|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @04:19PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
$1,950 in public and private funds are spent on research for each prostate cancer death, while $12,200 is spent on research for each breast cancer death and $31,750 is spent for each AIDS death. http://rattler.cameron.edu/pacnet/
Aren't women and gays awefully oppressed!!!!???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @05:30PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Gay men do have health issues besides AIDS, and like all other men, these issues are underfunded compared to women's health.
I resent your comment that gays are as "entitled" as women because lots of money is spent on AIDS research, especially considering that currently, more heterosexuals than homosexuals have HIV in the U.S. It's no longer just a "gay disease".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @05:36PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
That is bullshit, more heterosexuals do not have AIDS compared to gays. Supply your stats...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @05:49PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm
Think about it - bisexual men are capable of spreading HIV into the heterosexual community. Allow 30 years or so to pass, and AIDS becomes a major heterosexual issue.
So, are these stats from the National Institute of Health bullshit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @06:06PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
That's exactly why the political correctness shrouding the the spread of HIV will go down in history as a crime against humanity.
HIV people should be publicaly labelled as a potential health threat. That would stop the spread of aids into heterosexual popilations, wouldn't it.
so fuck off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @06:08PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
If anyone was trying to "shroud the spread of HIV", it appears to be you.
What a sore loser. I feel sorry for you and your obvious hate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @06:27PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
How am I "shrouding" the spread of HIV by doing nothing while horny gay rats spread their killer germs to the hetrosexual community and the world.
Wake up hypocrite! I'm not the one killing people with the arrogance of self rightousness bestowed to gays via the media and PC.
I personally think it's a crime the way society has handled this epidemic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @06:36PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
goodness. i thought this was a place for men to work together to resolve common problems. why the attacks?
-brad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
goodness. i thought this was a place for men to work together to resolve common problems. why the attacks?
No kidding. I'm sorry I posted the damned story. If I had known it was going to attract this kind of ad hominem (from both anonymous users), I would've just ignored it and allowed us all to go on in ignorance of the facts it presents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Night, You did the right thing with posting the story. It is agood one and worth knowing about.
THIS story is one part of why I use the CHS based gender-feminist and equity feminist terms: The equity feminists can easily be brought onto our side and they are the majority, even if they are a minority in the leadership.
As for those arguing about Gay/Straight: Give it a rest! HIV is a disease. If you want to argue over whether it deserves so much funding compared to other diseases do so civily: That is a worthwhile discussion. Gay / Straight is a waste of time. Bad mouthing and flaming is more than a waste of time.
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @06:14PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Homophobia aside, the simple fact that that so much more is spent on AIDs research, per death, than prostate cancer research DOES indicate an unreasonable disparity. While I have my own feelings about the choice of a gay lifestyle, those feelings are not relevant. I'm forced to ask, why is there SO MUCH MORE money being spent on AIDs and breast cancer than there is on prostate cancer?
And EVERY man, straight or gay or in between should be asking that question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geez, I wish people would post under a name -- I'm having trouble following. ;)
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymity aside, this really shouldn't IMHO, be a place to express hatred in any form, but to rally against it. I always find it interesting when someone raises their voice to say "People shouldn't judge me for who I am because it is wrong...Judge THOSE bastards, instead"...and that's what's happening here. AIDS is, simply, not a discriminatory disease. It has nothing to do with sexual lifestyle, with the possible exception of promiscuity. Drug use, poor screening for blood transfusions, and other non-sex or gender related incidents account for much of the methods HIV is spread. It is not a "gay" disease, and targeting it as such is much of the reason it has spread so well and so rapidly. While the epidemic was first "discovered" during health screenings in the gay population of San Fransisco, it was not limited to that area, even if the study and research of the disease was. It is no more a "gay" disease than hepatitis. They are both transmitted through bodily fluids, not lifestyle choices.
All that aside, the issue here isn't "aren't gays evil disease spreading bastards?" but "isn't there an unbalanced approach to cancer research". No, they aren't. Yes, there is. Now let's forget about the first and try to take some legitimate action on the second, shall we? Please?
Credendo Vides
(By believing, one sees)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @06:46PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
For some reason, the site isn't picking up my user name. Post #7 is mine, and it's only one I've made to this thread.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This kind of trash makes me ashamed to be running this web site.
Mensactivism.org is not the place to divide the men's movement with attacks on gay men, conservatives, religious believers, or anyone else. We do not take any position on political philosophies, gay rights, or religion. You don't even have to agree with all of the men's issues which are presented here (ie, choice for men, domestic violence, the draft, etc). This is supposed to be a place where men and women can come together and fight for men's rights.
