|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @07:31PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
so, we die far earlier before women and somehow there's a bias in the medical field towards men? i don't quite understand that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @07:43PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
We die before women on average and more money is spent for research on cancer that affect women than on those that affect men.
Also, in other fields of medicine, women's health problems are considered more important.
We live in a sick society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like many other issues, feminists managed to complain loudly enough that politicians actually believed women were being routinely excluded from medical research. From that fallacy followed others, like the fiction that breast cancer was once not funded while prostate cancer was.
Cathy Young wrote a piece about this once, I believe, but I can't seem to find the URL right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @08:23PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
next thing you know we'll be told that women commit suicide more often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, but they try more often, which shows women are more oppressed, yet they succeed much less often, which shows men are more violent.
Yep. That's a response we've heard quite often when discussing male suicide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 25, @11:16AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I was working at one place and was totally harressed during breast cancer awareness month for not giving to one of the many women and men that came by my cubicle for a handout to the charity. I told them the united way instituted to stop that kind of constant harressemnt but all they did was complain to personnel about me.
It was totally biased to women but the sad thing was seeing the femininzed men do the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 25, @02:41PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that the men who were soliciting donations were "feminized." Possibly they had a relative who died of breast cancer, and that's why this is their pet issue instead of prostate cancer or AIDS. But, it is not appropriate for a workplace to allow employees to solicit donations for any charity. It would be just as wrong for them to let you solicit money for prostate cancer. There are thousands of worthwhile charities out there, but unless you are a millionaire no one can possibly give money to all of them. At-work solicitations too often turn into bullyfests where anyone who doesn't give, for whatever reason, is harassed.
My employer specifically bans charity solicitations of any kind. Many other employers have similiar bans. I support these bans. The workplace is not the place for me to beg for money for my personal causes. If I want to solicit donations, I can do it when I'm not at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
next thing you know we'll be told that women commit suicide more often.
No, but they try more often, which shows women are more oppressed, yet they succeed much less often, which shows men are more violent.
I don't think that women are that much more stupid and incompetent than men. In other words, if women were as sincere as men in the attempt to commit suicide, their success rate would be the same. They succeed far less often in their "attempts" to commit suicide, because they are not sincerely trying to commit suicide as often and as truly as men are. The ones who mean it are as likely to succeed as the men who mean it. Pumping a .45 caliber into your brain is a sincere attempt to commit suicide. Taking 15 aspirin and calling a friend to tell her you just did it... Well, these are different matters. The person who took the aspirin may be calling out for something, but these two examples are very different matters. Nevertheless, they're both classified as suicide attempts.
While many of the females who supposedly attempt suicide, but don't succeed, may have problems and need help, once again, if their success rate is far less than that of males, then they are not truly trying to commit suicide the way the males are. Women and girls are not that much more stupid and incompetent than men and boys.
Yes, I know this post was redundant, but I don't have the time right now to tighten it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pumping a .45 caliber into your brain is a sincere attempt to commit suicide. Taking 15 aspirin
and calling a friend to tell her you just did it... Well, these are different matters. The person who took the aspirin may be calling out
for something, but these two examples are very different matters.
I believe the latter type of suicide attempt used to be called "a cry for attention".
Young women and young men are both quite well aware of the value society places in them. That's why young women use contrived suicide attempts as a form of blackmail while young men kill themselves.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"No, but they try more often, which shows women are more oppressed, yet they succeed much less often, which shows men are more violent."
It's not even certain that they "try" more often. There's good reason to believe that failed suicide rates are biased against males because males are less likely to report it.
Also, alot of men attempt suicide by driving drunk and crashing their car, which almost never gets recorded as a suicide whether it is completed or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist, I think the Cathy Young piece in question was entitled, "Medical Gender Wars" and can be found on the Web at salon.com. Here's the full URL: http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/09/20/wom ens_health/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article is typical of feminist attention toward a male issue. Acknowledge that men have problems but hightlight that women are the victims.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the ways its men are treated.(Inspired by Gandhi's quote about animals.)
