Frances Bolton (PHI) wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Marta Russell wrote:
> >
> > Showalter seems to be doing the same to women. I have not read her, only the
> > posts here. Has she attacked fibro? Given her attitude and know it all
> > attitude, I can't understand why she hasn't. Now here's a cure for
> > ignorance. If Showalter and few more laypersons who speak about what they
> > don't know could develope one of these illnesses, that would cure you too.
>
> No, she doesn't attack, or mention, fibro. If you haven't read her, how do
> you know she has a "know-it-all attitude" or that she "attacks" anything?
One of the posts from Schwietzer (I believe) gave an instance of Showalter's noninterested response when she was approached by a physician who knew about CFS. She did not want to talk to him. Well, if that is not know it all, then what would you call it exactly? Seems like a researcher or even a pundit would want to hear from everyone.
> I haven't read the entire book, just the part of CFS thus far. First, I
> don't think she's attacking CFS, she's asking if the medical model is the
> proper one for researching it. I think that is a different question. She
> notes some interesting statistics. Three out of four people with CFS are
> women, over 90% are white, and most reported having "frantic lives with
> multiple responsibilities." Yet feminists insist that there must be a
> viral or neurological cause, rather than a psychosocial cause, even
> though there arent a coherent group of symptoms--diff. people report
> different things.
I have no love of the medical model. Anyone who has read my posts, knows that. But in this instance it seems appropriate. Some info on fibro that relate to your comments:
Dr. St Armand, who has done research on fibro, finds that it is genetic and that 80% of the female offspring will have it. Also, he notes that a vast majority of the cases are women and that men get it rarely, although he did get his from his father. I don't know about the issue of race, but it would seem that there are some similarities in the characteristics of fibro and CFS. With fibro people also report a wide variety of symptoms but they fall within a common framework. I was amazed at the wide range of symptoms. The symptoms seem to get wider and get worse with age because the longer one's body is trying to cope with the phosphates remaining in the system, the more it breaks down.
Most women who have families that I know do have frantic lives, trying to balance career and family, work never ends. I do know that fibro can become worse when one does not get the rest one needs and is constantly pushing oneself to do what is necessary. Sometimes childbirth can set off fibromyalgia. Many women report onset at this time. I suspect this is because to carry a child means an increase on the stress of the mother's body. It is certainly a kind of overload for the kidneys - eliminating the waste for two bodies, for example.
> Apparently
> alot of the work that has been published which suggests that there is a
> pscychological aspect to CFS has been met with anger.
> I wonder what's at stake here.
If the anger is coming from people who have been living with CFS, I would surmise that it comes from having been treated like shit by the medical profession for years. Being invalidated when one knows there is a physical reason for what is happening is a truly awful thing. But also, there is a long tradition of stigma attached to mental illness. And lets not forget that women have been "put away" for psychololgical reasons, discounted, and forgotten - like TS Eliot's wife was put away for PMS (which used to be considered psychological but is also physically based). Women have been put in mental institutions by their spouses for undiagnosed hypoglycemia which to this day the medical profession does not diagnose accurately or treat adequately. A simple thing coming from professional ignorance can turn into a personal nightmare.
My partner made dinner and is impatient to eat it. Signing off for now,
Marta