I really wish you had a newspaper column, or at least that there was a male journo or two that was willing to write this up and quote you. It is absolutely pathetic that half of journalists are men, but not one has the balls to publish this material. It could change the whole discussion.
I think one aspect of the problem that you are referring is that men are not half of journalists. Most journalist graduates from universities are women (I know this is true in the US. I suspect it is also true in Australia, though I haven't looked at that data). Moreover, among journalists, women are more likely than men to cover health news. Men are more likely to cover topics like sports. This is one reason why men's health doesn't receive news coverage to the same extent that women's health does.
When I was a journalist 20 years ago, men were definitely half the newsroom. But you're right that men were not given rounds like Health and Social Affairs. I was corralled into business writing, even though it didn't interest me. The Social Affairs writer was ALWAYS a feminist woman. Same with Education. So the newsroom, which rails against gender roles, is itself gendered. I also think that men are very loathe to be seen as anti-female or anti-feminist. I'm starting to wonder if there is some genetic programming involved. Most men are almost absurdly reluctant to stand up for men.
Many studies over the years in many countries covering all kinds of cultures show that both men and women favour caring for females: from babies onwards.
The danger in females in positions of power is that men tend to somewhat dampen this tendency and at least make some effort to be equitable for men. Few women do, and female politicians who care about men's issues are notable because they are not the norm.
I think you're giving males in power too much credit. I see no evidence of them helping men and boys at all. If anything, I think they ramp up the White Knighting to attract female support. If men were willing to actually speak up and demand specific funding, I think female leaders may be more receptive than male leaders, as they would need to bolster their male support.
How pathetic and typical of the support feminists just keep garnering. If misdiagnoses are occurring try providing better medical training and entry into these degrees through ability and not sex etc.
Newspaper websites do often list their writers and the rounds they cover. Also, there are multiple media monitoring organisations that have media contact databases that provide this information. I was looking at one just then. When I have time, I'll pull a list together for your interest. The Australian media isn't very big - only a handful of metro newspapers - so it's not a very long list!
Thank you, James, I would send this to DOGE, but this is in Australia,. Is there anything comparable to DOGE in Australia? If so, I will send this to them.
Worse still, the graph shows a long-term decline in even nominal funding for men's health research over the terms of both Labor and Coalition governments. Successive governments have shown little to no concern about male health, just as they have no concerns leeching off men's labour. We're living out a real-life version of Animal Farm with feminists playing the role of the pigs. It's about time bacon was on the menu.
Thanks for sharing the link, as I was recently thinking about creating graphs on sex differences in tax contributions. However, I had not yet tracked down the data. This is a good source for this information in Australia.
I find it interesting that in the text that accompanies the graph on that page the author doesn't state explicitly that men pay significantly more tax than women.
Women live for free. As a group. Historically via husbands and now via state transfers. Not only welfare and health (due to longer old age lifespans). But also due to socializes industries like education, administration etc.
I do think it's similar as the foetus drills into mothers arterial life blood via placenta. Just as mother drills into husbands arterial live blood via institutions of marriage, spousal support, or welfare.
A deeper look into the Grants awarded by year, shows a depressing trend. Searching grants awarded by NHMRC in 2024, 2023, 2022 by "key words" shows that awarded grands for "women's health" and/or "breast cancer", "breast cancer diagnosis", etc, were common, and exceeded $300 million per year.
A similar search for "men's health" and/or "prostate" show neither to be valid key words, grants were rare, and did not exceed $50 million in any year, or in some combined years totals.
It appears the NHMRC is so captured by misandry, it has little or no interest in funding grants for men's health, regardless of the clear need for better health outcomes for men in Australia overall and across all vulnerable populations. State sanctioned gender hatred is thriving in Australian academia.
If women are experiencing a lack of medical care and understanding and they receive the bulk of medical research funding then the men must be receiving totally inadequate medical attention.
I call it systematic simping and structural unaccountability, adversely affecting women and girls.
Equality of opportunity trades off with equity. Equity trades off with fairness. Diversity trades off with inclusion. Why would Boeing diversity away from aeronautical engineers for example?
Women are deprived of husband material by pushing girls to out earn young men.
But it's a systemic problem that during their formative young adult years every one bends over backwards to give them privileges and strip away consequences to their actions.
I really wish you had a newspaper column, or at least that there was a male journo or two that was willing to write this up and quote you. It is absolutely pathetic that half of journalists are men, but not one has the balls to publish this material. It could change the whole discussion.
I think one aspect of the problem that you are referring is that men are not half of journalists. Most journalist graduates from universities are women (I know this is true in the US. I suspect it is also true in Australia, though I haven't looked at that data). Moreover, among journalists, women are more likely than men to cover health news. Men are more likely to cover topics like sports. This is one reason why men's health doesn't receive news coverage to the same extent that women's health does.
