Londondare
I am new here
No bio...
User ID: 2665
Londondare
I am new here
1mo ago
I am kindly asking this knowledgable community to check my data and my argument.
Fact 1
In the 2024 state of the union address Biden said:
Women are more than half of our population but research on women’s health has always been underfunded.
Biden used this argument to call for more funding for women's health research:
That’s why we’re launching the first-ever White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, led by Jill who is doing an incredible job as First Lady. Pass my plan for $12 Billion to transform women’s health research and benefit millions of lives across America!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2024/
Fact 2
The NIH 2017, 2018 and 2019 research budget breakdown is:
-
Gender neutral research: 80% of funding.
-
Women's health research: 14% of funding.
-
Men's health research: 6% of funding.
Source: Report of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women’s Health: 2017–2019, table 8, page 117. https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sites/orwh/files/docs/ORWH_BiennialReport2019_20_508.pdf
In other words, Biden was not saying the truth because at least in 2017, 2018 and 2019 women's health research received more than double the funding compared to man's health research.
Note 2.1
83% of all medical research in the US is funded via NIH. The other 17% may be funded via private foundations and organizations, pharmaceutical companies and other for-profit entities, or via state and local governments.
Source: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget
Note 2.2
Funding of the reproductive & maternal care is certainly justified and will be always reported as women's specific research funding - but only about 7%-10% of the women's health research was in the "Reproductive & Maternal/Child/Adolescent Health" category.
Source: Report of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women’s Health: 2017–2019, table 9, page 117. https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sites/orwh/files/docs/ORWH_BiennialReport2019_20_508.pdf
Note 2.3
NIH defines “Women’s health conditions,” as...
...defined in section 141 of the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (PublicLaw 103–43), include all diseases, disorders, and conditions:
- That are unique to, more serious in, or more prevalent in women
- For which the factors of medical risk or types of medical intervention are different for women or for which it is unknown whether such factors or types are different for women
- With respect to which there has been insufficient clinical research involving women as subjects or insufficient clinical data on women
Source: Report of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women’s Health: 2021–2022 https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sites/orwh/files/docs/ORWH_Biennial%20Report_121823_1516_F_508c_Optimized.pdf
Note 2.4
After 2019, the NIH has decided to stop calculating data on men's health research funding. This means that it will no longer be possible to show that men's health research is grossly underfunded compared to women's health research. I wonder what the motivation was for this decision.
NIH does not currently calculate or report annual funding associated with projects dedicated solely to men’s health or projects benefiting men and women.
Source: Report of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women’s Health: 2021–2022 https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sites/orwh/files/docs/ORWH_Biennial%20Report_121823_1516_F_508c_Optimized.pdf
Fact 3
Globally men suffer 53.4% of all Burden of Disease.
Global Burden of Disease: https://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-2019
Note 3.1
In the US specifically:
Men over the past decade have shown poorer health outcomes than women across all racial and ethnic groups as well as socioeconomic status.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5986/text?r=16
PS: I do not consider the argument "research on women’s health is underfunded because all health research is underfunded" a good faith argument.
Londondare
I am new here
1mo ago
I think that Biden may have been imprecisely referencing the idea that many 'gender neutral' medical studies are done only on men
This is not the case for a long time now. From 2010 to 2020 the ratio of women in clinical trials oscillated between 52% and 62%.
Source https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sites/orwh/files/docs/ORWH_BiennialReport2019_20_508.pdf, Apendix E, Table 1A.
Also, I don't think it follows that men having higher disease burden means men's health should receive more of the gendered medical research funding. It may mean that men should get more healtchare funding.
I think this is a very good point.
In fact, it's even possible that the 'gender neutral funding' covers gender neutral conditions that affect more men
This goes against the definition. See Note 2.3. If I am not mistaken, a condition is considered gendered as soon as it crosses the 45%-55% ration.
My first post here, let me know if am doing something wrong.
Motte, bailey and patriarchy
I have noticed that when feminists talk about the patriarchy they often commit the motte-and-bailey fallacy. Before I continue it is important to note that as far as I know there is no generally accepted definition of patriarchy and how the word is used differs widely even among academics and "experts".
