The full paper[1] addresses this to some extent (my emphasis added below):
"Accurate estimates of the lifetime history (prevalence) of traumatic brain injury within the general population are scarce, which makes it difficult to compare rates of injury among homeless people with rates among those in the community. Two community cohort studies suggested prevalence rates of 3.8% (for experiencing at least 1 admission to hospital for traumatic brain injury by age 35; northern Finland birth cohort) and 31.6% (for experiencing a traumatic brain injury for which the person received medical care; Christchurch, New Zealand, birth cohort). Together, these data suggest that rates may be higher among people who are homeless than within the general community. A recent study estimated that homeless men had rates of head injury 14 times higher than rates for the general population of Canada, with a rate 400 times higher among those who were chronically homeless and had drinking problems."
And not oranges and oranges comparison, but[2]:
"Separately, a recent study by Dr. Stephen Hwang of the hospital's Centre for Research on Inner City Health, found the number of people who are homeless or vulnerably housed and who have also suffered a TBI may be as high as 61 per cent -- seven times higher than the general population."
The paper ( http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/1059 ) is a meta-analysis of papers addressing this correlation. In the section "Limitations of the evidence base," the author notes the deficiency you pointed out in most papers (only two had a control group), among other deficiencies. The conclusion is a rallying cry for larger and more rigorous studies on the matter since the current (ragtag) evidence shows a noticeable correlation.
I was wondering that too, but the end of the article does mention it:
"the number of people who are homeless or vulnerably housed and who have also suffered a TBI may be as high as 61 per cent -- seven times higher than the general population." So it sounds like the rate in the normal population is about 8%, but that's probably men and women. Even if it was entirely men that had it (unlikely), that would put the incidence in the general population of men at 16%, significantly lower. And that rate includes the ones that end up homeless.
Just a few weeks ago, I was walking home from work and witnessed one homeless man suckerpunch another in the face, knocking him off balance on ice and causing him to fall straight back and crack his head open on the ice. There was an instant pool of blood that started spreading quickly, with other homeless people scattering instantly. A cop arrived on the scene almost immediately.
I was incredibly surprised reading this that 87% had TBI before becoming homeless. I wonder what the numbers are for repeated TBI after becoming homeless among those that had their first instance pre-homelessness.
I'll echo what is said further down; it is good to see a reasonable look into homelessness here on HN.
I literally just came bsck from a vigil for a man who died in a self-lit fire in an abandoned moving truck parked in my hometown. The vigil was attended by homeless advocates of all political stripes, had a local police officer singing at the beginning and end, and a gubernatorial candidate was around as well. The "issue of homelessness" is definitely complicated, and amongst the crowd tonight, all holding candles, were those who take stands for rental vouchers, more conservative "housing first" policies, expanded mental health care, and a few other approaches. There were plenty of compassionate Christian conservatives there who I appreciate for their emphasis on pragmatism and on human dignity, even though the solutions run against their deeply held political beliefs.
As someone who has always felt just a day a way from slipping into homelessness myself, including struggling with alcoholism - the one thing I can say for certain is that the only way to address this is by continuing to address the issue honestly, trying the best we can with evidence of what works. I wish I could say I trust my faculties, but week to week its obvious I have a problem, even back when I was 9 years into sobriety..
In America, we definitely err on the side of personal liberty and responsibility, and though I agree with that in some abstract sense, it is obvious to me that moralizing the issue as one of choice, or as one of laziness vs. hard work and determination, is a failure. We can do better, and we will, but in the process we're going to have to accept responsibility for each other in a costly and politically inconvenient way.
The fact that people came out tonight in my hometown to celebrate our common humanity, despite another tragic loss, is admirable. It is what defines us as a human family. Although the circumstances anger me personally, all these people tonight, and the people here on HN, prove there is a solution, even if it is a hard process and not a clear destination.
What shocked me when I used to do the soup van run in my local city was how age didn't discriminate when it came to homelessnes. I saw men (and boys) across the whole age range living in unnacceptable situations. Some of them could have been my friends for all I know as they did their best to hide their homelessness.
Furthermore, I was always perplexed as to why there were far more homeless males than females. While my local government provides a number of shelters for men and women, there was never enough room for men. We would frequently scout the local homeless haunts (under bridgers, besides powerstations or in church car parks) looking for people who might need some supper.
In this day and age It's pretty disagraceful in my view. I've always thought it would be nice if someone could come up with a kickstarer/kiva like hybrid where you could sponsor local homeless people with enough money to find accomodation and medical/psychological assistance.
