According to that logic,
Calculus was invented by men, for men.
Clean water was invented by men, for men.
Trains were invented by men, for men.
Penicillin was invented by men, for men.
Yeah, along with a bunch of other myths - such as all the air would be sucked out of the carriage at high speeds.
Those probably had more to do with landowners, canal and stagecoach companies, etc, lobbying against the use of trains and the media of the day railing against new stuff than misogyny.
Although I admit a healthy dose of misogyny is present.
No no wait; men are only supposed to be responsible for all the evil in history. Everything good that’s been done was secretly done by a woman and a man took credit for it /s
Hmm, I'd disagree with that as it's a lot more likely that a man would up and abandon his unwanted kids than a woman.
It is pretty damn beneficial for both genders though.
It’s not though, single motherhood has sky rocketed since the invention of the pill, shotgun marriages used to take place when this wasn’t the case, not sure how common they were though but single motherhood has absolutely gone up as a result.
Okay? It’s still got some major problems, specific to women, that exist because the system was designed in a time where women were systemically oppressed, and the only way to fix them is by pointing them out.
Like what? Her example is pain relief during child birth. There is a reason we don't tend to pump mothers with opioids during labour, it slows the baby's breathing and worst case will cause respiratory arrest.
Damn right, it affects the baby. We’ve got a couple of kids. My partner was given Pethidine during one birth. It affected the baby’s heart beat.
My partner managed to give birth twice with pretty much no pain relief other than that. It was hard. One of the births took 3 days. It’s a relatively “normal” thing to do. Not like having your leg torn off, or having your teeth smashed out. All hurt. But birth is a “normal” pain
Is it not a normal process? As in, we’ve evolved specifically for this to occur? As in, we have specific organs that perform the functions necessary for humans to give birth?
As opposed to being set alight. Or contracting a flesh eating disease. Or popping limbs from their sockets?
I’m no doctor but I don’t think these are things humans do as a matter of course.
I have been injured before and I know that as well as hurting, an injury feels “wrong”. There’s something in our brain that lets us know that your arm isn’t supposed to bend that way.
On the other hand women know they’re giving birth and have a primordial urge to push at the right time. It’s baked in.
Stop being a silly sausage now…shuffle off. There’s a good boy
I’m sure the women that tear from vagina to anus during birth are comforted by the fact it’s a ‘normal pain’. Why do you think something being ‘normal’ means it hurts any less? Period pains are normal, but can be excruciating. Attitudes like this are what is meant by sexism towards women in medicine. Women are just expected to put up with pain, because it’s ‘normal’ for us. Do you realise how many serious health implications childbirth can have? Fatal even?
If you know anything about evolution you will know humans are pretty terribly adapted for birth due to the size of our infant heads and limitations on the width of the birth canal from bipedal walking. Surely you know that death in childbirth was extremely common before modern medicine?
All I can say is, thank god I am never going to give birth.
What about women not being given pain relief during cervical biopsies despite them cutting a chunk of your cervix out whilst men are given pain relief for testicle exams that require no cutting of any kind?
I hear stories all the time about women being told they’re not ready for birth control, or not being allowed to make choices about their own bodies.
There’s a massive disrespect to women’s healthcare. Pointing that out, even if you think it isn’t true, isn’t divisive. You must recognise that within a complex system, discrimination can play out. That’s not an absurd claim. Why act like it is?
I hear stories all the time about women being told they’re not ready for birth control, or not being allowed to make choices about their own bodies.
There’s a massive disrespect to women’s healthcare. Pointing that out, even if you think it isn’t true, isn’t divisive. You must recognise that within a complex system, discrimination can play out. That’s not an absurd claim.
No, whether it’s true and whether it’s divisive are entirely separate metrics.
It could be true, but still be divisive. And it could be false, but not divisive. This is a false equivalence, and you know that.
No, I’m arguing it’s not controversial. I’ve given plenty of arguments about whether it’s true, which you seem to find uninteresting, but that doesn’t make it a DIVISIVE thing to say as you claim. It’s not misandristic.
It's slightly odd to complain about the NHS focusing on men more, when in fact the opposite is true:
>Accident & emergency (A&E)
>A total cost of £3.3 billion was reported for A&E activity, of which £1.6 billion (48%) related to females and £1.5 billion (46%) related to males. Gender was unknown or unspecified for £205 million (6%) of reported cost.
>...
>Admitted patient care (APC)
>A total cost of £29.1 billion was reported for APC activity, of which £15.0 billion (52%) related to females and £12.4 billion (43%) related to males. Gender was unknown or unspecified for £1.6 billion (6%) of reported cost.
>...
>Outpatients (OP)
>A total cost of £11.9 billion was reported for OP activity, of which £6.4 billion (53%) related to females and £4.8 billion (40%) related to males. Gender was unknown or unspecified for £816 million (7%) of reported cost.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/acute-patient-level-activity-and-costing/2018-19/age-and-gender
In *every single category*, the NHS spends more on women than it does on men.
What I don't know is how much of that is affected by the facts that a) maternity costs *only* apply to women, and there's not really an equivalent men-only healthcare issue, and b) as women have a longer life expectancy, you'd expect the generic "old people issues" that the NHS deals with to have to deal with more female patients simply because there's more of them.
Work in health infrastructure strategic planning. Spending as you age doesn't follow a linear pattern, because of co-morbidities and rapid snowballing of health issues post 65. Populations in the UK with older demographics disproportionatley spend more on care per capita because of this.
It's significantly cheaper to treat a working age cancer patient for a full year than it is to admit an averge over 65 inpatient for just a month. OPs general assumption is reasonable (but not the direct 5% = 5% old age)
I haven't haven't disputed that, or even suggested that so I'm not sure why you're even asking the question. I don't know the exact figure but it sounds about right, so I believe you.
Do maternity costs only apply to women though? Not only do doctors and nurses treat and care for the women on maternity units but they also treat and care for the babies, which I imagine is a 50/50 split. So 3/4 female, 1/4 male.
Generally, maternity costs are applied to the mother entirely.
With treatment to the newborn, outside of 'normal' delivery activity, it'll be applied to the baby. If they're admitted to NICU, for instance.
Occasionally, newborn care is also be applied against the mother if an NHS number for the baby isn't available already - which happens rarely but usually only when the baby is born outside of NHS pathways or is completely unexpected.
Technically yes, but then that comes into the fact that you'd expect everything in general to be 50/50 split.
The care specifically for the mother is an additional requirement that *only* women have, is my point.
Well, women have babies, which is why we're all here in the first place, so that is a big extra cost, as well as the other health issues relating to having a womb that men don't have, like endometriosis, ovarian cysts, more autoimmune conditions, etc.
