now get me the hell out of here. Where's my limousine?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking her. I sympathize. All this feminism for all these years and the First Lady — the First Lady with a Princeton and a Harvard Law degree and who had been the prime moneymaker in her family — gets squashed in the vegetable bin and squelched by an ugly belt to the solar plexus.

83 comments:

AllenS said...

She knows what she's talking about when it comes to health. She used to work in a hospital, don'tcha know.

Her belt is an industrial hose clamp.

WV: rednetro

Makes sense.

campy said...

We developed the life insurance industry so we wouldn't have to care about mens' health.

traditionalguy said...

A unique aspect to Michelle's going out to campaign for National Health Care using her husband's same tired, twisted half truths, but saying them in a wailing, theatrical female voice is the priority that the Redistributionists have put on this issue. My first thought was that Obama was pulling a Charley Manson sending out the chicks to do his dirty work, but that is demeaning to Michelle Obama. Whatever happens during the defense of the Democrat's Healthcare Capture assault, any demeaning of Michelle Obama would be highly counter-productive. She does her part shielding her husband, but the buck must always stop at Barak Obama.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Would you have even noticed the belt if Drudge hadn't called it a "bondage belt"?

This was a pretty incredible essay-- the Professor's powers of empathy are mesmerizing. I say this seriously-- try writing fiction?

That's what this is, fiction using "real life" characters.

AllenS said...

I just came up with a brilliant idea for the belt. Beat Montagne Montaigne with it.

Crimso said...

So it stands to reason that a much, much more important priority than nationalized healthcare should probably be stopping all the violence among young men.

AJ Lynch said...

Hahaha. Good one AllenS!


wv =rabac

Meade said...

And let's not forget that some of that male violence is directed at women — another reason women seek medical care.

We won't forget. But remember - sometimes it's a woman who... shall we say, lays the groundwork (1:01).

Old Dad said...

More divide and conquer Alinsky BS. We'll all be racists and misogynists before this farce runs its course.

But I suppose the First Lady has a point. The President's Grand Mother, a typical white person, clearly needed health care after being thrown under the bus. And those Latin American underage hookers that Administration surrogate Acorn supports, they'll need lots or health care. On the other hand, rationing senior care, which will hurt more women then men, Obabmacare can siphon off more dough for the younger women. So more grannies under the bus.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Michelle Obama isn't giving her husband good press. I realize her handlers think of her as the First Lady and feel protective of her, but someone with a cool head needs to step in and change the way she is being presented before she becomes a liability.

This seems like a familiar issue in the Obama administration. They have a beautiful narrative which doesn't match realty, and they are blinded by the beauty to their own detriment.

These are the problems of having a President who was an author.

traditionalguy said...

Montagne Montaigne...Did you listen to Michelle's approach that pointed out women are often the sole supporters and care givers, and that therefore they need "free healthcare" the most to meet their crushing burden of responsability. That is the argument! The "Rich Americans" must be responsable. The single mothers and the renegade missing fathers are irresponsable because of oppression, so it is owed to them by the rest of us oppressors. That is a welfare justification, but medicade and s-Chip already handles that. So Michelle is asking for the Nanny State so that the living will be easy for all people. But I don't believe her, because her other goal of goals is Cap and Tax designed only to loot all Rich Americans down to a poverty level forever. That ole Sun is so very dangerous to crushed women that their power bills must go up 400%, you know, even while the CO2 loaded air cools and cools and cools all over the world.

Shanna said...

Somebody has apparently decided that MO should accentuate what might be the narrowest part of her body, the very high waist. This theory has been taken to an extreme with wide leather belts.

I think a skinny belt would be flattering if it calls attention to your waist, but a thick belt is not flattering. I think a thick belt would be uncomfortable as well.

It seems ridiculous to take a limo half a block over, but I know there are safety concerns so I'm not going to quibble, except to say when I was a DC resident I hated any time some type of motorcade or secret service person got in my way. I'm still a little mad hillary for the time the secret service made me cross the street on my way home just because she was in a building. And I had to go about two blocks around to get to class one time because Gore was speaking. That stuff always irritated me.

David Walser said...

