In the United States, the life expectancy for men has lagged well behind that of women for quite some time. Today's life expectancy of men is 75.7 years, 5.1 years shorter than women, whose life expectancy sits at about 80.8 years. For black men, the data is even worse, as of 2006, their life expectancy was just around 69.0 years. The reasons why men die 5 or more years sooner than women is a rather complex question, which weaves in many different factors directly related to the cause of death. In order to understand this issue thoroughly, we need to take into account causes that men die from at much higher rates than women.
Funny thing happened though; the United States Government did the exact opposite. Despite an already longer and healthier life span, Congress and the President, between 1970 and the present, have passed over 70 different medical programs, research projects and treatment initiatives, at costs exceeding $100 billion dollars, which are specifically allocated for women and girls. Indeed, not only did Congress aggressively pursue health issues and projects that related strictly to women, with the help and prodding of several feminist lobby groups on Capitol Hill, they completely and systematically rejected and ignored any calls to do the same for men. The disturbing and outrageous truth is the Federal government has consciously created medical offices, grants, and research programs for only one portion of its population, which just happens to be the healthier portion, women.
Federal Funding For Women's Health Initiatives
One issue which came up often with women's groups and feminists in the mid to late 1980's, was the lack of federal funding for female centric diseases such as breast and uterine cancer. After many years of lobbying and activism, Sen. Barbara Muklski (D) successfully took up the challenge of championing this cause with federal legislators. In 1990, Congress passed the first in a series of women's health care programs entitled the 'Women's Health Equity Act', which established the first such gender specific entity, the Office for Women’s Health Research (OWHR) at NIH. In 1991, Congress passed the second 'Women's Health Equity Act' which established the Office on Women's Health (OWH) in the Department of Health and Human Services(HHS) The bill was re-authorized again in 1993, and further saw the creation of the NIH Revitalization Act as well as funding for a Women's program at the FDA.
Again in 1996, Congress passed another version which created the 'National Center’s of Excellence in Women’s Health', which is currently run in several Universities throughout the US. Each successive year after the '96 bill, up until as recently as 2010, Congress passed greater funding for these and other women's health initiatives, which today adds up to over 70+ gender specific offices, projects, research grants and other female only health campaigns and actions. Well funded feminist organizations along with many women's councils and other associations have lobbied Congress every year for more funding and more programs, and have met with great success each Congressional term.
What started out as a call to fund research of diseases which were affecting only women, quickly snowballed into a 20 year avalanche of gender based legislation. Below are a small summary of many of the more public offices and projects that were the end result of these Congressional efforts.
- Department of Health and Human Services - Office of Women's Health(OWH)
With a FY 2010 Budget of $34 Million just for administrative operating expenses, the OWH is one of the keystone programs of the 'Women's Health Equity Act', acting as both an administrative hub as well as a think tank for new projects to promote women's health initiatives. The OWH main website, where it posts its programs and grants, can be found at 'womenshealth.gov'.
There is no Office of Men's Health, nor any menshealth.gov.
The stated goals of the OWH are:
"To develop and impact national health policy as it relates to women and girls To develop, adapt, implement, evaluate, and replicate model programs on women’s and girls’ health To educate, influence, and collaborate with health and human services organizations, health care professionals, and the public"
What else does OWH support?
National Women's Health Week (NWHW) - "National Women's Health Week is a week long health observance coordinated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office on Women's Health. May 13, 2012 and is celebrated until May 19, 2012. National Women's Checkup Day is Monday, May 14, 2012."
National Men's Health Week an event that is run by a private organization.
OWH also runs the 'The Heart Truth', a national awareness and prevention campaign about heart disease in women sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of the National Institutes of Health of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The Heart Truth program excludes men from its focus, and has no comparable male only program.
Another OWH program is the Heart Attack Symptoms and Calling 9-1-1, a campaign for Women that was launched by OWH in early 2011, that educates women to call 911 when suffering symptoms of a heart attack. But why support one group of people with an awareness campaign for a medical condition, heart disease, that effects more men than women?
The campaign Heart Attack Symptoms and Calling 9-1-1 also excludes men from its focus, and has no comparable program.
There is GirlsHealth.Gov, dedicated to the health and well-being of young girls and teenagers, with the tag line , "Be Happy. Be Healthy. Be You. Beautiful."
There is no Boyshealth.gov nor comparable male only program.
The President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports
This governmental program is aimed at improving and promoting the physical fitness and health of it's citizens. The Council does has a fitness.gov/women which has a rather comprehensive annual study called 'A Report of the Surgeon General Physical Activity and Health Women', while men do not have the luxury of such a report.
The PCPFS has no such programs either under fitness.gov/men nor other comparable male only programs.
The President's Council also runs 'Physical Activity and Sport in the Lives of Girls' project and website at fitness.gov/girlssports.htm. I also entered in the URL for fitness.gov/boyssports, to see what the President's Council had to say about boys, and got 'Error 404, Page Not Found'.
