In Australia, women's health get's four times more funding than men's health

Ugh. Murdoch press [i]and[/i] Alan Jones in one article - this'll be fun. To start, politicians don't actually approve these grants - the NHMRC, from everything I can find, is self-governing. More to the point, however, is the fact that the article touts a difference of [i]four times[/i] the funding for women over men - yet explains only 124 million of that 600 million+ gap. (64 million of which is explained by the gap between ovarian and testicular cancers, the former of which actually has about twice the incidence of the latter...) Which isn't even to mention the fact that it didn't include the actual funding figures for those cancers, so we can't actually judge how significant those gaps are - but I suppose that kind of spin is standard for a News Ltd journo. But anyway, you want to know what I'd guess would make up a significant part of that gap? [i]Pregnancy[/i]. I looked through the grants for 2013 (a couple of hundred anyway - there were about 1300 there) and just about all of the grants for women's health that weren't dealing with ovarian or breast cancer were for related to pregnancy. (There were a few other generic things for both men and women, as well, but there didn't seem to be much of a difference.) All of this basically means that the drastic inequality amounts to "Breast cancer receives a disproportionate amount of exposure/support compared to prostate cancer" - which anybody who's seen half the ads that have been run here in the past for breast cancer could've told you five years ago. Yes, prostate cancer research has largely been underfunded. No, that doesn't mean you should turn that into some massive health inequality where women are getting some awesome deal. It's petty and doesn't actually [i]help[/i] the cause - and it's kind of bullshit anyway, considering that the state of breast cancer awareness in this country has been driven by something like a decade long campaign. And did you completely ignore the section they hid right down there at the bottom of the article? "There were twice as many applications to the NHMRC for breast cancer as for prostate cancer and five times more for ovarian cancer than testicular cancer in the decade 2003-2013, an NHMRC spokesman said." This isn't a political issue - it's not a matter of politicians (or even those in the NHMRC) seeing breast cancer and deciding they should fund that disproportionately, it's a matter of there being a disproportionate interest in the academic community in breast (and ovarian) cancer, which could really be for any number of reasons aside from the obvious matter of the disease having a lot of exposure. tl;dr: find a better source. And, yes, I'm annoyed - the first time one of you decides to take an interest in any kind of Australian affairs it's this fabricated outrage. Goddamnit.

From my experience of watching TV, Aussie women are deserving of health because they're really hot.

"Or because they need more work done to stay up to par with the norm we set. If you keep them busy enough with themselves then they can't focus on improving you."~ quoth the Raven

Another reason why I'll never live there.

edit: OP didn't get the joke, removed.