Taking Bets on a Dud Men’s Health Policy
Saunders M, & Peerson A (2009). Australia’s national men’s health policy: masculinity matters. Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 20 (2), 92-7 PMID: 19642955
Australians love to gamble. We have more poker machines than we do shoes. If we can see it, we can place a bet on it, from corrupt football teams to two flies crawling up a wall. And so, in that much-loved tradition, I am placing my bet on the pending, first ever, National Men’s Health Policy, to be a total dud. Like Saunders and Peerson (2009), I too am curious how you can construct such an important policy in the absence of critical thinking. If you look at the accumulated documents that have informed the development of this policy (go to www.health.gov.au and follow the links), you will notice that the essential concepts of gender, masculinity and notably, hegemonic masculinity, are virtually non-existent. Saunders and Peerson (2009) are aghast at this shameful omission. So am I. That absence was not an oversight; it was deliberate. From the bean counters within Federal Health who inform the Minister to the gaggle of handpicked men who have carefully stage-managed the community consultation process, this will be a huge policy about nothing. Absolutely guaranteed. By refusing to get to the nub of why men of certain types and in certain situations cause themselves and others so much harm, a rare moment for meaningful reform will be lost. I could bet a red ute on that…
Update: This piece of what, whatever, from Men’s News Daily (see link, below) attacking Pr Raewyn Connell for her views on hegemonic masculinity as well as Pr Connell herself, would seem to characterise a large chunk of the thinking that is behind the new men’s health policy in Australia. I’d shout out ‘bush pigs!’ at this point, except that I have way too much respect for bush pigs…
Men’s Studies Foremost Authority Opts for Castration, Literally
Update: The National Male Health Policy delivered everything that we feared it would in terms of deliberately avoiding any mention of the words ‘masculine’ or ‘masculinity’. There is no real acknowledgement of the overwhelming weight of evidence that demonstrates how notions of ‘what it means to be a man’ influence men’s health-related perspectives, attitudes and behaviour. At a men’s health forum in June 2010, the relevant Minister explained to us that he and his ‘handpicked men who have carefully stage-managed the community consultation process’ (OK, he didn’t use those words) decided that the draft provided by the Department of Health & Ageing (who had a conscientious and intelligent officer devoted to the drafting task, including reading and weighing up mountains of evidence, as well as benefiting from the research undertaken for the Irish Men’s Health Policy) was not what they wanted. So he gathered up the Men’s Health Ambassadors (as opposed to, say, an expert reference group), camped for a weekend at the home of medical researcher and Governor of Victoria, Professor David de Kretser, and basically re-wrote the thing. So now we know. And yes, my co-author and I are preparing a critique of the Policy, but it won’t be likely to appear anywhere until 2011.
Thank you for that insight, Margo. For those of us who, like you, are passionate about improving the health and well-being of men, hopefully these distractions and diversions will give rise to a belated acceptance that masculinity is indeed a fundamental issue to be addressed. And yes, while I did manage to have one of the Men’s Health Ambassadors booted out the door, I am painfully aware of the remaining members’ chronic groupthink, that is, never to say a harsh word about men, or about what men do. In effect, never say anything. I look forward to your critique of the National Male Health Policy.