If the way we treat our men is a sign of our moral progress it is not a surprise we have the highest crime rate in industrialized countries. Not only are men told they must die for their country they are taught they must never complain about it. I am sick and tired of feminist rhetoric seeping into every attempt at examining men's issues. Men die sooner; suffer from more diseases; are less likely to get medical attention. The greatest health risk for women is to die from old age.
I am hopeful in the increased attention from WHO and other organizations are giving male health issues. Maybe change is occuring?
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 25, @01:36PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
>> This article is typical of feminist attention
>> toward a male issue. Acknowledge that men have
>> problems but hightlight that women are the
>> victims.
That's right, Tony. Women become the victims, because their (property?) men die earlier and don't carry the load for them.
>> I am hopeful in the increased attention from
>> WHO and other organizations are giving male
>> health issues.
I would not hold my breath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist, I think the Cathy Young piece in question was entitled, "Medical Gender Wars" and can be found on the Web at salon.com. Here's the full URL: http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/09/20/wom ens_health/index.html
Yes, that's the one I was remembering. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mist, I have heard that breast cancer screening and related research costs much more than similar expenses for prostate cancer. I don't know if that's true.
However, I wonder whether NOW would accept that answer if the shoe was on the other foot? I would think not, given that lives are on the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, I wonder whether NOW would accept that answer if the shoe was on the other foot? I would think not, given that lives are on the line.
Exactly. You're probably right about cost. Prostate exams aren't tricky procedures and don't use anything high tech like mammograms (yet). They're humiliating as hell, though, and men would be better served by the invention of some non-invasive (and I use the term non-surgically) gadget to diagnose it.
I've wondered, even, if some type of blood screening might be able to catch its characteristics. I don't really know enough about cancer to know whether that's even a remote possibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Mist, I have heard that breast cancer screening and related research costs much more than similar expenses for prostate cancer. I don't know if that's true."
I wrote to Men's Health a few years ago and asked this question. A few months later they printed my letter after consulting a medical expert who works in the field. I don't remember his name (I could dig it up), but the medical expert said the research costs between breast and prostate cancer are the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've wondered, even, if some type of blood screening might be able to catch its characteristics [prostate cancer]. I don't really know enough about cancer to know whether that's even a remote possibility.
There is a blood test called "prostate-specific antigen" (PSA). When it is elevated, they will suspect that you have prostate cancer. I don't know if there are other tumor markers for prostate cancer; and I don't know if an elevated PSA absolutely means that you have prostate cancer (e.g, do other conditions cause the PSA level to rise?).
I know that the digital rectal examination is humiliating, but the doctor is checking to see what the condition of the prostate is... Is there a nodule? Is the prostate more firm than normal? Is it enlarged? Is the man getting any urinary symptoms such as hesitation, loss of force of his stream, or excessive nighttime urination (nocturia)?
When the prostate enlarges, it can change the character of urination.
As for treatment, however, if I were a man, I'd go with an alternative cancer treatment. Just my opinion.
Having the prostate surgically taken out can leave a man with urination, incontinence, and impotence problems, which is one reason men might put off having the examination until it's too late. And sometimes the tissue grows back.
Sorry to get so technical and graphic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to get so technical and graphic.
Don't be. I know little about other means of diagnosing prostate cancer, so I'm appreciative of the info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to get so technical and graphic.
Don't be. I know little about other means of diagnosing prostate cancer, so I'm appreciative of the info.
Okay. I just didn't want to gross people out with stuff I have gleaned from typing up medical reports and reading stuff on the Internet.
The important thing is, besides having a prostate examination done when you go in for a physical, to notice any changes in your urination, such as changes in the force or caliber of stream. (There I go again, getting graphic.)
BTW, I think there are different types and stages of prostate cancer... If a man is already old and is found to have a slow-growing type, he may not even receive much in the way of treatment for it, as very likely he will die of something else. If a younger man (40s, 50s) gets it, he will be encouraged to "do something."
BTW, there is a lot of alternative medicine stuff, including stuff about prostate cancer, on the Internet. You don't necessarily have to submit to radical surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation (the so-called cut-drug-and-burn modalities).
And I have heard that some herbal stuff (e.g., saw palmetto) DOES work to reduce prostate enlargement, so that might be an option for those who are open to it.
Just because the AMA and FDA don't approve of a treatment, doesn't mean it doesn't work. And in some cases, people die faster with the AMA-approved treatment than they would without any treatment at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 02, @07:14AM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
This is a hugely important topic. I agree with Nightmist, graphic information has impact. If even one of you recognises a symptom and has it followed up, then this awareness raising is working.
A few things about the PSA test. Firstly, a simple thumb pinprick of blood is all that is needed. It is non invasive nor humiliating (as you can imagine, if women received Digital rectal Exams in place of a simple blood test, there would be an outcry).
However, there is evidence to show that if slow growing prostate cancer is diagnosed, where it would never manifest itself aggressively prior to death by another cause, the treatment you would be subject to due to a cancer diagnosis could expose you to complications that you would not have had if you'd never had the PSA test.
Interestingly, the PSA test in the USA is widespread and considered a vital tool in the fight against prostate cancer. However in the UK, the following applies
"The policy of the four Health Departments of the UK is not to write to men offering them a PSA test and appropriate follow-up in the way that it writes to women about breast cancer screening. The reason for this is that there is no convincing evidence of benefit for prostate cancer screening, whereas randomised controlled trials have shown benefit from screening for breast cancer. If, however, a man wants a PSA test, the National Health Service will provide him with information and the option of a quality assured test."
Even though many arguments still rage about the effectiveness of Breast screening, the facility will never be removed due to pressure from feminists.
Finally, although some of the female contributors here have mentioned that breast cancer affects men too, let's not kid ourselves that the plethora of women who stand outside my local grocery store most months of the year are thinking about me. In fact, my stock answer to them is "Sorry, I'd rather save my money for a male specific charity, after all we die from every major disease in greater numbers than women".
Some agree, and some glaze over with shock uttering "input not recognized....input not recognized" before melting on the spot. I'm not trying to be harsh, but I've got brothers, uncles and a father as well as my female relatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prostate cancer reseach does need to be addressed. I dislike however that breast cancer is approached as a women's issue. Men get it too. Labelling it as a "women's issue" is dangerous, because it causes men to be screened less thoroughly and less often than they should be.
Back to prostate cancer... It seems to me, and this is merely anecdotal, that women are more likely to seek medical treatment for an ailment or complaint. I know a lot of men who "tough it out" when they are feeling under the weather and don't go to the doctor's until far too late. My dad, for example, nearly died of pneumonia with symptoms that would have sent my mother to the doctor days prior. As someone who lost a grandfather and is losing a father-in-law to prostate cancer, I do hope this disease gains more ground in publicity, research, and treatment; and hope that more men get themselves screened and earlier too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to prostate cancer... It seems to me, and this is merely anecdotal, that women are more likely to seek medical treatment for an ailment or complaint. I know a lot of men who "tough it out" when they are feeling under the weather and don't go to the doctor's until far too late.
That is a problem which needs to be addressed. There have been people who suggested that men feel doctors/hospitals are more hostile toward them than women. Indeed, the heavy advertisements of the "women's hospitals" in my area gives me the impression that healthcare professionals only care about women's health.
I'm not going to say that's the only contributor. I hate going to the doctor anyway. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I dislike however that breast cancer is approached as a women's issue."
Actually, I think it was the feminists who raised it as a "women's issue" by wailing about how poorly they were being treated in federally funded health research. And they are the first to complain when someone speaks out about prostate cancer research as a "men's issue." Health issues should not be politicized. Funding should be based on current and future frequency of occurance/severity of the disease, not gender politics. But the feminists have made it a gender issue, and it's pretty hard to withdraw from that and STILL get improved funding for diseases or conditions effecting men.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dislike however that breast cancer is approached as a women's issue. Men get it too.
From what I've read, men get about one-tenth of one percent of breast cancer. While it's a serious disease, let's not be distracted by delusions that this affects men and women in anything approaching equal numbers.
Breast cancer research receives far more money than prostate cancer research because of the number of women who suffer from breast cancer. Men can go to hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Thomas:
RE breast cancer and prostate cancer
The point is that breast cancer is not a female-specific disease. Yes, it affects far fewer men, but that doesn't mean that male breast cancer should be ignored or ridiculed. My understanding is that several hundred males die in the US annually from breast cancer.
Also, I've read that the incidence rate for prostate cancer and breast cancer is similar and the mortality numbers are similar. (Breast cancer does affect women at a younger age than prostate cancer affects men.) One of the reasons that women's health education and research has received more public funding is because women have been better at lobbying for their health concerns. Also, in my opinion, men tend to be less focused on male disease prevention and treatment, and society in general is more protective of women than of men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First I will address a few points people made.
1) men are more successful at sucide because their cries for help are not heard by society. Women who attempt suicide is very often a cry for help and not a serious attempt at killing themselves. This is a well known fact among councelors.
2) One person mentioned that more women suffer from breast cancer than men. If the amount of people is important then men should have more money and research done on diseases that effect them since they are more likely to die from one.
On a side note to point out the bias toward men and breast cancer. Until this last year men were not allowed to march in the Annual Breast Cancer Walk (in its 15+ years.) even if they survived breast cancer.
In my mind the main problem is that men are still trained by society to be independant and deal with problems on their own. Any sign of weakness especially physical weakness is not allowed. In our society sickness is seen as sign of physical weakness. (After all you wouldnt get sick if you were healthy right?)
I find it rather funny that my wife received a reminder for a annual health exam from our general practitioner but I have yet to get one.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breast cancer does affect women at a younger age than prostate cancer affects men.
True, but by how much. I've had feminists tell me, "Prostate cancer affects almost only old men." Two things about this... First of all, imagine men making a such a statement about a female specific disease. "It affects almost only old women." It wouldn't fly. Most men wouldn't dare make such a statement and, for that matter, wouldn't want to. Feminists, on the other hand, get away with making such hateful, ugly statements and many love doing so. Second of all, my understanding is that the difference in average age between a man who dies from prostate cancer and the age of a woman who dies from breast cancer is only three years. I'd bet that, if a well constructed poll were taken that asked what the average age difference is, most people would guess about 20 or more years.
In addition to this, I may have missed it, but I didn't see where anyone here "ignored or ridiculed" breast cancer. The problem is that about 99.9% of sufferers are women. When men's activists point out that breast cancer research receives far more funding than prostate cancer research, feminists state that breast cancer affects both men and women and leave it at that, making it sound like the men's activists are being unreasonable. We all know that if there was a disease that affected only women, and another disease 99.9% of whose sufferers were men, and the latter disease received far more funding than the former, feminists and society wouldn't let it stand. And another thing (something women need to better recognize) with very few exceptions neither would men.
As for women being better at lobbying for their health concerns, one of the reasons this has happened is because about 30 years ago, when feminists claimed they wanted equality, men fell for it. Then the feminists started doing such things as lobbying for breast cancer research and ignoring prostate cancer.
Finally, as for men being less focussed on male disease prevention and treatment and society's more protective attitude toward women, these two are intimately related and intricately intertwined. (I'd guess you realize this, since you put both points in the same sentence.) These, obviously, are things that we are working to change. (You also seem to be fully aware of and involved in that, but I point it out for emphasis to other site visitors.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Prostate cancer affects almost only old men."