> it would be nice if...you could sponsor homeless people with enough money to find accomodation and medical/psychological assistance
You're presuming that our society and economy isn't designed to purposefully try to get a certain percentage of people into this situation. If someone theoretically entertains the possibility that this is the case ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour ), then that would be like building sand castles on the shore during low tide.
Actually you don't have to go back to the 19th century to read about this. Read what mainstream economists openly say about NAIRU, or what Business Week and the Wall Street Journal were openly saying when the unemployment rate went below 4% in early 2000. They were pretty much calling for higher unemployment rates - as much as you can get away with in this society any way.
Women have an easier time finding somewhere to stay because they are considered more valuable to society. Men are disposable, which is why far fewer resources are devoted to helping them.
Women also can just get a boyfriend if they lose their job or health and need money; I've seen my female friends do this loads of times, but have yet to see it go the other way. Gender roles definitely favor women pretty heavily when it comes to financial matters.
I have upvoted you. It is true that a woman can just "get a boyfriend" -- aka politely whore herself out -- and I have seen it done as a means to get off the street. And it is true that there are generally fewer resources for homeless men. But gender rolls do not "favor women pretty heavily when it comes to financial matters". Nor are women "more valuable" to society.
Men get freedom that women tend to lack. With freedom, there is freedom to fail. Men tend to aggregate towards the extremes -- they both take up more of the CEO roles and are more commonly seen on the street. Women get more "average" lives in part because they have less freedom. Women often are protected from homelessness per se not because anyone values them but because they have custody of and responsibility for dependent children and no one wants to see children on the street. So the parent who has custody gets taken in by family along with the child or services intended to benefit the child also benefit the custodial parent. This is not about valuing women more. It is just not.
I think the reality is that women are more able to scrape by via prostitution.
Gender roles definitely favor women pretty heavily when it comes to financial matters.
Every study I've seen shows that women are paid less in than men in equivalent positions. I'm having a hard time reconciling anything in your post with reality.
I think most couples would be pretty offended if you called the girlfriend a prostitute for letting their boyfriend financially support them.
>Every study I've seen shows that women are paid less in than men in equivalent positions.
Women are paid the same as men in studies that control for other variables. I recommend you stop reading "studies" that don't control for things like hours worked and choice of career field.
In fact, single childless women now make more than men in most US metropolitan areas: "Young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively." (http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...)
To the second, your linked article cites a study that does not control for hours worked, choice of field, or most importantly being in an equivalent position, which I specified in my comment.
Here's the wiki article on the gender pay gap and a relevant quote:
However, in 2010, an economist testified to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings. The unexplained portion of the wage gap is attributed by some to gender discrimination.
Ummmm no. Maybe, maybe, on a statistical level, this happens more for women than for men. But I certainly know women who have been homeless, and there are even more women who can't get a boyfriend at all, especially if they're sick or unemployed. Women's magazines are full of dating advice for a reason.
Men are 77% of the homeless population [1]. This doesn't mean that no women are homeless, just that women are much less likely to end up homeless (presumably as a result of the much greater amount of resources dedicated to disadvantaged women compared to disadvantaged men).
I think it goes without saying that a sick or unemployed man is far less likely to find or keep a girlfriend than a sick or unemployed woman.
Note: To be clear, I do not agree with the OP's characterization of "women being more valuable to society" and thus treated better. In general, men have the advantage. But homelessness does tend to affect men more.
Most homeless are men. A couple sources I found places the number in the mid 60% range.
You say some women can't get a boyfriend at all. I expect it's true for most of them that they can't get a boyfriend they want.
But many of them might be able to get a very disagreeable boyfriend, if their choice was living with him, or living on the street.
It's not a very good choice. In fact, it's generally an awful choice. But it's still a choice.
Obviously, there are homeless women, but they tend to be less vulnerable to homelessness. Orwell wrote about this in down and out in Paris and London. Mind you, this was in the 1920s, but it's evocative:
>Tramps are cut off from women, in the first place, because there are
very few women at their level of society. One might imagine that among
destitute people the sexes would be as equally balanced as elsewhere. But
it is not so; in fact, one can almost say that below a certain level
society is entirely male. The following figures, published by the L.C.C.
from a night census taken on February 13th, 1931, will show the relative
numbers of destitute men and destitute women:
Spending the night in the streets, 60 men, 18 women.
In shelters and homes not licensed as common lodging-houses, 1,057 men,
137 women.
In the crypt of St Martin's-in-the-Fields Church, 88 men, 12 women.
In L.C.C. casual wards and hostels, 674 men, 15 women.
[ This must be an underestimate. Still, the proportions probably
hold good.]
