Gender Discrimination · Research
The Girl Who Cried Pain
The Girl Who Cried Pain: A Bias Against Women in the Treatment of Pain
Hoffmann and Tarzian separate pain experience from clinical credibility, showing why psychological explanations must not become reasons to dismiss women’s suffering.
Research notes
Pain has to be communicated, but patients do not receive equal credibility when they communicate it. In this 2001 review, Diane E. Hoffmann and Anita J. Tarzian connect biomedical research, gender socialization and clinical authority. An explanation of symptoms is not the same thing as a judgment about whether someone deserves belief.
Psychological does not mean unreal
The article moves from biological and experimental findings to cognition, emotion and help-seeking. This structure resists two shortcuts: average laboratory differences cannot define every woman, and the involvement of emotion does not make pain less deserving of treatment.
Causal direction matters. Unrelieved pain can produce anxiety or depression. If clinicians interpret these consequences solely as causes, unsuccessful treatment becomes another reason to distrust the patient. Conversely, when psychological factors do contribute to pain, discounting rather than addressing them is also inadequate care. The argument does not require rejecting psychological treatment.
When character judgments become clinical judgments
The authors discuss earlier findings that women were more likely to receive sedatives and men pain medication. The mechanism is an unequal interpretation of expression: a supposedly stoical man’s complaint can signal exceptional severity, while a woman’s persistence can be read as emotional excess. Gendered expectations enter what appears to be a neutral assessment of symptoms.
This historical interdisciplinary review is not a new clinical trial or a measure of every hospital’s treatment gap. Its sharper question is whether medicine asks patients to report pain while penalizing some ways of reporting it. Changing that distribution of credibility requires scrutiny of diagnostic routines and institutional responsibility, beyond coaching patients to appear calmer.
Read the endometriosis resource for a specific context of delayed recognition, then “Brave Men” and “Emotional Women” for a later analysis of gender norms within patient-provider encounters.
Explore another medium
- Articles
Endometriosis: Pain and the Right to Be Heard
World Health Organization (WHO)
WHO’s overview opens a reading path through endometriosis, pain recognition, unequal access and health beyond fertility.
- Articles
Women and Health: CEDAW General Recommendation No. 24
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
Recommendation No. 24 connects health access to consent, confidentiality, transport, cost and state duties, without reducing women’s health to pregnancy and childbirth.
Gender Discrimination · Bodily Autonomy
Continue through the issues
Related theme · No. 03
Who gets to define the body?
From discipline and ageing to the internalised gaze, this issue follows the forces that watch, name and reclaim the body.
Bodily Autonomy
Related theme · No. 09
Who is allowed to desire?
Beginning with The Right to Sex, we ask whose desire is treated as natural and whose requires moral permission. Power shapes desire, but desire gives nobody a claim to another person’s body. Attraction, love, solitude and care have no single answer. Across sexual hierarchies, erotic writing, asexuality and situated experiences, we make room for exploration, uncertainty, refusal and a change of mind.
Bodily Autonomy
Reader responses
Research discussion
Respond to this research or add another paper worth reading together.
Join the Discussion
Loading comments...
Support Us
If you find our content valuable, please consider supporting FemRes.