Prescriptions: is this sexist, or merely pragmatic?

Great Debates
1

I just picked up a prescription from Walgreens, and included on the label with information on the medication and side effects, I got the following printed guidance (bolding mine):

“Use Medicines Wisely

About 30% to 50% of those who use medicines do not use them as directed. This causes more doctor visits, hospital stays, lost wages, and changed prescriptions. All this costs Americans as much as $76.6 billion per year.

Women often take care of medicines for the whole family, as well as themselves. So they need to read the label, avoid problems, ask questions and keep a record of all medications the family takes.

READ THE LABEL

Before you take any medicine, read the label. The label should show:
a) list of ingredients – if you know you are allergic to anything in the medicine, don’t use it. Ask your doctor or pharmacist for a different medicine.

b) Warnings – read these carefully.

c) The expiration date – do not use a medicine after the date on the bottle. It may not work as well.

For more information on your medicines, ask your pharmacist.

AVOID PROBLEMS

Medicines can cause problems, or side effects such as sleepiness, vomiting, bleeding, headaches, or rashes. Ask about the side effects of the medicines you are taking. Talk with your doctor, pharmacist, or nurse. Organize your medicines. Do not skip taking your medicines. Do not share medicines. Do not take medicine in the dark.”

Now it may well be true that more women than men are primary caretakers for their children, so I can see the pragmatic side of this advice. But for older children, or especially for adult men, why is Walgreen’s apparently placing responsibility for correct medication administration on women rather than on men? Shouldn’t an adult man, assuming he is literate, be able to take his own medicine without a woman’s assistance?

2

Sexist, no doubt about it. If I were a man and I got a flyer telling me about how my female partner could be in charge of my meds I’d be spitting tacks.

And it’s not necessary. The flyer has good advice in it and it could easily be written to apply to everyone.

3

If society is sexist, the note is pragmatic.

4

Could have been easily avoided if it specified that the “person” caring for children or elderly adults pay specific attention.

5

It is a wonder they didn’t consider, “In large households, it is often the case that one person will [blah blah blah]…”

6

Sexist? Absolutely not and to read that into their statement is going over-board. It’s also a bit of a leap to suggest that Walgreen’s placing responsibility on women rather than men. Just a tad touchy, aren’t you? (All of you?)

I do not take any offense what-so-ever that Walgreen’s acknowledged many women’s contribution to the wellness of their family. I’d say they were being pragmatic.

7

I see it as sexist but not a big deal. I don’t think that anyone’s life anywhere at any time will be effected by the way Walgreens worded the label.

8

Consider, Edlyn, that the goal of most writing for pamphlets is to be gender neutral. It’s not necessary or appropriate for Walgreen’s to ‘acknowledge’ many women’s contribution to the wellness of their family in this context.

Making an assumption that more women than men are responsible for medicating the family is sexist and it is not necessary. The underlying message is that women are the caregivers and men are not responsible. While there’s nothing wrong with a person of either gender being responsible, assuming one gender is more likely to be the caregiver and framing that section of the pamphlet around that assumption is sexist.

Telling a particular gender that they 'need to do an action ’ for the benefit of the family they live with is inherently sexist. Records need to be kept but it shouldn’t be assumed that women do it because they care.

9

Primaflora,

All this time I was under the impression that pamphlets were written to be informational and helpful. Now you tell me that their goal is to be gender neutral! Amazing!

No where did they state that men were not responsible and I would bet you that a poll would confirm that in a vast majority of households, women keep track of and dispense meds for themselves and their children. In fewer cases, she even does that for her husband, particularly when they are in their “golden years”.

Further, though I know you find it offensive, I can think of many women who would benefit from a reminder of keeping track of meds taken. Too many people are on various prescriptions for “whatever” and adding even certain cold medications can react negatively with current prescriptions. It isn’t so simple anymore and neither are our days filled with work, activities, home, kids, errands, etc., etc. You may find their suggestion sexist, but I view it as a practical reminder.