It will be seen from these figures that at the charity level men
outnumber women by something like ten to one. The cause is presumably that
unemployment affects women less than men; also that any presentable woman
can, in the last resort, attach herself to some man.
Well, if you feel envious of women who can sleep with people for money, you may still be able to find men who will accept your services as a prostitute. Since you seem to think it's so cushy.
It's interesting to think about why there are vastly more homeless men than women.
For one thing, men take more risks. They are more likely to reach the top of the ladder, but also more likely to fall to the very bottom.
Women and children first. Society takes better care of women. This is deeply ingrained because they are more valuable for the survival our species. Not so relevant anymore, but it was for most of human history.
Girls and women are also a lot more vulnerable on the streets -- I met a 17-year-old who was routinely assaulted when she slept outside, who eventually took up sex work for the stable shelter.
Men are also statistically more likely to become drug addicts.
Not sure what the downvotes are about. I don't think it's controversial that these are some of the reasons why there are a lot more homeless men than women.
Maybe because society doesn't really "take better care of women"? It tends to take care of women somewhat indirectly in that women are often custodial parents and society worries about the children. But it really mostly does a sucky job of looking out for women. Granted, men don't necessarily have it "better," they just have a different distribution of pain. I think as a society we have a lot of room for improvement in the "taking care of people" department.
Furthermore, I was always perplexed as to why there were far more homeless males than females.
There are lots of factors.
Women are more afraid of homelessness, in part because being raped is a very real risk. So they are more likely to make compromises a man would not make in order to remain off the street. Women are more likely to be members of "the hidden homeless" -- unable to support themselves but sleeping on a couch somewhere or doubled up with family.
On the flipside, male privilege is not rooted in having a penis. It is rooted in fulfilling the male role of breadwinner. Men who can't do that tend to not find other options that are often available to women. This is partly gender based prejudice -- we are more likely to feel a man should just get a job, no matter how bad his health or whatever -- but it is partly rooted in the fact that men frequently have expectations of male privilege even if they haven't earned it. So men seem to often fail at making themselves valuable enough to put up with if they have no job.
This is not an off the cuff remark. It's a topic I have studied and thought a lot about over the years. My sons are valuable contributing members of my household without ever having had a job. They took over the "women's work" so I could focus on my corporate job and they take care of me so I can get well when doctor's basically wrote me off for dead. So I need my sons, even though they do not make money. A lot of men are terrible at taking care of other people and a lot of women find that when they are willing to work and support a boyfriend or husband, she still comes home and does most of the housework and cooking. He winds up basically mooching off of her.
I am sure there are lots of others but that is some of the stuff that comes immediately to mind. I have had a class on "Homelessness and Public Policy." So it is something I have studied formally, not just read up on.
The aftereffects of traumatic brain injury is a very intractable problem that significantly damages a person's life. People tend to be on the street because of intractable personal problems, not because of lack of money per se.
I have thought a lot about that and I often wonder what we can do to heal the bodies and minds of the homeless as our first priority instead of trying to act like homelessness itself is the problem and like getting shelter of some sort is the priority. Homeless shelters are often really crappy shelter, with no privacy and terrible air quality and so forth. I won't go to one because I am on the street to get myself well and I can't solve my problems if I can't get well. Homeless shelters are generally not clean enough for my needs. They would help keep me sick. I can't ever solve my problems by staying chronically ill. My financial problems are rooted in my health problems.
I never know how to explain that effectively to other people who think a) my lack of housing proves I am incompetent and thus not credible or worth listening to and b) housing, any housing, is the single most important detail to address.
Years ago, I lived for a few months in a crap trailer. My health took a turn for the worse and in some ways never recovered. I am still trying to undo the damage of those few months. I have enough income that I could probably go to someplace super cheap, like rural Alabama or Mississippi, and find a trailer for rent to live in instead of choosing to be on the street and inexpensive California where the climate is good for my health but I can't afford housing. And I never know how to explain to people that I am doing the right thing and this focus on get a home, any home, is the wrong focus and is part of the problem.
I am glad to see this posted here. I think this is probably a lot better thing to post on HN than a lot of stories that wind up here which showcase specific homeless individuals and, more often than not, seem to convince people that the individual in question just needs to "be more responsible" or "make better choices."
My relative is almost homeless three years after a TBI in an accident he drove home from. Prior to that he was a talented contractor who supported a family and had many friends.
Despite herculean efforts by friends and family and even strangers, he is fundamentally broken in ways nobody seems to understand. He still largely thinks of himself as the person he was prior to the TBI.
