Our thanks to Laura for this. This remark from Dawn Butler, shadow minister for women and equalities, makes her a contender for a ‘Gormless Feminist of the Month’ award:
If men had periods, this would have been resolved a long time ago – period.
The insinuation is, of course, that where men have ‘problems’, the state throws taxpayers’ money at them, in providing ‘solutions’. Hell, it doesn’t even provide a national screening programme for prostate cancer, which ends more men’s lives than breast cancer ends women’s lives.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Can you screen for prostate cancer?
LikeLike
Of course. But it mainly affects older men, many of whom would draw state pensions, so the state prefers to let them die rather than spend a few pounds testing.
LikeLike
I don’t think that’s correct. Testing is offered freely if you report symptoms, but screening – measuring psa – isn’t offered routinely as the results are so often misleading. The follow up to a positive is a very intrusive and problematic biopsy. Based on my own experience anyway, and my discussions with my urologist, who I assume should know.
LikeLike
Sean, I understand the reality is more nuanced. Non-invasive scanning has developed to a considerable degree, but it’s expensive so many hospitals don’t offer it, and staffing is poor with respect to prostate cancer screening and treatment. There’s also the issue of false positives and small negatives, but the point is that the government doesn’t spend the money it should to help address these issues. The obsession with women’s health and the resulting disinterest in men’s health triumphs every time. Tax money flows to women’s health issues, not to men’s health issues – even though, of course, most of that money comes from taxes paid by men, not women.
LikeLike
In conversations on this with a variety of sources working in the field. I understood that a conscious decision was taken not to screen for prostate cancer because it is a disease with generally slow progression that affects an old population and that the treatments available were of marginal benefit.
In generla screening only makes sense when treatment is effective. The analysis showed that screening would be of only marginal benefit and evidence of this is that although the survival rates for prostate cancer in the US which does perform screening are much better (screening effect) the age at death from prostate cancer is essentially the same.
Treatment has improved and is improving so the situation may now be different.
The same sources said that screening for breast cancer also did not make sense if a similar analysis was performed but it took place anyway for political reasons despite relatively low benefit.
I have not looked into this in sufficient detail to have an opinion of my own.
LikeLike
Let’s do the gender switch here. If women rather than men had prostate glands, there would doubtless be a national screening programme for prostate, regardless of the points you make. Also, there has long been diabolical under-funding of research into male-specific cancers and their treatment.
LikeLike
You are undoubtedly right and this is in line with my post which I think makes it clear that men and women were and are treated differently. Women are given priority but that it is not necessarily right that screening should be given unless treatment makes a significant difference to outcomes.
LikeLike
Particularly in this country, because of the way the NHS is funded, the details of health policy frequently reflect political issues rather than clinical ones. Despite many attempts to de-politicise in fact these fail. At the moment the current structure should mean the NHS is “independent” and its workings are not a matter for ministers. In fact of course the press etc. beat a path to the ministers door and they then have to “do something”.
LikeLike
It’s called a PSA test in North America
LikeLike
The insanity spreads like a disease.
LikeLike
I notice there is a debate below about the efficacy of prostate cancer screening.
How about we simply devote the same budget to treatment, screening and research into men’s cancers as we do for women’s cancers?
If a screening program for prostate cancer wouldn’t be effective, just spend the money on research instead. It’s only fair.
Oh, but no, sorry. That wouldn’t be “equality” anymore, would it, because its treating the two sexes* equally instead of giving women special treatment.
*Yes, two sexes. Not 16, not 37.26, or whatever the number is today.
LikeLike
Dawn Butler’s logic is that biology forces women to buy these products, but not men, so the state should compensate women.
I’m OK with that. Biologically speaking, I need more food than the average woman in order to maintain a healthy body weight, so the state should give me a “men’s food allowance” to make up the difference.
What’s that Ms Butler, I can’t have my food allowance? I thought you said this was all about biological necessity and fairness…?
LikeLike
As for labour, you’d think they’d reflect on the irony of support for a “movement” in which a Tory foreign minister from public school and a member of the fabulously wealthy Rothschild Dynasty can virtue signal about “gender equality” https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-and-lynn-forester-de-rothschild-co-chair-discussion-on-gender-equality-in-the-economy
One thinks many a man would love to have the wealth and status of the Lady de Rothshild.
I think recently sanitary products became zero rated for VAT, I think that’s fair.
LikeLike