To think it really is a man's world?

[TreatTreat]

We all know it is, but itv1 confirmed it even more for me today by calling the Euros tournament the 'women's euro tournament'. TV stations sure as hell don't introduce men's tournaments with their gender in the introduction.

I didn't ask about fund raising, I asked about funding I.e. Public expenditure on healthcare broken down by sex.

Unsurprisingly, there's a significant higher percentage of (public) healthcare spending on women, and also there's more money spent on research into women's health issues , twice as much as male health issues, despite male health issues being generally more serious and having a higher mortality rate associated with them.

But shur of course it's a man's world & healthcare spending ignores women , cos everybody on mumsnet says so. That makes it true doesn't it!?!
(Just never mind those pesky facts...)

How are men’s health issues “more serious” than women’s health issues?

Because in general these conditions have a higher mortality rate apparently. This is what the research I highlighted to l up the thread says anyways. Take it up with them I.e. The NIH research unit.

Is the higher mortality rate due to the health issues being more serious or men taking their health less seriously?

Edit: Your substack link does not show that men’s health issues are more serious. That appears to be your claim?

Again, you’re trying to make this an either/or situation. You’ve presented some data obtained from AI with no nuance or context and you’ve decided this proves that women are in no way disadvantaged in society.

Higher mortality rate doesn’t mean a more serious condition. It can mean that men are less likely to go to the doctor or take advantage of screening programmes. Spending on women’s healthcare is more mainly due to maternity care BUT women spend more of their own money on supplementing healthcare.

You’ve conveniently ignored the raft of research that shows how women have been ignored in medical research which has had real consequences for women’s health.

It’s possible for some areas of men’s health to be underfunded AND for women’s health not to be taken as seriously as it should be.

I also said that government money is at least in part, allocated with an eye to the public perception. Women are in general much more conscious and conscientious around their health...(.it's anecdotally fairly well known that men will not go to the GP about health concerns so more likely that whatever they have is at a later stage and more difficult to treat. ). Women organise and participate in Race for Life, Macmillan Coffee mornings etc and will pay more attention to what a government or party is proposing. Again, if men were more vocal and visible, maybe more would come their way.

Aside from the healthcare issue, im reading a thread right now where a single mum is in a bind over childcare and work and there is a distinct lack of sympathy plus one poster saying how much more reliable men are as employees...I'm assuming the father in this scenario is a top notch employee who never has childcare issues cos guess whose doing it? My ex has spent the last ten years advancing his career (same as mine), whilst I have to turn down opportunities because I have to factor in childcare. Given that something like 90% of single parents are female and many would gladly do 50/50, how is that not hugely disadvantageous to women?

Hi RhaenysRocks,

I'm not buying what you're selling on the healthcare issue e.g. there's more money relative to mortality risk being put into breast cancer versus prostate cancers apparently, which highlights the kind of ways women's healthcare gets prioritised, despite what you read daily on Mumsnet interestingly!!

On the childcare/ children raising issue I do have some sympathy. However, when sadly relationships break up with children, the default is the woman gets to stay in the family home & becomes the main carer. The man gets kicked out & has to come up with extra money to fund his family remotely.

I simply don't see many women swapping roles here, do you!?
I.e. would many women leave the family home, fund that family with maintenance payments and only have access to her kids every other weekend - hmmm I didn't think so!!

But it's still a "man's world", according up Mumsnetters, yeah right!! In reality, it's now a post feminist world where a white man is viewed as a privileged paragon who is overlooked for jobs because of really daft 'positive' discrimination policies, (though I can't see anything positive about discrimination tbh), where they are not treated equally in healthcare or health research, and where they get the tough side of the deal in marriage/ family/ relationship break ups.

That's a funny world for a so called "man's world" isn't it!?

I'm not buying what you're selling on the healthcare issue e.g. there's more money relative to mortality risk being put into breast cancer versus prostate cancers apparently, which highlights the kind of ways women's healthcare gets prioritised, despite what you read daily on Mumsnet interestingly!!

That's one example. Please can you provide more examples where women's health gets prioritised both in terms of actual spending and research? One example will not prove your point.

On the childcare/ children raising issue I do have some sympathy. However, when sadly relationships break up with children, the default is the woman gets to stay in the family home & becomes the main carer.

It's not the default. Family courts start from the premise of 50/50. If men want to be seen as the main carer then they have to start stepping up into this role from birth, not just to get out of paying for their child.

The man gets kicked out & has to come up with extra money to fund his family remotely.
I simply don't see many women swapping roles here, do you!?
I.e. would many women leave the family home, fund that family with maintenance payments and only have access to her kids every other weekend - hmmm I didn't think so!!

Most women would welcome an equally involved parent. If men are only seeing their children every other weekend then that is usually though choice. If they want to parent equally then they need to step up and make that happen.

