The scariest words in the English language, claimed Ronald Reagan, are, “I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.” Well, I’m not sure this is true. “Nuclear Holocaust” or “colorectal cancer” are both a bit more ominous. But there is a sinister edge to the words, and that should trouble English men as they contemplate the government’s “Men’s Health Strategy for England”.
For years, aggrieved male commentators have alleged that men’s issues are neglected while women’s issues are prioritised. Well, now the government has been moved to address men’s issues. Are you happy? Are you? It was like complaining about being neglected by a hungry crocodile.
Of course, I’m being a bit facetious. Problems that completely or disproportionately affect women are often neglected, but the same can be true of men as well — and there can be a place for the state in addressing them. For example, experts have warned that prostate cancer screening and treatment is severely lacking in the UK. In his introduction to the “Men’s Health Strategy”, Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, voices his frustration that women’s health and men’s health can be “pitted against each other” when “improving the health and wellbeing of men and women are complementary objectives”. Quite so. With David Cameron coming out this week to promote a targeted screening programme for prostate cancer in the aftermath of his own diagnosis, there is real potential for improvement here.
When the report gets to mental health, though, we’re on shakier grounds. Men’s mental health is an important subject. It is important for men with bad mental health — for example, suicide among men has been rising in the UK — and it can be important for the victims of men whose bad mental health fuels criminal and otherwise harmful behaviour.
Alas, the “Men’s Health Strategy” says a lot that is short-sighted and a lot that is plain silly. Firstly, the authors ask themselves what the state can do, but never seem to ask themselves what it shouldn’t do. A section on social and community networks bangs well-meaningly on about the creation of “hubs”, and while such places might do good, they are, I think, inadequate replacements for traditional means of community life which the state has been driving out of existence. Pubs are being squeezed by taxes. Venues are being threatened by excessive regulation. Sometimes, the best thing that the state can do is to get out of the way. (In case it is not obvious, the narrowing of prospects for social activities harms women as well as men. If we can’t come together to defend pubs and concert halls then we are truly doomed.)
Where a good thinker might wield a rhetorical scalpel, the “Men’s Health Strategy” wields a club
Next the report addresses “Societal Norms”. Mental health is an extremely complex subject, and where a good thinker might wield a rhetorical scalpel, the “Men’s Health Strategy” wields a club. “Norms,” the report claims, “Shape how men perceive themselves and others, influencing health behaviours, help-seeking and wellbeing.” Certainly, but there are two important points to make: firstly, that this self-perception combines inherent and adopted traits — which the report completely ignores — and secondly that the value of these traits is dependent on their context.
The report veers too close towards suggesting that one can easily distinguish “good norms” from “bad norms”. I’m reminded of diet gurus who demonise macronutrients instead of promoting a healthy balance. “Societal norms promoting competition, risk-taking, invincibility and courage have … been linked to heavy alcohol consumption,” the “Men’s Health Strategy” tells us. On the flipside, “Not all societal norms are associated with poor health and wellbeing outcomes. For example, norms relating to fitness and physicality can be beneficial to health due to the increase in physical activity.”
Of course, “courage” and “physicality” are not exclusive male values. Beyond this, though, the report appears to be implying that there is a direct link between encouraging such things as “competition” or “risk-taking” and harmful behaviour — as if one cannot complement such norms with, say, “good sense”. Being competitive, for example, can be good or bad depending on the form that one’s competitiveness takes. (If it drives you to train hard for a sports event? Great! If it drives you to cripple your opponents? Bad!) The same, whatever the report says, is true of “fitness and physicality”. Take it from a former sufferer of anorexia athletica that these “norms” can be taken too far as well.
There can be a lot of truth to the idea that men can be too reticent about seeking help when we are vulnerable. The fact that some men put off going to the doctor until they are on the brink of death is proof enough of that. But there can be a grain of wisdom even in the most misguided thought processes. We should certainly be sceptical when “help” comes in the form of government reports.