The PCPFS has no such programs either under fitness.gov/boyssports nor any other comparable Male only programs.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
In 1994 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) created their own Office of Women's Health which have several programs and initiatives. While the CDC does have a Men's Health webpage, they do not offer any such special programs or offices such as those that were funded for women's health
- US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA)
The US Department of Veteran Affairs runs several female only health programs, two of the biggest being the 'Women's Health Sciences Division' (WHSD) and the 'Veterans Affairs Research and Development for Women's Health.' The mission statement for the VA's WHSD project states:
"The Women's Health Sciences Division located in Boston, MA, focuses on the special issues of women and PTSD, and especially on effective treatments. The Division has pioneered research on the psychological impact of military service on women veterans. Such initiatives include development of psychological assessment techniques, the impact of sexual assault and military sexual trauma, and on the effect of PTSD on women's health and medical problems."Along with all the other health program that the VA operates for all Veterans, these two women's only programs have their own operating budget of $217.6 Million per year. Men have no such gender specific programs in the VA.
- National Institutes of Health (NIH)
In 1990, the National Institutes of Health established its 'Office of Research on Women's Health' (ORWH), yet men never received the same funding for an office of research. Instead, NIH gave men a generic link to a Men's Health page, much like the one that Health and Human Services placed under their OWH website. While no gender specific funding exists for male only programs, the NIH also funds three additional women's only projects above and beyond the ORWH. These projects are 'Specialized Centers of Research on Sex and Gender Factors Affecting Women's Health' (SCORs), 'Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health' (BIRCWH) and 'Advancing Novel Science in Women's Health Research' (ANSWHR).
Other Federal Agencies offering female only or maternal health programs that favor women at a 90% or greater rate
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - 'For Women' and 'Women's Health'.
Medicare/Medicaid - 'Women's Health USA'
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - 'Women: Life Stages Program'
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) - Programs offered
HRSA's Office of Women's Health -(Annual budget exceeds $100 million)
Office of Maternal and Child Health ($660 million annually)
Women, Infants, Children and Youth – Part D ($78 million annually)
Healthy Start - ($104 million annually)
Family Planning - ($316 million annually)
Safe Motherhood and Infant Health (p131) - ($55.7 million annually)
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) - Programs offered
HRSA's Office of Women's Health -(Annual budget exceeds $100 million)
Office of Maternal and Child Health ($660 million annually)
Women, Infants, Children and Youth – Part D ($78 million annually)
Healthy Start - ($104 million annually)
Family Planning - ($316 million annually)
Safe Motherhood and Infant Health (p131) - ($55.7 million annually)
Attempts at passing a Men's Health Act
As early as 1999, several members of both the House and Senate proposed a bill that would establish an Office of Men's Health as a compliment to HHS's Office of Women's Health. Idaho Senator Mike Crapo (R), who was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1999, and underwent a radical prostatectomy in January 2000, became the spearhead of this effort to seek parity for health funding for men of the federal level. The Men's Health Act never made it out of committee, in either the House or Senate, and died a quiet death of a tabled motion. Crapo has since unsuccessfully attempted to bring this bill to a vote in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. In 2009, Congressman Baron Hill (D) of Indiana tried to revive the bill, attempting what he thought would be a more acceptable approach by the members of Congress renaming it the 'Men and Families Health Care Act of 2009'. This bill also died in committee, never receiving a vote.
One of the several men's groups who supported both Crapo and Hill in their attempts to pass this bill noticed that "There appears to exist a lingering fear among elected officials that if they support any program designed to help men, they will be criticized as being "anti-woman" by certain gender advocacy groups." On the other hand, no feminist groups came out in direct public opposition to theses bills, as many of them worried that they might be seen as "anti-men." That didn't mean that many feminist groups weren't able to find other ways to express their disapproval over any such Men's Health Act, as several feminists spoke out in opposition as private individuals. USA Today reporter Rita Rubin was one such individual, who has been a frequent speaker at feminist gatherings concerning health issues, and wrote an Op-Ed piece in 2004 condemning the Men's Health Care Act stating:
"It might not have to be that way. Increasingly, research implicates behavior, not biology, for men's shorter life spans. Men are more likely to die violently or accidentally, and they're less likely to seek medical care when they don't feel well. Changing men's health behaviors is nearly as tricky as changing their biology."Yet Rubin's argument against an Office of Men's Health, she presents no data or detailed research to support her claims. This is an argument many feminists have made against Men's Health initiatives in the past 10 years, however, by saying that because men die in greater numbers by accidents, (per year approx 78,000 men vs 42,000 women) homicides (per year approx 14,000 men vs 3,500 women) and poor health standards, that it isn't nature killing off men sooner, but rather reckless and dangerous behavior exhibited by men. Therefore, many have argued, that men just simply need to change their lifestyle and behavior if they want to live as long as women. This is a terribly disingenuous argument given several factors:
1) Approximately 1.2 million men and 1.21 million women die each year, meaning that a difference of 46,000 more deaths, or 0.018%, and does not statistically in any way account for the 5 - 7 lower life expectancy of men.