But it's still a "man's world", according up Mumsnetters, yeah right!! In reality, it's now a post feminist world where a white man is viewed as a privileged paragon who is overlooked for jobs because of really daft 'positive' discrimination policies, (though I can't see anything positive about discrimination tbh), where they are not treated equally in healthcare or health research, and where they get the tough side of the deal in marriage/ family/ relationship break ups.
That's a funny world for a so called "man's world" isn't it!?

Positive discrimination is illegal.

And how many women sacrifice their career and financial independence by working part time so their husband can focus on his career rather than family life?

I think this phrase is particularly apt here...

When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

When I was a patient two things happened. I asked why the men got the meds first and was told that they were likely to become violent and kick off more.

Secondly I was told at 10pm to turn my TV off as people wanted to sleep - I had my earphones on so no noise and it was Eurovision - Norway won. Then the man who complained in a side room next to our ward watched Match of the day very loudly. He wasn't told to turn it off.

Rr,
I posted a very comprehensive post further back up the thread on the healthcare spending and the healthcare research spending issues e.g. there's twice as much money spent annually on research into women's healthcare issues as men's. Just look back up the thread for more examples if you wish.

Wrt being seen as a man's world, I think it may have been previously e.g. say 30 years ago, but it's not today.

Positive discrimination is not illegal in Ireland or the EU. e.g. the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, that feminist pin up of all things virtuous, insisted on having 1 female candidate from 2 nominated for the European Commission, this despite there only being about 1 in 5 women v men in politics. That's positive discrimination, needless to say, she/ they picked the woman candidate!!

(It was such a sexist stitch up, that the pre eminent candidate in Ireland at the time, Simon Coveney, wouldn't even let his name go forward for the nomination!!)

In the world of work and sport yes men on average tend to be better. Women are the best are raising children. Don't women's national teams sometimes lose to teenage boys?

Oh I've lost count of the amount of times a doctor has dismissed my health issues as 'just being a women'.

Years and years of crippling cystitis which was never investigated. One doctor refused to give me antibiotics and told me to either stop having sex or drink a glass of cranberry juice afterwards.

Hormone related migraines which were impacting my studies. A doctor refused to prescribe me medication or write me a doctors note to give to my university as 'it's never good for a women to have neurological issues on her record'.

Severe sickness in pregnancy - told to suck it up as it's just part of being pregnant.

I was a professional dancer and I got injured. A doctor just told me to stop dancing. My husband injured himself playing football, despite never playing professionally was referred to a specialist straight away on the NHS. I had to pay privately as they refused to refer me.

This is sarcasm right?

Hmm, I feel like that's probs because football has been a primarily male sport for absolutely decades.

If you mentioned a ballet dancer people would likely assume it was a woman.

You're confusing positive discrimination with positive action.
Have you ever wondered why there are more men in politics and why women are underrepresented?

And none of your posts have been comprehensive. They lack detail and context but that's what you get when you copy and paste from AI.

Not sure about work. Young women have outearned young men for well over a decade and The Economist did a study which found that childless female execs 'continue to be promoted more aggressively than their male peers'.

So it's not a case of capability so much as innate biological reasons leading us to make different choices. Sports is trickier though due to the differences in strength and speed. It's true I believe that the woman's team that won the world cup a few years back were absolutely thrashed by an under 15s boys team.

Women's football was more successful after WW1, so much so that the FA banned women from playing in a professional league.

www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jun/13/how-the-fa-banned-womens-football-in-1921-and-tried-to-justify-it

@ThatDaringEagle actually all the well educated, professional single mums I know would love it if their exes were prepared to do 50/50. I certainly would. Every case is different of course but your generalisations are laughable. In many cases the man leaves, does not get "kicked out" because family life is too boring and dull. Or they DO get kicked out because they fail to engage in family life, pull their weight and generally grow up. Women are far less likely to put up with a "man" who thinks his job is done at 5pm and can come in to a tea cooked by a woman who may well also be working and who thinks his weekends are his own to spend at football, cricket, biking whatever.
The idea that maintenance "funds" the family is absolutely ludicrous. My ex pays CMS and not a penny more. If I did likewise and ringfenced the rest of my salary for my own personal use my kids would do no hobbies, go on no school trips, would not have laptops for school or their 2nd hand android phones. They'd not see a film at the cinema or go to a trampoline or waterpark. I'd be having a bloody great time though! We earn similar amounts, him a little more than I as he has been able to seek promotion. I am only now able to do that as my kids are teens ...good thing really as they are now in adult sized clothes and shoes. He, as per the calculator, reduces the maintenance to account for the days per annum he has them but provides v v little for them on those days..they don't have a bedroom each so he is not maintaining a bigger house for their benefit, they bring shoes and coats I buy them and often take clothes from here as he doesn't bother to update their wardrobes there.

