You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t get this, osteoporosis is one of the best known medical conditions that mostly affect women. Who dismisses it as “aging”?
It’s actually even worse than it sounds.
This is a solved problem. Resistance training is incredibly effective at not just preventing but totally reversing bone loss in women. That is on top of about a hundred thousand other proven benefits of training. Literally 30 minutes a week at planet fitness with a halfway decent plan can gift you 30+ quality adjusted life years.
But how do we treat this proven, accessible, miraculous cure to this life threatening problem that every woman faces? Well, we endure extreme societal pressure to avoid lifting weights at all costs of course! Wouldn’t want to accidentally become too manly!
Literally everyone should be sickened by this state of affairs
Well, we endure extreme societal pressure to avoid lifting weights
Is this actually true? Like half the women I know lift and gymfluencers is a huge thing
It sounds like you’ve cultivated a very gym positive space, and that’s great! But yes it far more common still for women to be repulsed by the idea of lifting weights, often because of fears of “becoming too big” or “looking like a man”
Acceptance of lifting is absolutely growing among women, as it should be, but there’s a lot of work left to do!
I think it’s maybe changing, but pre 2000s it was not like that at all, and it’s still really not common in those demographics from my experience.
your enthusiasm in this thread is apparent, and it’s great that many women are benefitting from weight training.
BUT i just really want to point out that access to this kind of stuff is a privilege not available to everyone who might benefit.
So, to this I would say, yes and no. The actual privilege is the knowledge on the different forms of resistance training.
If the knowledge is in place, actual physical inaccessibility to the practice is incredibly fringe. Even people with pretty extreme pathologies have access (more often than not, it is explicitly medically recommended for them to train).
The key to understanding the accessibility is identifying the movement patterns and how to load them. Right so, you may be thinking things at this point like, “well plenty of people don’t have a car, or can’t afford a gym membership, or don’t even have a gym nearby, or don’t have any time in the day to train.” This is all very valid and will change how your training looks.
But resistance training is available everywhere. For some specific examples,
I had an 80 year old woman who had all but lost the ability to raise her arms above her head. She can’t drive and doesn’t really have access to the gym. But she does have a pantry full of cans of soup! So I progressed her through some isometrics, then eventually got her doing lat raises with the small cans. Then some bicep curls, also with the soup. Triceps ended up being (sorry if this is tough to visualize) laying down in bed with her elbow propped up on a pillow, doing a type of single arm skullcrusher with the soup.
Well it turns out after a few months of training these muscles and adding some reps, with a little work coordinating it all together, she eventually could pick up a soup, curl it to her shoulder, then push it above her head! Then after a while she could do it for reps! In practical terms, at this point she had restored her ability to dress herself independently and take food out of her freezer.
It turns out you can do most things with soup! Started her on seated good mornings (a type of deadlift) with the soup to hit her hinge. Put a can of soup in a grocery bag and hooked it around her foot so she could do seated quad extensions from her dining room chair. Hopefully this is getting the idea across
On the other hand, the biggest barrier in my experience is depression. It doesn’t really matter what is theoretically accessible to you if you simply can’t be mustered to do it. I have one client where I agreed their workouts would basically be optional and I wouldn’t charge them for last minute cancellations. So I basically just set them a time where I have something else I could be doing, and if they show up, great, if not, no big deal.
I set this arrangement up in direct contradiction to my mentor’s advice, who is a great trainer but is very business oriented. And to be fair there’s no way I could take a second client like this.
But you know what, I’ll be darned, even showing up only 30% of the time they have actually totally transformed their body in about 6 months. Huge strength increases and about 20lbs of bodyweight loss as the same time. It’s actually kind of challenged some of the ideas I have about the importance of “consistency”, at least for beginners.
Anyway, sorry for such a lengthy reply. You put me in an awkward position, I can’t exactly just say, “No way bro, just figure out a setup for grandma to start doing deadlifts and skullcrushers bro” even though that really pretty much is the gist of it lmao. A big part of the problem is that people have very deeply rooted preconceptions of training to the point where they end up deeming themselves ineligible before ever really considering they have a ton of options
I liked reading your story, and I believe it. I’ve had PT earlier in life that literally started me with soup cans so I know this is a thing, it was in the literature my doctors were using to prescribe my home exercises.
That aside, I wanted to concur with your underlying point that you don’t need a gym membership to do basic resistance training, especially not where we’re talking about the goal is old ladies trying to keep the body moving.
