Women's Cancers receive 15 times more funding than men's

pnw_diver · 2015-11-02T02:45:55+00:00

Thanks. I think, based on this article, that health care spending is probably in general more devoted to women than men.

If we are to have a health care system that is about cost reduction mainly, not helping everyone have the best life possible, then we men should have parity with women, not be cast aside yet again.

GrandmasterSexay · 2015-11-02T07:32:40+00:00

I have a feeling this can easily be attributed to "fashionable" breast cancer. Businesses like Susan G. Komen pretending they're legitimate charities and the like.

Cerenex · 2015-11-02T14:47:48+00:00

My integrity compels me to share this study, that would seem to indicate over-funding for several types of cancer's, notably prostate and breast cancer.

I'm not saying the disproportionate funding is excused or handwaved by this. But I thought it might be of some comfort to some men to know that the funding for prostate cancer, according to the study's findings, is adequate for what is currently required.

Alkomb · 2015-11-02T05:52:51+00:00

Who pays for the funding? Us. I think we should choose where we want it to go.
But, nah. Let's all give into the feminists demands, or else they'll all be even more "oppressed". Feminists are about "Equality"?
Yeah, only when it's good for them. (Said everyone who's not a feminist, ever.)

Bl_rp · 2015-11-02T14:22:47+00:00

Interesting. However, the funding of british NCRI tells a different story. See this article and this table. If we consider years of life lost (YLL) as the most important indicator of harm, and we divide it by the amount of funding, and we divide this number for breast cancer by the corresponding number for prostate cancer, we get 1.31, so breast cancer should have 31% higher funding than it has. However, both of those cancer types receive a ridiculous amount of spending compared to e.g. lung cancer. Also, the article was published in 2005 so the stats are at least that old.

Using the grants by the American Cancer Society and the same YLL stats as above, the ratio is instead 0.94, so prostate cancer should have ~6% funding than it has. These stats are from 2015.

For the numbers quoted in the article, the ratio for NIH would be 0.19, and 0.17 for Center for Disease Control and Prevention Cancer Programs. NIH has by far the largest budget of the organizations considered here so it's still a shitty situation for men overall, but apparently there are exceptions.

feefmeharder · 2015-11-02T17:40:59+00:00

After my very brief research on Google, it looks like women's cancer (ovarian and breast) kill around 70,000 women a year, and men's cancer (prostate and testicular) kills around 25,000 a year. The fact that women's cancer receives 15 times the funding of men's cancer is outrageous, but the fact that they receive more makes sense to me.

sjwking · 2015-11-02T11:38:36+00:00

Yes there is an issue for certain but bear in mind the age when cancer strikes. Breast cancer strikes much sooner than prostate cancer. And this is important. As a society we want to prioritize the health of younger people compared to older people.

And do not forget guys. Check your PSA

2015-11-02T13:59:43+00:00

From comments:

Your methodology is a bit flawed. The NIH data source you used has states:

"The research categories are not mutually exclusive. Individual research projects can be included in multiple categories so amounts depicted within each column of this table do not add up to 100 percent of NIH-funded research. "

The clearest evidence of this is that summing the categories leads to a figure of over $120 billion, when the actual NIH budget is around $30 billion.

GltyUntlPrvnInncnt · 2015-11-02T16:04:21+00:00

Once again, women are valuable and men are disposable. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll ever change.

Herelam · 2015-11-02T14:35:30+00:00

I once heard this one dumb feminist that I had issues with state that men get more funding for their health problems than women do. She also stated that men should pay the full tab on a date and was upset that her husband made more than her in the comic book field (despite the fact that she wasn't as experienced given that her husband has 10 years more experience than her).

Sanguifer · 2015-11-03T00:05:02+00:00

From the article, last paragraph:

"Even adjusting for the greater rate of new cancer cases affecting women (1:32 to 1), and the fact that female cancers are deadlier than male cancers by a ratio of about 2:35 to 1, there still seems to be a significant gender gap in favor of women for federal spending on cancer research and prevention."

Also from the article: "they [NHL] will spend $4,446,000,000 in 2009 for female-specific cancers (breast cancer, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, and “women’s health”) and $299,000,000 for men’s cancer (prostate cancer), which is a ratio of almost 15:1 in favor of women."

Okay, let's adjust. Warning, terrible, unprecise math ahead!

So, male-specific things: prostrate cancer. Female-specific things: 3 different cancers and "women's health", whatever that is. Still, that's 4:1, so they spend 15 times as much on 4 times as many things, that leaves us with a ratio of 3,75:1 already. Now count in the fact that the female-specific cancers are more than twice as deadly AND occur 30% more often - and suddenly, the gap shrinks to about 1,25:1.

Tell me more about that unfair spending gap =/

Title	Women's Cancers receive 15 times more funding than men's
Author	leopoldmedley
Upvotes	288
Comments	30
Date	November 2, 2015 2:40 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3r5uhd/womens_cancers_receive_15_times_more_funding_than/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/womens-cancers-receive-15-times-more-funding-than.968139 https://theredarchive.com/post/968139

Comments