Confronting the gender health gap. Author: Ffion Jones

Across 59 countries, it has been revealed that women continuously claim poorer health than men, despite their longer life expectancy (Boerma et al, 2016). This has recently exposed the alarming truth behind healthcare, known as the ‘gender health gap’. This manifesto will reveal how health isn’t simply a biological condition, but a social and political one. Whilst women’s suffering is usually ignored, misdiagnosed, or normalised, such as just ‘part of being a woman’, the male body is often privileged as the ‘default model’ of humanity. This reflects not only a power imbalance, but also a research bias which ignores women. In this manifesto I will be arguing why the gender health gap needs urgent sociological recognition, as it will reveal how capitalism, patriarchy and the institutions of medicine intersect to create this highly concerning inequality. As I draw on feminist research, intersectional theory, and even global research, I will be calling for radical change in how we research, understand, and deliver health.

After researching into feminist scholars such as Annandale (1998) and Oakley (1984), it becomes apparent that the gender health gap isn’t just a biological matter, but rather socially constructed, as medical institutions reproduce patriarchal assumptions about gender. For years women’s bodies have been viewed as unstable, emotional and in need of control. This is especially seen in many cases where women explain their abnormal symptoms such as unbearable menstrual cycles. Instead of figuring out what the accurate diagnosis is, they are often dismissed and just put on contraceptive, as they are ‘exaggerating’ (Fricker, 2007). This clearly ignores common diagnoses such as endometriosis, where it takes around 9 years to receive a diagnosis (Endometriosis UK, 2024) The severity of this is especially highlighted when one considers it affects 1 in 10 women in the UK, where even some survey respondents explained that “A&E nurses told me that everyone has period pain so take paracetamol and go home.” This reproduces the idea that the male body remains the scientific norm, whereas female bodies are treated as deviations of that norm, and therefore neglected.

Karpel et al (2025) reveals how this structural bias begins at the level of research, demonstrating that women are routinely underrepresented in clinical trials. This is clearly a highly concerning issue, as it creates consequences such as drugs and treatments being developed based on male bodies, leading to incorrect dosages, and missed diagnoses for women. How are women meant to receive the correct healthcare if there isn’t even clinical research on their bodies? The male and female body is biologically different, and science and research must treat them as such. As noted by Samaei (2022, pp. 301-308) women “cannot benefit from what is not measured,” Sarto (2004, pp. 9-14) did warn that the failure to confront this issue would become one of medicines biggest ethical failure, as half of the world’s population are just being disregarded in healthcare. This is a reflection of a deeper patriarchal structure within medicine, where the male body is treated as the norm to research, and a woman’s is seen as invisible.

Not only is this an issue in the UK, Boerma et al. (2016) reveals that the neglection of women’s health is a global issue, which has been shaped by persistent inequalities in access, autonomy, and income. Crenshaw (1989, pp.139–167) reminds us that intersectionality such as black, working-class, and migrant women face even poorer consequences of their health being neglected. This is especially seen as maternal mortality rates for black women in the UK are several times higher than for white women. This should be an alarming indicator of how race and class intersect with gender to determine who can live a healthy long life or who does not. Again, as Marton (2004) argues, the global gender gap persists due to culture and inequality, rather than just biology. Societies continue to normalise women’s pain, however female suffering is clearly rooted in structural inequality.

But why does the gender health gap continue today? Michel Foucault (1973) analyses the idea of ‘biopower’, where modern states regulate populations and bodies through medical institutions. This is because medicine doesn’t only just cure, it has become a way of categorising, controlling and normalising bodies, especially women. This means that the female body has become controlled, for example contraception, fertility management and childbirth. A recent example could be the banning of abortion in certain states in the US as a way of the government being able control women’s healthcare and bodies. This clearly reveals a side to medicine of how care conceals a deeper logic of regulation and control, leading to the neglection of women in healthcare.

Further understanding can be gathered through the lens of neoliberal framework. Rose (1999) and Gill and Scharff (2011) see health as an individual responsibility, urging women to “take control” of their wellbeing through activities such as wellness culture, mindfulness, and self-tracking technologies. This insight on women’s healthcare clearly shifts the focus away from structural neglect such as sexism in research and underfunded healthcare. This reveals how as the system continues to neglect women’s health, women are still being blamed for their own suffering, revealing the deep-rooted inequality in our society.

Feminist theory helps us understand that closing the gender health gap requires more than just better medicine. It demands new research, funding, and a sociological explanation to the deep-rooted systemic inequality. Harding (1991) explains that this begins with knowledge from the lived experiences from women. Rather than seeing women’s suffering as normal, emotional, and exaggerated, researchers must start centring patients voices as valued data as a source of insight.

This feminist analysis challenges the way medicine views women’s health, as Oakley (1984) revealed the control over reproduction, sexuality and ageing was never just about health, but rather about authority. This calls for reclaiming women’s health by politicising it, such as understanding how unpaid care work, low-paid employment, and social policy all shape individual’s health outcomes. As I take on an intersectional, evidence-based feminist approach to health justice, I call for mandate gender-based analysis in all medical research, an explanation to racial and class inequalities in health outcomes, to prioritise funding for conditions that affect women such as endometriosis and menopause, and to challenge neoliberal ideologies that view women’s health as a personal responsibility.

To conclude, I believe to close the gender health gap, we must understand health as a collective right rather than an individual pursuit. This will create an equal, healthy society that can listen to everybody, value every voice and refuse to treat women’s suffering as an inconvenience.

Reference list

Boerma, T., Hosseinpoor, A.R., Verdes, E. and Chatterji, S. (2016). A global assessment of the gender gap in self-reported health with survey data from 59 countries. BMC Public Health, [online] 16(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3352-y.

Endometriosis UK (2024). Years of being ‘dismissed, ignored and belittled’: Endometriosis UK urges improvement to deteriorating diagnosis times | Endometriosis UK. [online] www.endometriosis-uk.org. Available at: https://www.endometriosis-uk.org/diagnosis-report.

Karpel, H.C., Zambrano Guevara, L.M., Rimel, B.J., Hacker, K.E., Bae-Jump, V., Castellano, T., Curtin, J. and Pothuri, B. (2025). The missing data: A review of gender and sex disparities in research. Cancer, [online] 131(6). doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35769.

Marton, K. (2004). A worldwide gender gap. Newsweek, [online] 143(19). Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15164562/.

Samaei, M., Jenkins, M.R. and McGregor, A.J. (2022). Closing the gap: How women can benefit more from science, research, policies, and health services. Med, 3(5), pp.302–308. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medj.2022.04.012.