Althouse - Maternal mortality and men's risky behavior do not explain why a 70 year woman has a longer life expectancy than a 70 year old man. That's the issue. Why, when you remove the "external factors" such as car accidents, do men up and die sooner than women?

Discrimination. It's the ONLY answer. The government needs to come up with some sort of remedial affirmative action program to deal with this inequity. Unequal death is the ultimate civil rights issue!

WV = bromymer: What some of us need to drink to settle our stomachs after reading certain comments (such as this one).

bagoh20 said...

This is one of the major problems government health care will create. Identity medicine will develop with every group (and new ones will emerge) claim some special disadvantage to them inherent in the system, thus requiring extra attention, meaning taking additional funds from taxpayers or reducing care to the less disadvantaged. More whining, more lobbying, more distraction, more money, more unfairness. Equality as the highest liberal value is a dead end and counterproductive. Unless your goal is power, then it is a quite effective Three Card Monty game.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Montagne Montaigne: That's what this is, fiction using "real life" characters.

Since she is writing about things which happened in her head I find it hard to understand how anyone could call it fiction. If you don't agree you can always interpret it yourself, but to call it mesmerizing and then dismiss it seems rash.

Dogwood said...

Just put some shotgun shells on that belt and get her to the set of the next Terminator movie.

On the topic of health care, how exactly will this bill unburden women from such a soul crushing duty?

Will government bureaucrats start making our families' medical appointments?

Will we get government-paid chauffeurs who will drive the tykes to the doctor so mom doesn't have to?

Will mammogram trucks pull up to our homes or places of business so women won't have to interrupt their day with a visit to their physician's office?

Yeah, didn't think so.

All she did was whine and that is not an effective way to sell a controversial piece of legislation.

Jason (the commenter) said...

David Walser: Why, when you remove the "external factors" such as car accidents, do men up and die sooner than women?

Discrimination. It's the ONLY answer.

Hormonal differences may cause certain stresses peculiar to men. Also, since men lack a second X chromosome we know they are more prone to genetic disorders.

rhhardin said...

Wm. Empson on tight lacing.

"You can't take Amanda for long walks, Mr. Jones; she's delicate"

Lem said...

I expect Keith Olberman to demand an apology from the first lady.

Anything less would be 'Unacceptable'.

Richard Dolan said...

"So, I'm going to say that Michelle Obama is right, that health care has a special women's angle, and it made sense to mobilize the rarely-seen female figurehead to tell us so."

Well, only in the sense that women have uniquely feminine health issues and so need health care that addresses those issues. Men have uniquely masculine health issues. Even accepting the premise that many "male" health issues arise from risky behavior, so what. It's just as true to say health care has a special men's angle, which makes the whole discussion more of a distraction than an illumination. I suspect that distraction was the point.

As for MO's foray into veggie-ville, Anne's commentary reminded me of Hillary's meltdown in the Congo, and all the commentary about that. Perhaps both of them are a little miffed about how they are being shoved off the main stage and asked to perform only on the women's page.

Hope and change. Hope for change. Oh well.

David said...

Compare the resources put into prostate cancer with those put into breast cancer and tell me again why women are shortchanged by the health care system.

Pogo said...

She's conflating two very separate issues: health services and responsibility for family health issues. In either case, it's whining.

1) Women actually use far more heath services than men, for a lot of reasons. But in short, women are denied nothing in health care compared to men. Men simply aren't interested; at least not until they are quite old, or until they have already been ill.

STUDY: WOMEN VISIT MDS MORE THAN MEN
"ATLANTA, Jul 25, 2001 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- Women go the doctor more often than men and are twice as likely to seek annual exams or preventive care, federal health experts said Wednesday.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said even if pregnancy-related care was excluded, women were 33 percent more likely than men to visit a doctor, although the gender difference decreased with age.

Women were twice as likely as men to visit a doctor for annual examinations and preventive services, according to the report compiled by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics based on doctor visits in 1997 and 1998.
".

2) Women take on the role for coordination of health care services for the family far more than do men. This is for a lot of reasons, but primarily arises from the same animating factor underlying the preponderence of female vs. male housework. Men simply aren't interested.

But big gummint single payer authoritariansim ain't gonna fix that.

And why does feminism often seem to result in creating a new patriarchy, with the State as Daddy?