My guess at this grim stage is the mechanisms are broken that allow him to self-correct his behavior and make accurate, up-to-date "I am" statements. Clues to this are when you confront him about his behavior or how he never bathes. He is not offended or worried but rather agitated, as if his brain short-circuits. At best you get cognitive distortions and at worst he storms away in a rage he won't remember five minutes later. Interventions and threats have no postive effect.
He will talk your ear off all day about hobbies he had prior to his TBI, and if you didn't smell him or notice his pan handling sign, you might not know there is any problem. But make no mistake, invite this man to live with you and you will be tearing your hair out after two weeks and kicking him out in three, if not sooner.
Every TBI is unique just as every person is. My relative does not accurately remember what parts of his brain was injured, so interviewing him would not yield much. Besides that, after this happened I read that something like 80% of TBIs do not even show on common medical imaging devices. In my relative's case there was evidence "suggestive" of DAI (diffuse axonal injury) which may explain why his deficits are so profound, but nobody can say. During therapy there was clear evidence that his deductive reasoning skills were seriously compromised, so imagine practical consequences if you cannot do simple deductive reasoning but also cannot realize it.
Then of course TBI survivors are many times more likely to suffer additional TBIs. Add substance abuse and limited to no impulse control and you have a person who is a danger to himself and often society, but who also may refuse to get the level of help they truly need. In his case, he needs assisted living including someone to manage all of his money, but in his mind he does not and he appears ready to fight it until his last breath.
I hope studies like this lead to more humane and informed programs to help people like him. I was just thinking this morning how unjust it is that murderers and other criminals can get room and board for life yet the best we can manage for this once talented and caring member of society is a room in a drug-infested flop house that costs half of his disability income.
It is sad we don't have a safety net any longer - we used to have asylums now we have homeless people who are mostly mentally ill in some fashion or another.
I'm not sure how I'd cope if I had a relative with a similar situation. Thanks for sharing your story.
Asylums are better than homelessness, but to go as far as saying they are "safety net" is a stretch. They were usually not designed to help, but to put away.
Then again, I'm not american and whenever I come to the US I'm amazed by how many homeless people one see in the streets.
There are people that we cannot help with current medical technology. Letting them live somewhere safe, with people who can care for them, is probably better than most of the alternatives - homelessness and prison.
Exactly the problem. Long term care would be ideal for some persons. There's no "mental health lobby" like the prison industrials to encourage mass expenditures. And we certainly wouldn't want the prison megacorps to run our inpatient facilities.
No doubt caused by TBI-related problems that often affect balance, coordination. Many TBI survivors have poorer judgement or underestimate how poorly their brains handle alcohol, etc.
> My relative does not accurately remember what parts of his brain was injured, so interviewing him would not yield much.
A decent battery of psychological tests (WAIS-R, NART, Stroop Test, PASAT - the latter two depending on the results of the first) will tell you a lot about his mental state and what parts of his brain are likely damaged. Source: worked with TBI survivors for several years and wrote a thesis on neuropsychological indicators of return to work capability.
I tried to follow the DOI link to the underlying article, to see at least its abstract, but that link is dead. I don't see any uptake of this hospital press anywhere outside Science Daily, a press-release recycling service often decried[1] by thoughtful readers here on HN. Another kind reader here found the link to the original paper,
"Methods We recruited participants from an urban men’s shelter in Toronto, Ontario. Researchers administered the Brain Injury Screening Questionnaire, a semistructured interview screening tool for brain injury. Demographic information and detailed histories of brain injuries were obtained. Participants with positive and negative screening results were compared, and the rates and mechanisms of injury were analyzed by age group.
"Results A total of 111 men (mean age 54.2 ± standard deviation 11.5 yr; range 27–81 yr) participated. Nearly half (50 [45%]) of the respondents had a positive screening result for traumatic brain injury. Of these, 73% (35/48) reported experiencing their first injury before adulthood (< 18 yr), and 87% (40/46) reported a first injury before the onset of homelessness."
In other words, I think this is an interesting idea that deserves further investigation (and, for all I know, despite the statement in the article, has been investigated a lot already), but I have no idea how representative the patients that Dr. Jane Topolovec-Vranic found are of all the homeless people in her country, or what the direction of causation is here (could something that increases risk for homelessness at one and the same time increase risk for traumatic brain injury? very likely yes). Research on how to help people who have suffered brain injuries to recover from those injuries is of course a good idea, as is research on the consequences of those injuries, including social consequences like homelessness. Best of all is to figure out how to reduce risk of suffering such injuries. As the article says, "Additional research is needed to understand the complex interactions among homelessness, traumatic brain injury, mental illness and substance use." I would definitely wonder about the substance use part of that.
