|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @02:10PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Very good article. It was nice to see someone from a major career cource (monster.com) recognize the overt discrimination men go through.
The article didn't touch the horrendous treatment white males get in family courts...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is something that I have been dealing with all of my life, in one situation or the other. Reverse discrimination has been alive and well for years. In the military, college, regular grade schools, and the job market. Let us not forget where all men are treated the same, unless they are of the rich and powerful class, and that is in the halls of justice. Somewhat of an oxymoron used in this context though. I will not whine, I will not give up, I will resist until I no longer draw breadth. I "might" whine occasionally. The odds seem so insurmountable at times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination." Discrimination is discrimination, and regardless of which group is hurt, when it comes to education and employment, it is immoral and illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
frank h:
OK, I stand corrected. Discrimination, is discrimination. The term that we have been brainwashed into using is of course reverse discrimination, which in and of it self excuses the act somewhat due to the implication that there was discrimination first to the other side. There is no excuse for the blatant oppression of any people in what is taught to be an equal opportunity country. Thanks for that Frank.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @02:57PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Not in the least am I offended by this article.
The fact of the matter is I AGREE with it, 100%!
Okay, "Here goes Thundercloud standin' up for the "White man" again".
Yeah, that's right, I am. Why? Because I stand up for ANYONE who is treated with discrimination.
The U.S. constitution and the Bill of rights are clear on how ALL people are to be treated in this country. (America). That is FAIRLY and EQUALY. There is no FINE-PRINT at the bottom of either document that says:
"All Americans are to be treated fairly and
equaly..., Exept for White guys..."
I mean, what the hell did women and "people of color", includeing my people, (American-Indians) fight for during the civil rights movement? We fought for civil rights, of course. We fought to have equal right on par WITH "white men", not to have rights OVER "white men". And if we DID fight for SUPIRIOR rights and/or privilages over them, then we are a bunch of HYPOCRITES ALL!
You cannot de-cry the Nazis then become the Nazis, yourself. (So to speak.)
"But, Thundercloud, The white man stole your land and murdered your people and hearded them onto reservations."
Yeah, That's true. Bring those PARTICULAR white men to me and I will see they are held accountable for those very crimes. I would LOVE to see justice done where they are conserned, exept for one small problem.
Those white men are all dead, now. (That or they are EXTREAMLY old, by now.) And something that I notice is suspiciously missing from historic documentaries, like on PBS, for instance, is the fact that the U.S. Calvary, resposible for masacreing THOUSANDS of my Indian people, was comprised of many BLACK MEN, as well. They are JUST as responsible for genocide as any white-male soldier. And to push the point further, many a WOMAN picked up a rifle against our native ancestors, too.
"the white man kept Blacks as slaves."
Yeah, some white men DID keep slaves.
But so did some white WOMEN of means. And to show I am not biased, I will add: some of the Cherokees (My tribe) kept Blacks as slaves, too.
A fact that I am not proud of, as I know many whites are not proud of, as well.
But also keep in mind, that Africans sold their own country men INTO slavery, to begin with!
And right now you have some Blacks demanding land in this country as repairation for slavery.
To that I say: "Whoooaaa, there. Uh-uh, No, Don't think so..." This land was taken from MY people if any one were to get land back it is US!!! If any Blacks feel they deserve land, You go to the country of YOUR ancestors and get it!
Unless you are of native heritage, as well, then you might have an arguement.
Any way, this whole thing about "getting even whith the white man" is based on "punishment".
Women and people of color who think this way, want to punish the white man for "all they've done to us".
In a democracy we punish INDIVIDUALS for INDIVIDUAL crimes. We are not supposed to punish a whole group of people for something one, a group or even a hundred people from that so-called group did or does.
That is like saying; Because a group of Black males broke into your house, beat you and your family with baseball bats and robbed you, you must now "punish Black people".
That is spiecious reasoning, at best. and most people with any sense KNOW it.
The only people who don't know it, or PRETEND not to, are the ones who think discrimination against white men is not only good but fair and deserved.
The fact is, that that is exactly what ALL prejudice people think about those they are prejudiced against.
So, anyone who thinks that ANY group of people should be discriminated against, no matter their color, race, sexual prefferance, gender or religion, then that person or people are part of the PROBLEM.
Discrimination against white men is still DISCRIMINATION.
And we live in a country that is SUPPOSED to denounce discrimination, no matter WHO it is aimed at.
And as long as this country tolerates discrimination of ANY kind towards ANY group or individual..., America is liveing a lie...,
And that is what it is doing, now.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud:
A brother in spirit, is still a brother. Thanks for your passion, and your willingness to share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @03:43PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Dave.
The cause is worth it, and the people are worth it.
All the people.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When was the last time you heard of a run for heart attack, the main cause of early death among men?
Accidents and violence are the leading cause of death for young males (boys, teens and young adult males). This pulls down the average age at death for young males (it's mathematical).
Funding male health is great, but it really won't bring male/female average age at death into numerical parity, as long as the leading causes of early male deaths are not medical. The author is comparing apples and mangoes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hypertension.
Heart Disease.
Diabetes.
Prostate Cancer
Testicular cancer
Stroke
Colorectal Cancer
As usual, she (willfully) misses the point.
I have a friend - a MAN - that had a full masectomy from Breast Cancer. At the last 3 "Runs for the Cure" he was denied the right to participate, because he was a man.
When's the last time you ever saw a "________ For the Cure!" for a men's disease?
When''s the last time you saw a billboard or an ad that talked about something striking down men?
Been a while, eh? I see two breast cancer, a heart disease, and a lung cancer billboard bemoaning the fact that women are dying from it on my way to and from work EVERY DAY.
Thanks for playing, Pheminist.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your friend and other anecdotal experiences was not the point of my post.
I was correcting a factual error in the article posted and mathematical facts pertaining to the average age at death disparity between men and women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to correct the average age at death disparity between men and women? doubtless some components of the disparity are due to differences in medical treatment, and doubtless some are due to the greater level of violent victimization of men and boys. What is your recommendation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Medically, I would put more emphasis and money on disease prevention. This is currently the debate within healthcare, how to triage dollars ... into disease cure, or into disease prevention/mitigation (or in reality deferment, since we all die eventually).
If the goal is numerical parity at average age of death, the only way to achieve that is to decrease the number of young male deaths, and by that I mean boys, male teens and young male adults, since this is the age cohort (0-25) which mathematically brings down the overall male average. The single biggest cause of accidental death in young males (acctually for young females too) is auto/motor vehicle related accidents. Next biggest cause is violence. Excluding AIDS, there are statistically speaking no fatal medical risks for young males (or youth in general). This is all mathematical, of course young people do die from disease and medical reasons, but statistically their numbers pale in comparison to death by non-medical causes.
So if the goal is simply better medical health for males, I'd but more money into disease prevention (I would recommend the same for males and females) simply because the idea is to defer medical problems, since we know intuitively that life is finite, there is no open ended timeframe. Plus, quality of life has to count for something over simply extending lifespan indefinitely.
If the goal is numerical parity at average age of death, there are only two ways to achieve this:
1. Increase young female deaths.
2. Decrease young male deaths.
Since the majority of young male deaths are non-medical in origin, then the only option to reach parity is to work on preventing accidents and violence and other non-medical causes (suicide, alchohol and drug abuse etc).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consumer Reports on Health, December 2002 states that of the eight most common deadly diseases, mens age-adjusted death rate is 1.2 to 4.3 times that of women. That means when comparing men and women of the same age.
I have seen a number of other studies confirming this. I suspect that there are references at Mens Health Network, menstuff.org, or MenWeb.
Dr. Will
Biostatistician Extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well at least this is gettting closer to comparing apples and apples. Still your statistics, as stated, cannot make sense across the board unless women never die. Or they die of other things not included in the "eight most common".
The only way to compare is by each particular disease. For example, you could compare heart disease related death between men and women. But that would not have any impact on overall death by disease disparity, only heart disease related death.
If you compare people over age 35 (disregard people who have died before then), men and women die at similar rates and ages, although not from similar causes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @06:03PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne says, "If you compare people over age 35 (disregard people who have died before then), men and women die at similar rates and ages, although not from similar causes."
Lorianne is right. The Social Securty Admin doesn't know what it is talking about when it says that at age 65 women's life expectancy is 1/4 more than men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not an overly educated person. But, I do have a BS degree in psychology, and what I learned was different from what you are saying. Perhaps you just like to stimulate conversation by making unrealistic comments? If you really want to make the difference between the death rates for the sexes equal, then make all the dangerous jobs available equally male, and female. You seem to also focus in on the death rates for the younger population, hence the dispartity due to the type of jobs, military service, etc. But then again, women would have to lose their protected status in society for the death rates of the young to be comparable; then perhaps the death rates for the aged would be the same as well, an intelligent response Lorianne?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee Golly Whillikers, an AU suddenly pops out of nowhere agreeing that Lorianne is 100% right. Boy, we've never seen this before, have we?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. . .you're off-target.
If you read it again more closely, you'll notice it's actually very subtle sarcasm -- a bluntly open restatement of what Borianne's really saying. . .the usual self-deludedly femelitist trivialization and objectification of men's problems.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I missed the Irony and Satire here, because it was sso subtle, and so damn close to what Feminazi Doctrine is.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Yeah, I missed the Irony and Satire here, because it was sso subtle, and so damn close to what Feminazi Doctrine is."
Its almost impossible to satire feminism. The most ludicrious things you could imagine feminists have actually done or said them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @05:21PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I forget if it is the 15 diseases leading to death, or if it is just the 15 leading causes of death, but in each of those 15 categories MEN DIE MORE THAN WOMEN (make up a greater number).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @05:30PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if men die more tahn women from the 15 leading causes of death. Lorianne is right. The only ones that count are the ones that young mena re responsible for.
Shelby
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This makes no sense to the discussion at hand because more men die of non-disease related causes when young.
Furthemore, by your statistics, women must die at a higher rate from something other than the "15 leading causes of death" which, since everyone dies, and women are half the population, they those things can't be the "leading causes" of death, they can only be the 15 leading disease related causes of death. Even then, it is suspect, since women would have to die of something that is not being counted (everyone dies).
This kind of thing would be similar to women claiming that heart disease is the leading cause of disease death in men obsuring the fact that accidents are the largest cause of death for men. Yes, we should work on reducing heart disease, but first, a lot of males should be so lucky to live long enough to get heart disease (please, I'm being satirical). Obviously it would be better to have males both not die of accidents AND not get heart disease, and cancer, and diabetes.... on an on. But since life is finite at this time, we have to choose our priorities. It would make more sense to concentrate on prevention, and making sure men live long enough to eventually die of "something" at an older age. What that "something" is is less important than living long enough to get to that point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see now that the article had a blatant factual error in it and pointing it out makes one a troll. SOME of you people are so exactly like most of the MS-type feminist you despise so much.
Make up your own "facts" then and discuss them amongst yourselves. That's always fun. That'll keep you right on par with the people you love to whine about all the time. It will only make you look as ridulous as they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see now that the article had a blatant factual error in it and pointing it out makes one a troll. SOME of you people are so exactly like most of the MS-type feminist you despise so much.
Make up your own "facts" then and discuss them amongst yourselves. That's always fun. That'll keep you right on par with the people you love to whine about all the time. It will only make you look as ridulous as they are.
Three types of lies, Lorianne. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Read the book "Lyinmg with Statistics." I guaran-damn-tee you anyone in the world can commission any study and get any damn result they want to pay for.
So, as for "The math" - it's bunk. Statistical nalysis, by and large, is junk science and a propaganda tool.
Want to know what it is? Go look for yourself.
Go look among the homeless, at shelters, in soup kitchens. They're mostly men.
Go look in retirement homes. Lot of women there. Damn few men. Why? Men don't live as long.
Go look at a "Senior Singles" night. It will be at least 2:1 women. Why? More widows. Because men die earlier.
Go to a "Divorced Parents" group. Ask who has custody of the kids. Show of hands. The vast and overwhelming majority will be women. Why? Because custody is routinely given to them.
You can cite all the damn "Statistics" you want, if it makes you feel better and lets you keep the blinders on, but they don't hold up to empiric observation.
Oh, and men die earlier from accidents, because 95%+ of all on the job accidents are male - and 99% of the deaths are male. Why? Because men work the dangerous jobs like high steel, reactors, heavy machinery, eytc. etc. ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
So go back and bury your head in the sand. Over the months you've made it obvious that you don't know and don't want to know. Why my breath is being wasted on you here is beyond me.
Enjoy your unexamined life of pheminzi privilege.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't believe in statistics, or don't belive they can tell us anything truthful, why do you use them to make your various points?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 13, @02:04AM EST (#90)
|
|
|
|
|
"Funding male health is great, but it really won't bring male/female average age at death into numerical parity, as long as the leading causes of early male deaths are not medical. The author is comparing apples and mangoes.
Lorianne:
In the excerpt below I call your attention to the words "age adjusted." Once again you have dug your own oratorical grave using feminist argumentation, and now the true facts of the matter bury the misinformation you have set before us. Try again, when you've got something credible. This was too easy.
Sincerely, Ray
http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1995/3-mar9 5/page16c.html
The National Institutes of Health, the agency that doles out the federal government's health research funds, gives at least twice as much to research on women's health as it does to research on men's health. One result: On an age-adjusted basis, men's mortality rates are greater for every one of the 15 leading causes of death. Breast cancer kills about 45,000 women each year, prostate cancer claims 32,000. Yet we know so little about prostate cancer that one of the most accepted treatments is just to let the disease race old age to see which kills the victim first. In the meantime, research funding for breast cancer is more than six times that for prostate cancer.
The data gap, in other words, costs men's lives.
"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When was the last time you heard of a run for heart attack, the main cause of early death among men?
Accidents and violence are the leading cause of death for young males (boys, teens and young adult males). This pulls down the overall average age at death for males (it's mathematical).
Funding male health is great, but it really won't bring male/female average age at death into numerical parity, as long as the leading causes of early male deaths are not medical. The author is comparing apples and mangoes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @04:06PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
O.k. Lorianne, using apples and apples how do you explain the breast cancer vs. prostrate cancer disparity? Comparable number of deaths due to each, but disproportionately more funding for breast cancer research, as the author mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't "explain" it. My point is that neither has anything to do with the average age at death disparity.
You can take any two diseases and compare what is spent on research and care. Most likely there are not equal monies spent on any two diseases. That doesnt' tell you anthing about the average age at death.
For example, black men and white men have a disparate average age at death. That does not necessarily mean the disparity at age of death is due to unequal health care funding between black men and white men. You'd have to PROVE that link with more than just with the average age at death disparity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You'd have to PROVE that link with more than just with the average age at death disparity."
Speaking of links. Do you have any that I could look at? I want to see how all your assertions add up.
Nice try with the breast cancer by the way. Considering that so much comes from federal money to help in promotions to gain sponsorship and aggressive campaigning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @04:57PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"O.k. Lorianne, using apples and apples how do you explain the breast cancer vs. prostrate cancer disparity? Comparable number of deaths due to each, but disproportionately more funding for breast cancer research, as the author mentioned."
I agree with Lorianne. She should NOT answer this question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men's cancer mortality rate is much higher than women's. Comparing prostate cancer and breast cancer is basically a moot point in this context.
The key to reducing diseases like cancer is not going to be in treatment but prevention. Finding out why men's cancer mortality rate is substantially higher than womens' is going to point to largely environmental and lifestyle factors. Also, since cancer is a cumulative disease, when older people die of it (like most prostate cancer deaths) it is likely a result of factors that do not have anything to do with funding of prostate cancer research. In other words, the research itself is not going to prevent someone dying today of prostate cancer, but may reduce the number dying from cancer (prostate and others) in 50-60 years.
I suspect because women were not exposed to as many cargenogens as men in work (and formerly not as many women smoked etc) that in the future we'll see more sex parity in cancer deaths due to similar exposure and lifestyles.
Likewise for heart disease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @06:34PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne says "Comparing prostate cancer and breast cancer is basically a moot point in this context."
I have to agree. Almost all sufferers from breast cancer are women. All prostate cancer sufferers are men. Almost the same number of deaths occur.
The fact that breast cancer research receives three or four times as much funding as prostate cancer is irrelevant. The fact that female specific diseses receive about three or four times as much funding as male specific diseases doesn't matter.
You men need to learn this.
Stop oppressing us.
Shelby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @06:40PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"Finding out why men's cancer mortality rate is substantially higher than womens' is going to point to largely environmental and lifestyle factors."
Lorianne knows this with surity. She must be a great experrt. I hope she tells the pwople at CDC.
Lorianne says, "since cancer is a cumulative disease, when older people die of it (like most prostate cancer deaths) it is likely a result of factors that do not have anything to do with funding of prostate cancer research."
She is right when old people die probably has nothing to do with research. Medical Research doesn't help people live longer. It never has. I know this now because Lorianne is an expert.
"Finding out why men's cancer mortality rate is substantially higher than womens' is going to point to largely environmental and lifestyle factors."
She is right. It is men's fault. It doesn't matter if women diseases get mcuh more funding.
Stop oppressing us.
Shelby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100% of people who die were once alive. Therefore the leading cause of death is life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @04:13PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"there are more than four widows for every widower."
Those statistics seem to filter out the youthful male deaths to a large degree. Face it Lorianne, "Men's lives are disposable (for a number of reasons) and the vast majority of statistical numbers available reflect that."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statistics don't reflect that "men's lives are disposable". There would have to be an active component to disposing of men's lives.
Look we need to improve the health of men, no question. But lets look in the right directions. Prostate cancer is an end of life disease. Not that it isn't important, but prevention measures earlier in life .... long before prostate cancer arrives .... are the key to mitigation of all kinds of diseases. Simply curing prostate cancer, is the tail wagging the dog.
It seems to me, since we all die of something, the plan should be to prevent (actually defer) death to later ages. Men and women who have survived to age 70+ have successfully deferred fatal diseases. We have to decide whether our emphasis is to push the lifespan back indefinitely, or to prevent earlier death and diseases among younger people. In particular, decreasing the high death rate among young males (0-25) seems not only doable, but shameful for not doing. Its not that old men are "expendable" but lets be realistic, everyone dies, and the later the better. The high death rate among young males is truly tragic. In that context, we could look at death at old age as a success, not a failure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @05:17PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
We differ. I think the statistics directly reflect that men's lives are disposable for a varitey of reason to lengthy to go into in a short post. Male role conditioning would be a main catergory that could be subdivided into high paying dangerours jobs, war, risk taking, etc.
You also stated:
"In that context, we could look at death at old age as a success, not a failure."
My reply:
When you die you don't graduate, you die. Are you suggesting, that when I die old I come to you for a certificate of achievement for being an exception to the statistics? I think not.
I realize anyone who has lived a full life has done something(s) right to avoid having died younger so obviously you are suggesting that there are a lot of men out there who are failing to achieve the longevity that females are "living up to." That is the whole point of what we are saying here. The reasons behind the inequities causing that should be illucidated, and subsequently changed to bring equality to men and women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @05:32PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne says "Statistics don't reflect that "men's lives are disposable".
And she is right. Female specific diseases receive (get) three or 4 times as much funding at male specific. This does NOT prove that men are disponsible." They are just not as much worth saving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @05:32PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @06:49PM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking of the active component of war were men are selected (selective service) and suffer 99.9999% of all combat fatalities. Men in my opinion are historically very disposable in this sense.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne says, "Statistics don't reflect that "men's lives are disposable". There would have to be an active component to disposing of men's lives."
There is no "actve part" so men's lives arenot more disposable, just not as much worth saving.
Um, how can we put this?
SAME THING, ONLY DIFFERENT.
It's like the euthanasia gang - No, we can't give old people poison. That would be murder! We'll just not feed them, and then we can say, "Nature is taking its course."
What bunk. It's a quibble, a difference that makes no difference. It still winds up that man are more expendable.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @03:18PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm black, but I don't look like it. I've been mistaken for being everything from Spanish to Asian. In fact I, ironically, got unofficially branded as a racist by a black guy on a bus. I was taking to a freind of mine from the college I attend(Who is black, and talks with a British accent). The thing is, I'm kind of shy, and not a good conversationist. On my way off the bus the other guy asked is I talked to all black people that way.
My response: I don't know, I sometimes talk differently to my MOM. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @03:58PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
AU.
Yeah, I have the same expirience, freaquently.
I'm American-Indian, but I "don't look Indian".
Translation: I don't look like Tonto, or the wooden Indian guy outside the 'Cigar store'. (Thank God.) Like you I get taken for Hispanc, but also as White, Italian or whatever. I think one woman did take me for Asian once, too.
Funny world we live in sometimes.
Just remember, If some one tells you "You don't look Black." Just tell them...: "Well, since I AM Black, this IS what Black looks like!"
I've used that myself, substituting "Black" with "Indian".
'usualy shuts anyone like that down quickly.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link that leads to several .pdf files with statistics regarding the relative risk of men dying compared to women:
http://www.menshealthoffice.info/media.htm
The overall mortality ratio between males and females is about 1.6 to 1 (for all ages). The accident prone teen years do indeed play a role in this disparity, but are only part of the overall story. The disparity is significant for all ages, and occurs for each of the top 10 leading causes of death.
Read these statistics for yourself, and then draw conclusions.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @10:11PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
While this article makes some good points. Yes, the disparity in concern about male vs. female mortality rates is appalling, as are the rationalizations for it. Males are fully human beings, and death is death. Reducing male deaths from heart disease, prostate cancer, accidents, and violence are all needed. The point is: reducing male deaths should be a public spending priority!
But the term "white males" is offensive. Being male is a highly personally significant part of the identity of almost half of humanity. Being white is a personally significant identity only to Nazis and other sicko's. Don't stick white and males together -- they represent totally different understandings of identity!
Fight sexism. Fight racism. Understand the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" Being white is a personally significant identity only to Nazis and other sicko's. Don't stick white and males together -- they represent totally different understandings of identity!"
So do you say that we should abandon all denotions? Such as Black males, Asian males, East Indian males, Indian males?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 10, @11:46PM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
" Being white is a personally significant identity only to Nazis and other sicko's. Don't stick white and males together -- they represent totally different understandings of identity!"
Very interesting, I respect your opinion, but I have a different one. I've never been to Germany, but I guess I should bear the bigotry against me for having been born that too and not mention it. Who I am is not contingent on my race or the nation my ancestors originated in. To judge anyone thusly, as happens all the time with white men these days, is the same old prejudice and bigotry all dressed up in the new clothes of political correctness, while sanctimoniously pretending to know what is correct to believe and think. People are individuals (including women) and are accountable for their behavior on an individual basis.
Having lived over half a century, and having gone through the civil rights years of the sixties, I've observed, and hopefully learned some things about the individual people living in the diverse groups that make up my American family, friends, and neighbors. Good neighbors come in all colors, so do assholes. I am not proud to admit that sometimes I've even been one. It is not my desire to be one, but in a world full of difficult choices one does not always make the correct one.
I've gone to war (a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do), had industrial accidents, been exposed to asbestos, been in bad car wrecks, etc., but experiencing the legal system as a male victim of domestic violence is the single most tragic and bigoted thing to ever happen to me in my life. I had never before or since experienced such prejudice and hatred against me just for being who I am (a man). I have to say it has given me a whole new appreciation (compassion) for the prejudice that blacks and other targeted individuals have endured at the hands of the police and other bigots all these years. They don't refer to being stopped by police as DWB for nothing. In a more general sense it's called profiling, but if you happen to be identified as being in a group that disproportionately commits a certain crime you're automatically the target of their prejudice.
Anyone can be prejudiced and many feminists and their supporters have fully proven to me that they are as capable of prejudice towards men as the most virulently bigoted Klansman could be to a black person or the most virulently bigoted Nazi could be to a Jew.
"Be careful that which you hate unless you become it," is never more true than when hating your evil enemies, especially as a group.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray:
It ain't easy being a man, if you take it seriously. A man is a man, and the more that we seperate ourselves, the longer it will take for us to get equal rights. It really sucks when you live your life trying to do the right thing, and society takes a shit on your head. It is heart breaking, demoralizing, and downright mean. It is the system that profits from the seperation that we must raly against, and education is the weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 11, @01:41AM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure you've heard it said before, "All that's necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing." I hope a few more good people and a few more good attornies, legislators, etc. (I've met a few) stand up and say, "Let's shine the light on these cock roaches in the feminist movement, then let's keep the light on them so they go back into the holes they crawled out of, and leave decent people to conduct their affairs with the fairness and mutual respect that decent people expect and deserve."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 11, @02:10PM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing I think we should "reject" is the notion that the term "white males" is synonymous with Nazis and racists.
Drawing that conclusion to the term is, frankly, racist in and of it's self.
It is no different than saying that the term "Black males" is synonyomous with crime and poverty.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree with that. Being white is part of my identity. It gives me a sense of what my ancestors did before me and gives me a cultural identity. It gives me traditions to follow and when I visit my ancestral lands it feels almost like I'm returning after a too-long voyage. Does it make me a Nazi that I am proud of my heritage? There will probably be a point in the future when we are a lot more "homogenized" due to breeding between races but that day isn't today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 11, @08:44PM EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
When a Black person says: "I'm proud to be Black." no one bats an eye.
"If a Hispanic person says: "I'm proud to be "Hispanic."" no one gets defensive.
If I say: "I'm proud to be Cherokee Indian." Some people question my heritage, (Why? I don't really know.) but no one says I can't be proud of it.
So why is it that 'White' people are attacked if they are proud of being 'white'?
I've always thought that to be a bit strange, as well as discriminatory.
Just curious.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So why is it that 'White' people are attacked if they are proud of being 'white'?
I've always thought that to be a bit strange, as well as discriminatory.
Just curious. "
I believe this may even go back to anti-semitism. As white pride is associated with the KKK or Neo Nazis. Its a shame really and Im hoping that our group will be able to defeat this prejuduce that is dividing men all across the board.
Feminists have commonized men as the enemy, Im hoping our group doesn't commonalize women as the enemy. One good thing in our favour we are not bigots and we are quick to critisize ourselves for it when it arrises.
In fact we may even consider re-naming our movement from the men's movement to something more open. However the thing I fear from that is that it will be hijacked and men's issues will yet again fall through the tubes.
Perhaps things are as good as they are. I just think that men, women and anyone from any race or nationality can bode with our ideals.
One thing we will have to do is forget about what happened in the past. To realize it is not the race or the sex that is harming others it is the ideology. So we will have to change our ideology in accordance with promise and change.
Radical feminism which is more and more mainstream feminism isn't hip to that mentality. Neither is the KKK, or Neo Nazis. In fact we could say it about all groups such as Jews or blacks or Indians. Though I can't think of a group that is racist as a political group other than the black panthers.
Anyways, the KKK has done me no favours as a white guy. Im glad Lincoln did what he did. If I was ever racist god forgive me and thank god someone opened my eyes to see better. Even though I don't really believe in affirmative action I believe in promoting good will towards all men and women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe this may even go back to anti-semitism. As white pride is associated with the KKK or Neo Nazis. Its a shame really and Im hoping that our group will be able to defeat this prejuduce that is dividing men all across the board.
You can be proud of being white without hating other races. You can be proud of being white and "embrace diversity" too. To say that you can't is a LIE told by the PC Left, to make sure that the white male always approaches any discussion from a position of having to apologize for himself.
I heard a good term for it once. Manigger. As a man, you're the new nigger.
Feminists have commonized men as the enemy, Im hoping our group doesn't commonalize women as the enemy. One good thing in our favour we are not bigots and we are quick to critisize ourselves for it when it arrises.
I'm not quite so sure how good this is, because a lot of that is rooted in the whole idea of being "ashamed" of being men. Look at what the resident Pheminut here wrote in another section in this thread. Criticize us for being like them. Absent of course is the criticism of them for being like them.
In fact we may even consider re-naming our movement from the men's movement to something more open. However the thing I fear from that is that it will be hijacked and men's issues will yet again fall through the tubes.
Fear? Count on it.
Perhaps things are as good as they are. I just think that men, women and anyone from any race or nationality can bode with our ideals.
Make one ideal the unifying one: A condemnation and Disavowing of anything to do with "Feminism." Everything else follows. Don't demonize the people. Demonize the philosophy.
One thing we will have to do is forget about what happened in the past. To realize it is not the race or the sex that is harming others it is the ideology. So we will have to change our ideology in accordance with promise and change.
Okay, demonize the ideology. It's all good.
Radical feminism which is more and more mainstream feminism isn't hip to that mentality. Neither is the KKK, or Neo Nazis. In fact we could say it about all groups such as Jews or blacks or Indians. Though I can't think of a group that is racist as a political group other than the black panthers.
A fundamental truth - Radical Pheminism is Pheminism. They present themselves as the voice of that group. They are accepted as the voice of that group. They are not condemned as the voice of that group.
Are they the leaders. De jure, no. There is no official appointment of them. They are, though, the defacto leaders, representatives, et al.
So when someone says, "Who said they represent *MY* "feminism?" The proper response is, "You did. By your silence."
Silence gives assent.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So when someone says, "Who said they represent *MY* "feminism?" The proper response is, "You did. By your silence." "
I like that. Guilt trips work, just ask my parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 11, @02:01PM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
Steve says, “The overall mortality ratio between males and females is about 1.6 to 1 (for all ages).” Because Office of Men’s Health Resource Center says so.
Social Scrurity Admin says at age 65 women live average ¼ more than men.
But Lorianne says, “If you compare people over age 35 (disregard people who have died before then), men and women die at similar rates and ages.”
So SS Admin and Office of Men’s Health Resoursec are wrong. Lorianne is right.
SSA and OMHR are wrong. To learn the truth you men need to study Women’s Studies classes.
Stop oppressing us.
Shelby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 11, @02:50PM EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. death rates for all races, all causes
Age
Male
Female
Ratio
1-4
36.5
29.1
1.25:1
5-9
18.3
14.5
1.26:1
10-14
25.0
16.6
1.51:1
15-19
94.9
40.0
2.37:1
20-24
142.0
48.2
2.95:1
25-34
149.9
66.7
2.25:1
35-44
256.9
143.8
1.79:1
45-54
552.5
315.8
1.75:1
55-64
1,253.5
777.7
1.61:1
65-74
3,015.7
1,945.1
1.55:1
75-84
6,854.7
4,900.9
1.40:1
85+
16,605.4
14,768.7
1.12:1
Source: “Deaths: Leading Causes for 2000,” Center for Disease Control, September 2002.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top causes of death for men
Under age 40 :
Road accidents & other unintentional injuries
Homicide
Suicide
HIV disease
Over age 40:
Heart disease
Cancer (colon, lung, prostate)
Stroke
Chronic lung disease
But in fact more men die at a quicker pace UNDER age 40 from non-medical reasons (excepting now AIDS). In fact, when you consider that humans, if they don't die from accidents or violence, must die of something. Therefore, a statistical increase of men dying from disease at older ages could be seen in a positive light insofar as more of them are actually living long enough to die of disease (which is what kills most older people). So the mere fact that a man makes it to an older age would be a plus considering the 2x and 3x morbidity rate we have now for males compared to females at younger ages.
Of course we want to combat disease, but we also want to make sure people live long enough to even have to worry about that. If you die at 17 you'll never have to worry about prostate cancer, etc. Depends how you look at it but to me, more men surviving to live a longer life, even if they eventually die of a disease in older age would be an important goal. I know if I had a son, I'd much rather him live to 65, even if he died 6 years younger than his wife, than if he died at 25.
This is the whole medical debate in microcosm. Prevention of cure. Where do we put our money. Also, consider that many of the things people die of after 40 have a lot to do with their lifestyle choices before age 40. Not all, but medical science is finding more and more links to lifestyle and diet in disease.
In the end we all die and we don't die of just nothing. There is simply no "cure" for the ultimate of death. That end of the scale is relatively fixed, since we all die. The other end isn't fixed. We don't have to accept the rate of youth death we have. Therefore, it would seem to me we'd want to have more men dying at older ages (of necessity dying of something) than the situation we have now where so many men don't make it that far. To do that we have to attack the staggering disparity in young male death.
If you did that, and more males were living past 40, the death rate from other causes will go up! This is just a given. You either die young or you die older. Period. So in a sense, men dying of a disease at an older age is a postive thing. We don't get choice d. No men die ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 11, @07:29PM EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
From the same source: “Deaths: Leading Causes for 2000,” Center for Disease Control, September 2002.
If you subtract accidents, homicides, and suicides from the death rates, the ratio of male-to-female death rates works out to:
Age Ratio
1-4 1.15
5-9 1.19
10-14 1.16
15-19 1.44
20-24 1.46
25-34 1.42
35-44 1.49
45-54 1.64
55-64 1.57
65-74 1.55
75-84 1.40
85+ 1.12
It still looks like a bad deal for men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This doesn't make sense unless somewhere there a group of women who never die.
Look at it logically. All men die. (so do women but lets just take it one at a time). So, if a O men die of prostate cancer, they will die of something else. So, you can eliminate this disease or that disease etc, but men will still die. What is the goal then?
It seems to me the goal is a longer average lifespan for men (well for everyone, but lets stick with men for now). So, if that is the goal, more years, then the concentration has to be at the lower end of the age spectrum. Coincidentally for men, that is when a LOT of them die. As it happens, the majority of young male deaths are not medical/disease caused.
So yes, while we need to work on disease mitigation, this is the debate in the medical community right now. How much resources to place on disease cure ... vs. prevention. The same exact argument can be extended to the issue of how to raise men's average lifespan but concentrating resources more heavily in death prevention (actually deferrment, we all die). How do we defer more male deaths until later ages? That is the larger question right now for men (and actually the larger question in the medical community overall).
If extending the average age at death is NOT the goal, and many argue it should not be, then we would focus more on quality of life issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The mentioned statistics relate to death rates, not deaths. That is, they relate to the probability of a living person of a particular age dying during the next year.
For example if womens death rate was 10%/year (for all ages) then all women would die eventually, on average at 100yrs of age. If mens death rate were twice that, they would live also all die, and only once, but they would die on average at 50yrs of age.
--- panlet ---
Yes, I do know I overuse italics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In response to the statistic that the death rate for men is greater than that for women in all age cohorts, Lorianne says:
This doesn't make sense unless somewhere there a group of women who never die.
Lorianne... do you truly not understand this, or are you hoping to ignore or belittle the statistic? I agree that the statistic is counter-intuitive, but it is not difficult to understand. Men die at much higher rates than women until old age. The number of male deaths per year exceeds that for women in all age groups up until about the age of 80. Relatively few men live to the age of 80, and relatively few women die before the age of 80.
Now I ask you, Lorianne, can you accept the simple statement that men die at higher rates than women for practically all age groups? No politics... no spin... just a simple fact! Yes or no?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No politics... no spin... just a simple fact! Yes or no?
New here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, Lorianne - you're point, in a nutshell, seems to be this:
Men dying at older ages due to heart disease, prostate cancer, etc. is actually a good thing because it shows that the men in question didn't kill themselves at age 18 from driving recklessly or getting into bar fights, thereby living long enough to see their bodies start to deteriorate?
In other words, it's a lesser of two evils. We're all gonna die somehow. But at least we should hope to die from something natural.
Fine, agreed. So, tell me this - how does the statistical fact you pointed out that males are more likely to die from the "bad" causes not support the article's thesis that males are uniquely endangered by the ways of this culture?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Fine, agreed. So, tell me this - how does the statistical fact you pointed out that males are more likely to die from the "bad" causes not support the article's thesis that males are uniquely endangered by the ways of this culture?"
Given the percentage of men who make it to prostate cancer. If less men were dying from reckless misadventures that means more would die from prostate cancer. The percentage would not change and the number of deaths would increase but the funding from research would probably still be nil.
Obviously there are less men around to vote so who gives a shit. Duh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prostate cancer is mostly an older man's disease. If more men died of prostate cancer at older ages, than die from accidents at younger ages, there would be MORE men voting for MORE years.
100% of men die, Dan. The idea is to defer death to older ages. You're not facing the finite nature of life.
If tomorrow we could make it so NO men die under 40 years old of accidents and violence, the rate of death for men of other cause would go way UP! Then you'd be complaining about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So why are we wasting money on stuff like breast cancer, cervical cancer, campaigns to get women to quit smoking, etc? These are issues that have more impact as one grows older, and of course, the women affected by these issues will die anyway. Everyone dies of something, as you pointed out, Lorraine.
Since the women affected by breast cancer, heart disease, etc going to die in any case, and we have already eliminated a major factor in death at a young age for women by reducing drastically the hazards of pregnancy and birth, why spend money on old women's diseases? Why not spend it on reducing risks of the young, instead? Young men, for instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason why these things make sense to women to pursue is that they don't really have (from a statistical standpoint) much medical risk in youth. The largest female youth killer has been eliminated in the West, complications from pregnancy and childbirth. That's what scooted women up the average age at death scale. All the gains there happened after 1900 and really kicked in after antibiotics were invented.
So women's activists are now concentrating on other things. This makes sense from their perspective. After all, after polio was virtually eradicated, we don't spend a lot of money on polio anymore, we moved on to other things.
But what amazes me is that men's activists don't or won't (I don't understand why) address the GIANT ELEPHANT in the living room that causes more male youth deaths ... accidents, violence, suicide, drug/alchohol related illnesses. Until we acknowledge this we can't do anything to reduce young male death. You can pour all the money you want into prostate cancer research, and that'll be great for the men who attain an age where they can benefit from the prostate cancer research ... but it won't help the many men under age 40 who die from overwhelmingly non-medical causes (except now AIDS).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 12, @04:10PM EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
"But what amazes me is that men's activists don't or won't (I don't understand why) address the GIANT ELEPHANT in the living room that causes more male youth deaths ... accidents, violence, suicide, drug/alchohol related illnesses. Until we acknowledge this we can't do anything to reduce young male death."
You're right! Great Idea! I'm going to take this up right now with: The Office of Men's Health, The Commission on Violence Against Men, The California Men's Commission, The Los Angeles Men's Commission, The Commission on Assaults Against Men, The Domestic Violence Committee, etc., etc., etc. The irony of this is that non of these exist for men, BUT THEY ALL EXIST FOR WOMEN.
Now we see the true GIANT ELEPHANT of a reason for the difference in the longevity between men and women. Stop lying about this. It insults all the men who must bear these inequities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the GIANT ELEPHANT in the living room that causes more male youth deaths ... accidents, violence, suicide, drug/alchohol related illnesses. Until we acknowledge this we can't do anything to reduce young male death.
We have all seen cases on this board of men decrying the fact that, for instance, male suicide gets very little attention. People here repeatedly object to the fact that there is no, for instance, Office of Men's Health to deal with the problem.
Men's activists demand equal treatment by the government precisely so that we can address such problems. Claims that these problems are ignored by men's activists are typical, bald-faced feminist lies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop lying about this. It insults all the men who must bear these inequities.
She's a feminist. Insulting men in their pain is her intention. I feel sorry for her, really. Her mental disease will get worse as the hate-mongers continue to lose power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 12, @11:45PM EST (#87)
|
|
|
|
|
"The Office of Men's Health, The Commission on Violence Against Men, The California Men's Commission, The Los Angeles Men's Commission, The Commission on Assaults Against Men, The Domestic Violence Committee, etc., etc., etc. The irony of this is that non of these exist for men, BUT THEY ALL EXIST FOR WOMEN."
You forgot that GIANT ELEPHANT of a reason called the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that siphons billions away from men's needs based on feminist's lies. But then it's all about power and control, & hate and lies if you're a feminist, especially when talking about men and their needs.
Excuse me, but I have to go put my finger down my throat and relieve that sick feeling in my stomach after reading the hypocritical feminist excuses I have seen used to insult the mountain of neglect and brutality that men have to endure daily in thier lives. "A guys gotta do what a guys gotta do, then die young and then be insulted by pheminuts on top of it all." At least we can still puke at the knowledge of it all.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 13, @01:57AM EST (#89)
|
|
|
|
|
What goes on in the area of domestic violence study goes on in the area of medical reasearch for men. The feminist modus operandi is seemless in the prejuiced way that it can be applied to skewering the facts and realities of research in a number of areas.
Ray
Here is a supporting excerpt from this web site:
http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1995/3-mar9 5/page16c.html
These programs contribute to a self-perpetuating cycle of bias. They create clinical populations of supposedly battered women who are a ready pool for feminist researchers to study.
From those studies feminist researchers create more skewed data to seek more funding to create more programs benefiting women to drain money away from programs benefiting men, creating more clinical populations of women to study, ad infinitum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne, a good many of us have made efforts to address suicide, violence against men, accidental death, DV against men and their children,etc. We are still making those efforts, in our various ways. If you are amazed, perhaps it is because you are not looking.
Even so, I acknowledge that we are fighting an up-hill battle to get attention for these concerns. You yourself are an example of how difficult headway is to make - some of us have been working for years, and you have precieved nothing of those efforts, even when they were mentioned here. How many spots have you seen in the last 30 days talking about suicide among men and boys, as compared to DV against women, for example? What do you make of the fact that there are many more male suicides than women victims of breast cancer, yet we see so much more about the latter?
If you think it is worth while to reduce deaths among boy children and young men, then perhaps you will be willing to act? What do yo propose to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one is stopping men from highlighting the big discrepancy in youth male deaths vs. youth female deaths. Men could write about it, circulate the statistics etc. For example, why doesn't Glenn Sacks write about this issue? He's all over every other disparity between men and women, why not this one?