Is it nice to have some dumbbells, a bench, a squat rack? Sure, but you can use anything. Basic exercise is free, minus the cost of shoes (for most cardio).
Definitely! Even if one is already generally healthy and wanted to build lots of muscle from there, it can be done very cheaply. You can get pretty far with just the ground. A pair of gymnastics rings is cheaper than shoes and opens up a whole word of effective workouts.
There’s an awesome youtuber “Hybrid Calisthenics” who has a ton of videos getting deep into the weeds on this. He shows the progressions literally all the way from minimal mobility (not able to ‘bench press’ your empty hands) to doing full strict pushups. He has lots of great content on mentality, too, which is something that is generally under-discussed imo
Will be even more fun when the ozempic / wegovy / semaglutude users start falling apart.
It’s a serious concern. To properly lose weight with the support of these drugs you need resistance training and to eat right
Do we have any actual evidence of this, or is this just Faustian speculation?
Whenever there is as new, truly revolutionary medical treatment, there is always a mountain of fear mongering around it. People just don’t want to accept that we actually can make real progress. Hell, any time there is any new treatment discusses, the top posts are always people saying that only the rich will ever be able to afford it. Of course, every treatment starts that way, and countless treatments that were once only for the rich can now be enjoyed by everyone.
I think it’s a logical error that people make, simply because they are wary of scams. It’s generally healthy to be skeptical of miraculous promises. But that goes too far when people replace “we should treat this skeptically” with “there simply must be some horrible cost to this revolutionary good thing. I will assume there is one, even if there is no evidence for it. Anything that good has to be a deal with the Devil carrying some horrible cost.”
Funny enough, Cory Doctorow covered something similar in his book Makers. There was a therapy (I forget, either injection or gene therapy) that led to obese people being able to eat whatever they want and still get thin. They ended up essentially skeletal and brittle in the end over years, turned out it’s very bad for you and they ended up needed to eat like 10k calories a day to survive.
I hate to tell you, but this sort of anti-science medical fearmongering is half the reason why millennials and older had to suffer through their entire formative years and young adult lives dealing with untreated ADHD by treating help as if it’s makes people lesser than others.
They’re just kids! They don’t need no ritalin, that’s just how boys are! He just needs to focus, and that’s on the school to figure out! Besides, what happens when they stop taking it, all the good work you’ve done for 10 years including the capability of getting a good job will just fall apart when the apocalypse hits!
Okay, Bill. Now don’t forget to take your omeprazole and losartan heart meds before you have to visit the ER again from thinking you’re having a heart attack, or actually having one again.
I’ve never heard of a guy not wanting their girl to do strength training, that just makes the girl hotter…
Maybe that’s like an old person thing? Like gen x and older?
Not sure it’s a generation thing. For example, Gen X grew up with ladies workout videos, thigh master, the little white guy with the Afro, etc. Could this be a reaction to the body positivity movement?
I gotta say though, there are a ton of women lifting at the gyms I’ve gone to
Same with mine! There’s been a lot of outreach and acceptance and many women have discovered that training can be a joy. I think much credit can also be granted to the sport of women’s powerlifting, which is growing rapidly
This is a solved problem.
That’s a really goddamn bold claim that you don’t bother to back up. Here’s a 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis exploring our current understanding of how resistance training improves bone mineral density in postmenopausal women.
Here’s their conclusion:
Resistance training can beneficially influence BMD [bone mineral density] in postmenopausal women, particularly at the LS [lumbar spine], FN [femoral neck], and TH [total hip]. A high-intensity training regimen (≥ 70% 1RM [1-rep max]) performed three times per week with a longer training duration may be optimal. However, significant heterogeneity among the included studies for LS and FN bone density may affect the accuracy of the pooled results, thereby limiting the generalizability of these findings. More high-quality clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
So it’s good. Nobody would deny that it’s good. The problem is when you start throwing around terms like “solved” and “miraculous cure” to complex medical problems without anything to back it up – especially in an era of rampant medical disinformation.
I think the previous comment was rather hyperbolic, but to a degree it’s true. I wouldn’t call it solved, obviously, since removing all other factors, women experience more osteoporosis and overall bone loss than men in general. Though when we consider activity, it’s more common for men to be physically active in general, and higher overall muscle mass means greater bone density in the longer term, to my understanding.
