The annual iaedp symposium is this upcoming weekend. Now imagine the above presentation being made.

If these three AI generated men were scheduled to headline a session entitled “We Need to Do Better for Our Females,” the outrage would be extreme and deafening.

There would be denunciations. There would be protests. There would be demands to center women’s voices. There would be ethics complaints. There would be boycotts. Accusations of toxic masculinity would be loud. White Supremacy Culture. The patriarchy. Mansplaining!

After all, what do men known about women’s issues surrounding eating disorders? How many times have we heard the siren call of listening to “lived experience?”

Despite the extreme nature of the inevitable protest, the objections raised would have some merit.

So why is the inverse treated as normal?

Why is it acceptable for an industry that openly and notoriously excludes men from leadership, treatment and research studies to present a lecture about “doing better for males?” If representation matters, it must matter universally. Otherwise, it is not principle.

It is biased preference.

Instead of the AI generated presentation above [and yes, those are AI generated images], there is an iaedp approved session entitled:

“We Need to Do Better for Our Males.”

The obvious questions are …. where are the men on the panel? Where are the male experts? Galen Hope lists 4 men as part of their expert team. Yet none could be bothered to present on this panel?

Other men who are experts in the field of eating disorders certainly exist. I could easily name more than ten strong, experienced, respected men in the fields of research and treatment of eating disorders who could have co-presented. Recognizable names. Giants.

And yet … there are none.

Aren’t we are certainly justified in asking … Why?

When we look at the staff and leadership for Galen Hope, answers to that question start to become clear.

Galen Hope’s “expert team” consists of 33 women and 4 men, one of whom is listed as a consulting psychologist and one of whom is listed as a psychiatrist consultant.

The numbers alone are concerning.

Perhaps Within Health, the virtual platform associated with Galen Hope can provide more objective numbers… uh… no.

Within Health’s care team consists of 127 women and 9 men. [As an aside, of these 136 people, 135 embrace virtue signaling by including pronouns after their name.] Within Health’s Board of Advisors consists of 8 women and 1 man. One of the advisors recently voluntarily surrendered her license instead of facing on-going ethics complaints. Another advisor financially ruined BEDA, was fired from NEDA and led the opposition to a summit consisting of some of the most respected leaders in the eating disorder community because it had been organized by … men.]

This equates to 92% of the combined leadership at Galen Hope/Within Health are women.

Let’s review how this number compares to the rest of the eating disorder community.

The Executive Leadership for AED consists of 5 women and 1 man.

The Staff Leadership at NEDA includes 5 women and 1 man.

The Executive Committee at iaedp consists of 5 women and ZERO men. Its Members at Large consist of 8 women and ZERO men. Its Executive Director is a woman.

The “Team” at the National Alliance for Eating Disorders consists of 18 members … 15 women, 1 man, and 2 dogs. Yes, 2 dogs. But at least its 2 dogs are named Teddy and Jack indicating they may be male. So, we have that going for us.

ANAD’s Board and Staff consist of 22 women and 3 men.

There are 69 leadership positions listed in these organizations.

61 are women. 6 are men. 2 are dogs.

So, 88.4% women.

8.69% men.

2.89% dogs.

So iaedp accepted a person/organization whose percentage of employing men is even worse than the community average and is allowing 2 of the co-founders to give a presentation on “We Must Do Better for Males.”

Perhaps if you want to start to do better for boys and men, one of the more obvious solutions is to start to employ men in your own organization!

Eating disorders are not “women’s issues.” They are certainly not social justice issues. Instead, they are lethal biologically based psychiatric illnesses.

They impact and kill girls and women.

They impact and kill boys and men. Quietly, invisibly, and with institutional indifference so entrenched it has become routine.

The eating disorder industry has spent decades pretending otherwise.

This is not a misunderstanding. This is not an oversight. This is a systemic, historical failure, and boys and men are paying for it by enduring years of suffering or in some cases, having their lives taken.

And the community responds by allowing the person/organization with one of the worst track records of employing men to lead this presentation.

Boys and men represent millions of eating disorder sufferers, yet they are virtually absent from the power structures that claim to serve them.

Men represent millions of sufferers, yet they are virtually absent from the power structures that claim to serve them.

This has historically been the case. Year after year. Board after board. Conference after conference.

This inequity is of great concern since leadership drives research priorities. Leadership drives conference programming. Leadership drives funding. Leadership drives treatment design.

If men are nearly absent from leadership, their exclusion from priority is not surprising. It is predictable. It is reprehensible. And it has been the case historically.

THE CONFERENCE RECORD — 275 SESSIONS, TWO ON MALES

Despite its numerous problems, iaedp calls itself “representative of leadership in the field.” It points to its annual symposium as evidence of excellence.

Instead, these symposiums present evidence of exclusion and absence.

From 2015 through 2019 at iaedp’s symposium, iaedp approved the following number of sessions and in each year, the number of sessions on boys and men are delineated:

2015: 48 sessions — 1 on men

2016: 54 sessions — 0 on men

2017: 55 sessions — 0 on men

2018: 58 sessions — 1 on men

2019: 60 sessions — 0 on men

Total: 275 educational sessions.

Meaningful sessions on boys and men: Two.

THIS EQUATES TO LESS THAN ONE PERCENT (1%) OF EDUCATIONAL SESSIONS DURING A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD DISCUSSED BOYS AND MEN AFFLICTED WITH EATING DISORDERS.

LESS THAN ONE PERCENT.

While boys and men were suffering and dying, professionals could attend workshops on sand play therapy, musical theater, veganism, and art therapy … but not on male eating disorders.

That is not leadership nor education. That is abandonment.

Numerous treatment centers historically did not admit boys or men, or structured care almost entirely around female populations, including:

Timberline Knolls (now closed)

Clementine

Clearview Women’s Center

Magnolia Creek

Oliver-Pyatt

Renfrew

Montecatini (now closed)

Certain Monte Nido facilities

Boys and men who find admission are often placed as one or two males among dozens of women.

This is not parity. This is institutional discrimination.

The industry cannot claim ignorance. The statistics are known. The mortality rate is known.

The male patient population is known.

Yet men remain absent from leadership, programming, and institutional priority.

Eating disorders have one of the highest mortality rates of any psychiatric illness. Boys and men die from cardiac arrest, organ failure and suicide related to eating disorders.

They die while leadership remains nearly 90% female.

They die while 275 sessions produce two focused discussions on males.

They die while representation must be digitally fabricated to make a point.

Boys and men are not being served.  They are being erased.

ENOUGH.

Boys and men are not optional. Boys and men are not a niche demographic. Boys and men are dying. And women leaders, whose treatment centers epitomize the very problem which exist, who are part of the problem, and yet who dare to lecture us on, “we need to do better for males,” are merely paying lip service. Words with no substance. Words with no action behind them. Words which will not change anything.

There is a name for that.  It is called … hypocrisy.

This article is your presentation on “We Must Do Better for Males.” The reality. The numbers. The statistics. The reprehensible omission of boys and men. That is your presentation. Anything else is formulaic.

Until structural change occurs, in leadership, research, programming, and treatment infrastructure, the eating disorder industry is not merely failing boys and men.

It is complicit.