[1] Science Daily has been decried so often on Hacker News that I have been collecting those comments for a few years.
"Everything I've ever seen on HN -- I don't know about Reddit -- from ScienceDaily has been a cut-and-paste copy of something else available from nearer the original source. In some cases ScienceDaily's copy is distinctly worse than the original because it lacks relevant links, enlightening pictures, etc.
" . . . . if you find something there and feel like sharing it, it's pretty much...
Cheers for a demonstration of how debatable these claims are.
One thing that bothers me about such claims is they hardly explain what seems to be a secularly rising homeless rate over the last thirty years. Sure, we haven't seen a brain injury epidemic during that time but certainly we've seen social and economic policy changes during that time.
>we haven't seen a brain injury epidemic during that time but certainly we've seen social and economic policy changes during that time
That doesn't rule out a correlation between brain injury and homelessness; the social and economic policy changes might have the effect that fewer brain-injured people get the care they need to avoid becoming homeless.
In a thriving economy, workers with problems can often get jobs. When the economy tanks and layoffs occur it's the most weak and vulnerable who are hit the hardest.
While it is quite plausible that brain damage associated TBI can cause homelessness, the causal influence is probably lower than the given percentages imply. According to the article:
"In Canada, the leading mechanisms of traumatic brain injury leading to hospital admission over the decade 1994–1995 to 2003–2004 were motor-vehicle-related for adults less than 60 years of age and falls for those 60 years of age or older, with assaults reported as the mechanism of injury at a substantially lower rate than we have reported here."
The article also shows high prevalence of alcohol/drug-related TBI in the homeless, whereas in the general population, "being struck by or against an object, motor vehicle collisions and sport-related injuries were the most common mechanisms."
Together, the differences in the causes of TBI between the homeless subjects and the general population imply that, in at least some cases, the TBI and homelessness are likely to have a common cause (e.g. alcohol/drug addiction or certain personality traits). The article recognizes this possibility, but doesn't attempt to correct for it. To get a better idea of the causal effect, it would be informative to compare the homeless subjects with non-homeless controls with similar drug histories, personality traits, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
45 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 82.5 ms ] thread"Accurate estimates of the lifetime history (prevalence) of traumatic brain injury within the general population are scarce, which makes it difficult to compare rates of injury among homeless people with rates among those in the community. Two community cohort studies suggested prevalence rates of 3.8% (for experiencing at least 1 admission to hospital for traumatic brain injury by age 35; northern Finland birth cohort) and 31.6% (for experiencing a traumatic brain injury for which the person received medical care; Christchurch, New Zealand, birth cohort). Together, these data suggest that rates may be higher among people who are homeless than within the general community. A recent study estimated that homeless men had rates of head injury 14 times higher than rates for the general population of Canada, with a rate 400 times higher among those who were chronically homeless and had drinking problems."
And not oranges and oranges comparison, but[2]:
"Separately, a recent study by Dr. Stephen Hwang of the hospital's Centre for Research on Inner City Health, found the number of people who are homeless or vulnerably housed and who have also suffered a TBI may be as high as 61 per cent -- seven times higher than the general population."
[1] http://www.cmajopen.ca/content/2/2/E69.full
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24651000
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/343275
http://www.cmajopen.ca/content/2/2/E69.full
I was incredibly surprised reading this that 87% had TBI before becoming homeless. I wonder what the numbers are for repeated TBI after becoming homeless among those that had their first instance pre-homelessness.
I literally just came bsck from a vigil for a man who died in a self-lit fire in an abandoned moving truck parked in my hometown. The vigil was attended by homeless advocates of all political stripes, had a local police officer singing at the beginning and end, and a gubernatorial candidate was around as well. The "issue of homelessness" is definitely complicated, and amongst the crowd tonight, all holding candles, were those who take stands for rental vouchers, more conservative "housing first" policies, expanded mental health care, and a few other approaches. There were plenty of compassionate Christian conservatives there who I appreciate for their emphasis on pragmatism and on human dignity, even though the solutions run against their deeply held political beliefs.
As someone who has always felt just a day a way from slipping into homelessness myself, including struggling with alcoholism - the one thing I can say for certain is that the only way to address this is by continuing to address the issue honestly, trying the best we can with evidence of what works. I wish I could say I trust my faculties, but week to week its obvious I have a problem, even back when I was 9 years into sobriety..
In America, we definitely err on the side of personal liberty and responsibility, and though I agree with that in some abstract sense, it is obvious to me that moralizing the issue as one of choice, or as one of laziness vs. hard work and determination, is a failure. We can do better, and we will, but in the process we're going to have to accept responsibility for each other in a costly and politically inconvenient way.