But also, most of western society is extremely sedentary, and there is a certain inertia when it comes to encouraging physical fitness as a solution. People do tend to want a magic pill for things. Just look at all the fervor over Ozempic.
Thank you for actually engaging with the post instead of devolving into a holier-than-thou wanna-be-lawyer analysis that is selectively deaf to existence of hyperbole!
I would say that we can’t ignore the historical or biological context of why women experience more osteoporosis. Menopause obviously, but also the pressure to avoid training.
Given the biological context, and the proven effectiveness of training, the only honest conclusion is that training is more important for women than men. Yet it’s still far more common for women to be pushed away from the gym, due to it widely being considered masculine. Hopefully we can all work together to rectify this serious issue
If there was a single exercise myth I wished I could wipe off the earth it’s the “women shouldn’t lift heavy weights because then they’ll get all muscly, so they should use low weight to ‘tone’ muscles”
MF do you think it’s EASY to ACCIDENTALLY get ripped at the gym? If men struggle to gain muscle mass without a ton of drugs do you think a woman will just “accidentally” get ripped AF doing some bicep curls with a 15 instead of a 5??
I see so many women who have certain strength or body shape goals but actively avoid the exercises in the gym that will get them there faster because of this nonsense.
I wonder how it looks for women who started before menopause though rather than after.
One data point only. My mom and grandma had osteoporosis, and I had restrictive eating as a teen so didn’t build enough bones. I do work out heavier than my mom did (lift occasionally but also yoga with pushups & arm balancing, etc. More focus on muscle) because of starting at a disadvantage and also, importantly, do MHT. At mid-50s I did manage to immaterially INCREASE my bone mass, so a little better than maintaining, rather than the steep loss that would be expected at menopause.
There is more than one factor, right? I encouraged my daughters to eat more and do more exercise when they were teenagers so they will start out with heavier bones than I did, if you start with more you can lose some and still be ok.
But plenty of people have osteoporosis as an endocrine issue, the chemistry of their blood is taking more bone than it’s building. I don’t think that’s something that you can necessarily lift your way out of.
Incredibly disingenuous of you to phrase it as “unable to deny that it’s good” while posting irrelevant snippets from studies. Yes, research is still ongoing on how much resistance training is needed to reap the full benefits. Research of this type will always be ongoing.
Meanwhile, the consensus of all medical experts is that women should be training because it has the power to reverse the course of this debilitating illness, among about a hundred thousand other significant benefits. We’re not at the “looking into it” stage, we’re at “the mayo clinic officially recommends training” stage.
Everyone with an idea of how debilitating illnesses usually play out will have correctly identified this as a being a miracle. You, like me, should be rejoicing in this fact and going out into the streets to yell this news at everyone who will listen.
It is such a sadness that women have for so long been robbed of their opportunity to partake in training due to stigma
Instead of just critiquing, how about you actually try to back up your claim that resistance training significantly improves bone density or prevents bone loss in women? As you haven’t provided any sources, it sounds like you’re just repeating gym bro anecdotal knowledge. You’re the one making that claim.
You want a source for the consensus of all credible medical experts? Sure, you can start with the link the other user posted which 100% confirms the claim and also has its own enormous list of sources.
You could then type “resistance training osteoporosis mayo clinic” into your favorite search bar to see why they so strongly advise resistance training for women with the condition.
You could then try doing the same with literally any and every institution.
There’s a reason it devolved into “unable to say that it’s not good”. It is simply an established fact that training increases your bone density. This is obviously a godsend for those of us predisposed to reduced bone density as we age.
And for the record, I 100% stand with whatever gym bros you are referring to who are begging older ladies to come train with them so they can maintain their quality of life and independence as they age. Did you intend that as an insult? You make them sound like the chillest, nicest people on earth lol
There’s plenty of studies on the effects of resistance training on Osteosarcopenia and Osteoporosis. You’re being a little ridiculous here. It’s a simple google search away.
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6279907/
- https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/strength-training-builds-more-than-muscles
- https://www.orthopt.org/blog/the-role-of-strength-training-in-preventing-osteoporosis-functional-exercises-and-evidence-based-benefits
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25772806/
- https://theros.org.uk/information-and-support/bone-health/exercise-for-bones/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9927006/
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
I mean, this is man’s world.
Women just live in it.
Yes, aren’t men just the worst?!
Men don’t give a fuck about their daughters, grand daughters, sisters, mothers, grand mothers.
