Is framing issues in terms of "men and women" necessary in the 21st century?

[MigL]

4 hours ago, Harrot said:

So only women are helped, not men....
Isn't it weird to exclude another category, not because they have not the same anatomy, but just because they are of the wrong gender ?

Way to make women's problems all about you ...

[Harrot]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Could it be that women face a higher risk of death from heart attack than men?

Maybe it's because they are here distorting reality.

The reality is that in every country, women have a lower risk of dying from a heart attack.

Therefore, to exclude men, wich are half of the population, from the healthcare project is just medical nonsense.

It is very obvious that the argument you mentioned is simply used to manipulate opinion.

Reality :

Quote

The distribution of men-to-women CHD and stroke mortality rate ratios across countries is shown in figure 4. CHD mortality rates were consistently higher in men than in women, but, the magnitude of the ratio varied by age. For example, in 2010, CHD mortality was, on average, about four times higher in men than in women aged 30–60 years and the ratio declined gradually to two times higher rates at ages 75–80 years. Stroke mortality rates were more constant with age, yet were about 1.5–2 times higher for men than for women up until age 70 years and older where the ratio was closer to unity.

https://gh.bmj.com/content/2/2/e000298

Fiction :

Quote

DALLAS, Nov. 30, 2020 — Women face a 20% increased risk of developing heart failure or dying within five years after their first severe heart attack compared with men, according to new research published today in the American Heart Association’s flagship journal Circulation.

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/women-found-to-be-at-higher-risk-for-heart-failure-and-heart-attack-death-than-men
 

They could also mention some more specific declaration like within five years after their first severe heart attack "they had when their husband already had some heart attack."

I hope you understand the difference.

So yes, excluding half the people from health care because they want to save lives is a bad reason.

"They" want to save MORE women's lives, NOT ALL lives, by using the time they spend prescribing to explain to poor women who live much longer than men and therefore die more often of heart disease, that they are at a disadvantage compared to men?

I hope you understand that this is unethical.

It's true that women have particularities when it comes to diagnosis, but there are also many men who are not diagnosed at all, so why focus their action on women?

Why not just focus on the elderly or the poor? They're even more concerned.

 

More generaly, i think pointing out that it's wrong to have differences between men and women and to treat men and women differently is a kind of paradox.

The best thing would be not to stress anything at all, to do just things in accordance with reality, without advertising, as normal doctors already do.

You can't clear the difference when you talk about it all the time, which becomes an obsession.

As with racism, young people who aren't told every day that there's a difference between black and white they shouldn't take into account don't notice the difference for themselves.

You know what's a bad way of not thinking about something? It's to think that you shouldn't think about it.

 

 

 

 

[Night FM]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

It's no surprise that you don't understand, but I find your willful ignorance a bit disgusting. This is a debate you can have with yourself, as my ethical stance on abortion doesn't recognize your waffling and judgemental unreasonableness.

No, it's pretty simple. If your argument is essentially that, prior to viability, a fetus is merely "part of a woman's body", then fair enough. However, if your argument ignores defining a human life altogether, and is essentially apathetic to whether or not a human life exists merely because it physically depends on the woman's body, then my analogy still applies. A born child will die if it isn't provided care, so it likewise depends on its parents, and naturally we have laws which require a minimum standard of parental care for born children.

6 minutes ago, Harrot said:

As with racism, young people who aren't told every day that there's a difference between black and white they shouldn't take into account don't notice the difference for themselves.

That's assuming that "differences" don't amount to stereotypes or hasty generalizations. If you're talking about physical differences, then this boils down to minor differences in anatomy and melanin levels, which are pretty insignificant to the human condition as a whole.

If you're talking about something along the lines of differences in crime statistics between black and white people, then you'd be naive to think that some people don't take this and use it to form a denigrating worldview such as that "black people are more violent than white people", when in reality there would be more differences between socioeconomic levels, and we could easily change the paradigm from which we evaluate things altogether (e.x. if we compared the differences between "white skinheads" and "black Harvard graduates", we'd see higher rates of crime, drug use, and poverty among the former demographic than among the latter one).

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, Harrot said:

Therefore, to exclude men, wich are half of the population, from the healthcare project is just medical nonsense.

Utter twaddle. Men are not excluded from healthcare just because one group focuses on reaching out to women. 

16 minutes ago, Harrot said:

They could also mention some more specific declaration like within five years after their first severe heart attack "they had when their husband already had some heart attack."

I can’t find this quote in the link. No mention of “husband” at all

[Harrot]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Utter twaddle. Men are not excluded from healthcare just because one group focuses on reaching out to women. 

So you mean that there is also a second bus taking only care of the heart disease of the men ?

But you miss the point : WHY are there some special operation relativ ro women hearth care ? Shouldnt the men and the women not be threated equaly ?

 

 

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

I can’t find this quote in the link. No mention of “husband” at all

"They could also mention some more specific declaration like" : is important to understand the sentence i wrote after that.

Then the link is the one you provided yourself :

Quote

Research Highlights:

• Researchers found women face a 20% increased risk of developing heart failure or dying within five years after their first severe heart attack compared with men.
• In addition, women were more likely than men to be older and have a more complicated medical history at the time of their heart attacks.

Embargoed until 4 a.m. CT/5 a.m. ET Monday, Nov. 30, 2020                                                                                                                   

DALLAS, Nov. 30, 2020 — Women face a 20% increased risk of developing heart failure or dying within five years after their first severe heart attack compared with men, according to new research published today in the American Heart Association’s flagship journal Circulation.

