this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2026
791 points (93.6% liked)

Microblog Memes

10011 readers
3746 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Laser@feddit.org 169 points 2 days ago (3 children)

On the other hand, men on average live shorter, and we just go "well it's just risky behavior and physical labor I guess πŸ€·β€β™‚οΈ" and they're aren't any task forces for that either, truth is we as a society don't care enough about these issues regardless of sex

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 34 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is kind of incorrect. The leading cause of death (in the US) is heart disease, followed by cancer:

https://www.voronoiapp.com/healthcare/What-are-the-leading-causes-of-death-for-men-and-women-4775

Obviously those affect both men and women, but men are represented higher in both causes. Heart disease and cancer absolutely have large research groups focused on them, they aren't being ignored by society at large.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

There are a lot of risky behaviors that cause heart disease or cancer, like drug abuse (legal drugs included) or eating too much, and AFAIK drug abuse is definitely more common in men.

[–] pishadoot@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

We did it team, the stats are higher because men do risky things, especially drugs.

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 30 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Cancer is a really broad cause of death. The cancer that has arguably the best funded research is breast cancer, which mostly affects women.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Fwiw, more research into any kind of treatment for breast cancer besides "slash and burn and poison" will continue to lead to improving treatments for other cancers, to the benefit of children and men as well.

Here's a pretty good summary of how we got from "unspeakable and incurable," past "initial biopsy and radical mastectomy in one operation," to a place where breast cancer research is finally well-funded :

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3298674/

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, researching better treatments for breast cancer can lead to better treatments for other cancers, but then that's also true for the inverse.

The fact that breast cancer is so common led women to get organized and raise private funds as well as demanding government funding. We're the majority population group after all, and 1 in 10 of us will get breast cancer.

A lot of more rare cancers don't have the numbers of passionate people behind them to fund the necessary research. It's not fair but cancer ain't fair.

Another thing about breast cancer, it's easier to screen for routinely than, say, pancreatic cancer, so it's now often caught early enough for treatment to succeed. And it's easier to access that first tumor without having to dodge vital organs.

A patient who lives long enough to undergo radiation, chemo, and immunotherapy provides valuable information to researchers.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 7 points 1 day ago

Although general cancer research received roughly 3x more funding. Blood cancers aren't far behind breast cancer in funding ($2.7b breast and $2.3b blood).

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(23)00182-1/fulltext

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 44 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I'm on the fence with your comment. Society viewing men as disposable is definitely a thing, and we do end up doing more hazardous and physically demanding work on the whole. The risks are real. Some of our mortality is hardwired, with men more prone to taking risks, which also drags the average.

You are also right about society not caring, though I would argue it's the system we subscribe to.

I'm hesitant to fully jump on board with your comment because it's close to bringing the whole 'men too' crowd which often has a note of toxicity to it.

The argument shouldnt be men vs. women, but people vs. those who exploit us, or people vs. the problem

[–] 87Six@lemmy.zip 6 points 9 hours ago

The argument shouldnt be men vs. women

Then make a post that doesn't specifically target men vs women

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 16 hours ago

You are also right about society not caring, though I would argue it’s the system we subscribe to.

I subscribed to this? Could I see my signature on this contract?

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 32 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The argument shouldnt be men vs. women, but people vs. those who exploit us, or people vs. the problem

But aren't you doing the first, rather than the second with your post?

You're expecting too much thought from us.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The argument shouldnt be men vs. women, but people vs. those who exploit us, or people vs. the problem

This is what I tried to hint at.

[–] catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No it's exactly what you said. Not sure why OP is on the fence.

It’s the phrasing- it is very easy for those who don’t look deeper to think this a men vs. women thing, and the commenter is stating that while he agrees with the idea, the phrasing is very easy to misunderstand.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You are also right about society not caring, though I would argue it's the system we subscribe to.

How is this different in the context of healthcare for women?

I'm hesitant to fully jump on board with your comment because it's close to bringing the whole 'men too' crowd which often has a note of toxicity to it.

This is irrelevant. The point is either valid or it isn't. Neither you nor the person you're talking to are responsible for the reactions of third parties. Judge the point being made on its own merits.

The argument shouldnt be men vs. women, but people vs. those who exploit us, or people vs. the problem

In an ideal world, maybe. But the health issues in question are relevant to a person's sexual development (male vs. female) therefore it is functionally impossible to remove sex from the discussion.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

It's not really different in the contex of womens' experiences in healthcare. What I'm alluding to here is that we all buy into this system (regardless of if we want to or not) rather than challenge it.

Irrelevant

Then their point is valid, I'm just disinclined to champion it because of shitty third party actors. I will acknowledge it's validity though.

Ideal world

I'm not trying to remove sex from this particular issue but highlight that this issue is a smaller part of a systemic problem