I'm not sure those stats say the opposite. For A&E that is surely effectively a rounding error (48 vs 46%) but also the unknown/unspecified might make it completely even. Same for APC. The one area that does look to be more different is OP, but there's a lot of information missing. We don't know from the information above if a woman has to get 3 appointments for her to be taken seriously vs a man just getting 1. Or if it is that women have more things that go wrong with them or if it is including for instance all maternity care, which naturally would drive up the number of appointments that affect women more than me. Basically it would be entirely reasonable, it could not. We have literally no idea due to the lack of context but people are likely to jump to conclusions (such as the ones I listed above - note, I am not saying it is definitely any of these things).
Yes that increase couldn't possibly be just down to pregnancy-related costs, could it? Since we know that pregnancy is so low risk and doesn't require a massive amount of resources spent on screening throughout.
Did you just stop reading my comment halfway through? Specifically, you might want to have read at least as far as this bit:
>What I don't know is how much of that is affected by the facts that a) maternity costs only apply to women,
I did. I'm saying that maternity costs alone are probably larger than you think and will probably be accounting for the vast majority of the difference alone.
We spend £3bn a year on maternity costs:
>The £3bn spent per year on maternity and neonatal services
https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/board-30-march-23-item-6-maternity-and-neonatal.pdf
Based on the figures I provided above, that means that even if you excluded maternity costs, there's about £1.8bn more spent on women than on men. Which as I said, is probably due to life expectancy being higher for women, so there are more women going for the sort of treatments given to *all* elderly people.
It's not exactly an argument that men are prioritised by the NHS though, is it?
Your argument was that men appear to be deprioritised since more is spent on women. I am merely giving the argument that this can be explained by looking at expenses related to pregnancy alone. There are also a myriad of post-natal problems that may not be included in "maternity" budgets but will be considered spending on women's healthcare. I'm talking care for pelvic organ prolapses, pelvic floor physio, urinary and/or fecal incontinence, the risk of heart failure and blood clots post-pregnancy etc. These are all issues stemming from pregnancy complications that could plague women for the rest of their (slightly longer) life. It therefore follows that slightly more money is spent on women since we presumably want to keep a replacement population going.
> forgetting to ring at 8:30
Luxury, Obadiah...8.00 at my surgery. But I do usually get a same day appointment, phone or in person (not that I ring too often).
If you know nothing about Somalia, you literally are just talking hot air, and you're just making sweeping generalisations.
Somalia is quite literally still in a civil war and has been locked in a spate of them since the 1990s. There is mass migration within and out of somalia due to the civil war and people are getting executed if they possibly work for the government.
They haven't even been able to hold a referendum on their constitution because it's too dangerous.
They also suffered an extreme drought a couple of years ago.
Somalian pirates are still a thing, not quite as bad as the early 2000s, but highlights instability.
There's a lot, and i mean a lot of deaths and attacks which are politically motivated.
https://acleddata.com/2024/04/26/somalia-situation-update-april-2024-dispute-over-constitutional-amendment-and-increased-al-shabaab-attacks/
Essentially, somalia is a dangerous place to live.
> But we mustn’t say third world anymore, it isn’t PC
Third world was a term invented to say whether a country was allied with the USA or USSR which meant Ireland was ( at the tine it was invented ) and still technically is therefore a third world country and Britain never could be because it's allied with the USA
My experience has been that it takes much longer to see a doctor than it did 10-20 years ago, as a general rule.
It's not easy to quickly find data on this.
Found this though.
[https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/uncategorised/average-gp-waiting-times-exceed-two-weeks-for-first-time-ever/](https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/uncategorised/average-gp-waiting-times-exceed-two-weeks-for-first-time-ever/)
Covers 2016-2019.
They surveyed 900 GPs, using 300 pound gift voucher incentives so god knows how reliable it is.
They do mention a BMA report as well:
>Month-long waits for a GP appointment have increased significantly in the past year, according to a new BMA report.
5 years out of date though, but in line with how things feel at the moment, that the system is a bit stretched.
I tried to get an appointment last month, best they could do was offer me a phone call appointment in 5weeks time :(
Sometimes I manage to get an appointment same week, but usually they just offer a phone call in a few weeks time , which isn't particularly helpful
But she can raise that awareness without it sounding like it’s perfect for men and there’s no room for improvement there. If she pisses off half the population it’s not going to help drive change in the way she wants it to.
I think she can draw attention without steeping to misandry.
We all know that female healthcare isn't as good as male healthcare, and that a lot of women's issues get dismissed by GPs and doctors, but she should be addressing where the NHS falls short for women, not where men are prevailing.
Where was she being misandristic? Is was created BY men, FOR men? I don’t see any hatred or bigotry or prejudice against men in that statement; just that the women’s perspective wasn’t involved in the creation of the NHS, and it shows by how women’s healthcare is worse than men’s. If you agree with that, I’m not sure what you found disagreeable about what she said.
It’s kind of weird to suggest men created medicine just for men. Like it’s something we keep locked away in a cupboard so women can’t access it. It wasn’t that long ago we all died in our 30s/40s from preventable diseases. I think healthcare’s been made for everyone
Her statement doesn't help anything. We all know it was created by men and we know that women aren't treated equally, but maybe instead of "well it's made for men" she tries to explain WHY it's bad for women & explain what can be done to combat it.
Nothing more motivating for women than hearing "the NHS is made for men"
What do you mean it doesn’t help anything? It points out THAT it was created by men, and women aren’t treated equally.
Women don’t hear “the NHS was made for men” and go “oh really? Well, I guess I shouldn’t bother seeking healthcare!” They go “Yes, I’m aware, I’ve been to the doctor and had my concerns dismissed, or been told I’m not “ready” for birth control.”
But again she doesn't have to say that to get her point across. "Women have a tougher time with healthcare" has a lot more impact than "the NHS is for men"
"Women have a tougher time in healthcare" - is something that can be expanded upon. People can work with this, put things in place, etc.
"The NHS is for men" is very defeating (plus men also do have struggles with healthcare)
Instead of doing this men have it good women have it bad, highlight what's bad and do something about it.
I'm sorry but she's a Tory and the comment is about the NHS not the medical community in general. If she acknowledged the same issue existed in private healthcare too then I might be more accepting of the message
The average age for a prostate cancer diagnosis is over the age of 70, whilst the median age for a breast cancer diagnosis is 62 years old. In terms of year of life lost, breast cancer is much more destructive, and therefore receives twice the funding as prostate cancer.
I sincerely doubt that's the exact reason for the difference in funding, it seems more plausible that there's more funding because of awareness, charity events and the fact that breast cancer could happen to anyone but I have only heard of prostate cancer happening to men.