2) Over 4,100 of these deaths by accidents for men each year were on the work related fatalities, where women only make up about 7-8% of deaths on the job. Furthermore, many of these accidents for men involved work around the home, approximately 10,000. Even home repairs can sometimes be dangerous work, and these are activities that are traditionally preformed by men.
3) None of the 14,000 men a year who die by homicide asked to a victim statistic. So I find it very curious and rather ironic that some feminists would resort to victim blaming like this, (ie men put themselves in more dangerous situations to get murdered) in light of how vocal they are against the blaming rape victims because they placed themselves in more dangerous situations.
4) There is no evidence, that any credible institution has done, to suggest that men have a less healthy standard of living than women. Indeed, even if that were the case, would those who say people who don't lead healthy lifestyles don't deserve health care?
In 2001, one women's group did speak out to the public against endorsing the Men's Health Act, this time completely stating wrong information concerning dollars spent on research for women's issues:
"National Women's Health Network is not endorsing the bill, says Amy Allina, the group's program and policy director. At the same time, she says, "We believe there are health issues that are particular to men and we encourage health advocates who are concerned about men's health to work to get more attention for those things."Ms. Allina's reasoning has been the standard format used by many groups that have since opposed an Office of Men's Health, and has been rehashed by many feminist lobby group.
That given, says Allina, "We still think it's necessary across the medical field to work to get more attention to women's health. We think that women's health has been under-researched. Clinical trials as well as the historical medical practice model have assumed male as normal and female as a small version of men. From the perspective of saying women are getting too much attention and men need more of it. Obviously we had some problems with that. I appreciate that they've changed their approach to recognize that they can advocate for men's health without detracting from women's health."
Cancer Research Funding
The National Cancer Institute(NCI) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) receive the bulk amount of Federal funding for critical cancer research, which they distribute to promising programs that are searching for treatments and cures for cancer.
This issue alone could be its own article, however these basic statistics showing how breast cancer, which effects 99% women, has become the most important health research program of the government and public. The funding disparity shown here, despite the many deaths by other cancers, included some male only cancers, says a lot about the current state of affairs regarding the perceived worth of one sex as more important than the other. Pancreatic cancer, for instance, that effects both men and women, and kills almost as many people a year as breast cancer, receives very little funding from public funds.
Suicide and Men
I would be remiss if I didn't talk about suicide, a serious mental health issue, or more precise the outcome of untreated mental problems, which men suffer from in very disproportionate numbers. In 2008, 28,450 men committed suicide compared to 7,585 women. Each year in the US, about 28,000 men will kill themselves, many of who never sought out or asked for help. And although women do attempt suicide in much greater numbers, men complete the act at almost four times the rate of women in the US. Here is an excellent site that discusses the issue of men and suicide.
These numbers are not much different in other countries, like Canada, the UK and Australia. Several of the programs dedicated to women cited above, do have some sorts of programs designed to help those who are suffering from mental illness. While generic help exists for disadvantaged persons with mental illness, the Federal government, outside of reporting the numbers from the CDC and NIH give each year, haven't directly addressed the problem of male suicide. If you look through the CDC list of programs offered by both the Federal and State governments to combat suicide, you won't see even a single mention of a project aimed at curbing the disturbingly high number of suicides among men. The Australian government has a Mental Health and Well-Being program that does acknowledge and attempt to take action against the plague of male suicide, which other countries would be wise to take a serious look at.
Conclusions
The point of all this is not to condemn health programs for women, or to say that women don't deserve gender based projects. Whether or not it is right or wrong, justified or unjustified to use public funds for these types of social programs I leave for others to debate. However, I feel strongly that any successful and prosperous democratic government must protect, defend and hold accountable all of its citizens, to equal and fair standards, to best of the abilities within any given circumstance, regardless of any human characteristic such as race or gender. Here in the US, this is embodied in the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which is known as the equal protection clause. The second part of the amendment reads:
"....nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Many times I'll hear people that are against Men's Rights say that equality is "not a zero sum game." And they are right in so far as the aspect of each person's individual abilities and needs. However, equal protection under the law is very much a zero sum game. To enforce or enact laws favoring 1/2 the population, without acknowledging the other half, is by its very nature the antithesis of equal protection. While there are times that arise in every country's history that a group may need some special protection or action, when the justifications for enacting these protections are false, but moreover, when such efforts intentionally marginalizes one group in favor of another, despite irrefutable evidence that the group receiving special benefits are in a better position than the vast majority of the other group, many would tend to call this systematic and institutionalized discrimination.
As I tried to demonstrate in my articles on homelessness and education, and in this article, we need to make it known that there are some rather ugly and destructive consequences which can result when the spirit of equal protection under the law is bypassed, ignored and willfully overridden, despite the good or bad intentions of the governing body. Almost everything about these health programs and projects, notwithstanding the necessary and justified maternity initiatives, by the very principle of the legal exclusion of men, violate both the spirit and the law of equal protection, which clearly promotes the health and well-being of one sex as more important than the other. Discrimination doesn't get much more obvious than this.
Where did our system go so wrong? And more importantly, how can we begin to change this?
