Clip taken from the YouTube video of the Elbows Up T.O. Public Meeting - original post from earlier today found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/50501Canada/s/U7jyMoggwj I have to share the most impa...
There’s your source for the HPV vaccine being available to girls in 2008, and only made available to boys in 2017 A doc straight from the BC CDC website.
There’s a CBC article showing that there was a growing campaign to try and include boys in the HPV vaccine around 2015. They literally quote David Brennan, an associate professor at the Faculty of Social Work at UT, saying “I know our health ministry is committed to equity and I believe that we’re a little bit behind the times in terms of addressing this equitable health issue for boys and men”. So you literally had health care professionals calling out the gender-based discrimination that had lasted for about a decade. Some provinces started including boys as early as 2013 – others waited till later.
Providing you internet sources in regards to my specific case from the 90s is more difficult, because there was… barely… an internet at that time. It wasn’t common for schools to communicate via email, or for govt to post information online. I did have an explicit chat with my mom at the time, who was annoyed that I couldn’t get the shot because I was a boy – and we couldn’t afford to get it privately at the time, so I was not covered until much later in life. Apologies if I didn’t remember the specific vaccine from when I was a kid, but your response and open antagonism is unwarranted. Especially given that a quick google search, brought up those above links, and support my overall statements. I removed the specific example, as explaining the differences between vaccines / time lines, was going to be overly onerous, and would’ve muddled the rest of the items I’d listed – and as it was a later point that got added, it made sense to just clip it. It’s not some “cry victim” thing where I turn tail and run when you challenge my stance. As I’ve hopefully demonstrated by responding to your comment here.
Already hashed this out with another poster. If you look through it, there’s a link to articles where university profs were admitting that it was an equity issue, and that they’d failed boys.
As far back as 2007, when the vaccine came in, there was evidence it’d help men / boys out with HPV related cancers and issues. Some of the studies explicitly stated that they should be doing more work to highlight the situation for groups such as gay men, who were left out of the whole ‘herd immunity’ concept altogether when it came to the govt policies and initial roll outs. These studies and the gender-biased implications that were noted, were ignored while the government made the vaccine free for girls. They only looked at cervical cancer, and with those blinders they only funded it for girls. Until boys/men started protesting more, and people pointed out that male rates of various HPV related issues were far higher than that of girls, because ‘duh’ vaccines, and the policies slowly started changing.
If things like historic approaches to heart attack treatments, having things like symptoms only track what “male” symptoms look like, is systemic sexism against women – then this is easily an example of system sexism against men. And again, there’s third party sources of univ profs cited in Canada’s national news agency in the other discussion thread, supporting this statement, so its not just some rando online alone making this assertion. I don’t really care to debate it more.
Ya ya ya I get that. I already deleted my comment before you responded, guess this app lags.
My issue with this is that, with all the ways the medical community has failed women over the centuries, and still does, I just don’t understand why you’re focusing so heavily on the one time recently that boys were left behind.
Do you advocate for equitable medical studies and treatment when girls are left behind, too, or is it just to prove a point?
Women generally have enough advocates already. They have over 5 years more average life expectancy than men, yet the media is flooded with women’s health care needs/concerns. There are reasons why the right-wing message is appealing to so many men these days, and it isn’t because they’re doing great – just looking at the statscan info on university grad demographics, where white guys were around 20%, white girls were around 30%, and asians were around 50%, and I gotta wonder why we keep treating the white guys as a privileged group. The data doesn’t support it so much anymore. Just because one group was treated poorly in the past, it doesn’t justify treating others poorly in the present – especially as that generation has/had no say in the matter that they’re being punished for.
That said, yes, when an equity issue is raised that impacts women, I’m staunchly in favour of having it addressed. I mean, heck, I highlighted gay men as a group that was specifically screwed by the move, which isn’t ‘typical’ cis white right wing guy speech. I like to think myself more an egalitarian in that sense.
I just feel like your anger is directed in the wrong place here. DEI related initiatives aren’t the cause for men being left behind.
Often men are left behind because capitalists find them easier to exploit. The rhetoric that it’s because women are being favoured is false, and i can think of plenty of examples, medically and otherwise, but pushing that rhetoric onto young men to sow resentment towards women and therefore division within the working class is very intentional on the ruling class’s part.
