healthetank

I mean there's hundreds to thousands of grants and other ways the govt pays the hospital as well, it's not just OHIP funded but that's a large part.

Not the person you were responding to, but this article definitely has some big problems, the largest of which is they don't cite any sources. None. That's a significant problem for a 'scientific' article.

The first claim - Women hunted too - they present good evidence for, and a number of other studies have shown that many other societies had more integrated roles.

The second claim - Women are better at endurance than men - is shaky.

If you follow long-distance races, you might be thinking, wait—males are outperforming females in endurance events! But this is only sometimes the case. Females are more regularly dominating ultraendurance events such as the more than 260-mile Montane Spine foot race through England and Scotland, the 21-mile swim across the English Channel and the 4,300-mile Trans Am cycling race across the U.S.

Looking back at the placements, I agree women are definitely doing well, but they're not what I'd call dominating. Women's 1st place is placing ~5-10th overall. Impressive, for sure, but not dominating. They again, provide no sources, years of the race, or names of these women.

The inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports.

An enormous leap. This is a great theory to test and analyze, or link to others who have tested it, but not something to state as fact in a scientific article.

As an example, some endurance-running events allow the use of professional runners called pacesetters to help competitors perform their best. Men are not permitted to act as pacesetters in many women's events because of the belief that they will make the women “artificially faster,” as though women were not actually doing the running themselves.

Once again, I'm curious what races. I'm involved on the running scene, and have never heard of this rule before. Google results didn't show anything either. Once again, a distinct lack of sources.

Women are definitely capable of doing super endurance events, but they are not the equivalent of men on setting records for any race I’ve found. See below for a few ultra endurance races I know of.

One called “backyard ultra”. Basically you do a lap of 6.7km each hour until everyone else drops out. World records are all men by a long shot - https://backyardultra.com/world-rankings/

Fastpacking, a slower event than the backyard ultras, involve hiking/jogging through hiking trails while carrying what you need. Definitely slower pace, and I’d argue closer to what I’d imagine with a long, days-long hunt would be like for ancient tribes. FKT, or fastest known times, are often found at this website. Looking at all the times, men carry a significant lead in both supported (ie someone else carries your food/water/sleeping gear), and unsupported. As an example, look at the Appalachian Trail – https://fastestknowntime.com/route/appalachian-trail

Even the RAAM shows solo male records much faster than women: https://www.raamrace.org/records-awards

The thing the article failed to mention (and the thing I think is key) is that women excel at doing these things, typically, with less energy burnt both during and after the races. This is hinted at, implied, and signalled, but never outright stated.

Women on the whole are smaller, and tend to have better insulin responses (as mentioned in the article) which means their blood sugar stays consistent during exercise and after. Consistent blood sugar means less wasted energy. Larger heart and lungs, combined with higher type 2 muscle fibres compared to women’s type 1 (from the article) means, again, less wasted energy and more efficiencies. Less muscle damage, as mentioned in the article, means less to repair, which means more saved energy. In a hunter/gather society, this saved energy can be significant.

With modern access to food, that evolutionary advantage seems to vanish, and the article doesn’t even touch on it.

Women are definitely capable of doing super endurance events, but they are not the equivalent of men on setting records for any race I've found.

One called “backyard ultra”. Basically you do a lap of 6.7km each hour until everyone else drops out. World records are all men by a long shot - https://backyardultra.com/world-rankings/

Fastpacking, a slower event than the backyard ultras, involve hiking/jogging through hiking trails while carrying what you need. Definitely slower pace, and I’d argue closer to what I’d imagine with a long, days-long hunt would be like for ancient tribes. FKT, or fastest known times, are often found at this website. Looking at all the times, men carry a significant lead in both supported (ie someone else carries your food/water/sleeping gear), and unsupported. As an example, look at the Appalachian Trail – https://fastestknowntime.com/route/appalachian-trail

Even the RAAM shows solo male records much faster than women: https://www.raamrace.org/records-awards

The thing the article failed to mention (and the thing I think is key) is that women excel at doing these things, typically, with less energy burnt both during and after the races. Women on the whole are smaller, and tend to have better insulin responses (as mentioned in the article) which means their blood sugar stays consistent during exercise and after. Consistent blood sugar means less wasted energy. Larger heart and lungs, combined with higher type 2 muscle fibres compared to women's type 1 means, again, less wasted energy and more efficiencies. Less muscle damage, as mentioned in the diagram, means less to repair, which means more saved energy. In a hunter/gather society, this saved energy can be significant.

With modern access to food, that evolutionary advantage seems to vanish, and the article doesn't even touch on it.

Worth pointing out that there is lots of existing races that would compare "sustain exertion for longer".

One called "backyard ultra". Basically you do a lap of 6.7km each hour until everyone else drops out. World records are all men by a long shot - https://backyardultra.com/world-rankings/

Fastpacking, a slower event than the backyard ultras, involve hiking/jogging through hiking trails while carrying what you need. Definitely slower pace, and I'd argue closer to what I'd imagine with a long, days-long hunt would be like for ancient tribes. FKT, or fastest known times, are often found at this website. Looking at all the times, men carry a significant lead in both supported (ie someone else carries your food/water/sleeping gear), and unsupported. As an example, look at the Appalachian Trail -- https://fastestknowntime.com/route/appalachian-trail

EDIT: The thing the article failed to mention (and the thing I think is key) is that women excel at doing these things, typically, with less energy burnt both during and after the races. Women on the whole are smaller, and tend to have better insulin responses (as mentioned in the article) which means their blood sugar stays consistent during exercise and after. Consistent blood sugar means less wasted energy. Larger heart and lungs, combined with higher type 2 muscle fibres compared to women’s type 1 means, again, less wasted energy and more efficiencies. Less muscle damage, as mentioned in the diagram, means less to repair, which means more saved energy. In a hunter/gather society, this saved energy can be significant.