I did not think that Frank Zappa was particularly old when he succumbed to prostate cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did not think that Frank Zappa was particularly old when he succumbed to prostate cancer.
Precisely, the claim that prostate cancer affects almost only old men is a hateful, feminist lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An untruth is not necessarily a lie. It is often misinformation. I've never heard that claim that it only affects "old men"; but I do recall a few years back when they lowered the bar for recommending testing from 50 yrs to 40 yrs. That underfunded research was good for at least that much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An untruth is not necessarily a lie.
No doubt, but it often is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never heard that claim that it only affects "old men"
I've heard that lie from several feminists. By spreading the lie, they can help insure that less money goes into prostate cancer research. (Not, so they would claim, because it's more important to save the lives of women, but because, of course, of course, of course, it's more important to save the lives of the young.)
And so more men die unnecessarily. The feminist dream come true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And, I will add, by covering for them, you help them to continue to get away with their hateful, evil acts and help ensure that more men die unnecessarily.
Your dream come true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodness, but you are hostile. I would like nothing better than for my grandfather to still be alive and my father-in-law healthy. I actually did some volunteer work for a free prostate screening at the hospital where i worked several years ago, which is why I remembered the age level being dropped. It was sort of controversial at the time. I advise that you not see all women out to get you, especially those of us who are trying to help you. I was merely trying to inject some balance into what is otherwise some very slanted rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually did some volunteer work for a free prostate screening at the hospital where i worked several years ago, which is why I remembered the age level being dropped. It was sort of controversial at the time.
It still surprises me when I hear about free prostate screenings, although they are just beginning to become more commonplace at things like big NASCAR events. Glad you were willing to contribute your time to that cause.
If I may ask, what was participation like? Did many men show up to be screened?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I advise that you not see all women out to get you, especially those of us who are trying to help you.
I don't. It's the overwhelming majority of feminists who are out to get all males.
Sorry if I over reacted, but many of the statements such as, "Most of those with prostate cancer are old men," are in fact willful feminist lies. Those lies have to be vehemently countered and exposed for what they are, because they lead, as the feminists who state them know, to much suffering and death on the part of men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I advise that you not see all women out to get you, especially those of us who are trying to help you.
I don't. It's the overwhelming majority of feminists who are out to get all males.
Right as rain. Do you think it is coincidence that money going to breat cancer research is quite frequently deducted from Prostate cancer research? It's done to satisfy the pheminists who see no reason to be concerned with the problems of "mere males."
Sorry if I over reacted, but many of the statements such as, "Most of those with prostate cancer are old men," are in fact willful feminist lies. Those lies have to be vehemently countered and exposed for what they are, because they lead, as the feminists who state them know, to much suffering and death on the part of men.
I'm not sure you can be guilty of over-reaction, Thomas.
An old Nazi (Who the pheminists like to use for their operations manual) once observed that if you keep repeating the same lie over and over it will soon become seen as gospel truth. It works too, and a lot of people blithely toss this junk science, bogus statistics, and unsupportable presumptions around as if they are proven facts.
The only way to stop it is to - well, stop it. Jump up, and say "Wait a minute!" before the converstaion progresses, or you allow unsupported "facts" to be introduced as evidence.
You keep on saying, "Stop! Wait a minute!"
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I worked check-in. There were about 20 or 30 men who came in during my shift, I believe. Most of them I would make a guess were 50 to 60, but we did get a handful that were closer to 40 and there was one man who was 35, below the age requirement but I think they tested him anyway, because of his family history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do something for men, women claim they're being ignored; Do something for women, and they complain they're being patronized.
They win the war of rhetoric, because we refuse to play.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's seven years old now, but here's a great Atlantic Monthly article exposing the lies about bias against women in medical research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 25, @11:23PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Sally Satel in her book PC MD discusses this if I recall correctly. I think she had an article in the Wall Street Journal on this sometime last year. I think Warren Farrell does also in Myth of Male Power.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
