“You Can’t Ignore a Number This Big”: Gender, Risk, and Responsibility in Online Advocacy for Women’s Brain Health

Abstract

Alzheimer’s disease affects more women than men and has therefore been highlighted as a women’s issue. However, there is much debate regarding the nature of this gap, with some studies pointing to sex/gender differences in longevity to explain the disparity. Against this background of empirical uncertainty, we ask how online women’s brain health campaigns position women as specifically at risk of developing the disease. Using a multimodal approach, we examine how these platforms relate womanhood to risk, prevention, and responsibility. Four main themes emerged: risk quantification, risk management, risk dispersion, and the gendering of risk. We confirm previous studies that identified a dual discourse in which Alzheimer’s is represented as both a catastrophic threat and as a fate that individuals can and must prevent. We find that both constructions are intensified on women-oriented platforms compared with nonspecific websites. Ethical implications of the individualization and gendering of risk and responsibility are discussed.

The Experts’ Advice: Prevention and Responsibility in German Media and Scientific Discourses on Dementia

“…In the media, the main focus is on lifestyle changes and individual risk management (as also observed by Peel, 2014 , for U.K. newspapers). Readers are—as also shown by Lawless et al (2018) for English online dementia health information and Mohr et al (2021) for online women’s brain health campaigns—positioned as being at risk and are directly addressed and called on to adopt a healthy and active lifestyle to strengthen their cognitive abilities and to reduce the future risk of dementia. Frequently used normative phrasings imply a moral obligation to engage in dementia prevention (see also Lawless et al, 2018 ).…”

“…Further research is required to understand and reflect on the practical implications of the rapid innovations in medical science regarding dementia diagnosis, prognosis and risk reduction, and the associated public communication in different institutional contexts. Although the results of our study can be situated within international studies on dementia risk communication (e.g., Lawless et al, 2018 ; Mohr et al, 2021 ; Peel, 2014 ; Robillard & Feng, 2017 ), an in-depth comparison of dementia discourses would require a comparative analysis of cultures or national institutional contexts. Another important future line of research would be to analyze more in detail the underlying body concepts.…”

“…The responsibility for cognitive health and the blame for cognitive decline in old age might be shifted onto those who do not follow health and prevention recommendations and thus fail or refuse to live their lives in a healthy, active, and socially acceptable manner (Forlini & Hall, 2017). In interaction with degrading and objectifying images of dementia (Harvey & Brookes, 2019;Low & Purwaningrum, 2020), the strong emphasis on individual responsibility might support "victim-blaming of those living with dementia and result in increased stigmatization" (Lawless et al, 2018(Lawless et al, , p. 1548; see also Harris et al, 2016;Mohr et al, 2021;Peel, 2014). The responsibilization of cognitive aging could hence contribute to new forms of ageisms which replace the earlier general angst of aging with a specific fear of frailty, inability, and loss of cognitive abilities (Holstein & Minkler, 2003), and reinforce a devaluation of those who, due to physical and cognitive decline, can no longer comply with the ideal of self-reliant, successful aging.…”

“…Current studies on public health communication and media coverage on cognitive aging and dementia have identified a strong emphasis on individual responsibility and lifestyle factors. People are positioned as being at risk for developing dementia and strongly encouraged to adopt a healthy way of life to prevent or delay cognitive decline (Lawless et al, 2018; see also Broer & Pickersgill, 2015;Forlini & Hall, 2017;Harris et al, 2016;Lawless & Augoustinos, 2017;Mohr et al, 2021;Peel, 2014;Robillard & Feng, 2017).…”