Joseph N. Welch said...

Althouse has a hissy fit over the "crying tone" that only Obama-haters hear.

I still recall your own bawling fit, professor. It was hilarious. And leaves you utterly unqualified to criticize others on this score.

Andrea said...

She should get rid of the belts. The last few outfits I have seen her in were terrible. Plus, I can't think of any women who look decent with their belts squinched up under their boobs, for which she seems to have a predilection. She would look wonderful in something with longer lines and tailored, that accented rather than fixated. Perhaps she is trying to dress too young for her age? The cinched look isn't for her.

In support of my contention, I offer you this:

http://www.silobreaker.com/a-jediinfused-yes-we-can-5_2262604166994067456

AJ Lynch said...

Is Michele following in Hillary's missteps? Meaning the mouthy First Lady pushing her husband's policy initiatives and coming across as the non-demure, bigmouthed wife? I say yes.


[hmm "missteps" is that a woman thing?]

William said...

Your observation that celibacy does not require special medical attention shows shocking ignorance. Menarche is a traumatic event for the female body. Too much menstruation is bad for you. Nuns have a much higher incidence of breast cancer and several other diseases. A chaste life is a dangerous one.....Also although women hit the glass ceiling, they are less likely to fall through the dirt basement. Many of the "accidental" deaths as you delicately phrase it are the result of occupational injuries. They are not the result of man's propensity to violence but of men's propensity to accept more risk as a way of making a living.

Shanna said...

Totally Agree, Andrea. The belts aren't working on her.

So that picture with Obama and the lightsaber wasn't a photoshop? I just assumed it was the first time I saw it.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Joseph N. Welch: I still recall your own bawling fit, professor. It was hilarious. And leaves you utterly unqualified to criticize others on this score.

How would personal experience make someone utterly unqualified to criticize? I think it would make them more qualified having known the repercussions.

If you didn't like it in Althouse you shouldn't like it in the First Lady. If you are okay with it in the First Lady you should be okay with it in Althouse.

Flexo said...

Women may depend more heavily on the health care system, especially early in life when they need to manage their fertility.

Yesterday's Feminist: GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS!

Today's Feminist: GET GOVERNMENT INTO OUR BEDROOMS!

Gina said...

We had racism earlier in the week, it was only a matter of time before we heard about feminism. Hitting all the whining notes.

David said...

Montagne Montaigne said...
"Would you have even noticed the belt if Drudge hadn't called it a "bondage belt"?"

Well, yes you would. It's quite a striking statement. If my wife came prancing through in one of those things, I would notice. So would you, Michael, if you are into women. Maybe even more so if you are not.

Actually, I kind of like that she wears something edgy like the belt. (She has other versions that I've seen in other pictures.) But if you wear such things in front of a national television audience, you can't then complain about the hoots and howls.

The belt is designed to attract attention. It did.

lucid said...

Michele Obama is simply speaking more liberal pap about "oppressed classes" of people.

Separate from the costs associated with childbirth and their additional years of life, women consume significantly more of health care dollars--they go to the doctors more often, use psychotherapy more, have more dental work, etc.

It is men who tend to neglect their health and who underuse health services. For example, men account for 80% of completed suicides, but men are much less likely to seek mental health care.

miller said...

And Michelle's opinion on policy is important because...?

I'm sorry, but how many Electoral College votes did she get? What office has she run for? She has a 6-figure--income job handed to her because her husband was a politician, and her do-nothing job is one reason hospitals are so expensive, so I should take her seriously?

Plus, in that outfit?

Meh.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Women have breasts that doctors can lop off just for the benjamins. All we men have is tonsils.

VW: denote. Am I the first one to get an actual word?

The Drill SGT said...

Pogo made some of the points already, but:

Althouse, when I read the article, I was struck by the actual phrase. I don't see your reading of it.

Michelle Obama said women are being “crushed by the current structure of our health care” because they often are responsible for taking care of family illnesses, arranging checkups and monitoring follow-up care.

