Recently released data for the first six months of 2024 from Toronto Public Health has found that the median age of death for women experiencing homelessness in the city is just 36.
In 2022, unhoused women who died in Toronto were on average 42 years old. That number was 43 in 2023.
The median age at death for men experiencing homelessness in the first half of 2024 was 50.
Torontonians residents, in general, live much longer with men typically dying at the age of 78 and women at the age of 85, according to 2022 data.
Harsh climate and harsh economic conditions result in middle aged people dying…
The state and society: Pikachu face.
Fake news: we just don’t understand how this could be happening under a liberal regime 🤡
The Liberals aren’t the problem as the feds have little to do with provincial issues.
This is on Drug Fraud’s shoulders alone … and he couldn’t give a shit about poor unhoused women’s deaths.
Absolving federal government from the material conditions imposed upon the slave force is an a way to approach this issue lol
According the Constitutional divide of fed/provincial powers the only thing the feds can do is provide funding. Then it’s up to the provinces to use the funding appropriately.
That’s is narrow view of the causes of the issue and required solutions imho
But sure, state’s implementation is critical, but aint this is an endemic issue across all of Canada? Shit… all of North America (ex MX)?
Homeless and people are dying is the intentional product of the current regime.
It’s not an issue inherent to any regime, but one of economic motivators. The fundamental economic system is designed around the idea of squeezing value upwards through any means necessary. Governments are the force that prevents this sort of thing from happening excessively via regulations. It’s why Canada wasn’t hit nearly as bad as other countries during the 2008 financial crisis, because we had good banking regulations that prevented the worst from that happening over here. Unfortunately, those regulations got demolished a few years later, but the principal itself stands.
Part of governments is to be the moral stand that forces the economy to include morality as part of its working principal, despite every incentive of capitalism is to discard morality as an obstacle. It’s the balancing force that makes a country prosper not just materially, but culturally and morally.
That said, it is the failure of modern governments to enforce such moral behaviour these last two decades especially, but it is also a failure of us voters to force them to make good and uphold such morals in the first place. Governments are supposed to fear the masses, but we’ve let them go without fear for so long that they have all become quite entitled to their positions.
I would also add that the encroachment of the religious far-right from America has had a detrimental effect on how voters judge who is and is not acting in a “moral” way. Religiosity is still seen as having a “moral code”, even tho there are dozens/hundreds of immoral acts commited by such people (and institutions).
Well, plenty of religious people simply use their religion as a shield and don’t actually follow the tenants.
I mean, it’s a common thing for atheists to know the bible better than people who wave around crosses screaming about Jesus doing this or that all the time.
That said, this last decade or so had the left using moral outrage as their founding principal to enforce their own “morals” onto others, stating that any other opinion on the subject is invalid and contravenes morals, despite the very act of denying others a voice in itself is immoral.
Pretty much every group can use morality as a weapon to discriminate against others when they embrace anger and hate as their motivation.
The Federal Government has pledged $6 billion in federal funding to address Canada’s housing crisis; however, to access the funds, provinces and territories must meet specific conditions[1][3]. One of these conditions includes allowing fourplexes to be built “as of right,” but Ontario Premier Doug Ford has rejected this idea[1].
Key Points:
Citations: [1] Federal government pledges $6B for housing in new infrastructure … https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-budget-housing-1.7161005 [2] Ford threatens to cut off Ontario’s energy supply to U.S. if Trump … https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-ontario-premiers-meet-justin-trudeau-1.7407948 [3] Ottawa to launch $6B infrastructure fund to help build homes https://ottawa.citynews.ca/2024/04/02/ottawa-to-launch-6b-infrastructure-fund-to-help-build-homes-with-strings-attached/ [4] Provinces reject $6-billion housing program announced by Trudeau … https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1bumooo/provinces_reject_6billion_housing_program/ [5] Ford doubles down on refusal to allow fourplexes provincewide - CBC https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford-fourplexes-infrastructure-funding-1.7162251 [6] Don’t be fooled: It was Doug Ford… - Meanwhile in Canada | Facebook https://www.facebook.com/MeanwhileinCanada1/posts/dont-be-fooled-it-was-doug-ford-who-gave-musk-the-hugely-over-priced-starlink-co/1022779166544123/ [7] Ford government could reject latest federal housing package https://globalnews.ca/news/10398150/federal-housing-fund-ontario-response/ [8] Ontario not budging on fourplexes despite federal funding on the line https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/ontario-not-budging-on-fourplexes-despite-federal-funding-on-the-line/ [9] Why Ottawa’s $6B housing infrastructure fund has some provinces … https://financialpost.com/real-estate/ottawa-6-billion-infrastructure-fund-provinces-fuming
A 14 year gap between the median age for women compared to men is 1000% certainly not a “climate” thing!
I am assuming the men get all the shelter spots and economic assistance while women are provided none of that in Canada.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that homeless women are even more vulnerable than homeless men. I think it’s less likely to be a case of the state providing preferential treatment.
Honestly, I think it comes down to mentality. As morbid as it sounds, men are used to toughing it out because that’s what’s expected of them, so are more likely to survive short term homelessness. And if you survive it in the short term, you have a good chance of surviving it in the long term.
Not to mention that men are probably more likely to already be abusing such substances before becoming homeless as an established coping mechanism, whereas more women probably start abusing those substances after, leaving them less experienced to avoid overdosing, or otherwise more prone using drugs in ways that threaten their health.
Either way, this isn’t an issue of the difficulty surviving on the streets, it’s an issue that people are forced to survive on the streets in the first place. Shelters are nothing more than a stopgap, and the city and province should be focusing their efforts on both preventing people from becoming homeless, as well as habituating those that have fallen that far.
Especially as once you become homeless, you lose the ability to get a new job since nobody will hire someone who arrives at an interview with bundled cloths and smelling of piss because they have no ability to get a shower.
Not to mention that the jobs that might actually be available are probably hard manual labour. The average homeless woman is not going to have the same level of physical strength, so will likely have less opportunities and less ability to defend herself in an often violent environment.
While I agree with the added risks of attack for homeless women, I wonder if homeless men are even able to get manual labour jobs either. I mean, you still need to get through the interview for those things. Even the lowest qualification jobs I’ve done still went through the routine of having you come in to sign some documents to officiate it all, and officially showing up and giving your name is the interview, which means it’s the best chance to get rejected.
36 is not what I think of as middle aged. It’s young. And this is the median, so half are dying younger.
30-60 is middle aged.
There is nothing "young " about 38 which is above the median
According to whom? Fifty years ago, 40 was considered the lower bound for middle age, and if anything, the number should have gone up since then, not down.
i according to a concept like a median… if you are above the median you are not “young”
I would guess your first language isn’t English. “Middle age” is not a statistical term, but a traditional one that arises from dividing adults into three roughly equal-sized age groups:
.
The lower bound will never drop below the traditional 40 years, although there has been some argument from time to time about raising it to match increases in life expectancy.
i think there is some weird cope in there lol
kinda like “middle class”