The fact that people came out tonight in my hometown to celebrate our common humanity, despite another tragic loss, is admirable. It is what defines us as a human family. Although the circumstances anger me personally, all these people tonight, and the people here on HN, prove there is a solution, even if it is a hard process and not a clear destination.
Furthermore, I was always perplexed as to why there were far more homeless males than females. While my local government provides a number of shelters for men and women, there was never enough room for men. We would frequently scout the local homeless haunts (under bridgers, besides powerstations or in church car parks) looking for people who might need some supper.
In this day and age It's pretty disagraceful in my view. I've always thought it would be nice if someone could come up with a kickstarer/kiva like hybrid where you could sponsor local homeless people with enough money to find accomodation and medical/psychological assistance.
You're presuming that our society and economy isn't designed to purposefully try to get a certain percentage of people into this situation. If someone theoretically entertains the possibility that this is the case ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour ), then that would be like building sand castles on the shore during low tide.
Actually you don't have to go back to the 19th century to read about this. Read what mainstream economists openly say about NAIRU, or what Business Week and the Wall Street Journal were openly saying when the unemployment rate went below 4% in early 2000. They were pretty much calling for higher unemployment rates - as much as you can get away with in this society any way.
Women also can just get a boyfriend if they lose their job or health and need money; I've seen my female friends do this loads of times, but have yet to see it go the other way. Gender roles definitely favor women pretty heavily when it comes to financial matters.
Men get freedom that women tend to lack. With freedom, there is freedom to fail. Men tend to aggregate towards the extremes -- they both take up more of the CEO roles and are more commonly seen on the street. Women get more "average" lives in part because they have less freedom. Women often are protected from homelessness per se not because anyone values them but because they have custody of and responsibility for dependent children and no one wants to see children on the street. So the parent who has custody gets taken in by family along with the child or services intended to benefit the child also benefit the custodial parent. This is not about valuing women more. It is just not.
Gender roles definitely favor women pretty heavily when it comes to financial matters.
Every study I've seen shows that women are paid less in than men in equivalent positions. I'm having a hard time reconciling anything in your post with reality.
I think most couples would be pretty offended if you called the girlfriend a prostitute for letting their boyfriend financially support them.
>Every study I've seen shows that women are paid less in than men in equivalent positions.
Women are paid the same as men in studies that control for other variables. I recommend you stop reading "studies" that don't control for things like hours worked and choice of career field.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20...
In fact, single childless women now make more than men in most US metropolitan areas: "Young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively." (http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...)
To the second, your linked article cites a study that does not control for hours worked, choice of field, or most importantly being in an equivalent position, which I specified in my comment.
Here's the wiki article on the gender pay gap and a relevant quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disp...
However, in 2010, an economist testified to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings. The unexplained portion of the wage gap is attributed by some to gender discrimination.
I think it goes without saying that a sick or unemployed man is far less likely to find or keep a girlfriend than a sick or unemployed woman.
1. http://www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/June2001Heal...
Most homeless are men. A couple sources I found places the number in the mid 60% range.
http://homeless.samhsa.gov/ResourceFiles/hrc_factsheet.pdf http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html
You say some women can't get a boyfriend at all. I expect it's true for most of them that they can't get a boyfriend they want.
But many of them might be able to get a very disagreeable boyfriend, if their choice was living with him, or living on the street.
It's not a very good choice. In fact, it's generally an awful choice. But it's still a choice.
Obviously, there are homeless women, but they tend to be less vulnerable to homelessness. Orwell wrote about this in down and out in Paris and London. Mind you, this was in the 1920s, but it's evocative:
>Tramps are cut off from women, in the first place, because there are very few women at their level of society. One might imagine that among destitute people the sexes would be as equally balanced as elsewhere. But it is not so; in fact, one can almost say that below a certain level society is entirely male. The following figures, published by the L.C.C. from a night census taken on February 13th, 1931, will show the relative numbers of destitute men and destitute women:
Spending the night in the streets, 60 men, 18 women. In shelters and homes not licensed as common lodging-houses, 1,057 men, 137 women. In the crypt of St Martin's-in-the-Fields Church, 88 men, 12 women. In L.C.C. casual wards and hostels, 674 men, 15 women.
[ This must be an underestimate. Still, the proportions probably hold good.]
It will be seen from these figures that at the charity level men outnumber women by something like ten to one. The cause is presumably that unemployment affects women less than men; also that any presentable woman can, in the last resort, attach herself to some man.