If we can get this back on the rails for a moment:
Was your initial point that Angus bringing up DEI related initiatives in relation to Canada won’t help get the attention of young men?
If so, I don’t disagree, because as I mentioned before, using that rhetoric is a pointed distraction from the class divide, and there was a reason the right was able to seduce young men.
I’m not great at articulating myself, but I have found a video that possibly better explains the reason why
I wasn’t dismissing the fact that (in Ontario anyways) the HPV vaccine was rolled out for girls and not boys. I’m trying to get you to use your brain and think about “why” that would be.
Because if you think some board of doctors and scientists in the late 90’s was like “you know what, fuck men, let’s give this vaccine only to women, that will level the playing field.” Then I don’t know what to tell you.
They literally detail it as a cost thing in some of the reference material i linked. Protecting men’s health wasn’t worth the cost in the eyes of the government. I’m pretty sure that’s not a gender-neutral medical opinion, but rather an ideological/political decision layered on top. They further clarify that the studies used to support women-only treatment, only looked at women’s HPV related issues – ie. “We looked at just cervix/ovarian cancers, and based on that we’re just providing this to girls”. Basing medical policy decisions on biased studies is not a neutral ‘board of doctors wanting the best for all patients regardless of gender’ type of move. Here’s a quote from that university prof that sums it up, from the linked CBC article (my emphasis added):
“Many of the studies that have been done that have looked at cost-effectiveness regarding HPV vaccination coverage for boys have not taken into account cancers related to anal, penile and oral cancers. Most of those studies have been conducted around cervical cancers.”
Sorta like how if the USA says they don’t want to support trans/womens rights initiatives, because it’s too costly, it’s viewed as anti-woman/ideologically motivated. Even if they have some doctors that say “Yes, given our budget, we can’t cover women’s health needs”, it’d still be discriminatory. And if they conducted studies that only looked at the ‘men’ situation, and issued policy excluding women as a result of those biased studies, you’d justifiably call the policy/process discriminatory.
I don’t see your point as an issue with anything I’ve stated.
So you removed the argument, then defend it, again with no sources?
Yeah, this is typical of the men I know who cry victim.
Take some time to reflect man.
Eh? O… k… here?
http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-gallery/Documents/Guidelines and Forms/Guidelines and Manuals/Epid/CD Manual/Chapter 2 - Imms/HistoryImmunization.pdf
There’s your source for the HPV vaccine being available to girls in 2008, and only made available to boys in 2017 A doc straight from the BC CDC website.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/hpv-vaccine-the-growing-campaign-for-including-boys-1.3127916
There’s a CBC article showing that there was a growing campaign to try and include boys in the HPV vaccine around 2015. They literally quote David Brennan, an associate professor at the Faculty of Social Work at UT, saying “I know our health ministry is committed to equity and I believe that we’re a little bit behind the times in terms of addressing this equitable health issue for boys and men”. So you literally had health care professionals calling out the gender-based discrimination that had lasted for about a decade. Some provinces started including boys as early as 2013 – others waited till later.
Providing you internet sources in regards to my specific case from the 90s is more difficult, because there was… barely… an internet at that time. It wasn’t common for schools to communicate via email, or for govt to post information online. I did have an explicit chat with my mom at the time, who was annoyed that I couldn’t get the shot because I was a boy – and we couldn’t afford to get it privately at the time, so I was not covered until much later in life. Apologies if I didn’t remember the specific vaccine from when I was a kid, but your response and open antagonism is unwarranted. Especially given that a quick google search, brought up those above links, and support my overall statements. I removed the specific example, as explaining the differences between vaccines / time lines, was going to be overly onerous, and would’ve muddled the rest of the items I’d listed – and as it was a later point that got added, it made sense to just clip it. It’s not some “cry victim” thing where I turn tail and run when you challenge my stance. As I’ve hopefully demonstrated by responding to your comment here.
deleted by creator
Already hashed this out with another poster. If you look through it, there’s a link to articles where university profs were admitting that it was an equity issue, and that they’d failed boys.
As far back as 2007, when the vaccine came in, there was evidence it’d help men / boys out with HPV related cancers and issues. Some of the studies explicitly stated that they should be doing more work to highlight the situation for groups such as gay men, who were left out of the whole ‘herd immunity’ concept altogether when it came to the govt policies and initial roll outs. These studies and the gender-biased implications that were noted, were ignored while the government made the vaccine free for girls. They only looked at cervical cancer, and with those blinders they only funded it for girls. Until boys/men started protesting more, and people pointed out that male rates of various HPV related issues were far higher than that of girls, because ‘duh’ vaccines, and the policies slowly started changing.