Previous research looking at sex differences in heart health has often focused on recurrent heart attack or death. However, the differences in vulnerability to heart failure between men and women after heart attack remains unclear.

To study this gap, researchers analyzed data on more than 45,000 patients (30.8% women) hospitalized for a first heart attack between 2002-2016 in Alberta, Canada. They focused on two types of heart attack: a severe, life-threatening heart attack called ST-segment

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/women-found-to-be-at-higher-risk-for-heart-failure-and-heart-attack-death-than-men

 

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, Harrot said:

So you mean that there is also a second bus taking only care of the heart disease of the men ?

But you miss the point : WHY are there some special operation relativ ro women hearth care ? Shouldnt the men and the women not be threated equaly ?

 

The second part has been answered, there are sex differences in how cardiovascular diseases manifest and we need to understand those so that we can provide the best care. The first question is the direct reason for that. In the past, most medical research focussed on men. The research was done by men and on with male patients. I.e. in the past, without a specific mandate to include women in research, most researchers would use male subjects. IOW, most of our understanding of cardiovascular disease and its treatment is for men. It has been so ingrained to use men as default that especially in older textbooks you don't find "men" or "male" added to this data. Men are just the default for medical practice in most areas and only slowly do we get data also about women. Your proposition to go back to assuming that things are the same (despite evidence to the contrary), is essentially an exercise in willful ignorance and I fail to see any benefit to it. Otoh, the harms are well documented in literature.

[Harrot]

47 minutes ago, Night FM said:

That's assuming that "differences" don't amount to stereotypes or hasty generalizations. If you're talking about physical differences, then this boils down to minor differences in anatomy and melanin levels, which are pretty insignificant to the human condition as a whole.

If you're talking about something along the lines of differences in crime statistics between black and white people, then you'd be naive to think that some people don't take this and use it to form a denigrating worldview such as that "black people are more violent than white people", when in reality there would be more differences between socioeconomic levels, and we could easily change the paradigm from which we evaluate things altogether (e.x. if we compared the differences between "white skinheads" and "black Harvard graduates", we'd see higher rates of crime, drug use, and poverty among the former demographic than among the latter one).

You see? This is the result of elites who for decades claimed that “Oh no! There's no difference between blacks and whites”. When it comes to facts, even idiots can observe the counterpart.

As for the reason, as you mentioned, not everyone comes to the right conclusion, so why not say the right thing from the start instead using the wrong arguments? “Poor people are more likely to do tricky things, let's end poverty!”

Of course, it's political. Getting the poor to fight against themselves using reasons such as gender, ethnicity or religion is a cheap way for the elites to carry on.

[Night FM]

16 minutes ago, Harrot said:

You see? This is the result of elites who for decades claimed that “Oh no! There's no difference between blacks and whites”.

No, your strawman aside, for centuries it's been a case of elites asserting the superiority of one race over the other. Whites over the case of blacks in the context of much of American history.

16 minutes ago, Harrot said:

 

When it comes to facts, even idiots can observe the counterpart.

Rather, when it comes to facts, idiots will observe some "difference" and use it to form an erroneous worldview based on the difference. People could just as easily observe physical differences between members of the same "race" or even the same immediate family, and many of the conclusions they could form based on these differences would be just as erroneous.

16 minutes ago, Harrot said:

As for the reason, as you mentioned, not everyone comes to the right conclusion, so why not say the right thing from the start instead using the wrong arguments? “Poor people are more likely to do tricky things, let's end poverty!”

Of course, it's political. Getting the poor to fight against themselves using reasons such as gender, ethnicity or religion is a cheap way for the elites to carry on.

"Elites" is just a term used and abused in the context of populist rhetoric, the users of which do not seem to hold the same opinion of their own "elites" who feed them said rhetoric. And it seems that the one attempting to create division along the lines of race here is you, by making a blanket statement that "differences exist" without substantiating what you believe the differences to be, or what they actually mean in the real world.

[Harrot]

29 minutes ago, Night FM said:

No, your strawman aside, for centuries it's been a case of elites asserting the superiority of one race over the other. Whites over the case of blacks in the context of much of American history.

The what? The "elites" ?

I'm glad to see it finally makes sense to you too.

 

In fact, the elites have assumed nothing of the sort. I think that you simply confuse what they say to your attention with what they actually do.

And this is much more obvious when it comes to equality between men and women when you remember that UK monarchy was ruled by a woman just recently.

Social class is usually the only factor that determines the value of others.

Have you noticed that there are queens and that wealthy families marry each other even if they have different ethnic origins, and have done so since time immemorial ?

Here some short examples.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/spotlight/6-royal-marriages-that-went-beyond-race/photostory/77480652.cms

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Harrot said:

"They could also mention some more specific declaration like" : is important to understand the sentence i wrote after that.

But there wasn’t, so your whole point is a distraction.

Quote

 

So you mean that there is also a second bus taking only care of the heart disease of the men ?

I don’t know. It doesn’t matter to this issue; you claimed that “to exclude men, wich (sic) are half of the population, from the healthcare project is just medical nonsense.” and a service that caters to women is not evidence that men are excluded. I can personally attest to the fact that men can and do have access to cardiologists.

According to your horrendously flawed logic, the existence of e.g. a women’s soccer team means that men are excluded from playing soccer. Which is abject nonsense.

 

Quote

But you miss the point : WHY are there some special operation relativ ro women hearth care ? Shouldnt the men and the women not be threated equaly ?

You haven’t presented evidence that they aren’t, but one has to recognize that equal treatment does not mean treating two groups the same.