They just care about men! Am I right?!
Men, men, men, men, manly men, men, men
Men, men, men, men, manly men, men, men
Men, men, men, men, manly menSo gay
Super gay
Prostate cancer hasn’t been cured yet… steve jobs died early… it’s not that simple.
Steve Jobs had pancreas cancer
That was a list, not a statement
Pretty disingenuous to compare cancer, one of the most heavily studied medical conditions on the planet, to this. Just because there’s no cure to being made of cells? It’s not that simple.
What is disingenuous about it? If all the money they dump into some things can’t solve it, and rich people still die young, then it isn’t a question of who gets an illness that determines if it gets solved.
To be fair though, cancer as a whole gets a lot of study dollars but it’s incredibly complicated and every form of cancer varies wildly in how it affects the body, how best to treat it, how to screen for it, who are at risk, etc.
The comment you replied to was referring to a single variant that affects only men (incorrectly associating it with Steve jobs, but regardless), not the entirety of cancer writ large.
Studying bone cancer, skin cancer, and studying prostate cancer etc for example are wholly separate things and shouldn’t really be put under the same bucket in this context.
It was intended as a list, cancer that only affects men, not cured. Steve jobs, a very rich person, still died young despite the money for the best medical care… “modern” medicine is really still in the dark ages. It’s come a long way, so it seems so advanced, but the percent of the human body and how it functions that we actually understand is well below 10. Most things we just trial and error solutions without much understanding of what is really going on.
I’m uninformed, but isn’t cancer largely a mammalian feature?
That’s a good question. I don’t know for sure. I just meant to imply that thinking about cancers in terms of “cures” isn’t a very useful way to approach the matter.
A cursory search suggests that reptiles and birds do get cancer, just at a noticeably reduced rate. Maybe something to do with metabolism? Or a side effect of bodies capable of live birth? Dunno.
I’ve also heard that whales and elephants get less cancers than we would expect from animals (or I guess mammals) of their size.
I’m just saying this from memory so I may be wrong, but I think size will be a big factor for reduced cancer in small animals. For whales and elephants they have had to gain extra adaptations to handle cancer which accounts for the difference.
Cancer isn’t directly tied to the nu,ber of cells. It’s the type. Cancer shows up in places where cells replaced most often. Some cells are long lived, others not so much. The more replication you have, the greater the chance of a mutation that ends up being classified as cancer. So while a whale is huge, a lot of that size comes from things like muscle and fat, which don’t replicate once mature (I believe). So the complexity of the human body causes it to have more things that need to replicate, and thus more opportunities for cancer. And then of course, plenty of otther things we do that bump up our chances…
Ah that’s an interesting point. Perhaps really we’re the big ones then.
steve jobs died early
Not a good example. He had an extremely curable form of cancer and chose to try a fruitarian diet instead of going to doctors, until it was too late.
The fruitarian diet might have even been worse than ignoring it entirely, with the sugars basically “feeding” the cancer.
I mean, let’s be honest, it would have to be rich white men losing 20%, then we would find a cure, and price it so that anyone else couldn’t afford it, even if it cost like $12 to make
They won’t cure something that they can profit from by making something a subscription.
~Baldness. Erectile Dysfunction. Incontinence.~
The anti vaxx movement was a conspiracy by big pharma to get people to stop taking the cheapest way to prevent disease, so that they can profit on the expensive ways to treat those easily preventable diseases.
Same principal that IT works off of now. Hey, get rid of the email client you’ve been comfortably using for years, and instead buy this jankier version that you need to pay a subscription for…
Ah. The insulin racket
* US insulin racket. Be specific.
They do. Men lose bone density as well, just at a slower rate. It’s at about 20% when men are 60 instead of 50.
You are a cigarette op
U mad bro?
No, u
Maybe we could get menopausal people into the DIY estradiol scene. Like breaking bad but it’s some middle aged person cooking estradiol solutions in an instant pot.
Aging should be studied a lot more. I believe once the AI bubble pops, the computing power and models should be applied to biology. How do ageless atoms become old meat? I want to know, as an old meat myself, and if we can treat, stop, or even reverse the process.
AI is going to be applied to biology.
They’ll develop all sorts of bioweapons. They’ve all ready made huge strides in parasymoethetic nerve agents.
How do ageless atoms become old meat? I want to know, as an old meat myself, and if we can treat, stop, or even reverse the process.
