Leaderboard

Sounds like the replies we hear like “all lives matter” in response to reminders that “black lives matter.” It ignores the underlying baseline and status quo where equality is very much not already present. Is mental health important for all? Of course! Are there reasons mental health might be harder for women? Of course! When’s the last time you had to accept 80 cents on the dollar for the same work? When’s the last time you got accused of being a DEI hire or slut shamed and accused of sleeping your way to the top even though you were twice as smart and worked twice as hard as everyone else? When’s the last time you had to question whether it was safe to be alone at a gathering where everyone else was a different gender from you? Yes, mental health for all is important, but not everyone is working from the same starting position. See also: Hatred and violence shown toward LGBTQ communities. There’s good reason we tend to focus more on mental health for them than middle aged entitled white men with a fluffy 401K. https://morganemichael.com/for-educators/middle-school-resources-grades-6-8/privilege-and-empathy-lesson-how-your-socio-economic-position-impacts-how-well-you-do/

On the contrary, there is increasing recognition that too much research on health matters, and consequently too much health provision, has failed to take into account sufficiently the differences between the sexes. Like many people, I detest identity politics, but health provision is an area in which there are obviously big differences between the sexes, so recognition of this is not playing politics.

This is not helpful. In many areas of health, but especially in public health there is increasing recognition that we need more fine-grained approaches to address pervasive equity challenges. To do so, one needs data with more resolution, not less. Aggregating information removes the ability to develop targeted counter-strategies. You might as well say that everything is biological so we should address all issues, mental, infectious diseases, aging, and so on just under the banner of biology. Especially, when it comes to mental health, men and women have different types of challenges and barriers and there is a cultural overlay that needs to recognized while trying to deliver care. Ignoring all that really doesn't do anything helpful and can be harmful. One prominent example in a different health area, is the high mortality of black mothers in the USA, something that would not have been noticeably if one collected data while ignoring racial backgrounds. On thing that has to be mentioned is that in the past (and to a lesser degree currently), folks have divided information along lines that were not well established and/or were colored by stereotypes. Certain types of mental health issues were disproportionately attributed to some groups, but without sufficient data to establish that this is actually the case, for example. In other words, we need more data to figure figure out where the lines really are. Which is additional work, for sure. But the benefit for figuring that out is the ability to develop new approaches to deal with challenges rather than trying (and failing) with one-size-fits all attempts.

I appreciate the point you’re making more broadly and don’t wish to pile on, but please recall how another term for this same group is the “American Taliban.” Its most decidedly NOT equivalent to: There are important differences and distinctions between them and only one was cited here. ✌🏼

Uh-oh.

That is not the way it is generally assessed. Mental health is a continuum, and a disorder starts when it interferes with daily functioning. Everyone faces element of stress, distress etc. but if manageable, it generally does not rise to the level of a disorder. This is a weird way to look at things. If one approaches this situation from a lens of inclusiveness, the result should be a pluralistic perspective, no? It is not a zero-sum game where we can only have one or the other. That is exactly the point. If we do not recognize folks that are different from us and going as far as denying their individuality, we are not really trying get to the "us". In the past, the "us" would be a demand to become invisible to the majority, as to not upset them. A demand that ultimately is not feasible, puts an unfair pressure on those who cannot assimilate, and ultimately still led to to fission, as the demand was usually done in bad faith (being one of the good ones is often the best many could hope for). If we move from this viewpoint and accept a broader definition of "us", wouldn't that be the way forward? Edit: Also to pre-empt potential arguments: I am not referring to things like HR-EDI thingies, which were developed in the business world- I am thinking of intersectional research efforts aiming at creating more detailed, holistic views of society. Similar as in biology we do not view humans separate from the animal world, for example.

I think the list is flawed, but it’s not off-topic.

I think the critical bit is finding the correct differences, be it sex or gender on its impact on health. There are complicated overlays at the intersection (and gets really complicated when we talk about health in practice, as sexism and racism has a surprisingly high impact there). As I mentioned before, assuming differences without sufficient evidence is as damaging as ignoring real differences. Unfortunately, medical training is only slowly starting to get rid of the bad parts and introducing new good parts (with good an bad refering to the level of available evidence). Edit, I just remembered some seminars that I took years back, there were a lot of examples provided for assumed differences and stereotypes, predominantly in women, that led to worse health outcomes.

1: Use the hints already provided: And then new hints: 2: Look at the RSA numbers that have been factored at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_numbers and compare to page 1 in the paper https://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/papers/RSA-survey.pdf * 3: "Your equations" are just a distraction, they provide no information and can't be used. 4: Unsupported claims are not part of the solutions I think of. *) Basic RSA knowledge