So women take more time to take care of kids and spouses than do fathers? and this is crushing? And Public healthcare is going to change that how? More men will stay home with kid? Disease will strike elswhere? The nanny state issues everybody illegal alien nannies? Cause if the nannies aren't illegals outside Obamacare, all you are doing is moving that crushing burden or a sick kid from a mom to a nanny, who then works outside the home, while a nanny nanny assumes the crushing burden of the nannies kids, etc, etc.

ah, unless we either make it all a hero project of Americorps, or demobilize the Army, or?

I was totally unmoved by that completely ilogical argument. All emotion, no thought.

Shanna said...

I was totally unmoved by that completely ilogical argument. All emotion, no thought.

I never expect her to say something sensible, so I prefer to concentrate on the fashion part.

The Drill SGT said...

Illogical,

sorry

JAL said...

Monty in full --Would you have even noticed the belt if Drudge hadn't called it a "bondage belt"?

Hahahahahahaahah.

It was so huge and so ugly one couldnotm iss it. While saying to self "WHAT is that????"

I noticed in thew fensing pictures the other day that she had the dumb belt over cardigan thing again.

She's supposed to be the fashionista, but really, to whoever is giving her advice ...? Not clicking yet.

6p00d8341cb58053ef said...

As per S. Weasel, it's not a belt. It's a hose clamp.

Veeshir said...

I'm wondering if she's believing her fawning media and actually thinks she's the new Jackie O (Jackie Kennedy actually, pre O).

Jackie had pill-box hats, Michele has high belts.

During her healthcare speech she had on two belts, one where it belonged, you can just barely see it in most clips, and the second, utility belt, above it.
Check out her belt in the "Obama as Jedi" pic
http://www.imao.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/obamastinks05.jpg

Those belts are too..... obvious not to be on purpose.

I really think she expects women to start wearing huge belts up just under their boobs.
Let's see if she keeps it up.

She'd be better off if she tried it with puffy shirts.

SjB said...

Awww Ann! You are such a sharp cookie. You would never fall for the race card, but you swallowed the gender card hook line and sinker?

Gimme a break. I've been a woman for 53 years raised 3 kids, buried two of them, married once and buried him. I ain't no victim who got crushed under the health care system because I had to deal with the health care systme.

I am sick and tired of the medical system being maligned. The medical field has done me nothing but good and been a blessing beyond belief through everything. MEDICAL PEOPLE ROCK! They are wonderful people - give 'em a break.

MO's crap reminds me of beating up your mechanic because you need an oil change. Good grief, we aren't the fairer sex because we're built like men.

MO is a privileged elitist who tries to pretend she's like the rest of us. She ain't. She's a wanna-be queen who uses 32 cars and x number of security to go to the farmer's market, pays $5 for a dozen eggs and swoons how people on food stamps can use them at farmer's markets. Yeah, when hell freezes over will I pay $5 for a dozen eggs when 1) I can't afford it (remember I'm on food stamps?) and 2) I can buy almost 5 dozen eggs for that same $5 at the local Krogers.

AJ Lynch said...

Sgt:

I had the same thought. Is Michele suggesting the shuttling of family members back & forth to medical appts will be done by someone else?

wv = scrorn = scorn a scrawny person

David F. said...

MO was the prime money earner - all I can think of is Doc Watson's 'Sugar Babe' "Make five dollars and loan me two"

bagoh20 said...

Doesn't it seem strange to anyone that fashion conscious people wear ridiculous clothing that has no purpose, is uncomfortable, expensive, short lived, and is just as likely to be ridiculed as admired.

These "sophisticates" then look down on the rest of us who wear clothing that works, is comfortable, inexpensive, durable and does not hide our true identity.

It's as if the more sensible clothing is, the less sophisticated it is. That's, dare I say it, stupid.

What if I chose to drive a car that could only do 10mph because the velor treaded tires would scrape the feather boa fenders. If I drove that car because the 1% of others with those cars said they are cool, I would be an idiot. That belt is feather boa fender.

AlmaGarret said...

Why are we being told by various women's magazines that Michelle Obama is the new style icon blah blah blah? I liked her outfits better during the campaign when she wore simple sheath dresses. They hid her giant backside and flattered her best features - namely her arms.

She has worn some truly heinous outfits in the last few months - some bizarre, like the double belt, some schoolmarmish in the worst way (the outfit she wore for hubby's recent address to Congress), and some inappropriate for the occasion - weird pants, too casual sweaters, absurdly expensive sneakers.