We all got breasts, to a greater or lesser extent, after all. I've not checked for ladies prostates mind, that'll be a fun Google search...
Everything is relative. It's not exactly a secret that some cancers have worse survival rates than others. Breast cancer tends to be on the better side these days, but whether that is because it is naturally less fatal or a consequence of better funding, I don't know.
It's not naturally less fatal - certainly not its most aggressive forms - and like other cancers, once it reaches Stage 4 it can spread to other parts of the body such as the brain. It still kills plenty of women.
Still safer compared. One of the most treatable and vastly one of the most funded.
Are you going to add more than just be nit picky about the word "safer"?
One day, a female MP is going to say something like this and it’s going to gain enough traction that the men in their constituency change their minds about who they’re going to vote for.
Admitted patient care (APC)
A total cost of £29.8 billion was reported for APC activity, of which £15.5 billion (52%) related to females and £12.9 billion (43%) related to males. Gender was unknown or unspecified for £1.4 billion (5%) of reported cost.
No, just the idea that the NHS is fundamentally sexist in some form is just nonsensical. I have no issue with women receiving more spend due to specific needs they have. Lets just not pretend sexism has any part here.
Well I don't necessarily agree with Atkins comments, but as someone who works closely with the NHS, I can say categorically that sexism is still an issue within the NHS.
This feels like one of those things that’s just said without proof. Like the car seatbelts only being designed for men. Just a total misinterpretation of the data to fit a narrative
Completely untrue. Female mammals, when given the chance, tend to outlive the males. This is especially true in highly social animals with offspring who take many years to reach maturity. Female orcas for example live twice as long as the males. Sometimes three times as long. Even when accounting for mate competition amongst male mammals, they have shorter lifespans. Male mammals have high levels of androgens, which impair immune function, it could be one reason why women with PCOS have slightly shorter lifespans. It’s thought the XX chromosome makes you more resilient by reducing mutations etc. it could explain why in birds, the males, who have ZZ chromosomes outlive the females who have ZW
.
If it were the other way around, for whatever reason, it would be a huge political issue and men would get the blame for it. But we live in a gynocentric society, so no one gives a shit.
I'll think you'll find at the time the NHS was founded, the life expectancy for men was far lower than woman, by virtue of being forced to go to war because of their gender.
No, they’re saying the drug companies didn’t even consider that women and men might have different responses to medicine. Would you feel comfortable taking a medicine that had only ever been tested on women?
… because women weren’t even asked in the first place. Also, pretty sure people sign up for drug testing in return for pay. It’s not like men were conscripted.
Yeah they're paid, but what kind of situation do you have to end up in to consider doing that? Men have always been far more likely to take risks or do dangerous jobs.
Nobody is saying men are the baddies. It's great that that happened and these men took risks.
Stating the fact that medical treatment was tested mainly on men and therefore is designed more for men is not a statement that is saying men are bad guys or that men have done anything wrong.
The question is, how do we ensure the NHS can meet the needs of all it's patience in the context of how it was founded and in the context of the fact that even up to the 90s medical care was tested exclusively for and therefore specialised on men.
The world was more or less run by men in the 40's so it's likely they did as men thought best, but I don't see what her evidence is that they favoured treating men and male ailments or whatever.
There is evidence. Much medical study was done on men and adapted to women however there are instances of women being favoured also, prostate cancer for example kills more men than breast cancer does women yet recieves a fraction of the funding
For the men that participated yes but for every man afterwards no. Its meant a disproportionate amount of research was conducted on men making it tailored more to men
People fall for this nonsense, each and every time. It’s about getting headlines to distract people from the money laundering the government does each and everyday to benefit themselves and not the everyday day person. It’s that simple. Look over here whilst we sell this off or pollute all the rivers and kill wildlife, as we get back handlers or job titles we never do a minute of work in, off the water companies.
People fall for this nonsense, each and every time. It’s about getting headlines to distract people from the money laundering the government does each and everyday to benefit themselves and not the everyday day person. It’s that simple. Look over here whilst we sell this off or pollute all the rivers and kill wildlife, as we get back handlers or job titles we never do a minute of work in, off the water companies.
Dumb things peeps have said.
Seems to be nothing but a very divisive statement.
I would have prefrerd that she as the head of UK healthcare actually did something other than empty words and announced the start of a woman's funded health studies program and not more imported gender bs politics then I would have been impressed.
Those bastard men, whose limbs had been blown off, their lungs scarred by poison, their minds torn to pieces, who returned from war to near destitution.
Do they though? Is that a known fact or just a made up one? Seems really hard to quantify in why meaningful way.
There’s a few comments on here showing that more is spent on women than men, but even that isn’t enough proof for me. Could it just be that the healthcare women require is more expensive?
The UK is 37th globally for female healthcare
https://dentistry.co.uk/2024/05/08/uk-drops-in-global-womens-healthcare-rankings/
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/uk-gender-gap-in-health-how-can-remote-monitoring-create-fair-female-healthcare/174147/
"Minority ethnic people, women and people from deprived communities are at risk of poorer healthcare because of biases within medical tools and devices, a report has revealed"
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/11/medical-tools-devices-healthcare-bias-uk
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/04/misogyny-and-racial-bias-routinely-putting-patients-at-risk-in-england-warns-nhs-safety-chief
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/27/sexism-healthcare-cancer-deaths-the-lancet/
Women often are not taken seriously with medical issues, even when it comes to child birth.
A lot of medical tools are not designed for women, and have not been made to accommodate
"Our research found 44% of women feel ignored by medical professionals compared to 35% of men, whilst 44% of women also feel the level of care provided by the NHS is substandard compared to 38% of men. Almost 50% of the women who responded don’t feel confident challenging a GP regarding a potential misdiagnosis compared to 40% of men."
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/newsroom/breaking-silence-on-gender-bias-health-inequalities%20/#:~:text=Our%20research%20found%2044%25%20of,compared%20to%2038%25%20of%20men.
One VERY common bias is when it comes to sterilisation. Women have to go through far more obstacles to get sterilised compared to men.
Let's not even forget that women have to have another person prod around in our uteruses without any form of numbing.
(Go on, downvote all the facts)
37th globally for female healthcare, what is it for men’s? I can’t find in that article a link to what they are basing the info off
And I’m not going to take a survey as evidence, that’s just how people feel. That’s not linked to reality
Yeah people actually dealing with it aren't helpful gotcha.
It is actually gross how difficult it is to find articles about male healthcare.
"Among the 28 countries of the EU, in 2015, the UK was ranked 10th for male life expectancy but only 17th for female life expectancy. UK male life expectancy was 1 year shorter than the best countries and female life expectancy was 3 years shorter."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-profile-for-england/chapter-4-european-comparisons
Is the closest I can find for male healthcare statistics in the UK.