Atoms must arrange themselves in a particular way to become a cell. A cell knows how to make copies of itself, but sometimes mistakes can happen. Like a game of telephone, the cell at the end of the line only knows how to make a copy of itself, not how to make a copy of the original cell it came from. The mistakes gradually accumulate over time, which causes improperly formed cells to accumulate over time and give the appearance of “aging”.
In theory, aging is a condition that is surmountable. There are jellyfish that are swimming in the ocean right now that are functionally immortal. They create perfect copies of their DNA every single time, and can repair damage to cells without leaving a trace of the original injury. If we could figure out the processes that allow them to do this, it could be applied to the human genome as well.
And yet everyone seems to age the same. Funny how those “mistakes” never turn me into a whale or a plant, I surmise it’s a bit more complex than that.
Of course it’s more complex than my overly simplistic explanation, but I don’t want to bore you with details when you could achieve the same result by cracking open a biology textbook. I wouldn’t really wish that on anybody right now, honestly. Not how I would want to kick off twenty-twenty-six.
To circle around back to the main point, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Aging should be studied more. There are breakthroughs in medicine just waiting to be discovered that could not just extend our lives, but also extend the portions of our lives where we are healthy and fit enough to enjoy doing things, rather than wasting away in nursing homes and hospice beds.
That’s…not how it works. If I kept copying a car, using the previous one as a stencil, I’d eventually end up with something that mostly resembles a car but ultimately doesn’t work properly. Eventually, it would fail to function at all but at a glance it would look more or less the same. At no point would it ever resemble a motorcycle and by the time such a mistake would happen I would have stopped even trying long before that or, to go back to cells, the body would have died because too many things weren’t working correctly to live long enough to turn into a different animal entirely.
I think that’s accounted for under mutations and cancer and such. You theoretically could mutate into a whale but the probability of your cells making specific enough mistakes for that to happen is so astronomically small that it’s essentially zero.
Part of the problem is telomerase being lost. The downside is that it’s a cancer prevention mechanism, so messing with it (by adding more) is bad news.
AI/ML has already been used to study protein folding and I’m sure it’ll be used to study other facets of biology too. There’s great use cases for the tech once you look past the tell-mentally-ill-people-to-kill-their-families-bots.
I may be wrong but I think one hard part is identifying the places where ML makes sense to use. Need people who understand biology AND ML for that.
Exactly. AI/ML absolutely has useful use cases, it’s just not a complete solution for literally anything.
Most of the stuff known as AI in the current environment is really, really powerful inference engines. And understanding the limits of inference (see for example Hume’s Problem of Induction) is an important part of understanding the appropriate scope of where these tools are actually useful and where they’re actively misleading or dangerous.
So, take the example of filling in unknown details in a low resolution image. We might be able to double the number of pixels and try to fill in our best guesses of what belongs in the in-between pixels that weren’t in the original image. That’s probably a pretty good use of inference.
But guessing what’s off the edge of the picture is built on a less stable and predictable process, less grounded in what is probably true.
When we use these technologies, we need domain-specific expertise to be able to define which problems are the interstitial type where inferential engines are good at filling things in, and which are trying to venture beyond the frontier of what is known/proven and susceptible to “hallucination.”
That’s why there’s likely going to be a combination of things that are improved and worsened by the explosion of AI capabilities, and it’ll be up to us to know which is which.
There’s a number of different reasons but the hardest to overcome is the fact that we evolved to grow old and die. Having an upper limit on our reproductive age positively benefits our ability to keep evolving and having an upper limit on total age balances the benefits of age (wisdom and experience) with the need to not deny the younger generations of resources.
Much of the modern science was discovered by pattern finding, which is where AI actually excels.
EDIT: By AI, I do not mean language models.
This is such gender war dog shit.
The elite and society at large doesn’t care about anyone in the lower classes, man or women, young or old.
Pointing out gender-related issues is not a “gender war”. Discussing someone else’s issues is not an attack on you.
I’ll remember that the next time women take men talking about men’s issues as an attack on women.
How often do you see women come on to a Lemmy thread about men’s issues and try to make about women’s issues?
I’m new to lemmy, but at least on reddit it happened pretty much any time people tried talking about men’s issues
Putting the gender-related issues into a meme with a “if this affected men then there would be more funding” doesn’t feel like discussing issues and more like “gender war”.