Just saw The September Issue - I'm disappointed that Anna Wintour has been fawning over Michelle Obama. Give me the tough Wintour of the movie any day!

G Joubert said...

Clearly an effort to wedge out the vaunted women's vote from the overall body politic, i.e., the soccer moms, the single moms, moms generally, and get them onboard the Obama Care Express. Will it work? I dunno. It's a good strategy as strategies go, but I say they finally went to it way too late in the game. This should've been one of their handful of fundamental lodestar principles right from jump. Now it looks like an afterthought move made in desperation.

Greg Hlatky said...

Q: Why do husbands die before their wives?

A: They want to.

G Joubert said...

Maternal mortality and men's risky behavior do not explain why a 70 year woman has a longer life expectancy than a 70 year old man. That's the issue. Why, when you remove the "external factors" such as car accidents, do men up and die sooner than women?

Basic sociobiology and Darwinism. Women after 70 still have a few years of utility left, helping to raise the grandchildren. Old men meanwhile are as useless as tits on a boar hog, and if anything are a net drag.

bagoh20 said...

I see a pattern:

Man gets a wife, man dies. Wife gets stuff, repeat. Hint: The victim is not the woman. My Mom is on #4.

bagoh20 said...

Women live longer to make up for that 60cents/dollar they earn.

Kirk Parker said...

"The major killer in early life for women was maternal mortality, and that has been tamed considerably"

OK, so advances in health care have disproportionally benefited women. Noted.

PoNyman said...

VW: denote. Am I the first one to get an actual word?

If you take a million Althouse commenters and give them one million years with one million computers could they belt out one of Shakespeare's plays solely by word verifications?

Joan said...

Michelle Obama always sounds pissed off to me. Sorry. I know she graduated from Princeton and HLS but she also spent her entire life listening to Rev. Wright, and she got her big-salaried, do-nothing hospital job when her husband got elected and pulled some strings for her. If she's frustrated at being pigeon-holed now, what did she expect? I think her frustration is not at being shelved in the Woman's Corner. I think she's frustrated because "they won" and now they're finding out that winning doesn't mean the American public just rolls over and lets you do whatever you want.

As for the fashion, she's had far more misses than hits, and the belts, both their size and where she wears them, have been a consistent problem. Tom & Lorenzo have been keeping an eye on the First Lady's fashions, and the phrase, "She needs new gays" (that is, better stylists) comes up quite often.

Flexo said...

I see a pattern: Man gets a wife, man dies. Wife gets stuff, repeat. Hint: The victim is not the woman.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln located the Soldier's Home up next to Catholic University in D.C. for this very reason, so that the injured soldiers would be taken care of by (celibate) Catholic nuns, rather than being "cared for" by the many vulture nurses of the time who would talk the injured and dying soldiers into marrying them so that they would inherit everything when they inevitably died.

Beta Conservative said...

Historically, women have lived longer than men because they are not married to women.

With the move to same sex marriage, the actuarial tables should start adjusting accordingly.

Bruce Hayden said...

So it stands to reason that a much, much more important priority than nationalized healthcare should probably be stopping all the violence among young men.

Except that the Democrats' social engineering has made that worse. The Great Society is one of the big reasons why family structure in the under classes, and esp. with African-Americans, has plummeted in the last 45 years, with one result being prisons filled with men raised without a father.

Bruce Hayden said...

Well, I will feel sorry for women and their health care issues, when they reciprocate. I constantly get hit up for contributing, etc. for breast and ovarian cancer. My response right now is to ask how much the requester has spent over the last year combating prostate cancer. Typically none, because those female cancers are so much more urgent. No, they just affect women, who whine more than men, and so get most of the attention and money.

Sure, ObamaCare is going to guarantee that women get their breast exams and pap smears. BFD. Most insurance does that already (though my SO bitches about her insurance company not paying for a second one for her every year, as she is a survivor of breast cancer, as well as ovarian and (repeatedly) skin cancer).

But when women want that motorized chair they see advertised on TV as being free with Medicare, or that new knee, hip, etc., they are not going to be any more likely to get them then men are, and since they tend to overuse health care at all ages, in comparison to men, I think it likely that ObamaCare is going to actually hurt them through its inherent rationing probably more than men.