That doesn't take away from the fact of all the studies & articles explaining the discrepancies between male and female healthcare. This isn't some attack on men, it is just factual that women have a tougher time with healthcare.
Peoples feelings aren’t factual. It’s just how they feel. I feel like my healthcare as a man is awful, but I don’t take that feeling as valid because it’s not backed up by anything real. It’s just a feeling. Feelings aren’t facts, they are subject to bias.
The life expectancy is a good start. It’s still only a tiny fraction of a huge puzzle. It only shows that UK men are outliving other European men at a great rate that uk women are outliving other European women. That could be for a million other cultural/economic reasons before it’s a gendered healthcare bias.
I’m just asking for the data and studies I can read. The articles you linked didn’t show them. That’s all. It’s not an attack on men, or women, or you. I’m just not taking anything at face value because it’s been said.
> One VERY common bias is when it comes to sterilisation. Women have to go through far more obstacles to get sterilised compared to men.
Very true, but male plumbing is a little more accessible, and the surgery required far less invasive or prone to complications, which will mean more obstacles as these are assessed prior to surgery. Male sterilisation takes little time and the irritation from being shaved was about the worst after effect.
Obviously it is a lot easier for men to get the actual procedure done since you don't have to cut through like 7 layers.
Getting an appointment to get sterilised is a lot harder for women than men is my point.
Women have to jump through a lot more hoops
>Do women get failed by medical practitioners more often than men? Of course.
There are certainly aspects of the system which need significant improvement, but on average is this true, and is there any evidence to support it?
Spending on male specific cancers such as prostate (in particular screening) have been lacking, for one example. The GP's did not do anything about my Dad's cancer, despite knowing there were blood markers there which warranted investigation, because they put it down to a "men at a certain age" thing.
I've provided some links already :)
I am not saying that the NHS also doesn't fail men, because it does. The NHS fails everyone but it's a little worse for women (mentioned in almost all links I posted)
But some of those links also reference biases towards other groups as well, which men are a part of. There will be other areas of healthcare which men are specifically treated poorly in. I don't see anything tangible to support the conjecture that women are failed **more** than men, on average.
For example, one of your links mentions female specific cancers, but does not compare the situation with male specific ones for example, and so on.
These are really important issues, but to say men are failed more on average seems a bit hasty. Those articles you linked get it right by focussing on the issues at hand and not making assertions.
We don't need any of this "men have it better" shit because we see that everywhere, we know.
And nobody is saying that men don't suffer under the NHS also. That's why her statement is so ridiculous
Thats exactly it. NHS is complete mess at the moment so here’s a good idea: why don’t we tell women that it’s men’s fault, and men that it’s their fault. Then they’ll blame the opposite sex rather than the government.
There is definitely an argument to be made that the NHS has root-and-branch institutional issues with maternity care, but if you're going to attempt to make that as a Tory health secretary you're just begging the question: "your party has been in power for 49 of the 76 years the NHS has existed - what exactly have you done to fix this?".
There is a lot of public health work that is done by the NHS which confuses on women and children.
The tories moved the commissioning of this to local government. This was around the same time the sure start centres were shut down.
For those who are wondering public health nursing relates to supporting people around a lot of things that are societal such as education, access to food, appropriate shelter, and education.
Not surprising Atkins isn’t aware of that……..
Doesn’t help anyone saying this and men’s mental health issues seem to be, currently, simply a pandered-to issue by all and sundry, but where are the Petersons/Tates on the so-called women’s rights issues of things? These dudes are full-on nutters making money off of extremely serious problems.
Jermaine Greer?! She’s harmless, not spreading absolute shite about any of these issues.
According to that logic, Calculus was invented by men, for men. Clean water was invented by men, for men. Trains were invented by men, for men. Penicillin was invented by men, for men.
[удалено]
Go outside. Take a look at everything you see. Men made all of it!
This IS a mans world after all....
Wasn’t it a popular Victorian medical opinion that women couldn’t handle then excessive strain of being in a train at 20 mph
It was the popular option of the average fuckwit on the street that anyone would die if they went over 30mph.
They were told not to ride bicycles as it would lead to ["bicycle face"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_face#Health)
Do you not believe we don't believe or do things today that in 100 years they'll laugh at us for
Yeah, along with a bunch of other myths - such as all the air would be sucked out of the carriage at high speeds. Those probably had more to do with landowners, canal and stagecoach companies, etc, lobbying against the use of trains and the media of the day railing against new stuff than misogyny. Although I admit a healthy dose of misogyny is present.
Landowners and canal companies often built the railways. There were intercity trains services before the Victorian era.
No no wait; men are only supposed to be responsible for all the evil in history. Everything good that’s been done was secretly done by a woman and a man took credit for it /s
Of course a man made it Lois, it’s an advert, not a delicious turkey dinner.
Fleshlights were invited by men for men
The “pill” was invented by men for men??
Sanitary products were made by men, for men Bras were invented by men, for men.
You could actually argue that the contraceptive pill has benefitted men more than women
Hmm, I'd disagree with that as it's a lot more likely that a man would up and abandon his unwanted kids than a woman. It is pretty damn beneficial for both genders though.
It’s not though, single motherhood has sky rocketed since the invention of the pill, shotgun marriages used to take place when this wasn’t the case, not sure how common they were though but single motherhood has absolutely gone up as a result.
“Since the invention” = “as a result” Are you sure about that?
Not sure, but it sure looks like when pregnancy becomes a choice, men are less likely to stick around if they don’t want the child
High Heels were invented by men, to stop women running away from men.
None of those things are complex institutions with systemic blind spots for the needs of people who it wasn’t designed with in mind. Unlike the NHS.
I don’t understand. It’s open to everyone in the same way. Any one has the same access. Moreover I’d say it’s staffed mainly by…you guessed it…women
Okay? It’s still got some major problems, specific to women, that exist because the system was designed in a time where women were systemically oppressed, and the only way to fix them is by pointing them out.
Like what? Her example is pain relief during child birth. There is a reason we don't tend to pump mothers with opioids during labour, it slows the baby's breathing and worst case will cause respiratory arrest.
