As another poster commented, the actual article doesn't call it a 'warning'. So, this does look like social media/bubble hyping up the issue.
wampus
joined 5 months ago
For starters, the question wasn't, as far as I know, asking how the ideology / stance fairs in terms of implementation / reality. Like you can give a description of what a communist believes, without having to try and explain Communist Russia / China.
In terms of medicare/dental care, yes, there are soc lib fisc con people that do believe that. Likely not people in the USA, where everything skews right wing -- their soc lib is more like "I have a black friend! I'm not racist!". In more sane countries, there are a good number of people who fall into that ideological mindset, who do support public utilities/health initiatives -- it's pretty common here in Canada, based on people I've spoken with.
Like a soc lib fisc con person I know, has previously suggested that we ought to change how roads / cars are handled -- arguing that cities shouldn't have anywhere near as many cars, and that common "paved" roads should be essentially relegated to highways/freeways due to the cost and ecological impact. In their take, city budgets are often bloated by road repair costs due to the over-engineering of what's required for regular residential activity. Using other road materials would dramatically increase sustainability -- and even if it results in more 'maintenance' cost/road tolls for car users who still insist on using cars, that's up to the consumer. I don't know if they were talking nonsense, but that's the sort of thing I sometimes hear people in the soc lib fisc con camp say.
Eh, it's a start I guess. But there's no where near enough information on that site to make it really useful from my perspective.
Telling me how the labels work is great and all, but if I'm looking for different product types it's really difficult to know if there even is a Canadian option available, somewhere.
Like if I want a new appliance -- Fridge, dishwasher, clothing washer/dryer, oven -- what brands have Canadian supply chains/production? If I'm going to a bank, which ones rely on US tech giants extensively, vs use Canadian supply chains? Which coffee shops are Canadian (I'm surprised ppl are still cool with Starbucks it seems)? Which chains are primarily owned by US interests -- or which chains are primarily Canadian? I mean, even The Bay was US owned -- despite being "Canadas" oldest company.
All these reports of travel warnings feel misleading to me.
A proper travel warning equates to insurance companies refusing to provide travel insurance, which directly impacts whether people would travel to the USA. None of the "warning" updates have gone to that level.
Updating travel guidance isn't that big a deal.
So many people with such brutal takes on it -- helps to quantify who the audience is on lemmy I guess.
Socially liberal fiscally conservative, to me at least, means that the person is in favour of equality in the sense of equality of treatment from the government, but is not in favour of additional big spending projects to try and have equality of opportunity. They're pro-choice, but likely against the government funnelling money into providing abortions for women (so abortions available, but not gov subsidized). They're pro-trans rights in terms of being fine with whoever doing whatever they want with their body/partners of choice, but against government paying for trans-specific gender affirming procedures and parades to highlight those groups. They're in favour of things like universal medicare/dental care, because those programs are shown to be a net benefit fiscally and socially.
In general, they support socially progressive ideas, so long as they're fiscally costed out and beneficial to the public purse. They're against increased government spending / reach, preferring 'small government', with the social components placed more on individuals to fund directly.
The article literally has a health professional admitting that the studies used to justify just giving it to women, and the practice of just providing it to women, were sexist / behind the times in terms of equity. There were studies showing it impacted male health, even back in 2007, that were ignored for purposes of policy / vaccine distribution. The gov basically said HPV = cervix (even though science said otherwise, outside of focused cervical cancer studies), and used that to justify only providing medical care to women. That's gender based discrimination. Even the notion of 'herd immunity', based on just vaccinating women, completely ignored the case of gay men: the 2007 studies included information on penile/anal cancers, as well as mouth/neck cancers, resulting from HPV: they knew it impacted more than "just" cervical cancers/illnesses. Here's one of them: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK321770/ . That one, you can even see they explicitly highlight gay men as being a group that requires more data -- as its a group that had been ignored.
Further, science/politicians "realising the mistake" and making corrections later, doesn't change that it was gender discrimination. Crash test dummies were, for a long time, just based on male body types. Regulations / governments were ok with this. More recently, scientists realised women body shapes would behave differently in collisions, so they started including those in the mix. That doesn't change the fact that the historic use of 'just' male body crash test dummies, is an example of gender based discrimination against women. There are tons of similar examples, where the male case was preferenced in studies, and legislation/regulations were built around those biased views. Science iteratively figuring out its own biases is part of the process, but it doesn't absolve past wrongs - especially once those biases are used to justify the distribution of public funds to aid a specific niche group, at the expense of other groups.
If you want to absolve the sexist stuff in the HPV vaccine distribution, from my perspective you're using the same sort of reasoning that would absolve a lot of the past wrongs perpetuated while 'science' figured out the racial/gender stuff, as well as governments preferencing male-cases by simply ignoring other views. And the same "well, it was done like that everywhere" comment would also still apply. I don't see why you'd treat this case differently, unless you had some sort of inherent bias against thinking of men as potential victims of discrimination... Even as the scientific community turned their back on guys with dick cancer.
*Adding a note, because I don't think I'm 'reaching you' with the comments about there literally being a health professional saying "It was an equity issue to deny this treatment to boys": ie. "It's not just 'me' (some rando online) saying this, but here's a quote from a verifiable health professional supporting what I said". I've provided my take on the subject, and I've provided a quote from a health professional supporting my position. You're not providing anything to support your view point, you haven't cited anything despite demanding that I cite sources. You're not discussing this topic with an open mind, nor are you demanding any rigor / scrutiny in terms of your own viewpoints. Because of this, I'm going to stop bothering to respond to you at this point, if you post more. I have laid out a fairly straight forward position on gov vaccine patterns with HPV, and it syncs up with my memory of vaccines in grade school and being denied access to the Heb B vaccine (without paying). I've provided source material to support my position, citing both vaccine docs from the cdc, journalist articles from reputable news agencies (cbc), and studies from national health archives. You've contributed basically nothing, except insults and dismissive crap. Good luck out there.
The article literally has a Canadian medical professional stating that it was discriminatory against men. That the decision to provide it only to women was based on cost, and on relying on studies that ignored mens situations.
They literally changed it a decade later, acknowledging that it had been a discriminatory against men.
I don't see what you're arguing at this point. It's literally documented in the history of how this vaccine has been provided to the public.
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.
Eh? O.... k..... here?
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.
It's not just that. There's another way to look at these groups....
Something like feminist equality pushes are basically advocating for women's rights/equality in areas that are advantageous to women. It makes perfect sense that they don't advocate for something like equality in terms of life expectancy, or male access to traditionally female occupations, because it's outside the scope of their mandate. They are not advocating for equality/egalitarian goals, they are advocating specifically to gain benefits (or remove impediments) for their niche group. They don't totally hide this bias, they put it front and centre in most cases, but the public 'reads' it as pushing for equality because of marketing and the inability to question the narrative without being labelled as a misogynistic arse, basically. It's not just feminist pushes, special interest rights movements in general are not about egalitarian goals / equality, but are explicitly about providing advantages to their special interest groups.
If you remove all the negatives from one side of an equation, without touching the other side, you don't end up with equality.
Yeah, so it definitely gives the vibe of social media over hyping / trying to drive further wedges into western relations and opinions. Which is basically a Russian goal / propaganda tactic...