To think this is insensitively worded, to say the least?

[KimberleyClark]

From the website of the Royal Osteoporosis Society

theros.org.uk/latest-news/international-women-s-day-let-s-end-the-ageist-stereotypes-that-fuel-the-most-insidious-women-s-health-condition/?_gl=114hsiyd_up*MQ..&gclid=Cj0KCQjwk7ugBhDIARIsAGuvgPboftpiYL9EHStxq48v0H5lLUXvpcznG4Nt93uHDTN9RmPFxGS6j2QaAqj8EALw_wcB

“Most are surprised to hear it affects a half of all women over 50. That’s every other mother. Every other grandmother. And it’s serious. More so than people think: as many people die from its complications as from lung cancer or diabetes. So why is nobody talking about it?“

Do women with osteoporosis who aren’t mothers or grandmothers not count?

It could easily have included any woman.

It does, it says it affects half of ALL women over 50 before there is any mention of mothers or grandmothers.

It’s not wrong, assuming mothers and non-mothers, all other things being equal, have the same risk.

it's just poorly worded and considering how much someone has been paid to write that up i would expect better.
it might work better as a tv ad with photo's and stats
not sure but the write up reads like the work of a 12 year old class presentation.

But my mother and grandmother are dead. And I don’t have any children or grandchildren to be impacted if I get osteoporosis. So it does feel as though my getting osteoporosis is somehow irrelevant.

I don't think they will have paid someone to write that, someone just cadged it together in the office.

but..looking at their Twitter feed, they have a Mothers' Day campaign. Can nothing be enjoyed without illness reminders?!

Exactly. Marital status plays a role, too. This article has stuck with me for several years:

www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/if-youre-single-with-cancer-you-may-get-less-aggressive-treatment-than-a-married-person/2018/11/30/a1286d20-ce18-11e8-920f-dd52e1ae4570_story.html

Sometimes I think it’s preferable to focus on what’s helpful rather than what’s true.

Perhaps it can be interpreted that way (it isn’t to me, but we’re all different) but how does it support your happiness to take offence to it? Does it really matter?

it’s a health message about a serious condition. Good to bring awareness to it, even if not done perfectly.

I'd tell them that

I contacted the local Labour MP once after a bizarre mailshot that started "once upon a time, you knew what to expect from adulthood. You'd get married and have children".

Again, they are trying to make it personal. Every one of us have/had a mother and grandmother. Those two relationships are a given. Sister, aunt, cousins...those are maybes. It does not, unless you choose to see it so, discount those who are not mothers and grandmothers.

But my mother and grandmother are dead. And I don’t have any children or grandchildren to be impacted if I get osteoporosis. So it does feel as though my getting osteoporosis is somehow irrelevant.

No - you are in the group of women highlighted first in the article 'half of all women over fifty' You get top billing, mothers and grandmothers are a sub set of the wider group. Men sadly don't get a mention at all, but the article is about IWD.

Maybe it's because they're going to be nearer the age for menopause than a new mum in their 20's or 30's.
As i understand it, there is a greater risk of developing osteoporosis after menopause, also a greater risk of breast cancer, the treatments for which can also increase the chances of developing osteoporosis.

There's also the point about the cost of adverts by word, or time if on tv, the longer the ad, the more it costs, they possibly don't want to spend extra seconds listing every possible family member, leaving no time to mention anything else in the advert.

It's just really badly written as a whole.

BTW...this: although everyone does have a mother Tense matters. DID have is not the same as DOES have.

It defines “half of all women” as “every other mother/grandmother” though.

But they literally equate that to being a mother

"Most are surprised to hear it affects a half of all women over 50. That’s every other mother. Every other grandmother."

To be fair, there was a Fathers Day campaign about prostate cancer last year.

Anyway, thanks for posting, OP - I went and read the article and it’s a great reminder of something I rarely think about. It’s trying to raise awareness of bone health alongside more (now, finally) frequently talked about menopause and mental health. It’s worth a read.

Also, they mention "stigma, isolation and awkwardness" around osteoporosis.

I know we all have to find an excuse for our pointless jobs but that is a hell of a stretch, who has that? I've just had a 50something contact diagnosed with osteoporosis and he just told me about it. Is there a stigma? My parents certainly didn't/don't think that.

The vast majority of the article is focused on age. You have taken one tiny snippet that mentions mothers and grandmothers. The rest is about increasing age.

Nothing wrong with it, in my opinion.

I am not a grandmother, and do not have any living grandmothers.

Can confirm that I felt zero offence when reading that statement.

I mean I'm just glad they managed to use the word women and actually write mothers and grandmothers without some weird bullshit inclusive language.

And then goes on to highlight only mothers as worth a special mention.

On another forum, a poster said it made them think it was a disease that only affected those who had become mothers/born children.

Perhaps it could have been written a better /clearer way.

Given that as well as 90% of the article based around increasing age, the fact that men are also mentioned, suggests that you’d have to be a bit daft to conclude that it only applies to mothers.

But it could be more helpful if you even included the word ‘aunt’, which would hardly have ruined the scheme. Who is taking offence? It’s excluding women who aren’t mothers. People still care about relatives who haven’t had children themselves. I find it incredible the women lining up to say yeah what’s wrong with valuing only mothers - as you say it’s a health message so your reproductive status is irrelevant, your sex and age is though. Do you think there are endless budgets to fund health campaigns?

Loads of people are daft though.

I don’t think it does only value mothers. The message that stands clearly out to me is about age.

We all see things things differently, of course.