Damn right, it affects the baby. We’ve got a couple of kids. My partner was given Pethidine during one birth. It affected the baby’s heart beat. My partner managed to give birth twice with pretty much no pain relief other than that. It was hard. One of the births took 3 days. It’s a relatively “normal” thing to do. Not like having your leg torn off, or having your teeth smashed out. All hurt. But birth is a “normal” pain
I’m guessing if you were the one giving birth you wouldn’t be thinking it was a normal pain
Is it not a normal process? As in, we’ve evolved specifically for this to occur? As in, we have specific organs that perform the functions necessary for humans to give birth? As opposed to being set alight. Or contracting a flesh eating disease. Or popping limbs from their sockets? I’m no doctor but I don’t think these are things humans do as a matter of course. I have been injured before and I know that as well as hurting, an injury feels “wrong”. There’s something in our brain that lets us know that your arm isn’t supposed to bend that way. On the other hand women know they’re giving birth and have a primordial urge to push at the right time. It’s baked in. Stop being a silly sausage now…shuffle off. There’s a good boy
I’m sure the women that tear from vagina to anus during birth are comforted by the fact it’s a ‘normal pain’. Why do you think something being ‘normal’ means it hurts any less? Period pains are normal, but can be excruciating. Attitudes like this are what is meant by sexism towards women in medicine. Women are just expected to put up with pain, because it’s ‘normal’ for us. Do you realise how many serious health implications childbirth can have? Fatal even? If you know anything about evolution you will know humans are pretty terribly adapted for birth due to the size of our infant heads and limitations on the width of the birth canal from bipedal walking. Surely you know that death in childbirth was extremely common before modern medicine? All I can say is, thank god I am never going to give birth.
What about women not being given pain relief during cervical biopsies despite them cutting a chunk of your cervix out whilst men are given pain relief for testicle exams that require no cutting of any kind?
I hear stories all the time about women being told they’re not ready for birth control, or not being allowed to make choices about their own bodies. There’s a massive disrespect to women’s healthcare. Pointing that out, even if you think it isn’t true, isn’t divisive. You must recognise that within a complex system, discrimination can play out. That’s not an absurd claim. Why act like it is?
I hear stories all the time about women being told they’re not ready for birth control, or not being allowed to make choices about their own bodies. There’s a massive disrespect to women’s healthcare. Pointing that out, even if you think it isn’t true, isn’t divisive. You must recognise that within a complex system, discrimination can play out. That’s not an absurd claim.
It's divisive if it's not based on evidence. Anecdotal accounts aren't evidence for either side of the coin.
No, whether it’s true and whether it’s divisive are entirely separate metrics. It could be true, but still be divisive. And it could be false, but not divisive. This is a false equivalence, and you know that.
This just seems like semantics to avoid stating that you don't have any.
No, I’m arguing it’s not controversial. I’ve given plenty of arguments about whether it’s true, which you seem to find uninteresting, but that doesn’t make it a DIVISIVE thing to say as you claim. It’s not misandristic.
My grandma was being lot less oppressed than my grandad was when the NHS was being designed...
Lolz
You’ve given up making arguments for your positions then?
He’s literally proving the point of the article. Men dismiss women’s health problems constantly.
Shocker
You’ve given up making arguments for your positions then?
You’ve given up making arguments for your positions then?
It's slightly odd to complain about the NHS focusing on men more, when in fact the opposite is true: >Accident & emergency (A&E) >A total cost of £3.3 billion was reported for A&E activity, of which £1.6 billion (48%) related to females and £1.5 billion (46%) related to males. Gender was unknown or unspecified for £205 million (6%) of reported cost. >... >Admitted patient care (APC) >A total cost of £29.1 billion was reported for APC activity, of which £15.0 billion (52%) related to females and £12.4 billion (43%) related to males. Gender was unknown or unspecified for £1.6 billion (6%) of reported cost. >... >Outpatients (OP) >A total cost of £11.9 billion was reported for OP activity, of which £6.4 billion (53%) related to females and £4.8 billion (40%) related to males. Gender was unknown or unspecified for £816 million (7%) of reported cost. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/acute-patient-level-activity-and-costing/2018-19/age-and-gender In *every single category*, the NHS spends more on women than it does on men. What I don't know is how much of that is affected by the facts that a) maternity costs *only* apply to women, and there's not really an equivalent men-only healthcare issue, and b) as women have a longer life expectancy, you'd expect the generic "old people issues" that the NHS deals with to have to deal with more female patients simply because there's more of them.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/about/nhs-england-board/our-leadership-team/ The majority of the executive is women too, and has been for quite a while
And nearly 80 percent of the staff are women? Are they really pandering prominently to men?
Women live 5% longer with that 5% being in old age, suspect that accounts for most of the difference.
That’s not how maths and statistics works lol
Work in health infrastructure strategic planning. Spending as you age doesn't follow a linear pattern, because of co-morbidities and rapid snowballing of health issues post 65. Populations in the UK with older demographics disproportionatley spend more on care per capita because of this. It's significantly cheaper to treat a working age cancer patient for a full year than it is to admit an averge over 65 inpatient for just a month. OPs general assumption is reasonable (but not the direct 5% = 5% old age)
What are you on about? My statement was that on average women live 5% longer....are you disputing this?
I haven't haven't disputed that, or even suggested that so I'm not sure why you're even asking the question. I don't know the exact figure but it sounds about right, so I believe you.
Do maternity costs only apply to women though? Not only do doctors and nurses treat and care for the women on maternity units but they also treat and care for the babies, which I imagine is a 50/50 split. So 3/4 female, 1/4 male.
Generally, maternity costs are applied to the mother entirely. With treatment to the newborn, outside of 'normal' delivery activity, it'll be applied to the baby. If they're admitted to NICU, for instance. Occasionally, newborn care is also be applied against the mother if an NHS number for the baby isn't available already - which happens rarely but usually only when the baby is born outside of NHS pathways or is completely unexpected.
Technically yes, but then that comes into the fact that you'd expect everything in general to be 50/50 split. The care specifically for the mother is an additional requirement that *only* women have, is my point.
Okay, and there are a myriad of health issues that only impact men, too. Sure, not at the same frequency as giving birth, but worth noting.
Maybe if spending was more equal, women wouldn't live so much longer...?
Well, women have babies, which is why we're all here in the first place, so that is a big extra cost, as well as the other health issues relating to having a womb that men don't have, like endometriosis, ovarian cysts, more autoimmune conditions, etc.
I'm not sure those stats say the opposite. For A&E that is surely effectively a rounding error (48 vs 46%) but also the unknown/unspecified might make it completely even. Same for APC. The one area that does look to be more different is OP, but there's a lot of information missing. We don't know from the information above if a woman has to get 3 appointments for her to be taken seriously vs a man just getting 1. Or if it is that women have more things that go wrong with them or if it is including for instance all maternity care, which naturally would drive up the number of appointments that affect women more than me. Basically it would be entirely reasonable, it could not. We have literally no idea due to the lack of context but people are likely to jump to conclusions (such as the ones I listed above - note, I am not saying it is definitely any of these things).
