How Gender Inequity Impacts on Men’s Health. An Exploration of Theoretical Pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical studies suggest gender inequity increases men’s health risks. Multiple pathways may explain this relationship. These pathways however have not been explored concurrently. This paper is based on an extensive review of the theoretical literature linking gender inequity to men’s health. It identifies a range of theoretical approaches and examines links between them. In particular, it discusses masculinities and health theory, which argues gender inequity is linked to gender norms that lead to poor health-related beliefs and behaviours; the impact of gender inequity on men’s psychosocial and emotional experiences through limiting social roles, setting unattainable and restrictive expectations, and reducing access to social and emotional support; reproductive pathways, wherein gender inequity compromises optimal reproductive and early life outcomes leading to lifelong health impacts for males; and political, economic and social processes influenced by women’s social position that shape the social and economic resources, such as welfare and support, available to men. There are important interdependencies between these pathways. For example, masculine gender norms appear to not only increase poor health-related beliefs and behaviours, but also limit men’s opportunities to satisfy psychosocial and emotional needs. The findings suggest the extent of gender inequity can accentuate or buffer the negative health effects of other social inequalities. Further, while gender inequity provides men with many benefits, it limits access to the rich array of resources required to meet a diversity of lifelong health-related challenges. The paper provides the basis for richer theoretical approaches to men’s health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".