Men die six years sooner than women. There are more than four widows for every widower.
So, it would only seem fair that more health research and health education dollars be spent on men than on women. Yet in the budget of every federal health agency, more money is spent on women’s health than on men’s. There are seven federal health agencies specifically for women. Not one for men. 39 of the 50 states have an office of women’s health, only six have one for men. A search of more than 3,000 medical journals listed in Index Medicus found that 23 articles were written on women’s health for each one written on men’s. Although a woman is only 14 percent more likely to die from breast cancer than a man is from prostate cancer, funding for breast cancer research is 660 percent greater than funding for prostate cancer research. Even the post office has gotten into the act: there is only one disease for which you can buy a postage stamp and the profits will go to research to cure the disease: breast cancer, even though heart disease kills millions more men prematurely. Before the age of 65, men die of heart attacks at three times the rate of women.
Education? Men are falling further behind. Your study talks about funding education for women, yet 60% percent of people graduating from college these days is a woman.
Usually, if people talk about where the money goes, and they don't tell you where it ALL goes, it makes me wonder. Your foundation report simple said 5% of the money goes for things specifically women. Until I see the other 95%, Until I see some reports on the percentage of money awarded to things specifically for men, I'm going to be skeptical. If it's the other 95%, then yea, I think that's a problem. But somehow, I don't think so.
What about the dollars that go to cancer research, or something else that benefits both men and women? Shouldn't that be counted? Or do things that affect us all not count?
One other thing:
There is plenty of funding to go around - saying that one group is underfunded in no way implies to take it away from another
.
If it's a foundation, they got a limited amount of money each year. If they fund one thing, they can't fund something else.
I also believe it was you who said:
Not only do women's issues get less funding, but single women get less research into socioeconomic issues and health issues.
So if we support the family, women's issues get less funding. Isn't it you who said that? And said something completely different above?
You defeated your own argument it seems.
= new reply since forum marked as read