For one thing, men take more risks. They are more likely to reach the top of the ladder, but also more likely to fall to the very bottom.
Women and children first. Society takes better care of women. This is deeply ingrained because they are more valuable for the survival our species. Not so relevant anymore, but it was for most of human history.
Men are also statistically more likely to become drug addicts.
Not sure what the downvotes are about. I don't think it's controversial that these are some of the reasons why there are a lot more homeless men than women.
There are lots of factors.
Women are more afraid of homelessness, in part because being raped is a very real risk. So they are more likely to make compromises a man would not make in order to remain off the street. Women are more likely to be members of "the hidden homeless" -- unable to support themselves but sleeping on a couch somewhere or doubled up with family.
On the flipside, male privilege is not rooted in having a penis. It is rooted in fulfilling the male role of breadwinner. Men who can't do that tend to not find other options that are often available to women. This is partly gender based prejudice -- we are more likely to feel a man should just get a job, no matter how bad his health or whatever -- but it is partly rooted in the fact that men frequently have expectations of male privilege even if they haven't earned it. So men seem to often fail at making themselves valuable enough to put up with if they have no job.
This is not an off the cuff remark. It's a topic I have studied and thought a lot about over the years. My sons are valuable contributing members of my household without ever having had a job. They took over the "women's work" so I could focus on my corporate job and they take care of me so I can get well when doctor's basically wrote me off for dead. So I need my sons, even though they do not make money. A lot of men are terrible at taking care of other people and a lot of women find that when they are willing to work and support a boyfriend or husband, she still comes home and does most of the housework and cooking. He winds up basically mooching off of her.
I am sure there are lots of others but that is some of the stuff that comes immediately to mind. I have had a class on "Homelessness and Public Policy." So it is something I have studied formally, not just read up on.
I have thought a lot about that and I often wonder what we can do to heal the bodies and minds of the homeless as our first priority instead of trying to act like homelessness itself is the problem and like getting shelter of some sort is the priority. Homeless shelters are often really crappy shelter, with no privacy and terrible air quality and so forth. I won't go to one because I am on the street to get myself well and I can't solve my problems if I can't get well. Homeless shelters are generally not clean enough for my needs. They would help keep me sick. I can't ever solve my problems by staying chronically ill. My financial problems are rooted in my health problems.
I never know how to explain that effectively to other people who think a) my lack of housing proves I am incompetent and thus not credible or worth listening to and b) housing, any housing, is the single most important detail to address.
Years ago, I lived for a few months in a crap trailer. My health took a turn for the worse and in some ways never recovered. I am still trying to undo the damage of those few months. I have enough income that I could probably go to someplace super cheap, like rural Alabama or Mississippi, and find a trailer for rent to live in instead of choosing to be on the street and inexpensive California where the climate is good for my health but I can't afford housing. And I never know how to explain to people that I am doing the right thing and this focus on get a home, any home, is the wrong focus and is part of the problem.
I am glad to see this posted here. I think this is probably a lot better thing to post on HN than a lot of stories that wind up here which showcase specific homeless individuals and, more often than not, seem to convince people that the individual in question just needs to "be more responsible" or "make better choices."
Despite herculean efforts by friends and family and even strangers, he is fundamentally broken in ways nobody seems to understand. He still largely thinks of himself as the person he was prior to the TBI.
My guess at this grim stage is the mechanisms are broken that allow him to self-correct his behavior and make accurate, up-to-date "I am" statements. Clues to this are when you confront him about his behavior or how he never bathes. He is not offended or worried but rather agitated, as if his brain short-circuits. At best you get cognitive distortions and at worst he storms away in a rage he won't remember five minutes later. Interventions and threats have no postive effect.
He will talk your ear off all day about hobbies he had prior to his TBI, and if you didn't smell him or notice his pan handling sign, you might not know there is any problem. But make no mistake, invite this man to live with you and you will be tearing your hair out after two weeks and kicking him out in three, if not sooner.
Every TBI is unique just as every person is. My relative does not accurately remember what parts of his brain was injured, so interviewing him would not yield much. Besides that, after this happened I read that something like 80% of TBIs do not even show on common medical imaging devices. In my relative's case there was evidence "suggestive" of DAI (diffuse axonal injury) which may explain why his deficits are so profound, but nobody can say. During therapy there was clear evidence that his deductive reasoning skills were seriously compromised, so imagine practical consequences if you cannot do simple deductive reasoning but also cannot realize it.