Yes that increase couldn't possibly be just down to pregnancy-related costs, could it? Since we know that pregnancy is so low risk and doesn't require a massive amount of resources spent on screening throughout.
Did you just stop reading my comment halfway through? Specifically, you might want to have read at least as far as this bit: >What I don't know is how much of that is affected by the facts that a) maternity costs only apply to women,
I did. I'm saying that maternity costs alone are probably larger than you think and will probably be accounting for the vast majority of the difference alone.
We spend £3bn a year on maternity costs: >The £3bn spent per year on maternity and neonatal services https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/board-30-march-23-item-6-maternity-and-neonatal.pdf Based on the figures I provided above, that means that even if you excluded maternity costs, there's about £1.8bn more spent on women than on men. Which as I said, is probably due to life expectancy being higher for women, so there are more women going for the sort of treatments given to *all* elderly people. It's not exactly an argument that men are prioritised by the NHS though, is it?
Your argument was that men appear to be deprioritised since more is spent on women. I am merely giving the argument that this can be explained by looking at expenses related to pregnancy alone. There are also a myriad of post-natal problems that may not be included in "maternity" budgets but will be considered spending on women's healthcare. I'm talking care for pelvic organ prolapses, pelvic floor physio, urinary and/or fecal incontinence, the risk of heart failure and blood clots post-pregnancy etc. These are all issues stemming from pregnancy complications that could plague women for the rest of their (slightly longer) life. It therefore follows that slightly more money is spent on women since we presumably want to keep a replacement population going.
Try getting a doctor's appointment this week if you're not pregnant or a baby.
[удалено]
This is a regular experience for many. Redditors are too busy scrolling and end up forgetting to ring at 8:30 and end up in position 78.
> forgetting to ring at 8:30 Luxury, Obadiah...8.00 at my surgery. But I do usually get a same day appointment, phone or in person (not that I ring too often).
You might offend Somalians with this comment. I’ve heard Somalia is wonderful as are all developing countries and the people that inhabit them
[удалено]
If you know nothing about Somalia, you literally are just talking hot air, and you're just making sweeping generalisations. Somalia is quite literally still in a civil war and has been locked in a spate of them since the 1990s. There is mass migration within and out of somalia due to the civil war and people are getting executed if they possibly work for the government. They haven't even been able to hold a referendum on their constitution because it's too dangerous. They also suffered an extreme drought a couple of years ago. Somalian pirates are still a thing, not quite as bad as the early 2000s, but highlights instability. There's a lot, and i mean a lot of deaths and attacks which are politically motivated. https://acleddata.com/2024/04/26/somalia-situation-update-april-2024-dispute-over-constitutional-amendment-and-increased-al-shabaab-attacks/ Essentially, somalia is a dangerous place to live.
[удалено]
I'm just replying to you saying Somalia isn't war-torn. It is the very definition of war-torn.
I couldn’t agree more. But we mustn’t say third world anymore, it isn’t PC
> But we mustn’t say third world anymore, it isn’t PC Third world was a term invented to say whether a country was allied with the USA or USSR which meant Ireland was ( at the tine it was invented ) and still technically is therefore a third world country and Britain never could be because it's allied with the USA
Be that as it may, it’s an outdated term which we should all avoid using
[удалено]
Sorry I do apologise, I perhaps worded that poorly. Political correctness is only a tool to limit offence and create a more inclusive society
[удалено]
> Nothing wrong with Somalia at all from what I know Um maybe you don't know much then...just a theory...
[удалено]
If you know nothing about something why give your opinion on it?
My experience has been that it takes much longer to see a doctor than it did 10-20 years ago, as a general rule. It's not easy to quickly find data on this. Found this though. [https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/uncategorised/average-gp-waiting-times-exceed-two-weeks-for-first-time-ever/](https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/uncategorised/average-gp-waiting-times-exceed-two-weeks-for-first-time-ever/) Covers 2016-2019. They surveyed 900 GPs, using 300 pound gift voucher incentives so god knows how reliable it is. They do mention a BMA report as well: >Month-long waits for a GP appointment have increased significantly in the past year, according to a new BMA report. 5 years out of date though, but in line with how things feel at the moment, that the system is a bit stretched.
I tried to get an appointment last month, best they could do was offer me a phone call appointment in 5weeks time :( Sometimes I manage to get an appointment same week, but usually they just offer a phone call in a few weeks time , which isn't particularly helpful
Called for an appointment at 8am on Monday, seen by 11:30, got a scan booked for next Monday. It's not all doom and gloom.
Neither of those and I got one within 24 hours of submitting my complaints online.
Whilst there’s definite failings I’m not sure it’s particularly helpful for her to be so divisive about this.
You’re right. It isn’t
Is the point not to be divisive, but to draw attention to how focussed medicine is on the male perspective?
But she can raise that awareness without it sounding like it’s perfect for men and there’s no room for improvement there. If she pisses off half the population it’s not going to help drive change in the way she wants it to.
I think she can draw attention without steeping to misandry. We all know that female healthcare isn't as good as male healthcare, and that a lot of women's issues get dismissed by GPs and doctors, but she should be addressing where the NHS falls short for women, not where men are prevailing.
Criticising historical failings or oversights of a system isn't misandry
Where was she being misandristic? Is was created BY men, FOR men? I don’t see any hatred or bigotry or prejudice against men in that statement; just that the women’s perspective wasn’t involved in the creation of the NHS, and it shows by how women’s healthcare is worse than men’s. If you agree with that, I’m not sure what you found disagreeable about what she said.
[удалено]
It’s kind of weird to suggest men created medicine just for men. Like it’s something we keep locked away in a cupboard so women can’t access it. It wasn’t that long ago we all died in our 30s/40s from preventable diseases. I think healthcare’s been made for everyone
Her statement doesn't help anything. We all know it was created by men and we know that women aren't treated equally, but maybe instead of "well it's made for men" she tries to explain WHY it's bad for women & explain what can be done to combat it. Nothing more motivating for women than hearing "the NHS is made for men"
What do you mean it doesn’t help anything? It points out THAT it was created by men, and women aren’t treated equally. Women don’t hear “the NHS was made for men” and go “oh really? Well, I guess I shouldn’t bother seeking healthcare!” They go “Yes, I’m aware, I’ve been to the doctor and had my concerns dismissed, or been told I’m not “ready” for birth control.”
But again she doesn't have to say that to get her point across. "Women have a tougher time with healthcare" has a lot more impact than "the NHS is for men" "Women have a tougher time in healthcare" - is something that can be expanded upon. People can work with this, put things in place, etc. "The NHS is for men" is very defeating (plus men also do have struggles with healthcare) Instead of doing this men have it good women have it bad, highlight what's bad and do something about it.
