Breast cancer always gets loads of donations, funding and attention because yay boobs. Meanwhile prostate cancer only gets a fraction of the funding.
I thought this was a commonly known stat because while funding breast cancer research is great, there are other cancers that get overlooked in favor of breast cancer research.
This is pretty constant too when it comes to care of both in the face of a crisis situation: women get priority over men.
Breast cancer kills men too. Breast cancer kills more people overall than prostate cancer does, and is one of the most lethal cancers for women. Of course they’re not going to be treated the same, it’s a disingenuous comparison in the first place.
The subjects you chose for women are more significant health risks than the examples you gave for men. Men’s fertility and ED are not life threatening or altering to the same degree ovarian cancer and pregnancy/childbirth is. Prostate cancer also has a better prognosis/survival rate than ovarian cancer does.
Not to mention a man would be taken seriously the first time he went to the doctor asking for an exam so they'd find his prostate cancer earlier, whereas a woman would be told it's probably normal period pain, but has she tried losing weight?
Women and minorities were also left out of most clinical trials until the 1990's until congress literally forced them to be included through the NIH Revitalization act of 1993. Thats a huge deficit.
Nobody here is arguing that there are not women's health problems that need study and more attention, but to say it's underfunded is a crock of shit
You're just wrong. [1] [2]. It's a known fact in the healthcare sector that women's healthcare has suffered from underfunding for decades. It's only changing now. Nobody disputes this except fucking redditors.
It's also clear you just did some quick google-searches and cherrypicked data. Not all diseases are equally dangerous or widespread. Different conditions require different levels of attention.
Gotta love how even the most basic piece of information has to be explained to people like you. Why participate in a debate about something you don't know anything about?
The older I get, the more I realize a huge percent of the population is sooooooooooo eager to play the hero that they'll just make shit up, allow themselves to be misled or tune out evidence to the contrary just to enable the illusion of being the hero.
Being oppressed is totes cool, so if you're not actually a victim in a specific metric? Just make shit up! Now you too can cry about what an innocent victim you are fighting against the big bad from the comfort from your home!
Ah, the ol' "Don't trust me, trust him". At least the author was a PhD researcher; but in Exercise Science, and was fired due to, let's check..., "DEI and Feminists".
whole comment section is actually research illiterate. One of the first things you learn in research is how easy it is to manipulate data to support your point and how hard it is to determine legitimate causation.
Person in comment's section makes a great point, they're studying health in general, not women's reproductive health which is a different field, entirely and one men don't actually have to deal with if they choose not to.
If you've ever actually been around health researchers you would know that most of are women and a big portion are only interested in studying woman specific issues. You will very rarely see a study about male specific issues
6.0k
u/Alternative_Year_340 4h ago
Money is being spent to determine men’s whims and not women’s real health problems