Then of course TBI survivors are many times more likely to suffer additional TBIs. Add substance abuse and limited to no impulse control and you have a person who is a danger to himself and often society, but who also may refuse to get the level of help they truly need. In his case, he needs assisted living including someone to manage all of his money, but in his mind he does not and he appears ready to fight it until his last breath.
I hope studies like this lead to more humane and informed programs to help people like him. I was just thinking this morning how unjust it is that murderers and other criminals can get room and board for life yet the best we can manage for this once talented and caring member of society is a room in a drug-infested flop house that costs half of his disability income.
I'm not sure how I'd cope if I had a relative with a similar situation. Thanks for sharing your story.
Source? I ask because I'm a severe TBI victim and want to gauge how acceptable risks are.
No doubt caused by TBI-related problems that often affect balance, coordination. Many TBI survivors have poorer judgement or underestimate how poorly their brains handle alcohol, etc.
A decent battery of psychological tests (WAIS-R, NART, Stroop Test, PASAT - the latter two depending on the results of the first) will tell you a lot about his mental state and what parts of his brain are likely damaged. Source: worked with TBI survivors for several years and wrote a thesis on neuropsychological indicators of return to work capability.
http://www.cmajopen.ca/content/2/2/E69.full
which reports
"Methods We recruited participants from an urban men’s shelter in Toronto, Ontario. Researchers administered the Brain Injury Screening Questionnaire, a semistructured interview screening tool for brain injury. Demographic information and detailed histories of brain injuries were obtained. Participants with positive and negative screening results were compared, and the rates and mechanisms of injury were analyzed by age group.
"Results A total of 111 men (mean age 54.2 ± standard deviation 11.5 yr; range 27–81 yr) participated. Nearly half (50 [45%]) of the respondents had a positive screening result for traumatic brain injury. Of these, 73% (35/48) reported experiencing their first injury before adulthood (< 18 yr), and 87% (40/46) reported a first injury before the onset of homelessness."
In other words, I think this is an interesting idea that deserves further investigation (and, for all I know, despite the statement in the article, has been investigated a lot already), but I have no idea how representative the patients that Dr. Jane Topolovec-Vranic found are of all the homeless people in her country, or what the direction of causation is here (could something that increases risk for homelessness at one and the same time increase risk for traumatic brain injury? very likely yes). Research on how to help people who have suffered brain injuries to recover from those injuries is of course a good idea, as is research on the consequences of those injuries, including social consequences like homelessness. Best of all is to figure out how to reduce risk of suffering such injuries. As the article says, "Additional research is needed to understand the complex interactions among homelessness, traumatic brain injury, mental illness and substance use." I would definitely wonder about the substance use part of that.
[1] Science Daily has been decried so often on Hacker News that I have been collecting those comments for a few years.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3992206
"Blogspam.
"Original article (to which ScienceDaily has added precisely nothing):
http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/abundance-of-rare-dn...
"Underlying paper in Science (paywalled):
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/05/16/science.1...
"Brief writeup from Nature discussing this paper and a couple of others on similar topics:
http://www.nature.com/news/humans-riddled-with-rare-genetic-...
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108603
"Everything I've ever seen on HN -- I don't know about Reddit -- from ScienceDaily has been a cut-and-paste copy of something else available from nearer the original source. In some cases ScienceDaily's copy is distinctly worse than the original because it lacks relevant links, enlightening pictures, etc.
" . . . . if you find something there and feel like sharing it, it's pretty much...
One thing that bothers me about such claims is they hardly explain what seems to be a secularly rising homeless rate over the last thirty years. Sure, we haven't seen a brain injury epidemic during that time but certainly we've seen social and economic policy changes during that time.
That doesn't rule out a correlation between brain injury and homelessness; the social and economic policy changes might have the effect that fewer brain-injured people get the care they need to avoid becoming homeless.
"In Canada, the leading mechanisms of traumatic brain injury leading to hospital admission over the decade 1994–1995 to 2003–2004 were motor-vehicle-related for adults less than 60 years of age and falls for those 60 years of age or older, with assaults reported as the mechanism of injury at a substantially lower rate than we have reported here."
The article also shows high prevalence of alcohol/drug-related TBI in the homeless, whereas in the general population, "being struck by or against an object, motor vehicle collisions and sport-related injuries were the most common mechanisms."
Together, the differences in the causes of TBI between the homeless subjects and the general population imply that, in at least some cases, the TBI and homelessness are likely to have a common cause (e.g. alcohol/drug addiction or certain personality traits). The article recognizes this possibility, but doesn't attempt to correct for it. To get a better idea of the causal effect, it would be informative to compare the homeless subjects with non-homeless controls with similar drug histories, personality traits, and socioeconomic backgrounds.