But, if she wants to try to make this into a sexist issue, then fine. But for all the women out there, when you are refused health care under her husband's plan, remember that she was the one making it a sexist issue to get more women on board.

Alex said...

Monty is a full subscriber to Alinsky Rules. But the unwritten rule of Alinsky's Rules is "you don't talk about Alinsky's rule". Monty is very disciplined this way, I have to give him credit for that.

save_the_rustbelt said...

When BO was a Senator Michele had a do-nothing job at a hospital for something like $300,000 a year.

Bet none of the ICU nurses made $300,000 a year.

BO knew how to campaign. He no clue how to govern.

Oligonicella said...

"And let's not forget that some of that male violence is directed at women — another reason women seek medical care."

Let's not forget that the violence is most often started by the woman. Guys have known since forever that you don't pick a fight with someone weighing in at twice your weight.

"So, I'm going to say that Michelle Obama is right, that health care has a special women's angle, and it made sense to mobilize the rarely-seen female figurehead to tell us so."

Utter horse shit. Health care has no angle unto itself. Only women want health care to have a 'special women's angle'.

"Talk straight using real facts..."

Uh, start it yourself (se response one).



G Joubert --

"Basic sociobiology and Darwinism. Women after 70 still have a few years of utility left, helping to raise the grandchildren. Old men meanwhile are as useless as tits on a boar hog, and if anything are a net drag."

So you understand neither sociobiology nor Darwinism. Old men pass on knowledge, perform child care and provide in-clan mechanical utility and a last-stand defense of family.

Shanna said...

No, they just affect women, who whine more than men, and so get most of the attention and money.

Actually men can get breast cancer as well (I believe this was pointed out in a previous thread). And I find it unlikely that you are "constantly" hit up for breast cancer money, unless you are talking about the race for the cure, which is a big deal here.

It's kind of ridiculous to make this cancer that affect women v. men a sticking point, or a feminist point, or indeed any kind of point. It's cancer. But if you want to start a Prostate Cancer Race for the Cure run only by men with "3 miles of women" and hit somebody up to donate to that, then I'm sure you would get good responses from women. It's not their fault that nobody has done this.

Shanna said...

Let's not forget that the violence is most often started by the woman.

I'm hoping you have some REALLY good stats to back up this assertion, because I doubt this is the case. I'm willing to be convinced, provided you didn't pull this out of your ass.

6p00e5501528028834 said...

Ann, I don't see the First Lady's point.

The "natural male propensity toward risky and daredevil behavior" bit would be recognized as a crock if the numbers were turned around. If, say, several times as many women as men were murdered annually, rather than the reverse, would you (or anyone, really) hint that the victims had in some way brought it on themselves? When gay teens are disproportionally likely to kill themselves, or women disproportionally likely to try to kill themselves, the natural assumption is that there's something wrong with society that drives these vulnerable groups to despair; when men actually succeed in killing themselves several times more often than women, there must be something innately wrong with men. If women were being killed or maimed at work at several times the rate of men, we'd be alarmed; as it's the other way around, we shrug it off. And so forth.

Really, if you were to look at the American population from afar as two roughly equal populations with identical demographics at birth, but divided by gender into Cohort A and Cohort B, and then compared the life expectancies of A and B, the homicide and suicide and serious injury and imprisonment and homelessness and addiction rates, &c., you might wonder why the patriarchy has done so poorly in purveying its allegedly absolute control into happy consequences for its members.

Me, I'd say that if two children with the same environment and similar genes but different genders have a six-year-or-so difference in life expectancy at birth, you have a public health problem. At least, you would have, if it was the men who were living longer.

Ann Althouse said...

"Althouse has a hissy fit over the "crying tone" that only Obama-haters hear. I still recall your own bawling fit, professor."

I've never used a phony crying voice to try to seem more persuasive, and I dislike it because it's bullshit.

