Beyond the caveman: Rethinking masculinity in relation to men’s help-seeking

publication-status: Publishedtypes: ArticleStatistically, men make less use of health-care services than women. This has been interpreted as the result of the ‘hegemonic’ masculine code in which ‘real’ men are understood to be physically fit, uninterested in their health and self-reliant. However, less attention has been paid to understanding how hegemonic masculinity intersects with the wider western socio-cultural contexts of men’s help-seeking, particularly the valorization of health as a form of social achievement. This article presents the results of interviews with 14 higher socio-economic status (SES) men to uncover their ‘interpretive repertoires’ in relation to health and illness, help-seeking and masculinity. Although many interviewees drew on the stereotype of the ‘Neanderthal Man’ who avoids the doctors to explain help-seeking by men ‘in general’, they constructed their own experiences of help-seeking in terms of being responsible, problem-solving and in control. It is argued that the framing of help-seeking in terms of ‘taking action’ chimes with an increasingly pro-active ‘expert patient’ approach within western health-care. This conceptual reconstruction of the dominant masculine code in relation to helpseeking, from ‘Neanderthal Man’ to ‘Action Man’, may lead to greater gender equality in terms of accessing health-care. However, it has the potential to exacerbate social inequalities between men from different SES groups

Integrating gender into a basic medical curriculum.

Contains fulltext : 48535.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)INTRODUCTION: In 1998, gaps were found to exist in the basic medical curriculum of the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre regarding health-related gender differences in terms of biological, psychological and social factors. After screening the curriculum for language, content and context, adjustments aimed at incorporating gender issues were proposed. The aim of this study was to evaluate those adjustments, as well as to investigate whether gender had been successfully incorporated into the basic medical curriculum, and to identify the factors that played a role in this. METHODS: The education material of 9 curricular blocks was re-evaluated and interviews were held with block co-ordinators. RESULTS: Since the beginning of the project, gender has increasingly been brought to the attention of the students. Various factors have played a role: concrete and directly executable content-oriented proposals for adjustment; adequate translation of gender differences into actual patient care; motivated block co-ordinators; the presence of a 'trigger person' in the faculty; incorporation into the existing education programme; the involvement of block co-ordinators in decision making, and the provision of practical support. DISCUSSION: Integrating gender into the basic medical curriculum has been largely successful. Block co-ordinators' personal recognition of the importance of gender in patient care greatly facilitated implementation. The evaluation stimulated the forming of new ideas. It is recommended that these factors and those mentioned above should be taken into consideration when integrating gender into other faculties