you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Also, whether or not there are references in the article is completely irrelevant to my criticism about the author being unclear as of what point they were trying to make with their piece.

How is it unclear? Women's health should be studied more than it is currently.

They simultaneously claim that healthcare should be allocated more equally and depending on the gender specific needs.

Those aren't mutually exclusive claims.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    No they aren't mutually exclusive, that's true. But if women-only research funding is below 10%, this says nothing about male-only funding. From what I could find that majority of funding goes to research that is gender agnostic. The problem seems to be that when gender specific funding is warranted, male-specific conditions seemed to get more attention than made sense. If the goal is to have equality in healthcare, is this not promising?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    From what I could find that majority of funding goes to research that is gender agnostic.

    Our bodies are not gender agnostic though. That research is predicated on male bodies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    No not really. Whilst it may not be gender agnostic, including both men and women does not make research for male bodies. Sure, historically this has been a problem and this is why it became a requirement to include women in the 90's, who h is mentioned in the article.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment