This a typical "grindset" opinion and it is retarded. People deserve to get payed. The the owner class is allowed to undercut some people, who are used to even less, does not justify keeping wages low.
An analysis by the committee that wrote the report finds that just 8.8 percent of NIH grant spending from 2013 to 2023 focused on women’s health research
A bigger portion of the finding needs to go towards finding out if there really are sex differences. But this is not the same as 92.2% of spending ignores women.
According to the article the NIH has been required to include women in medical research since the 90s and have been required to determine whether there are any expected sex differences since 2016.
Also, if they determine that there are no sex differences, does it matter if the research has been conducted on female animals or not?
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.
Yes I did but I had trouble understanding what the number meant. The article in question made it seem like the remaining funding ignored women when it didn't. That number corresponds to funding specific to women. It does not mean ober 90% is male focused. That's why I was interested in how much was male-only funding as this number would be better at revealing the inequality.
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?
Yes that was the claim, but the number 8.8% did not mean that the remaining gap was funding that excluded women. But reading this article made it seem that way.
You're right, and I did. To me the 8.8% cited in the reference used in this article seems pretty vague. This number relates to women's health defined as "[...] includ[ing] diseases and conditions that are sex specific or affect women and men differently or disproportionately, [...]". So this particular work does not really say that men are particularly favoured here. However, they do cite another article by Arthur Mirin (DOI: 10.1089/jwh.1029.8682) which stated as of 2021:
Not only are there almost three times as many male-favoured diseases as female-favoured diseases, but the the degree of funding disparity for the male-favoured diseases (extent to which male-dominant diseases are overfunded and female-dominant diseases are underfunded) is nearly twice as large as that for female-favoured diseases.
To me, these numbers give ordinary people a much better view of the problem, I would say. The 8.8% likely makes much more sense to experts within the field and I never meant to oppose that. It was simply difficult to make sense of within the scope of the article.
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. They simultaneously claim that healthcare should be allocated more equally and depending on the gender specific needs. It reads like rage-bait.
I wonder about some of the facts. Whilst I do not dispute that there are differences, there are some points here that seem dishonest. For example there is a number cited that roughly 9% of resources or whatever is directed at women, despite them making up half the population. This number is women-only, right? But there is a point earlier that specifies that, at least in the US, research should in general include both men and women.
Does anyone have any numbers percentages that relate to shared research as well as mamen-only? I asked chatgpt and all it could find was some UK study between 2000 and 2013 on cancer research:
Women-specific: 8.4%
Men-specific: 6.0%
Gender-agnostic/non-sex-specific: 85.6%
On the one hand there seems to arguments about a more equal distribution of resources, which I agree with, but on the other hand the numbers seem to compare women-only investments to everything else. That such numbers are small does not mean that the men-only percentages are large. It would be more interesting to compare these numbers. Showing only one of them, feels a little disingenuous.
It feels I little unclear whether the author thinks the distribution should be equal or whether or not it should reflect problem groups. What's more we do not see any numbers showing whether or not one of them is being favoured over the other.
Why would anyone assume that a child free person would automatically need anywhere near as flexible schedules? To do what? Tend to your horses? You seriously underestimate how much extra time raising kids take, whether due to unforseen circumstances or not. I guarantee you, even with all the supposed privileges these parents receive they are drowning by the added workload and they are more stressed at work than they were before having kids.
Fair point, and my mistake. But what these parents receive is humanity, not privelage. This is like a rich person complaining about poor people receiving economic support. Help should be bestowed to those in need.
You say "it takes a village" but how are you, as a childfree person which is complaining about others receiving aid that you yourself do not need, being part of said village? What is your contribution?
The money needed to pay for all elderly people in society is not purely from the taxes we pay whilst we work. We who pay taxes now, are also paying for retired people. If the ratio between retired and non retired is too skewed the quality of life will reduce for the elderly and the retirement age will also have to go up to cover these costs.
I simply meant that if enough people do not provide to the pool of working adults this retirement ratio will be affected. Most economic systems in the west are based on the assumption that people will have kids. Without them there will a deficit since the pool of older people will cost a lot more than what society can handle.
I regret using the word "leech" and I agree that it was too harsh. But if enough people stop producing offspring we end up with a behaviour that is not far from parasitic in that they will at some point expect others to pay for them, others who not exist.
Given the state of the world I totally get why people do not want to have any kids. But I do not understand why people hate on parents so much when they are actually providing something of societal value. So when someone wants you to imagine what it is like to have a second job, this second job is, in fact, indirectly supporting future you as well.
Obviously some people cannot have children and that is fine. It becomes a problem when there is a wave of people who will not. Again, understandable but problematic. I kind of get r/fatpeoplehate vibes from these discussions and it made me react.
I may have come of as a hater of the childfree life but I am definitely not. I just can't stand those who complain about others having children. I am if the opinion that you have to choose to have children or not. Neither will make you superior.
It is i
But they "welcomed" the friction. I do not think I have ever heard someone "welcome" an inconvenience.
If you mean wRiggle In Piss in the last panel? Then, sure.
This a typical "grindset" opinion and it is retarded. People deserve to get payed. The the owner class is allowed to undercut some people, who are used to even less, does not justify keeping wages low.
This is the part that should tell me that 90% of the finding between 2013-2023 excludes women?
Where does it say that? It says
A bigger portion of the finding needs to go towards finding out if there really are sex differences. But this is not the same as 92.2% of spending ignores women.
According to the article the NIH has been required to include women in medical research since the 90s and have been required to determine whether there are any expected sex differences since 2016.
Also, if they determine that there are no sex differences, does it matter if the research has been conducted on female animals or not?
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.
Yes I did but I had trouble understanding what the number meant. The article in question made it seem like the remaining funding ignored women when it didn't. That number corresponds to funding specific to women. It does not mean ober 90% is male focused. That's why I was interested in how much was male-only funding as this number would be better at revealing the inequality.
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?
Yes that was the claim, but the number 8.8% did not mean that the remaining gap was funding that excluded women. But reading this article made it seem that way.
I asked it for references. I do not see what the problem is.
You're right, and I did. To me the 8.8% cited in the reference used in this article seems pretty vague. This number relates to women's health defined as "[...] includ[ing] diseases and conditions that are sex specific or affect women and men differently or disproportionately, [...]". So this particular work does not really say that men are particularly favoured here. However, they do cite another article by Arthur Mirin (DOI: 10.1089/jwh.1029.8682) which stated as of 2021:
To me, these numbers give ordinary people a much better view of the problem, I would say. The 8.8% likely makes much more sense to experts within the field and I never meant to oppose that. It was simply difficult to make sense of within the scope of the article.
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. They simultaneously claim that healthcare should be allocated more equally and depending on the gender specific needs. It reads like rage-bait.
I wonder about some of the facts. Whilst I do not dispute that there are differences, there are some points here that seem dishonest. For example there is a number cited that roughly 9% of resources or whatever is directed at women, despite them making up half the population. This number is women-only, right? But there is a point earlier that specifies that, at least in the US, research should in general include both men and women.
Does anyone have any numbers percentages that relate to shared research as well as mamen-only? I asked chatgpt and all it could find was some UK study between 2000 and 2013 on cancer research:
On the one hand there seems to arguments about a more equal distribution of resources, which I agree with, but on the other hand the numbers seem to compare women-only investments to everything else. That such numbers are small does not mean that the men-only percentages are large. It would be more interesting to compare these numbers. Showing only one of them, feels a little disingenuous.
It feels I little unclear whether the author thinks the distribution should be equal or whether or not it should reflect problem groups. What's more we do not see any numbers showing whether or not one of them is being favoured over the other.
Why would anyone assume that a child free person would automatically need anywhere near as flexible schedules? To do what? Tend to your horses? You seriously underestimate how much extra time raising kids take, whether due to unforseen circumstances or not. I guarantee you, even with all the supposed privileges these parents receive they are drowning by the added workload and they are more stressed at work than they were before having kids.
Fair point, and my mistake. But what these parents receive is humanity, not privelage. This is like a rich person complaining about poor people receiving economic support. Help should be bestowed to those in need.
You say "it takes a village" but how are you, as a childfree person which is complaining about others receiving aid that you yourself do not need, being part of said village? What is your contribution?
The money needed to pay for all elderly people in society is not purely from the taxes we pay whilst we work. We who pay taxes now, are also paying for retired people. If the ratio between retired and non retired is too skewed the quality of life will reduce for the elderly and the retirement age will also have to go up to cover these costs.
I simply meant that if enough people do not provide to the pool of working adults this retirement ratio will be affected. Most economic systems in the west are based on the assumption that people will have kids. Without them there will a deficit since the pool of older people will cost a lot more than what society can handle.
I regret using the word "leech" and I agree that it was too harsh. But if enough people stop producing offspring we end up with a behaviour that is not far from parasitic in that they will at some point expect others to pay for them, others who not exist.
Given the state of the world I totally get why people do not want to have any kids. But I do not understand why people hate on parents so much when they are actually providing something of societal value. So when someone wants you to imagine what it is like to have a second job, this second job is, in fact, indirectly supporting future you as well.
Obviously some people cannot have children and that is fine. It becomes a problem when there is a wave of people who will not. Again, understandable but problematic. I kind of get r/fatpeoplehate vibes from these discussions and it made me react.
I may have come of as a hater of the childfree life but I am definitely not. I just can't stand those who complain about others having children. I am if the opinion that you have to choose to have children or not. Neither will make you superior.
Well when you get old and stop working those kids will pay back by paying taxes themselves. That is the part you missed.
Yes and when you get old and stop working those kids will pay for you. You do realise that a declining population is problem for this reason, right?