Biden Proposed the Opposite of Equality for Men's Health Support

Maffioze · 2024-03-08T07:53:19+00:00

Why does the democratic party do everything possible to alienate (young) men?

They are so stupid.

hylander4 · 2024-03-08T06:13:30+00:00

Has anyone been able to find statistics on total funding attributed to men’s vs. women’s health? Most search results I can find are just zoom in on some extremely specific way in which women are disadvantaged in health care, or talk about how men are less healthy because we’re too “macho”. The only source I could find was this one which is a little outdated (2019) https://www.fatherly.com/health/men-die-younger-government-funding-womens-healthcare …which unsurprisingly points to a massive disparity in federal government spending in favor of women’s health. For instance, the 2019 budget for breast cancer research was $700 million, vs. $250 million for prostrate cancer. They also say that in 2019 there were at least a dozen offices in the US Fed. Government charged with promoting women’s health, but precisely zero charged with promoting men’s health. Also, apparently the life expectancy gap between men and women has basically been increasing continuously for the past century. And nobody cares. Fucked up stuff.

Reset_reset_006 · 2024-03-08T13:52:58+00:00

Was def an eye rolling moment for sure, but isn’t a shocker for the democrat party when Elizabeth “First Nations” Warren tried to throw fucking Bernie Sanders under the bus for being misogynistic.

hehimCA · 2024-03-08T05:54:45+00:00

Exactly! Just said this myself. I don’t hate Biden but this was wrong and ignorant.

Multi_Orgasmic_Man · 2024-03-08T15:31:47+00:00

There were at least 3 things in the state of the union that are coded issues for men and boys.

Union manufacturing jobs that do not require a college degree.
Reading programs disproportionately benefits boys.
Universal preschool disproportionately benefits boys and the results are so impactful that it predicts home ownership as an adult. This one issue will do more for men and boys than just about any other thing.

Dmonney · 2024-03-08T12:35:25+00:00

There are a lot of women’s initiatives that take away from men’s. I don’t think this is one of them. The only real women’s health spending is related to the reproductive tract and breast. And women’s reproductive cycle is flat more expensive than men’s.

If he was talking about starting an initiative on women’s mental health I would feel different.

ManInTheGreen · 2024-03-08T15:31:33+00:00

I’m just curious what there is about women specifically (besides boobs and a vagina) that warrants billions of dollars of biology/health research just for them. If you want equality and to make everyone the same, what’s the point of singling out the sex who you claim is “no different than a man” and then insist they ARE different and deserve billions of dollars in special treatment?

Hugeknight · 2024-03-08T20:40:52+00:00

The speech was bullshit from start to finish and given the history of these things go it's also lies from start to finish.

cruisinforasnoozinn · 2024-03-09T20:29:21+00:00

Funding women doesn't actually take away from men. But you're right in that he absolutely could have done better for men, and it's frightening to think that addressing men's issues is taboo when doing so would contribute towards a societal healing that could potentially benefit all genders. Violence stats would plummet, suicide rates would follow, male perpetrated sexual violence...

It's not exactly the support of women's rights that fucks us, it's the neglect of young men's health and wellbeing.

Alternative_Poem445 · 2024-03-13T05:26:38+00:00

it is technically important for medicine to study men and women differently, and for a long time we didn't , and often still don't. medications effect men and women differently, we have different anatomies. but ya this is just virtue signaling like always.

Banake · 2024-03-08T11:21:57+00:00

Genocide joe needs the money he would spend on men's health to bomb children in gaza.

almightypines · 2024-03-08T16:02:38+00:00

This will likely be an unpopular opinion here, but screw it. I’m actually okay with this, and I suspect at least some of the underfunding he is talking about is related to the National Institutes of Health of which he has some executive power over.

For some reference: Gender Disparity in National Institutes of Health Funding Among Surgeon-Scientists From 1995 to 2020

The gender health innovation gap: A perspective from the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health

Gender Disparity in the Funding of Diseases by the U.S. National Institutes of Health

Additionally women weren’t mandated to be included in research by the National Institutes of Health until the 1993 passage of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act. NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 Public Law 103-43. Prior to that, in 1977, the FDA had a guideline to exclude women of “childbearing potential” (30-ish years of women’s lives, more if minor girls are included. “Childbearing potential” is 13-ish to 40-50 years old) from participating in research studies, of which the NIH would have likely followed as it’s a federal guideline and feds stick together on such things, and which is likely why a mandate was made. Policy of inclusion of women in clinical trials, Guideline for the Study and Evaluation of Gender Differences in the Clinical Evaluation of Drugs.

Medical research is known to be notoriously slow and can take many years (10-15 years for clinical trials) to conduct and publish on and even longer to put into clinical practice, and I’d expect research into women’s medicine to be behind even with the initiatives we’ve seen over the last 30 years. I think there is very good reason to put extra funds towards women’s research. There are many women living right now who didn’t have their demographic adequately captured in medical studies years ago, and it is still impacting their lives because medical research is so slow, and I think that is incredibly unfair and unequal. For example, there is research that even women’s medication dosages may be wrong or overprescribed because clinical trials were historically done on predominantly or only men. Women’s involvement in clinical trials: historical perspective and future implications and Women are overmedicated because drug dosage trials are done on men, study finds. It’s such a massive disservice to generations of girls and women.

In regards to life expectancy of men, we know that men avoid going to the doctor, so much so that it’s basically an inside joke amongst men and it’s well documented in research. But I also think it’s a bit contradictory or hypocritical as a group to criticize men’s medical research not being included in Biden’s SOTU speech when as a demographic men generally don’t even utilize the already massive amount of government funded research available because they don’t go to the doctor for a basic check up. Men are opting out of knowing the status of their own health and are subsequently opting out of utilizing healthcare, men’s medical research, and men’s healthcare initiatives that actually promote healthier and longer lives. I don’t think personal responsibility should be overlooked here and that’s where men are failing themselves. Overall, I think the biggest problem in men’s health isn’t research or funding, it’s literally getting men to go to the doctor, and that probably needs to start with the average man taking initiative towards his own health and encouraging other men to do similarly. No amount of government funding for men’s medical research, or even an office for men’s health, will cause men to live longer or healthier if men are waiting too long or aren’t using medical services to begin with by their own choice. We can talk about research funding towards prostate cancer or heart disease in men all day, but men aren’t even going to the doctor to get their blood pressure checked nevermind a prostate exam, and they often don’t even know there are problems until it’s a big problem and potentially too late for any of the available research to be useful. In contrast, women go to the doctor far more often than men, but don’t have the medical research (or the same historical library of medical research as men do) to substantiate their health issues or medical treatment.

MozartFan5 · 2024-03-09T20:26:32+00:00

Yup, don't vote for Biden anyways. He is a dementia-ridden racist old hag (see his history of working with segregationalists and opposing desegregation by busing). I pray that he dies of a brain aneurysm soon.

Reasonable_Ad_2936 · 2024-11-17T17:32:27+00:00

Most health research is focused on men, without needing to say so. That’s the given. White men being studied and supported in medical research, white men being listened to by their doctors, is the norm. The reason there’s no initiative named for men is that this is the status quo. Research aimed at women’s health issues is intended to begin to right a massive imbalance in funding. It takes literally nothing away from men. If anything, the intention is to lengthen and better the lives of YOUR mothers, wives, sisters and daughters. Why is this so hard to understand?

Title	Biden Proposed the Opposite of Equality for Men's Health Support
Author	onlinethrowaway2020
Upvotes	146
Comments	71
Date	March 8, 2024 3:07 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1b9dfrc/biden_proposed_the_opposite_of_equality_for_mens/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/biden-proposed-the-opposite-of-equality-for-mens.1427090 https://theredarchive.com/post/1427090

Comments