The motte part is a patriarchy theory as used in anthropology and sociology. This part is usually solid and you can use it as evidence that patriarchy is a real thing. Arguments for patriarchy from anthropology and sociology are:
- Wife and children take husband's name
- Mothers care for children and do majority of unpaid work while fathers win bread doing the paid work
- In a relationship the man is on average slightly older than the woman
- We still use male centric language like "guys", "fireman" and "mankind"
- In many non-democratic countries men still dominate over women
- In the past, families or clans were controlled by the father or eldest male
- Major religions and their gods are male-centric
- Most top politicians and CEOs are men etc.
The bailey part is a patriarchy theory as used in feminism. This part is much more speculative and authors rarely try to prove it. Arguments for patriarchy from feminism are:
- Men hold all power while women are excluded from it
- "Heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women"
- If men are disadvantaged it is because "patriarchy hurts men too"
- Male loneliness and suicide are caused by patriarchy
- "Patriarchy and capitalism interact together to oppress women"
- Global warming is caused by patriarchy
- Misandry is not real because we live in patriarchy etc.
How feminists typically use the motte and bailey fallacy: They make a claim of the bailey type, for instance "men are the majority of homeless because patriarchy hurts men too". When the opponent attacks the bailey and argues that no such patriarchy exists, the feminist will retreat to the motte and reply with "of course patriarchy is real, do you deny that wives take husbands names, do you deny that we still call ourselves 'mankind'?"
The important part of course is that arguments in the bailey part have no direct causal connection to arguments in the motte part.
Ok, an extreme example, here is an extreme answer: before they review the tapes, the resident will be sent home, maybe put on administrative leave. Even after he is cleaned some people will keep whispering about the accusations. That is not a "no damage at all".
More realistically: Guy filmed a gal begging him for sex and preventing him from leaving. He left. She accused him, he submitted the video as evidence but was expelled anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Feibleman_v._Columbia_University
Or this one: Mr Hawker, who had been at Devonport High School for Girls in Plymouth for five years, was suspended, arrested and then fired for 'gross misconduct' – despite reports that the girls had admitted they lied about everything 'because it was fun'. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12635681/Male-teacher-sacked-sex-assault-wins-45000.html
if women have as much rights as children
In western democracies, Women have more legal rights than men. There are almost no laws or regulations that discriminate against women but more than few that discriminate against men.
"gender inequalities in achievement"
Equating achievement with salary is the manipulation. Mother raising a baby is not a failure because she is momentarily not earning salary. Our society does not measure achievement with a salary, why should the index?
In your hypothetical, the wife's* economic well-being* is as high or higher than that of her husband, but her economic achievement is indeed about zero.
I don't understand this sentence.
A woman who relies on her husband as the breadwinner is dependent on him in ways that a woman who earns her own income is not.
This is of course true, but it does not imply that her command over economic resources is zero. You ignore social norms and even laws that govern the sharing of economic resources in a marriage. By default, half of all wealth owned by the couple belongs to her. And as the marketers says, women make majority of purchasing decisions.
Londondare
I am new here
6mo ago
Actual sex is bad for women, but teasing men or using your looks to get paid is apparently liberating for women. Hence the new wave of feminism by the likes of E Ratajkowski or Megan Fox.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
Fuuuuuuuuuck!!!!
How did I miss this? TBH I am enraged.
Londondare
I am new here
6mo ago
Sorry, but yes, you are confused. The discussion is not about rape, the discussion is about false accusations. Moran is talking about a hypothetical situation where women already gave a clean consent after which she "might need to, for the defense of her reputation, say, “He raped me.”"
So instead of "don't teach women to not get raped; teach men to not rape" say "don't teach men to not get falsely accused; teach women to not falsely accuse". Sadly, Moran is teaching men to not get falsely accused.
The advice should be perhaps paraphrased into "If you are not in the right headspace and you made a young man at a party believe you gave a clear consent to sex, don't falsely accuse him afterwards just because you might need to defend your reputation."
The woman who relies on her husband indeed has less control, on average, than a woman who earns her own income.
Less control on average, certainly yes, but not zero control on overage. In your example, if women has "10 pct chance of it being devastated by her husband's death or abandonment" then she has on average 90% control of the wealth, not 0.
Consider the case of MacKenzie Scott (Bezos). You and the GDI index say her command over economic resources is 0, while in fact after her divorce from Bezos she was worth $62 billion.
But he could still decide to stop doing that at literally any moment.