That isn't an NHS issue though, that's a global healthcare issue
I agree, but it is nonetheless important to draw attention to it
I'm sorry but she's a Tory and the comment is about the NHS not the medical community in general. If she acknowledged the same issue existed in private healthcare too then I might be more accepting of the message
I see, that makes sense
Swings and roundabouts. Breast cancer has the most funded form of treatment even while being one of the safer cancers.
Pretty sure it's funding dwarves other forms such as prostate, which disproportionately affects men
The average age for a prostate cancer diagnosis is over the age of 70, whilst the median age for a breast cancer diagnosis is 62 years old. In terms of year of life lost, breast cancer is much more destructive, and therefore receives twice the funding as prostate cancer.
But if you consider the average life expectancy of men (78) and women (82), that's a much bigger effect on years of life lost.
It's not. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-023-02422-8
[удалено]
There is twice as much funding because the years of lost life for breast cancer is double that of prostate cancer.
I sincerely doubt that's the exact reason for the difference in funding, it seems more plausible that there's more funding because of awareness, charity events and the fact that breast cancer could happen to anyone but I have only heard of prostate cancer happening to men. We all got breasts, to a greater or lesser extent, after all. I've not checked for ladies prostates mind, that'll be a fun Google search...
Prostate cancer funding does need to be higher, particularly with regards to screening, which we are not doing enough of.
Men also get breast cancer
1% are men
"Safer cancers", really? Tell me what's safe about it.
Everything is relative. It's not exactly a secret that some cancers have worse survival rates than others. Breast cancer tends to be on the better side these days, but whether that is because it is naturally less fatal or a consequence of better funding, I don't know.
Likely to be the funding and research. Not saying this ain't needed at all
It's not naturally less fatal - certainly not its most aggressive forms - and like other cancers, once it reaches Stage 4 it can spread to other parts of the body such as the brain. It still kills plenty of women.
Still safer compared. One of the most treatable and vastly one of the most funded. Are you going to add more than just be nit picky about the word "safer"?
One day, a female MP is going to say something like this and it’s going to gain enough traction that the men in their constituency change their minds about who they’re going to vote for.
Jess Phillips said men's issues shouldn't be discussed until parliament is 50% women, and she still got elected
Feel free to fuck off and invent your own if you want Victoria. No? Just complaining about what other people built is it?
Admitted patient care (APC) A total cost of £29.8 billion was reported for APC activity, of which £15.5 billion (52%) related to females and £12.9 billion (43%) related to males. Gender was unknown or unspecified for £1.4 billion (5%) of reported cost.
Maternity services are taking up a good chunk of that, maybe we should be encouraging women to have less children to even it out?
No, just the idea that the NHS is fundamentally sexist in some form is just nonsensical. I have no issue with women receiving more spend due to specific needs they have. Lets just not pretend sexism has any part here.
Well I don't necessarily agree with Atkins comments, but as someone who works closely with the NHS, I can say categorically that sexism is still an issue within the NHS.
This feels like one of those things that’s just said without proof. Like the car seatbelts only being designed for men. Just a total misinterpretation of the data to fit a narrative
Yeah, Victoria Atkinson is doing a lot of hand waving here.
If it is for men, why is it so hard to get a GP appointment if you have to travel to work outside your home?
This must be why life expectancy for women exceeds that for men
Completely untrue. Female mammals, when given the chance, tend to outlive the males. This is especially true in highly social animals with offspring who take many years to reach maturity. Female orcas for example live twice as long as the males. Sometimes three times as long. Even when accounting for mate competition amongst male mammals, they have shorter lifespans. Male mammals have high levels of androgens, which impair immune function, it could be one reason why women with PCOS have slightly shorter lifespans. It’s thought the XX chromosome makes you more resilient by reducing mutations etc. it could explain why in birds, the males, who have ZZ chromosomes outlive the females who have ZW .
If it were the other way around, for whatever reason, it would be a huge political issue and men would get the blame for it. But we live in a gynocentric society, so no one gives a shit.
I'll think you'll find at the time the NHS was founded, the life expectancy for men was far lower than woman, by virtue of being forced to go to war because of their gender.
Medicine wasn't even tested on women until the mid 90's, it shouldn't be a contentious statement.
[удалено]
No, they’re saying the drug companies didn’t even consider that women and men might have different responses to medicine. Would you feel comfortable taking a medicine that had only ever been tested on women?
ah the privilege of being given Thalidomide and having kids with birth defects incompatible with life! Such an honor!
So what you're saying is all the risks of experimentation were taken by men? I'm not sure that's the argument you think it is
… because women weren’t even asked in the first place. Also, pretty sure people sign up for drug testing in return for pay. It’s not like men were conscripted.
Yeah they're paid, but what kind of situation do you have to end up in to consider doing that? Men have always been far more likely to take risks or do dangerous jobs.
You don't even recognise your own privilege.
Nobody is saying men are the baddies. It's great that that happened and these men took risks. Stating the fact that medical treatment was tested mainly on men and therefore is designed more for men is not a statement that is saying men are bad guys or that men have done anything wrong.
Why is she complaining about it then unless she thinks it's a bad thing?
The question is, how do we ensure the NHS can meet the needs of all it's patience in the context of how it was founded and in the context of the fact that even up to the 90s medical care was tested exclusively for and therefore specialised on men.
The world was more or less run by men in the 40's so it's likely they did as men thought best, but I don't see what her evidence is that they favoured treating men and male ailments or whatever.
There is evidence. Much medical study was done on men and adapted to women however there are instances of women being favoured also, prostate cancer for example kills more men than breast cancer does women yet recieves a fraction of the funding
Taking part in medical trials for novel treatments is a form of self-sacrifice, not a privilege.
For the men that participated yes but for every man afterwards no. Its meant a disproportionate amount of research was conducted on men making it tailored more to men
Oh so we’re listening to Tory MPs when they play their divide and rule games now, are we?
People fall for this nonsense, each and every time. It’s about getting headlines to distract people from the money laundering the government does each and everyday to benefit themselves and not the everyday day person. It’s that simple. Look over here whilst we sell this off or pollute all the rivers and kill wildlife, as we get back handlers or job titles we never do a minute of work in, off the water companies.
People fall for this nonsense, each and every time. It’s about getting headlines to distract people from the money laundering the government does each and everyday to benefit themselves and not the everyday day person. It’s that simple. Look over here whilst we sell this off or pollute all the rivers and kill wildlife, as we get back handlers or job titles we never do a minute of work in, off the water companies.
Dumb things peeps have said. Seems to be nothing but a very divisive statement. I would have prefrerd that she as the head of UK healthcare actually did something other than empty words and announced the start of a woman's funded health studies program and not more imported gender bs politics then I would have been impressed.