When I was a journalist 20 years ago, men were definitely half the newsroom. But you're right that men were not given rounds like Health and Social Affairs. I was corralled into business writing, even though it didn't interest me. The Social Affairs writer was ALWAYS a feminist woman. Same with Education. So the newsroom, which rails against gender roles, is itself gendered. I also think that men are very loathe to be seen as anti-female or anti-feminist. I'm starting to wonder if there is some genetic programming involved. Most men are almost absurdly reluctant to stand up for men.
Thank you for sharing your personal insights from inside the newsroom from 20 years ago. Very interesting.
You're welcome. Do you send your newsletter directly to any MSM journalists?
They would only receive my newsletter if they voluntarily subscribed to it. Feel free to share the link with anyone who you think might be interested.
Thanks, I'll do a bit of research about who might use it.
Many studies over the years in many countries covering all kinds of cultures show that both men and women favour caring for females: from babies onwards.
The danger in females in positions of power is that men tend to somewhat dampen this tendency and at least make some effort to be equitable for men. Few women do, and female politicians who care about men's issues are notable because they are not the norm.
I think you're giving males in power too much credit. I see no evidence of them helping men and boys at all. If anything, I think they ramp up the White Knighting to attract female support. If men were willing to actually speak up and demand specific funding, I think female leaders may be more receptive than male leaders, as they would need to bolster their male support.
The Sydney Morning Herald has entire section called, "Medical Misogyny."
https://www.smh.com.au/topic/medical-misogyny-6h6i
How pathetic and typical of the support feminists just keep garnering. If misdiagnoses are occurring try providing better medical training and entry into these degrees through ability and not sex etc.
Just eyeballing it, seems like men are getting 10% if you total maternity and women's health vs men's health. How can that possibly be justified?
Newspaper websites do often list their writers and the rounds they cover. Also, there are multiple media monitoring organisations that have media contact databases that provide this information. I was looking at one just then. When I have time, I'll pull a list together for your interest. The Australian media isn't very big - only a handful of metro newspapers - so it's not a very long list!
That would be fantastic, thank you.
Thank you, James, I would send this to DOGE, but this is in Australia,. Is there anything comparable to DOGE in Australia? If so, I will send this to them.
To my knowledge, there is no equivalent to DOGE in Australia.
You are right, James.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enxvDKGNnHo
Worse still, the graph shows a long-term decline in even nominal funding for men's health research over the terms of both Labor and Coalition governments. Successive governments have shown little to no concern about male health, just as they have no concerns leeching off men's labour. We're living out a real-life version of Animal Farm with feminists playing the role of the pigs. It's about time bacon was on the menu.
https://www.pbo.gov.au/about-budgets/budget-insights/budget-explainers/tax-mix/other-taxonomies/age-gender
Looks like men are also paying for everything.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Right?
Thanks for sharing the link, as I was recently thinking about creating graphs on sex differences in tax contributions. However, I had not yet tracked down the data. This is a good source for this information in Australia.
I find it interesting that in the text that accompanies the graph on that page the author doesn't state explicitly that men pay significantly more tax than women.
Women live for free. As a group. Historically via husbands and now via state transfers. Not only welfare and health (due to longer old age lifespans). But also due to socializes industries like education, administration etc.
Probably worth noting kids live for free too.
Hoho.
I do think it's similar as the foetus drills into mothers arterial life blood via placenta. Just as mother drills into husbands arterial live blood via institutions of marriage, spousal support, or welfare.
A deeper look into the Grants awarded by year, shows a depressing trend. Searching grants awarded by NHMRC in 2024, 2023, 2022 by "key words" shows that awarded grands for "women's health" and/or "breast cancer", "breast cancer diagnosis", etc, were common, and exceeded $300 million per year.
A similar search for "men's health" and/or "prostate" show neither to be valid key words, grants were rare, and did not exceed $50 million in any year, or in some combined years totals.
It appears the NHMRC is so captured by misandry, it has little or no interest in funding grants for men's health, regardless of the clear need for better health outcomes for men in Australia overall and across all vulnerable populations. State sanctioned gender hatred is thriving in Australian academia.
Thanks for sharing the results of your keyword searches. I can consider conducting a similar analysis in the future.
If women are experiencing a lack of medical care and understanding and they receive the bulk of medical research funding then the men must be receiving totally inadequate medical attention.
I call it systematic simping and structural unaccountability, adversely affecting women and girls.
Equality of opportunity trades off with equity. Equity trades off with fairness. Diversity trades off with inclusion. Why would Boeing diversity away from aeronautical engineers for example?
Women are deprived of husband material by pushing girls to out earn young men.
Girls' ought to learn stoicism.
But it's a systemic problem that during their formative young adult years every one bends over backwards to give them privileges and strip away consequences to their actions.
Are women agentic?
It's a question of Schroedingers feminism.