Yes he could, and it sometimes happen. But that is an edge case, not average. Married couples share their income more often than not. Why do you think marketers say that women make majority of the purchasing decisions? The idex measures averages, not worst case scenarios.
Yes, he has complete and total command over those economic resources.
Not true. You disregard both the social norms and the laws that govern the sharing of wealth in marriage. By default half of all wealth they own is hers.
This is very much the type of thing the index is meant to measure.
Do you have a source for that claim? Because the authors of the index are saying something different.
Londondare
I am new here
6mo ago
Thanks for sharing your point of view - I never thought about it this way.
From my perspective, the average false accusation is worse than the average rape. Hear me out. When we say rape, we imagine blodied women in torn clothes left to die in a ditch, right? But that is far from the average case. When I look around me, when I read the media, I mostly see very different rape. They were both 16 and he is now accused of statutory rape (she is not). Or they both had couple-lot of drinks, he is now accused of rape (she is not). Or he was in position of power and she was sleeping with him for years until she realised he was actually raping her the whole time. Or he was rich and famous and now he does not want to pay. Yes, there is lot of the he was pressuring her too much, she did not really wanted it, she did not really know how to say no. Then there is the she changed her mind afterwards, she was embarrassed, afraid for her reputation, afraid of her family, her friends socially pressured to report it as a rape. There are the scorned lovers. And of course all the accusations in custody and divorce battles.
I would trade any of those for being falsely accused, any time. Firstly, you have to prove your innocence, not the other way around. Even if you are super lucky and there is a physical evidence in your favour, this may not help you at all. You will be tried in a kangaroo court. Your boss/employer will much rather face your lawsuit for wrongful termination than face the negative public image of protecting a rapist. Your career is over, your social life is over, your private life is over. You will probably be arrested, you will be threatened with a long prison sentence, you will be blackmailed by a prosecutor offering you a sweet deal if you confess to what you did not do. Exonerating evidence will be withheld by rogue police and prosecution. Your reputation will be ruined. You will be depressed, bankrupted, marked for life, registered as sex offender. You will forever loose access to your children. (Do you have children? Can you imagine someone can legally take them away from you for ever?)
Again, I would much rather suffer average rape than average false accusation.
Notably, Moran is talking about exactly such "average rape". I quote: "woman who is mentally ill, disturbed or needy or unhappy or really drunk at a party, [...] If she’s an upset, needy person [...] she might need to, for the defense of her reputation, say, “He raped me.”"
Londondare
I am new here
6mo ago
Difference between victim blaming and common sense advise is when the narrative impacts the perception of the crime and makes it more common.
Flashing a diamond in a bad neighbourhood is an extreme example. Better example is locals in a bad neighbourhood closing an eye to a normal tourist getting mugged there, and even buying stolen goods, because everybody knows he should have know better? The general narrative you repeat influences the reality.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
I know some indexes do this, notably the WEF Gender Gap, but I didn't know this applies to GDI as well. Where did you find it?
Londondare
I am new here
6mo ago
On the other, they could result in no damage at all to the falsely accused, and nobody cares at all.
I can't imagine such scenario. Maybe in the 90s, but I can't image any institution, be it school, employer or the police to downplay a rape accusation and not to start an investigation immediately. As soon as accusation is investigated, it gets public and it causes lot of damage - even if the accused has strong evidence to his favour, which is rarely the case in a he-said, she-said situation.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
height is one of the strongest predictor of low life expectancy.
Is it? Source?
Larger animals tend to live longer because metabolism scales slower than size.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
No matter how an index that covers every country in the world is constructed, it is going to miss nuances somewhere.
This is a truism. I don't require an index to be perfect, I require an index to not be obviously flawed. Following your statement that "change in the index is likely to correspond with actual changes on the ground", the answer is: not necessarily. Nevertheless, it is not only the direction but also the amplitude of what it measures. And I think I proved beyond reasonable doubt that "command over economic resources" can not be measured by salary.
I am not sure that it is true that
I said "The UNDP calculates separate command over economic resources for females and males, as a product of the actual Gross National Income (GNI) and two indices: female and male shares of the economically active population (the non-adjusted employment gap) and the ratio of the female to male wage in all sectors (the non-adjusted wage gap)." How is this different from your link? I don't see it.