These troll posts are getting out of control. I will disable anonymous posting if this continues. I see no other choice.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For those arguing about whether homosexuals/heterosexuals contribute most to AIDS cases - both of you need to check your stats. It entirely depends on what country you are from. In Europe most AIDS cases are heterosexuals, but in the US, homosexuals make up the majority. In third world countries it varies wildy. The more important distinction to make, however, is that AIDS is *not* a gay disease. IDU's (injection drug users) contract AIDS at alarming rates, particularly in the UK, where something like 80% of IDU's also have AIDS (I'll have to check the stats on that). Also, sadly, many infants are born with AIDS. On a physiological basis, to say that AIDS is a homo- or heterosexual disease is truly absurd. BTW, for anyone who cares, in the US men currently contribute 2/3 of all AIDS cases (obviously leaving the other 1/3 to the women). In my humble opinion, both of the anonymous users should argue facts, not speculation. If anyone wants epidemiological data on the specific numbers, let me know, otherwise I'll save myself the time. Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @07:34PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Scott, I'm sorry for responding to the hateful troll. It did no good, anyway. I have the utmost respect for what you've done with this web site, and I admire your inclusiveness and resistance to making the MANN a carbon copy of your beliefs. The men's movement has an enormous advantage with your leadership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oops, I just realized that one of the anonymous users DID supply stats. Sorry, anon. Guess I need to slow down when I'm reading ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeh, it seems that because of the volume of posts on this website (quite low) that the moderation system isn't as effective in eliminating trolls as on Slashdot (high posting volume).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @09:41PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
I strongly disagree with statements that HIV/AIDS is not transmitted through lifestyle choices. It is almost exclusively transmitted through lifestyle choices. Due to the choices I make in my own life, I have all but 0 chance of contracting HIV/AIDS.
In the United States, we spend 16 times per death on HIV/AIDS than we do on other diseases such as prostate cancer. Part of the reason is medically understandable. HIV/AIDS is contageous, while most other diseases are not. Nonetheless, there is a very effective and readily available vaccine for HIV prevention. The AIDS epidemic is what it is today because many individuals refuse to take the vaccine. This vaccine is called "don't take drugs, wear a condom, practice safe-sex or no sex." This is especially true for homosexual men (in the United States), as the probability of a man contracting HIV through homosexual sex is about 25-50 times higher (don't quote me) than it is through heterosexual sex. Although the number of HIV cases among homosexual and heterosexual men is more or less comparable, keep in mind that the percentage of homosexual men in the general population is much smaller.
What does any of this have to do with men's issues? We spend inequitable amounts on both HIV/AIDS and breast cancer because they are politically correct diseases. This is the same reason we spend lopsided sums of money on women victims of domestic violence. I don't believe there is any quick solution, other than to keep pounding away at the bias and inequity that exists.
In the meantime, we need to encourage all men to take care of themselves. This can be as simple as see your doctor, watch what you eat, don't take unnecessary risks, value your own health as much as you value the health of others, expect your wife to work as hard as you, and exercise. Personally, I'm big on exercise. I think physical activity and friendly competition is something most men appreciate. Getting together with some of your men friends for some sort of athletic activity should be encouraged.
Shawn Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn: I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you say. There is no doubt that, for example, heterosexual, monogamous men are less likely to contract AIDS than heterosexual, polygamous men, especially reckless heterosexual, polygamous men. Likewise, gay, monogamous men are less likely to contract AIDS than gay, polygamous men, especially reckless gay, polygamous men. We just need (not to say that you don't, but many don't) to consider and work with these matters with genuine compassion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One thing that I think is somewhat of a sidepoint to all of this... AIDS is a fascinating (from a scientific standpoint), complex disease. Retroviruses like this offer tremendous, scientific insight. One of the advantages of AIDS research, that I don't see as much with a lot of other medical research, is insight not only into many diseases, but also into the very foundation of life itself.
What I'm saying is simply that AIDS research goes very far beyond research into just curing the specific disease caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm damn sick of trolls.
So are many of the rest of us. There are many bulletin boards where people can spew whatever they want to spew. Trolls can go there.
One of the things that I love about MANN is that it promotes activism. It's up to Scott, but I don't think he needs to allow this to be an open forum for ranting and raving. If he wants to structure things so that we focus on activism, well, let's just look at the site's name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the things that I love about MANN is that it promotes activism. It's up to Scott, but I don't think he needs to allow this to be an open forum for ranting and raving. If he wants to structure things so that we focus on activism, well, let's just look at the site's name.
Traditionally, MANN hasn't had much of a problem with ranting and raving (it's only of late that it's really become a problem). While I do think we need to do something to help direct the focus on the activism and the issues, we must still be wary of crossing the line of no dissent. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 26, @02:28AM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas writes: We just need (not to say that you don't, but many don't) to consider and work with these matters with genuine compassion.