If things like historic approaches to heart attack treatments, having things like symptoms only track what “male” symptoms look like, is systemic sexism against women – then this is easily an example of system sexism against men. And again, there’s third party sources of univ profs cited in Canada’s national news agency in the other discussion thread, supporting this statement, so its not just some rando online alone making this assertion. I don’t really care to debate it more.
Ya ya ya I get that. I already deleted my comment before you responded, guess this app lags.
My issue with this is that, with all the ways the medical community has failed women over the centuries, and still does, I just don’t understand why you’re focusing so heavily on the one time recently that boys were left behind.
Do you advocate for equitable medical studies and treatment when girls are left behind, too, or is it just to prove a point?
Women generally have enough advocates already. They have over 5 years more average life expectancy than men, yet the media is flooded with women’s health care needs/concerns. There are reasons why the right-wing message is appealing to so many men these days, and it isn’t because they’re doing great – just looking at the statscan info on university grad demographics, where white guys were around 20%, white girls were around 30%, and asians were around 50%, and I gotta wonder why we keep treating the white guys as a privileged group. The data doesn’t support it so much anymore. Just because one group was treated poorly in the past, it doesn’t justify treating others poorly in the present – especially as that generation has/had no say in the matter that they’re being punished for.
That said, yes, when an equity issue is raised that impacts women, I’m staunchly in favour of having it addressed. I mean, heck, I highlighted gay men as a group that was specifically screwed by the move, which isn’t ‘typical’ cis white right wing guy speech. I like to think myself more an egalitarian in that sense.
I just feel like your anger is directed in the wrong place here. DEI related initiatives aren’t the cause for men being left behind.
Often men are left behind because capitalists find them easier to exploit. The rhetoric that it’s because women are being favoured is false, and i can think of plenty of examples, medically and otherwise, but pushing that rhetoric onto young men to sow resentment towards women and therefore division within the working class is very intentional on the ruling class’s part.
If we can get this back on the rails for a moment:
Was your initial point that Angus bringing up DEI related initiatives in relation to Canada won’t help get the attention of young men?
If so, I don’t disagree, because as I mentioned before, using that rhetoric is a pointed distraction from the class divide, and there was a reason the right was able to seduce young men.
I’m not great at articulating myself, but I have found a video that possibly better explains the reason why
Ignore the clickbaitey title, it’s actually quite a good video
I’m really not following you anymore.
I wasn’t dismissing the fact that (in Ontario anyways) the HPV vaccine was rolled out for girls and not boys. I’m trying to get you to use your brain and think about “why” that would be.
Because if you think some board of doctors and scientists in the late 90’s was like “you know what, fuck men, let’s give this vaccine only to women, that will level the playing field.” Then I don’t know what to tell you.
They literally detail it as a cost thing in some of the reference material i linked. Protecting men’s health wasn’t worth the cost in the eyes of the government. I’m pretty sure that’s not a gender-neutral medical opinion, but rather an ideological/political decision layered on top. They further clarify that the studies used to support women-only treatment, only looked at women’s HPV related issues – ie. “We looked at just cervix/ovarian cancers, and based on that we’re just providing this to girls”. Basing medical policy decisions on biased studies is not a neutral ‘board of doctors wanting the best for all patients regardless of gender’ type of move. Here’s a quote from that university prof that sums it up, from the linked CBC article (my emphasis added):
“Many of the studies that have been done that have looked at cost-effectiveness regarding HPV vaccination coverage for boys have not taken into account cancers related to anal, penile and oral cancers. Most of those studies have been conducted around cervical cancers.”
Sorta like how if the USA says they don’t want to support trans/womens rights initiatives, because it’s too costly, it’s viewed as anti-woman/ideologically motivated. Even if they have some doctors that say “Yes, given our budget, we can’t cover women’s health needs”, it’d still be discriminatory. And if they conducted studies that only looked at the ‘men’ situation, and issued policy excluding women as a result of those biased studies, you’d justifiably call the policy/process discriminatory.
I don’t see your point as an issue with anything I’ve stated.