Now, real crying, from genuine emotion. That's profound. I've never done it in a professional context, but you refer to a time I cried in private while being comforted by someone after someone else yelled at me during what was supposed to have been a friendly dinner. The person who did the yelling had been drinking a fair amount, and so had I. It's a different sort of thing, and it wasn't the slightest bit phony. By the way, I was taking a strong anti-racism position and the drunken yeller was intent on shouting down my challenge to the devotion to libertarian philosophy, which I now see as particularly cold and loutish, though apart from personal intimidation, it doesn't make me feel like crying.

6p00e5501528028834 said...

Shanna,

Based on a quick Google:

The National Cancer Institute reports about double the research funding for breast cancer as for lung cancer.

Breast cancer accounts for about 7.5% of American cancer deaths; lung cancer accounts for about 25%.

That means, oh, [back-of-envelope calculation omitted] about six times the funding for breast cancer research (per death) relative to lung cancer research. Why? You'd think a rational research project would apportion funds more or less relative to need, with the understanding that verysmall constituencies would need disproportionate help. That's not what I see here.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm crushed under our current shopping system. Women are unfairly burdened with shopping and running erands. I want Obama do do something about this!

My husband promised several rotisserie bbq chickens to some elderly shut ins that are our friends along with some fruit ambrosia salad and rolls.

Went to the store and was CRUSHED to see that all the chickens besides being gigantic 5 pounders were all frozen. Like edible bowling balls. AND they were out of bananas!!!

WTF: why can't I get into MY limo and go to the local farmer's market or Whole Food store with a huge entourage of hangers on and people taking my picture. Oh yeah. Because we don't have a farmers market and the closest Whole Foods store is about 600 miles away!! also no limo. Also....maybe not taking the picture either since I look like someone from the Grapes of Wrath today because I'm doing REAL work.

Michelle can STFU.

Plan B. Dinner tomorrow for the shut ins and overnight thaw the godzilla sized chickens.

In apology they each get a jar of the freshly made wild plum jelly I'm making as I type.

Yep....CRUSHED I tell you Crushed. So crushed I decided to make 10 more jars of jelly and opened a bottle of Pinot Grigio. That always maked the jelly better you know.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Ok ...to be serious and address Althouse's point about the whiny woman voice, I totally agree that irritates me to no end.

I work in a so called "man's profession", so does Althouse and Nancy Pelosi and Michelle Obama as an executive of a medical facility. Whining and emotional blackmail just makes serious women look bad and men will use it against us.

"Boo hoo....is it that time of the month making you a bitch, honey?" "Women are too emotional to handle the serious accounts/cases, therefore Joe is getting the account". etc etc.

Emotion is real, personal,private and often uncontrollable. Who hasn't cried at Old Yeller. However, using emotion, the wobbly lower lip and dewy eye for political purposes, staging the effect and putting the whiny poor widdle me tone into a political speech just reinforces several stereotypes.

Women can't take the heat.
Women are manipulative bitches.

Stop it!! Don't make me come back there and kick your ass.

Shanna said...

Breast cancer accounts for about 7.5% of American cancer deaths; lung cancer accounts for about 25%.

Maybe the people who would otherwise donate to lung cancer research are spending all their money on cigarettes.

It's not that I don't think government money should be fairly allocated, but I'm not clear how much of that money is government funded, and the comment on this board was in regards to individual donations, which are always going to be based on people's personal reason for giving to a cause. If people don't want to give as much lung cancer research there may be reasons for that. And there may be political reasons why government hands out money differently to different diseases. None of that has anything to do with Breast Cancer v. Prostate cancer but there you go.

Shanna said...

However, using emotion, the wobbly lower lip and dewy eye for political purposes, staging the effect and putting the whiny poor widdle me tone into a political speech just reinforces several stereotypes.

Women can't take the heat.
Women are manipulative bitches.


Indeed.

campy said...

And there may be political reasons why government hands out money differently to different diseases.

Yes. The money goes to diseases that strike people valued by society.

AJ Lynch said...

DBQ:

Seriously, you could make a fortune if you had your own call-in radio show.

I'd pay to listen to it!

Donna B. said...

There are so many reasons why cancer research money is not equitably allocated among the different kinds of cancer.

One reason is PR. Pink ribbons are a great logo. Perhaps prostate cancer campaigners could co-opt a little recognition with blue ribbons? Perhaps not.

