Talk:Gendered impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Heavy WP:UNDUE against men[edit]

The article should cover men in 80%: why they die, where they die, how ill they become, sex (not "gender") differences in these outcomes, what impact it has on the society including the close ones, etc. Now it covers women in 80%. It is wrong.

The reason is simple. Death is more important than living as caretakers etc.

This sample sentence is nonsensical in the COVID-19 context:

"Women as caretakers ... Evidence from past disease outbreaks show that women are more likely to be caregivers for the sick individuals in the family, making them more vulnerable to infection" 

Well, but then they are less vulnerable to death itself, as they survive more here, so they are in luck. Basic statistics and common sense.

Let us restore balance.

Zezen (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is hilarious. Men most deaths, but women (of course) most affected. (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree, but that's the current state of the never-ending purity spiral at Wikipedia and why the project is now a laughing stock. How ridiculous that the lede states the fact that far more men are DYING of the virus, but every single subsequent paragraph is about how the virus affects women far worse than men. No point in fighting anymore. Just point and laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think these comments are constructive. This is not a humorous subject and WP:NOTFORUM applies here. Please say what you think is wrong, why you think it is wrong, what changes you would like to be made and what reliable sources should be used to support those changes. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The above three contributors did say what is wrong with the article, and why they think it's wrong. I agree with what they say. Arcturus (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that it's very easy to drag a net over the internet and fish out lots of articles etc written by activists (feminists, intersectionalists, etc) and et voila you have a lengthy, cited article which re-espouses what those activists have poured into the internet themselves. This article is truly an expression of the craziness of our age: objectively men are more affected by the disease, and the consequential impacts of the disease in society are felt by men and women, and yet it can all be twisted, as in so many other things, to further the narratives being put forward by the activists. This isn't an encyclopedic article, it's a collection of summaries of subjective, political narratives, which the majority of people would find somewhat disingenuous at the very least. Sumorsǣte (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the article is incomplete and does not cover mens' issues enough. However, this is not a reason to disregard what is covered by the article entirely and the above discussion does not hold up to any standard. The amount of unpaid care work has increased massively due to the virus (schools closed, sick family, etc.) and since women do the majority of it, they are thus, in fact, (negatively) effected by the virus in a gender-specific way. The same goes for the increase in domestic violence, which is again directed towards women in the majority of cases. Stating that "objectively men are more affected by the disease" without any citation is just plain ridiculous, they do die at a higher rate, but that is not the full extent of the virus (especially considering that escalations of domestic violence can end in death as well). Further, implying that the authors "fish out lots of articles etc written by activists (feminists, intersectionalists, etc)" in this case is equally absurd, as most citations are peer-reviewed articles or from the New York Times, neither of which fall in the mentioned category. So instead of leaving a bunch of horribly unscientific comments, how about approaching the problem in constructive way and creating one section for each sex and actually filling the one on men with factual statements and citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:C221:5C00:CD8:6ED9:C9C9:874A (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Deary me. Don't like your worldview challenged, do you. New York Times and some humanities faculties are hardly impartial sources (so many 'academic' humanities institutions are far from rigorous academic/scientific/objective thought). As for objectivity of men being affected by the disease the most — how can DEATH (I repeat: DEATH) not be a considerable detriment? Never mind "men's issues" — death kinda goes beyond modern-day cushy 'rights'. Certainly more than a bit hard-hitting than temporarily having more hard work or being 'hard up' financially. Sheesh. Sumorsǣte (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Other demographic impact?[edit]

Is there a parallel page about other demographic impact of the pandemic?

There is extensive data on racial + ethnic breakdowns of cases + deaths, by country and region, which seems like enough source material for such a page. – SJ + 23:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Menstruation and the availability of sanitary supplies[edit]

Sanitary supplies were apparently not considered essential in India. -Yupik (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarity needed[edit]

"The highest risk for men is in their 50s, with the gap between men and women closing only at 90."

Yes, the reason being that the population of 90+ year olds has a considerable female majority (by virtue of the universal fact that women, on average, live longer than men). So of course, even though a 90 year old man is going to have a higher risk of dying from the virus than a 90 year old woman, there aren't many 90 year old men compared to 90 year old women.

So it only "closes" because of the disparity at that age group between numbers of each sex/gender, and not because the higher risk to men is somehow reduced. Sumorsǣte (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Working-age men TWICE as likely to die than women[edit]

According to an official government report on deaths in the UK: BBC News. I trust this article will be updated accordingly, because at the moment it reads as though women are the ones being affected more! Thanks (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)