If some of their advise is not applicable in your case, then don’t worry about it.

10

Hmph! Even the IRS has a better word for this. They call such a person the “head of household.”

11

It is sexist. It’s nothing to get worked up about, but it’s not even pragmatic, since it doesn’t accomplish anything that a gender neutral label couldn’t.

Of course, I doubt a man who is responsible for the family medication will read the label and decide to let his wife take care of it instead, unless he was looking for an excuse and…hey, it says right here, so it’s probably better for you to do it, honey.

While it may be based on factual data, and it is quite possible that women are in charge of medication in most households, stating this specifically in the label serves no purpose except reinforcing gender stereotypes, unless you think that the dumb husband will pick up a bottle of medicine and, without specific intructions to let his wife do the medicine thinking for him, will proceed to merrily ingest a lethal drug cocktail.

That said, it’s no big deal. Just annoying, in the same vein as being addressed instead of my wife when we go to the repair garage place together. She knows about cars. I don’t. I don’t even know how to drive. Talk to her, you maroon.

12

Yeah, interesting isn’t it? I mean, the sarcasm is ever so effective and witty but one of the goals when you’re editing material is to have material gender neutral when it should be gender neutral.

So on a tampon box, you address women. On the issue of keeping track of meds, you address both genders. Simple eh? The issue affects both genders so it’s a no-brainer.

Nobody’s saying the information is stupid – it’s the delivery which is odd.

13

It’s just that we’re afraid all that technical stuff will confuse the little dears, so we try make it simple enough for their weak-but-we-love-em-anyway minds to understand.

14

It’s sexist and unnecessary. Presumably - whoever is responsible for the administering of a certain medicine is the one reading that pamphlet.

So if it’s a woman, why bother pointing out to her that “women need to know” etc - she wouldn’t be fucking reading if she didn’t know she needed to know.

And if it’s a man reading it, they’ve just excluded him.

Fucking stupid, patronising, and sexist.

15

“They” does not refer simply to women, but to women who take care of medicines for the whole family. If it is often the case that women assume that role, then the advice is pragmatic by definition.

Racism and sexism cut both ways. Isolating a group based on race or sex is discriminatory; but so is NOT isolating a group based on race or sex.

16

It’s silly and sexist, and although as previously pointed out, nothing in itself to get worked up about, well yes - ought not to have been phrased in that way.

After all, things that are “too minor to get worked up about” do tend to add up.

I cannot recall much of being a kiddy winky but I would bet it was my dad who was more responsible for medicines etc simply because he knew more about them. Likewise, my brother was for a while the stay-at-home in charge of babies person in his home, and therefore the assumed Chief of Medicine Cabinet, and now, I’d think, Equal C. of M.C.

Silly Walgreen - I rather imagine there will be some drop-off in female customers, even if nothing major. If only the leaflet had been properly “previewed before posting” so to speak.

17

I imagine that if I as a male were responsible for taking care of the household’s medicine, I’d be slightly peeved on reading that line, slightly peeved and slightly amused. I’d show it to my wife, we’d laugh sourly, and forget about it.

Daniel

18

Aha! I think Daniel ha hit on something here. I suspect the sour laughing may lead to indigestion, and thus to a need for some more medicines, thus to more custom and more profit for Walgreen.!

Ooh I ought to be a detective:)

No? Oh well, it was a good theory while it lasted !

19

This is Walgreens we’re talking about. As Chinua Achebe would say, “They are corrupt through and through”.

And yes I find this sexist. It more than implys that women are irresponsible and all the nasty things mentioned.

20

This is only pragmatic in the sense that it is indeed a (completely irrelevant) fact that women often do organize the family’s medicines. However, it’s not “pragmatic” in the sense of providing a practical benefit because the use of gender-specific term doesn’t convey any useful information. “They” apparently doesn’t include men who happen to managing the medicines of the family. Why on Earth would the writer feel it necessary to emphasize one group over the others when they should both be following the same recommendations?

Not something to make a federal case over, but it’s definitely pointless and sexist.