I certainly agree with genuine compassion, and to a large extent that is my point. It is not compassionate to spend 16 times per death on one disease over another (or 6 times when comparing breast cancer to prostate cancer). There was an excellent article in JAMA a few years ago that discussed this. Basically, excessive funding for HIV/AIDS and breast cancer has meant reduced funding for pretty much everything else - all in the name of political correctness.
Said in another way, we spend a disproportionate fraction of our medical/research resources on a disease that is almost completely preventable (due to risky behavior). Contrast this to leukemia, which is not preventable, where we spend over an order of magnitude less. I do not personally know anyone who has died of AIDS, but I do know people who have died of leukemia (and prostate cancer). I'm sure that many people (e.g., politicians, advocates) feel very self-righteous in their support of HIV/AIDS, but it is not compassionate when it comes at the expense of other diseases.
I guess my real point is that policy should not be dictated by politically correct ideology. As is usually the case, such ideology does more harm than good. It doesn't matter if it's health issues or gender issues (e.g., by ignoring men, DV advocates are probably increasing the number of women who are ultimately abused). No doubt, I'm speaking to the choir.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 26, @03:01AM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Opps. I meant to include my name. I was the Anonymous User for post 29.
Shawn Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reasons I was given (so don't quote me on this) were that a lot of prostate deaths occur later in life, whereas breast cancer kills many young women.
Anyone deny/confirm this? At what age to most men die of the common men's cancers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heh, replying to my own post...
From the website: http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/5_23.htm
- More than 75 percent of men diagnosed with prostate cancer each year are over the age of 65.
And from:
http://seer.cancer.gov/Publications/ProstMono/
- Black men have about a 60% higher incidence rate than white men
- Based on cases diagnosed in 1990 and followed through 1995, 93% of all men diagnosed with prostate cancer will survive five years or longer.
- In the majority of men with prostate cancer, it is very slow growing, and many, if not most, of these men will not die because of the prostate cancer, but rather will live with it until they eventually die of some other cause.
So whilst the "Estimated New Cases" of prostate cancer seem high (equal with that of breast cancer), it seems a lower priority for the above reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Society would hardly consider breast cancer far less relevant if it were primarily "old women" who were dying.
Black men have about a 60% higher incidence rate than white men
A good basis for bringing the men's movement into a coalition with black rights groups.
This absolutely should be an inclusive site and movement. I would be honored, if it is ever necessary, to fight alongside my gay and my black brothers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW: I suspect that anti-gay hate-monger was in fact a troll, possibly a gender feminist trying to discredit us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm damn sick of trolls.
And @ the genfem thing- a lot of them DO NOT like gay men at all. They are personae non gratae because if one penis is bad, two must be worse! (The opposite goes for female gentialia, interestingly enough; I've found a lot of lesbians at college who LOATHE gay men and try to keep the [co-ed] Cornell LBGT group from coming to our all-female campus to meet with ours.)
Maybe age has something to do with it, yes. And race and other things...
I'm happy a "feminist" site has put this up. :) WTG!
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 26, @02:57AM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
The reasons I was given (so don't quote me on this) were that a lot of prostate deaths occur later in life, whereas breast cancer kills many young women.
It's a good thing you don't want to be quoted on this because it's another feminist myth that makes a nice sound bite. Both breast cancer and prostate cancer kill people primarily in the older stages of their lives. There isn't a tremendous difference between the two.
It may be true that more than 75 percent of men diagnosed with prostate cancer are over the age of 65, but it's also true that nearly 60 percent of women who die of breast cancer are over 65. From memory, I believe the medium age of prostate cancer death is only 3 years greater than breast cancer death.
Number of breast cancer deaths at various ages:
25-34: 610
35-44: 3249
45-54: 6025
55-64: 8150
65-74: 11386
75-84: 9303
85+ : 4628
Advance Report of Final Mortality Statistics, 1992 by Kenneth D. Kochanek, M.A. and Bettie L. Hudson, Division of Vital Statistics, Vol. 43, No. 6, Supplement + March 22, 1995 (Corrected and reprinted) Final Data From the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION/National Center for Health Statistics
Shawn Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reasons I was given (so don't quote me on this) were that a lot of prostate deaths occur later in life, whereas breast cancer kills many young women.
I don't have the data either but I'm pretty certain that's true. I'm also pretty certain that heart disease kills men at a younger age than women (I don't have the data for that either). Yet we've all been educated that "women are as likely as men to die of heart disease", and studying heart disease in men more than in women represents neglect for women's health.
Just another example of feminism's insistence on having it both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>
This is the biggest pile of crap for an answer!!!
I have heard this one too from a "feminst". (MAN this pisses me off) my reply to this is,...! so what your telling me is that an older man's life is less valuable than a young females? WHY?! If the value of a human life is based on age then there are a ton of things that need to be changed. Studies on menopause, ostreoprosis, etc.
The value of a person's life should not be based on age.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