Taking “this issue involving women is not taken as seriously” as an attack on men or a “gender war” is a you problem.
“Not taken as serious” vs “not taken serious”. The former implies that medical conditions affecting primarily men are taken more serious. I’m honestly not sure there are any medical conditions that mostly affect men which are taken more serious than medical conditions which mostly affect women.
I’m honestly not sure there are any medical conditions that mostly affect men which are taken more serious than medical conditions which mostly affect women.
Have you looked at any studies to determine if this is the case or not?
Leftists who view everything as a class issue get their asses handed to them at the polls every time. Yes, you can come up with some complicated strained logic for why things like homophobia or racism are a class issue, but that just doesn’t jive with what people experience in their actual lives. And you can stamp your feet and say that class issues are the most important issue, and everything else is secondary. Meanwhile, targeted minority groups will ignore you and focus on their actual real most important issues.
Most issues of race and gender are about wealth disparity, i.e. social class.
If someone from a “targeted minority group,” say, a woman of color, is in a high-paying administrative position with a comprehensive benefits package and good healthcare, and has a 7+ figure net worth, and all the things that come with wealth and social position, then you can’t reasonably say she’s oppressed.
Dividing men versus women in this fake gender war is socially engineered by the oligarchy to reduce social cohesion and make it impossible for people to band together. Likewise, exacerbating racial tensions is used to divide the working class into easily manageable chunks or silos.
The only way anybody will ever overcome oppression, regardless of gender or race, is for people of all genders and races to work together towards the common goal of reducing wealth inequality. That doesn’t seem possible at the moment because everyone is so upset about their personal oppression or their group’s marginalization or whatever pet grievances they have, that they’ll never consider to work together with someone who seems to be outside their in-group.
If people buy into the belief that it’s about men versus women or about black versus white, then people won’t be able to see past their differences and work together, because they’ll believe the “other” has interests that compete with their own.
That’s why the above commenter said the only true conflict is class conflict. Everything else is socially engineered by the people at the top to keep everyone else broken and divided and easy to control.
you can come up with some complicated strained logic for why things like homophobia or racism are a class issue
Divide and conquer. Simple enough for you?
How convenient, blaming things like homophobia and racism on the rich absolves you of any personal responsibility.
Mindlessly criticising something and making it about your own pet “war”
There is only the class war. Concern silos have failed their intended purpose, (assuming their purpose was not dividing the working class of course) and we should move on towards solidarity amongst the working class.
I have zero Healthcare by the way. No insurance, no doctor. I want better outcomes for everyone. We all should be pissed about the state of the world together.
Repeating what the previous poster said with your own words may have been something your teacher made you do. It has little value beyond improving your language skills.
Ok to your second sentence, but it is proven over and over again that health care for women is at a much lower standard than for men. Less funding, less research, less care. Those are objective facts. Calling that out is not creating a gender war its identifying a drastic gap that has been written about in countless medical journals for decades.
I’ve never heard or seen any of that. Can you provide sources?
are we really calling awareness of gender issues gender war? how do you expect gender issues to be resolved if no one’s allowed to talk about them?
turns out there’s some pretty major issues with the gender binary, but I’m not sure how you expect to fix that without talking about it. it’s fair to say capatilism is part of the root cause but reducing it to solely that is a little disingenuous.
The wealthy and powerful see the bodies of the working class the same way they see the natural resources of the planet. When all your value has been extracted, your husk will be cast aside or used as a means to extract wealth or value from someone else.
? There are treatments for osteoporosis. They’re called bisphosphonates. And bone density screenings are routine in older women. Am I missing something?
the existence of treatments doesn’t mean they are readily available to people who need them.
But that’s because your healthcare system doesn’t really exist, and that’s true for just about everything
precisely.
Don’t know why you’re being downvoted. Many male doctors are sexist as hell. So unless you know there are treatments and bring it up and/or force the issue, the doctor isn’t going to tell you.
You’re just not hating on men the right way.
To be fair this is more industry specific than just motivated by some sense of misandry.
It’s specifically doctors. And medicine is still biased as fuck.
The healthcare industry has a very well known history of just ignoring women. Many treatments for women-centric illnesses were tested on just men, because dealing with women’s cyclic hormone was deemed “too hard”, and make test subjects were just easier. Until shockingly recently.
This isn’t “men bad”, it’s patriarchy bad, including for men.
Rich men would invest in their own bones, the rest of us would die even earlier than women do.