During COVID, women's workload went up many times. They were the ones who took on the homeschooling, the looking after shielding elderly relatives, usually while also trying to keep up their paid work. Most of the men just commandeered a bedroom and shut the door during working hours or worse, set up shop at the kitchen table and told everyone to be quiet 9-5. Generalisations yes, but some research has been done on this. The impact of the pandemic on women was more in many invisible ways than was not appreciated at the time.

As a pp said, positive discrimination in the UK is illegal. If a woman is getting a job it's because she's good enough for it. Women have spent decades now, well over a century, campaigning for basic equal rights. If you feel it's gone too far "the other way", feel free to campaign publicly..don't come grousing onumsnet telling us that our experiences are not true.

Thanks for correcting me about the earnings. Thanks for confirming what I meant about sport

I think it swings both ways. Men with hormone issues have a real difficult time getting treated on the NHS even if their tests show them to be well below the baseline set out by associations like the British Society of Sexual Medicine.

I dated a guy who experienced exactly this. Totally lost his libido and energy around 30yo and doctor kept offering anti depressants. They told him his testosterone was 'in range' but when he went to a private specialist it turns out his figures were in the 85-100 year old range. He had less than half the testosterone of the average man ten years his senior.

He was back to normal within months but had spent years being unable to have sex and struggling with energy which affected his career. The NHS cutoff was 50% lower than industry associations recommended and in most other countries he'd have been treated no question.

He said there are probs loads of guys out there in similar situations who'll never get sorted as not everybody questions the diagnosis and does their own research, or can afford to get private treatment and pay ongoing costs for life. Poor guy hadn't been able to get an erection for about seven years and was too embarrassed to tell anybody apart from several GPs who all fobbed him off with SSRIs.

You're using an anecdote to support data. That's not how peer reviewed studies work. @PregnantBarbie

@placemats this is a social media discussion, not an academic journal. Lets not exclude people from contributing if they can't cite a BMJ article.

Sure, it's cos they realise it's a bloody hard slog, where they have to give themselves totally to political & public life, giving up on their private lives, & time with their families. so most women (probably sensibly) opt not to pursue a career there, while more men than women make the sacrifices necessary to make their living through politics.

And sorry, dressing up positive discrimination as positive action is purely senseless semantics in this case. The issue was that the head of the European Commission, who is a woman, wanted a woman commissioner and she forced Ireland to put forward a woman for the candidature, so much so that the best candidate, a man, wouldn't even go for it. That's positive discrimination in action!!

P.s. as a result we've ended up with a bang average EU commissioner, cos she was selected based primarily on her sex & not on merit.

@ThatDaringEagle I actually can't work out if you're just trying to wind us all up or if you really are this blinkered and clueless.

The man gets kicked out & has to come up with extra money to fund his family remotely.I simply don't see many women swapping roles here, do you!? I.e. would many women leave the family home, fund that family with maintenance payments and only have access to her kids every other weekend - hmmm I didn't think so!!

There are plenty of women who don't want their ex to have 50/50, that's true. But usually, that's because the ex has never done anything like 50/50 and so the woman worries that quite frankly, her children will be poorly looked after by a man who has never previously stepped up so why should he now. Whereas if a man can genuinely demonstrate that he has been an equal parent, and wishes to remain so, there are very few situations in which he would NOT be granted 50/50 and assets split accordingly. "only have access to her kids every other weekend".... this cracks me up especially because what I hear, time and time again on social media, in real life etc, is women begging their exes to have the children more becuase the chlidren don't understand why daddy only wants to see them now and again.

Sure, it's cos they realise it's a bloody hard slog, where they have to give themselves totally to political & public life, giving up on their private lives, & time with their families. so most women (probably sensibly) opt not to pursue a career there, while more men than women make the sacrifices necessary to make their living through politics.

But this is why I think you're just winding us up or genuinely completely clueless. Women don't want to do the hard work of politics? Rubbish.
Women don't want to make the sacrifice? Yeah, that might be true. But I'll tell you what is DEFINITELY true - most women aren't likely to find a partner who will step up to allow them to make that sacrifice, even if they want to. They're still responsible for the childcare and all the rest.

And finally, just PROVING it's a man's world, why does politics have ot be like this? It's like this becuase it was invented by and for men who were happy to "sacrifice" seeing their children and who could safely rely on someone else (a woman) to take on the burden of childrearing instead. Perhaps if politics had been designed by and for women in the first place, a different model would have evolved?

But it's very unlikely you have the ability to engage with this sort of thinking as you're so entrenched in "this is just th eway it is" mindsets.

Data? I was replying to an anecdotal story from a previous poster.

But if we're going to discard anything that can't be irrefutably proven with hard evidence then we best forget about the patriarchy.