I have always wondered about the methodology behind the assertion that the medical system takes male cancer and other fatal disease killing men more seriously than similar conditions afflicting women.

This phenomenon has been reported as a de facto bias in modern health care.

I have always wondered whether this was because most medical family history is taken from eras when men were sole household breadwinners.

In these eras, men were therefore uniquely exposed to industrial disease and financial stress far more than their female counterparts.

Mortality rates should reflect this as women outlived men actuarially for a long time.

Because men got sick and died younger when they were sole breadwinners, it stands to reason that they would receive health care more urgently than women with similar conditions who were homemakers.

Combine this with the fact that health care accrues more readily to those able to pay related costs (working men over homemaking women) it is understandable that men would receive more healthcare than women in the era of the sole male breadwinner. This has been reported as sexist bias in health care but I believe the truth is more nuanced.

Welcoming your thoughts and comments.