Another reason breast and ovarian cancers get more attention is that they attack younger women and kill quicker, whereas prostate cancers more often attacks older men and kills more slowly.

On the other hand, older women can live a better quality of life without their reproductive organs, (including breasts) than a man can live without a healthy prostate.

I'm not making that quality of life comparison for younger women, just women comparable to the age men normally are when prostate cancers is likely to strike.

As for lung cancers, it is likely harder to get research money for that because there's a widely held perception that it's always due to smoking. It just ain't cool to help out somebody who smoked -- they deserve what they get, right?

Back to Michelle Obama -- the outfit she was wearing in the light saber photo made her look pregnant, as it would any woman who wore it, even a professional model.

Ann Althouse said...

"Q: Why do husbands die before their wives?"

They don't want to be the one left alone.

campy said...

Those ungrateful males! With all we do for them, they still insist on dying.

ricpic said...

Everywhere I go I see women boldly talking on cell phones
While men cower in the corner praying for silence.
Women are preening queen bees whilst men are drones.
Is the female's greater longevity a coincidence?

Ross MacLochness said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcDJes6trX0

David Walser said...

@Jason (the commenter) [who was responding to this: Why, when you remove the "external factors" such as car accidents, do men up and die sooner than women?

Discrimination. It's the ONLY answer.]

Hormonal differences may cause certain stresses peculiar to men. Also, since men lack a second X chromosome we know they are more prone to genetic disorders.

Thank you for the logical, sound, scientific explanation for why men have a shorter life expectancy than women. I reject it out of hand and again claim, wholly without proof as none is necessary, that discrimination is the ONLY answer. After all, if discrimination explains why more men than women excel in math and science and why men earn more than women, then discrimination must explain why women live longer than men. You're not going to try an maintain, with a straight face, that "negative" differences between women and men are the result of discrimination while any "positive" differences are only right and natural, are you? Why, that would be absurd!

So, since this difference in life span is unquestionably the result of societal discrimination, government must step in to ameliorate the difference. If possible, this should be done by making men live longer. If that's not possible, government will have to take other steps -- a national lottery, perhaps? -- to bring the genders onto more equal footing.

kentuckyliz said...

Wow, kinda surprised at all the "The Bitch Deserved It!" defenders of wifebeaters. I didn't really expect that at Althouse.

jamboree said...

Women started to live longer post -childbirth mortality because they wanted to stick around for a few years after their husbands died and enjoy not having to take care of anyone but themselves. In traditional households, the wife doesn't get to retire until the husband is in the ground.

I think the gap is closing because A. that above is less true with more older households being non-traditional and B. Men now have Viagra giving them a reason to hang on.

PJ said...

@AJ: Is Michele suggesting the shuttling of family members back & forth to medical appts will be done by someone else?

No, there will actually be less shuttling required under Obamacare because it will be so much harder to get treatment. When your kids are cooling their heels on a waiting list, you might need to make a bunch of phone calls to try to get preferential treatment for them, but you can do that from home. What you won't have to do is shuttle them around to doctors' offices.

Peg C. said...

At first glance that belt to me looked like a suicide belt.

As for the crying thing, I have zero tolerance for female crying, and the message is cancelled with crying just as it is when yelling "Nazi!" or "racism!" All of these instantly nullify the speaker and the speech for me.

Der Hahn said...

Michelle Obama knows more than she lets on about how providers make it hard for women to obtain health care for their families.

Jim C. said...

I know this is a bit stale, but I just watched bloggingheads and this topic was referenced.

I'm guessing Michelle is feeling chafed and constricted by a lot of things, and that belt isn't just literally suffocating her, but it's reminding her of all the many ways she's being reined in and tied down. It makes you want to let that belt out another notch. Or take if off all together. Use it as a whip. But no, she really can't. She's got to be First Ladylike.

That's the problem: she WOULD be using it as a whip if she could. It's not that she's required to be First Lady-like. It's that her true self is a public relations disaster. Remember "America is essentially mean?" How she felt she never was truly accepted at Princeton? Plus how times were so hard when she had to spend $10k on ballet lessons and other extras?

There's lots of middle ground between chirpy on the one hand and privileged and still sullen and resentful on the other. It's that the latter is so strong she HAS to overcompensate towards the former.