With modern access to food, that evolutionary advantage seems to vanish, and the article doesn’t even touch on it.

I mean hospitals in Ontario are all privately run with independent board of directors. The biggest thing we have set up is the "nonprofit" status they all have to have, and the OHIP/single payer setup.

Beyond that, these hospitals that were hit were all "public". Friend works at the cancer screening for SW Ontario and they've all been back to hand charting and filing. Tons of stuff is falling through the gaps, and they've been told to expect it to last to the new year.

Interesting article

I especially liked that they raised point like the fact that despite the fact that men earn more on average and make up more of the top CEO/Board Members spots, that those things don't help the bottom segment of boys who are left behind in school and left unsupported.

Their program to try and pull those teens back into post secondary is helpful and I'd be excited to see their long term impacts

Developers costs go up if they try to make houses faster- increased labour costs by increased demands, plus decreased housing costs when they go to sell.

Why would they make homes faster?

If this is the link you're talking about, your numbers are way off - https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2023007-eng.htm

That shows that even for low income families (<83k/yr), they spend an average of 14,000$/yr on each child. That's way higher than your estimated 30,000/ages 0-7, so I'm curious where you got your data from.

I don't discount that there's a societal push for people to get older and make sure they're confident in wanting kids before they have them, and with low cost birth control we've reduced accidental pregnancies, but cost is still an enormous factor.

Housing is an easy example. One bedroom or bachelor's pads are, in my area, ~1200/month. Not the nicest ones at that price, but decent. You jump up to a two bed or a Ben+a den, and you're looking at 1800/month at least. At a three bed, it's close to 2500/month.

Even if you assume those are on the larger side for price jumps, if you're barely able to scrape by with two people in a bachelor's apartment or in a one bedroom, there's no way you can "afford" it solely by CCB benefits. Almost all the benefit is eaten up by housing increases alone! Then add on childcare, and CCB isn't enough to give those feeling like they're just hanging on wiggle room to raise a child.

Kids are an enormous financial burden early on, especially for the small things. Kids get sick a lot, so you need to have a job that will allow you flexibility, or else you'll lose money for unpaid days off for doctors appointments or to sit at home with them when they're puking.

Kids need daycare unless youre staying home, which is suuuuper expensive these days. They also have limited hours, which if you're stuck working a shitty job, you may not be able to make.

Even second hand, clothes are expensive, and with how fast kids grow, it's an expense worth noting.

All in all, if you're well off, yeah it may not be a big problem for you, but for the people that are already struggling, it's a large factor into why they're not having kids yet.

Bear wasn't tagged - GPS SOS signal is likely how they were alerted. That being said, if they found an aggressive bear in the area, I'd be inclined to trust them. There isn't really anything to gain by lying, especially if it leads to another hiker death from the actual bear.

Parks Canada received an alert indicating a bear attack from a GPS device in the Red Deer River Valley around 8 p.m. Friday. A grizzly bear displaying aggressive behaviour was found in the area and was euthanized by Parks Canada for public safety reasons. First aid kits and knowledge, bear spray and a GPS are all important tools in case of an attack, Titchener said.

Allegedly they were "experienced outdoors backpackers". Guessing the dog being there played a role in the attack - animals can make wildlife more aggressive, and if it wasn't on a leash, it could've attacked the grizzly, provoking it. Then again, its entirely possible the grizzly learned that humans have food from some past hikers, and tried to get at the food from these guys.

If Parks Canada found a grizzly in the area and stated it was acting aggressive, I'd be inclined to believe them. They know animal behaviour pretty well.

It's interesting. I took a read and generally didn't dislike the article, but it read to me like its intended for women, by women. They touch briefly on topics I would definitely have preferred them to go into more depth on.

Nearly three decades ago, the sociologist William Julius Wilson cited male joblessness as the reason behind the decline in marriage in some predominantly Black communities, and the pool of available men has shrunk since the late 1970s and 1980s because of Black men’s disproportionately high rates of incarceration and mortality. More recently, economists have documented falling marriage rates in pockets of the U.S. where men have lost manufacturing jobs, notably in sectors facing competition from cheap Chinese imports. Unlike the egg freezers, women in these communities typically do not defer childbearing until their late 30s, but instead have children at earlier ages and raise them on their own.

This section in particular is interesting. Anecdotally, I wouldn't be surprised if jobless men in places without any hope of improvement of their situation sunk into being terrible partners. Given the pressure for men to be primary income providers, especially the forces at work in blue-collar environments and the stronger gender norms enforced there, handling a loss of your future and not seeing a chance to improve things isn't likely to make you someone who wants to look into the future and plan for a family.

Beyond that, the article gives very few in depth answers, and just skims over things, like what classifies men as 'eligible'? Income seems to be related, given the wording they use, but is that just any income, or are these women unable to find men who are interested in being high income/sole breadwinner type earners? My frustration with the article's lack of solid information is summed up in the paragraph below;

Or is it that finding love and connection has always been hard, and is even harder today for straight women because something is amiss with a not-insignificant share of American men? Between the quantitative gap in college attendance and the qualitative gap in dating experiences between men and women lies dicey causal terrain. Mapping that terrain with any degree of precision may be beyond Inhorn’s (or anyone’s) capacity.