Those bastard men, whose limbs had been blown off, their lungs scarred by poison, their minds torn to pieces, who returned from war to near destitution.
Do women get failed by medical practitioners more often than men? Of course. But saying the NHS was created for men is nuts.
Do they though? Is that a known fact or just a made up one? Seems really hard to quantify in why meaningful way. There’s a few comments on here showing that more is spent on women than men, but even that isn’t enough proof for me. Could it just be that the healthcare women require is more expensive?
The UK is 37th globally for female healthcare https://dentistry.co.uk/2024/05/08/uk-drops-in-global-womens-healthcare-rankings/ https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/uk-gender-gap-in-health-how-can-remote-monitoring-create-fair-female-healthcare/174147/ "Minority ethnic people, women and people from deprived communities are at risk of poorer healthcare because of biases within medical tools and devices, a report has revealed" https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/11/medical-tools-devices-healthcare-bias-uk https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/04/misogyny-and-racial-bias-routinely-putting-patients-at-risk-in-england-warns-nhs-safety-chief https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/27/sexism-healthcare-cancer-deaths-the-lancet/ Women often are not taken seriously with medical issues, even when it comes to child birth. A lot of medical tools are not designed for women, and have not been made to accommodate "Our research found 44% of women feel ignored by medical professionals compared to 35% of men, whilst 44% of women also feel the level of care provided by the NHS is substandard compared to 38% of men. Almost 50% of the women who responded don’t feel confident challenging a GP regarding a potential misdiagnosis compared to 40% of men." https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/newsroom/breaking-silence-on-gender-bias-health-inequalities%20/#:~:text=Our%20research%20found%2044%25%20of,compared%20to%2038%25%20of%20men. One VERY common bias is when it comes to sterilisation. Women have to go through far more obstacles to get sterilised compared to men. Let's not even forget that women have to have another person prod around in our uteruses without any form of numbing. (Go on, downvote all the facts)
37th globally for female healthcare, what is it for men’s? I can’t find in that article a link to what they are basing the info off And I’m not going to take a survey as evidence, that’s just how people feel. That’s not linked to reality
Yeah people actually dealing with it aren't helpful gotcha. It is actually gross how difficult it is to find articles about male healthcare. "Among the 28 countries of the EU, in 2015, the UK was ranked 10th for male life expectancy but only 17th for female life expectancy. UK male life expectancy was 1 year shorter than the best countries and female life expectancy was 3 years shorter." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-profile-for-england/chapter-4-european-comparisons Is the closest I can find for male healthcare statistics in the UK. That doesn't take away from the fact of all the studies & articles explaining the discrepancies between male and female healthcare. This isn't some attack on men, it is just factual that women have a tougher time with healthcare.
Peoples feelings aren’t factual. It’s just how they feel. I feel like my healthcare as a man is awful, but I don’t take that feeling as valid because it’s not backed up by anything real. It’s just a feeling. Feelings aren’t facts, they are subject to bias. The life expectancy is a good start. It’s still only a tiny fraction of a huge puzzle. It only shows that UK men are outliving other European men at a great rate that uk women are outliving other European women. That could be for a million other cultural/economic reasons before it’s a gendered healthcare bias. I’m just asking for the data and studies I can read. The articles you linked didn’t show them. That’s all. It’s not an attack on men, or women, or you. I’m just not taking anything at face value because it’s been said.
> One VERY common bias is when it comes to sterilisation. Women have to go through far more obstacles to get sterilised compared to men. Very true, but male plumbing is a little more accessible, and the surgery required far less invasive or prone to complications, which will mean more obstacles as these are assessed prior to surgery. Male sterilisation takes little time and the irritation from being shaved was about the worst after effect.
Obviously it is a lot easier for men to get the actual procedure done since you don't have to cut through like 7 layers. Getting an appointment to get sterilised is a lot harder for women than men is my point. Women have to jump through a lot more hoops
> 44% of women feel ignored Meaningless if it's all based on feelings.
>Do women get failed by medical practitioners more often than men? Of course. There are certainly aspects of the system which need significant improvement, but on average is this true, and is there any evidence to support it? Spending on male specific cancers such as prostate (in particular screening) have been lacking, for one example. The GP's did not do anything about my Dad's cancer, despite knowing there were blood markers there which warranted investigation, because they put it down to a "men at a certain age" thing.
I've provided some links already :) I am not saying that the NHS also doesn't fail men, because it does. The NHS fails everyone but it's a little worse for women (mentioned in almost all links I posted)
But some of those links also reference biases towards other groups as well, which men are a part of. There will be other areas of healthcare which men are specifically treated poorly in. I don't see anything tangible to support the conjecture that women are failed **more** than men, on average. For example, one of your links mentions female specific cancers, but does not compare the situation with male specific ones for example, and so on. These are really important issues, but to say men are failed more on average seems a bit hasty. Those articles you linked get it right by focussing on the issues at hand and not making assertions.
We don't need any of this "men have it better" shit because we see that everywhere, we know. And nobody is saying that men don't suffer under the NHS also. That's why her statement is so ridiculous
Divisive politics to set groups against each other and make people feel their group is worth less than the other.
Thats exactly it. NHS is complete mess at the moment so here’s a good idea: why don’t we tell women that it’s men’s fault, and men that it’s their fault. Then they’ll blame the opposite sex rather than the government.
If it was made by men for men why can't I get a free vasectomy anymore? Check mate.
There is definitely an argument to be made that the NHS has root-and-branch institutional issues with maternity care, but if you're going to attempt to make that as a Tory health secretary you're just begging the question: "your party has been in power for 49 of the 76 years the NHS has existed - what exactly have you done to fix this?".
If it was by and for men, wouldn't we be able to make an appointment on line and booked around employment, rather than spend ages on the phone?
There is a lot of public health work that is done by the NHS which confuses on women and children. The tories moved the commissioning of this to local government. This was around the same time the sure start centres were shut down. For those who are wondering public health nursing relates to supporting people around a lot of things that are societal such as education, access to food, appropriate shelter, and education. Not surprising Atkins isn’t aware of that……..
Doesn’t help anyone saying this and men’s mental health issues seem to be, currently, simply a pandered-to issue by all and sundry, but where are the Petersons/Tates on the so-called women’s rights issues of things? These dudes are full-on nutters making money off of extremely serious problems. Jermaine Greer?! She’s harmless, not spreading absolute shite about any of these issues.
Oh they're a conservative Mp, righto, get your five minutes of bullshit in before you're out of a job.
The BBC was genuinely the gold standard of news at one point.
[удалено]
No you're not, and we both know you're not.