I am sure that the data is, to some degree, incomplete or poorly measured. But, the question is, to what degree?
My argument is not about the quality of the gathered data, my argument is that it does not measure what it says it measures not even in principle. Standard of living or command over economic resources can not be measured with individual's salary. Not even in principle. Up to 50% of wealth is redistributed by the state, large part of which are direct financial transfers to population. The split of wealth in marriage is closer to 50/50 that to 0/100.
The index is not not imperfect, it is principally incorrect.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
The index component is meant to measure "command over economic resources", not other forms of achievement.
but you rank them both the same on economic achievement?
You seem to keep changing the definition. Choose just one, economic achievement or command over economic resources? The GDI says it compares command over economic resources.
Only if you define "command" as the ability to make decisions about purchases. But why would you do that?
How else would you define "command"? Don't you think that you command many more resources that just your salary? Do you think retirees command zero economic resources because they no longer earn salary?
why do you assume that "by default, half of all wealth owned by the couple belongs to her."
To be honest, I am from EU and it is true here so I assumed that it is true in the whole western developed world. Can you show me a concrete example to the contrary?
why a reasonable person in the field of international development might find the index useful for many purposes?
Useful for what purpose exactly? To me, the index seems as deliberately constructed to support certain ideology by very unreasonable people. As if they needed the index to show women are oppressed. But if you just used the dimensions from the HDI then it would show that men are much worse off. So they threw in the unadjusted pay gap but it was not enough, men were still worse off, so the threw in also the unadjusted employment gap, and finally, women are the worse off, even if the index does not make sense.
Look at it this way: if gender equality increases, what will the index show? Nordic countries are considered the most gender egalitarian. Married women have security and choices and they CHOOSE to stay with children and work more part-time jobs and less full time jobs. The index interprets it as women in Nordic countries being worse off.
I suspect GDI is anti-correlated with the lifespan difference, as countries which have the same male and female lifespan are the ones where everyone fucking dies young.
While this is true for life expectancy, the division of paid/unpaid labour mostly runs in the opposite direction (up to a point - in most gender equal of countries it changes direction again, as women choose to spend more time with their children and choose part-time employment more often than in middle income countries).
Londondare
I am new here
1mo ago
This is a good point, but do we know WHY do men have much higher risk tolerance and lower inhibition?
Moreover, in today's political climate, don't we want to achieve equal outcome? If the factors are biological, then we need health research funding to achieve equal outcomes. If the factors are social, then we need health research funding and social programs to achieve equal outcomes.
Mind you, almost all dangerous jobs are done by men. Chemical exposure, mental stress, transportation - you name it.
Londondare
I am new here
1mo ago
See note 2.2
only about 7%-10% of the women's health research was in the "Reproductive & Maternal/Child/Adolescent Health" category.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
1 Sorry.
2
might nevertheless be accurate, in the sense that a change in the index is likely to correspond with actual changes on the ground in what it seeks to measure
To the contrary. Consider the case of Nordic countries. They are generally considered at the top of gender equality. And because married women feel safe and have choices, they CHOOSE to spend more time at home with children and CHOOSE to work part-time instead of full-time. But the GDI interprets this as women being less developed.
Adding incomplete or poorly measured adjustments like the one you suggest might well make the index worse at reflecting reality.
I am not suggesting any such thing, but consider your own argument from another perspective: Isn't it the UNDP that is adding incomplete or poorly measured adjustment to the measure of command over economic resources in the form of non-adjusted employment gap and the non-adjusted wage gap?
Londondare
I am new here
1mo ago
I'd be curious to know how much...
See Fact 2.
Gender neutral research: 80% of funding.
Women's health research: 14% of funding.
Men's health research: 6% of funding.
Women's health needs to be studied more because
men suffer 53% of burden of disease.
In an equal world, women and men are assumed to have the same expected lifespan.
In a slightly less equal world men will still be victim of majority of accidents and suicides. That is why the Burden of Disease is calculated with the expected lifespan 82 for women and 80 for men.
Is this a full blown victim blaming in the most influential printed medium by decorated feminist? Or am I overreacting?
nytimes.com: https://archive.ph/tZn3B#selection-457.82-457.95
How is this different from "You’ve put yourself in a dangerous situation because you’ve done a foolish thing by flirting with that guy wearing that dress"?
More options
Context Copy link