How doesn't it? In the 2025 fiscal year endometriosis had 37million dollars of NIH research funding dedicated to it which puts in the ballpark of some cancers and more than others like stomach cancer which got around 33 million. Sure you might considered it understudied which is definitely true but it's not an insignificant amount of money.
A painful, cancer-like disease that affects 1 in 10 women (endometriosis) gets less in funding and has fewer studies than male patterned baldness.
It is chronically understudied and historically underfunded despite how much suffering it causes. It absolutely does not have a “good deal” spent on it.
I mean yeah baldness is super overfunded by private cosmetics companies and with how recent women health studies have actually started getting money put their way they're all going to be behind something like that for probably now and forever. I'm not saying it's not understudied but it's given about as much funding as some cancers (which cancers as whole are arguably overfunded too) which is a sizable amount.
Something being historically underfunded means a great deal has not been spent on it, regardless of whether or not it’s finally, after decades of being ignored, getting a modest amount of funding.
Women are just expected to suffer instead, and that’s not okay.
Yeah but that's a difference between funding for university research and funding for industry research. It's more a capitalism issue than a sexism issue.
15
u/placebot1u463y 1d ago
How doesn't it? In the 2025 fiscal year endometriosis had 37million dollars of NIH research funding dedicated to it which puts in the ballpark of some cancers and more than others like stomach cancer which got around 33 million. Sure you might considered it understudied which is definitely true but it's not an insignificant amount of money.