Suchergebnisse

Extensive research has documented how hegemonic conceptions of masculinity shape men's behaviors, beliefs, and health. However, most research focuses on younger men and most datasets of aging adults do not include measures of masculinity. This two-pronged omission renders older men relatively invisible. Part of the reason for this invisibility is the lack of reliable, validated measures of masculinity applicable to aging men. In this project, we document, describe, and validate an eight-item hegemonic masculinity measure administered to more than 1,000 older men (~65 years old). Multivariate analyses predicting gender-typed hobbies consistently validate this Hegemonic Masculinity for Older Men Scale (HMOMS), pointing to the HMOMS as an exciting new option for further exploring the nuances and correlates of masculinity ideals among aging men.

We use data from the Midlife Development in the United States study to examine how sexual satisfaction, frequency, and number of partners are associated with men's body weight. We consider five body weight categories (underweight, normal, overweight, obese I, and obese II/III), and control for potential explanatory factors including demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, health, perceived stigmatization, and adolescent weight. Obese II/III men report significantly less sexual satisfaction and less frequent sexual activity, and a greater likelihood of having no sex partner compared to normal weight men. Physical and mental health conditions partially account for obese II/III men's less satisfying and less frequent sex. However, the deleterious effects of obesity are suppressed by youthful weight. Obese II/III men are more likely to have been overweight adolescents, an attribute associated with more frequent and satisfying sex in adulthood. We discuss implications for the study of masculinities, and the ways that bodies and their symbolic meanings can shape men's sexual lives.

At stake in the May 2013 publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), are billions of dollars in insurance payments and government resources, as well as the diagnoses and treatment of millions of patients. We argue that the most recent revision process has missed social determinants of mental health disorders and their diagnosis: environmental factors triggering biological responses that manifest themselves in behavior; differing cultural perceptions about what is normal and what is abnormal behavior; and institutional pressures related to such matters as insurance reimbursements, disability benefits, and pharmaceutical marketing. In addition, the experts charged with revising the DSM lack a systematic way to take population-level variations in diagnoses into account. To address these problems, we propose the creation of an independent research review body that would monitor variations in diagnostic patterns, inform future DSM revisions, identify needed changes in mental health policy and practice, and recommend new avenues of research. Drawing on the best available knowledge, the review body would make possible more precise and equitable psychiatric diagnoses and interventions.

At stake in the May 2013 publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), are billions of dollars in insurance payments and government resources, as well as the diagnoses and treatment of millions of patients. We argue that the most recent revision process has missed social determinants of mental health disorders and their diagnosis: environmental factors triggering biological responses that manifest themselves in behavior; differing cultural perceptions about what is normal and what is abnormal behavior; and institutional pressures related to such matters as insurance reimbursements, disability benefits, and pharmaceutical marketing. In addition, the experts charged with revising the DSM lack a systematic. way to take population-level variations in diagnoses into account. To address these problems, we propose the creation of an independent research review body that would monitor variations in diagnostic patterns, inform future DSM revisions, identify needed changes in mental health policy and practice, and recommend new avenues of research. Drawing on the best available knowledge, the review body would make possible more precise and equitable psychiatric diagnoses and interventions.