The person who wrote the lead article to this thread gave outright misinformation saying that heart disease is the leading killer of young men. That is easily refuted from commonly available statistics. Why did he do that? What is the point of not talking about youth male death truthfully? Maybe he is just misinformed, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne, a good many of us have made efforts to address suicide, violence against men, accidental death, DV against men and their children,etc. We are still making those efforts, in our various ways. If you are amazed, perhaps it is because you are not looking.
I'm not disputing that and I also don't claim to read everything and see every PS announcement. Information I run into by accident never seems to address the issue of the disparity in youth male death between male and female. Maybe it's out there but I just haven't run into ti. The half dozen or so articles I've read always harp on the average age at death disparity, and then hop right into a discussion of prostate vs. breast cancer funding ... never mentioning the huge disparity in youth deaths and implying that the disparity in breast and prostate cancer funding is the cause of the disparity.
Even so, I acknowledge that we are fighting an up-hill battle to get attention for these concerns. You yourself are an example of how difficult headway is to make - some of us have been working for years, and you have precieved nothing of those efforts, even when they were mentioned here. How many spots have you seen in the last 30 days talking about suicide among men and boys, as compared to DV against women, for example?
I haven't seen any spots on male suicide per se, but suicide in general with males depicted telling people where to get help etc. But I have seen lots of PS spots from MADD and similar type groups trying to convince young people not to drink and drive (the leading cause of vehicular accidents) and conveince young people not to drink to excess or do drugs, and to convince young people not to smoke ... etc.
What do you make of the fact that there are many more male suicides than women victims of breast cancer, yet we see so much more about the latter?
I don't see any point in correlating these two by number. Suicide is more tragic anyway (to me) than death by disease because it seems so preventable. Ditto the large amount of accidental deaths and deaths by violence among young males. The numbers just simply shouldn't be that high. Taken as a whole the youth male death rate outstrips any one particular disease in both numbers and in the sheer insanity of allowing it to continue when it is so preventable.
If you think it is worth while to reduce deaths among boy children and young men, then perhaps you will be willing to act? What do yo propose to do?
For one I contribute to MADD type organizations. For another I've been active in macro issues in urban design and planning which incorporates youth safety into the mix. Its a complex issue. Probably the biggest thing that could be done right now is just getting the issue out there. Most people don't know how many young men we lose each year. It's not something that is talked about much. One book I've read Suburban Nation suggests that the number of people killed in vehicular accidents every year is downplayed through lobbying efforts of mix of PACs representing developers, highway contruction firms and those allied to roadway construction (for example material suppliers) etc. That might be a little far fetched for me, but I have to ask myself why no one will talk about these figures? One is tempted to suspect some kind of conspiracy. In one statistic I've read it suburban teenage boys are at a higher risk in almost every mortality category above even inner city urban teens. Why? More of them drink or do drugs (they have more money to buy them), more of them have access to cars and they have less supervision overall. Hard to believe but if you read the statistics, it bears out that they die more than inner city teens. I think there may be some class/race protectionism going on as well in hiding these figures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 13, @08:28PM EST (#98)
|
|
|
|
|
"No one is stopping men from highlighting the big discrepancy in youth male deaths vs. youth female deaths. Men could write about it, circulate the statistics etc. For example, why doesn't Glenn Sacks write about this issue?"
What are you suggesting Lorianne, when feminists in their hatred and bigotry undermine at every opportunity all healthful ways for boys to displace their aggression through Title IX and other feminist dogma that condemes displacing male aggression. Young adolescent boys have a lot of testosterone surging through their young hard bodies and the best way to prevent those accidents that take so many of their lives is for seasoned men to guide them through those years in what it means to become a man, and how to guide and manage their impulses.
Evil feminists in their stupidity do everything thye can to keep those good men away from those young boys. I don't doubt that they'd castrate the lot of us if given half a chance. If you want to help young boys live longer, then keep them away from the stupid, evil feminists who don't have a clue how to channel their powerful physical drives.
FEMINIST LIES MAKE BAD LAWS AND WORSE ADVICE.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 13, @08:39PM EST (#99)
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't see any point in correlating these two by number. Suicide is more tragic anyway (to me) than death by disease because it seems so preventable. Ditto the large amount of accidental deaths and deaths by violence among young males. The numbers just simply shouldn't be that high. Taken as a whole the youth male death rate outstrips any one particular disease in both numbers and in the sheer insanity of allowing it to continue when it is so preventable."
Lorianne:
You've expended a lot of air about youth male death rates without citing a single statistic. At this point I say "SHOW ME," because without statistics and sources I may just think what you're saying is just a lot of hot air? How many young men and young women in what age groups die accidently, and don't forget the sources?
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fine, agreed. So, tell me this - how does the statistical fact you pointed out that males are more likely to die from the "bad" causes not support the article's thesis that males are uniquely endangered by the ways of this culture?
Well men ARE uniquely endangerd in the ways of this culture. One look at the male youth death rate will tell you that right off. At least I think so because I equate a relatively longer life with "better" than a relatively shorter one. So that is my benchmark (and many people would agree).
I didn't read the article the way you did. I read it as promoting blatantly incorrect "facts" in some kind of a lame-brained idea to increase male lifespan. You're not going to do that by spreading falsehoods and further faulty statistical analysis. You see this all the time when so-called men's activists directly correlate men's life span disparity with the disparity in funding for prostate cancer. These are not related, they are totally separate issues, and they give a false impression of why the lifespan disparity largely exists ... thereby hiding the truth and getting rid of opportunities to REALLY lengthen men's statistical average lifespan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 13, @01:33AM EST (#88)
|
|
|
|
|
"So the mere fact that a man makes it to an older age would be a plus considering the 2x and 3x morbidity rate we have now for males compared to females at younger ages."
This is deceptive and a lie. Go to this web site for the truth or just read below.
Ray
http://www.menweb.org/menmag/farrheal.htm
“Women are said to be the recipient of only 10% of the NIH budget, implying men are the recipients of the other 90%. True? Not quite. Men’s health concerns constitute only 5% of the NIH budget – the other 85% is for basic research (e.g., DNA, cellular, transplant, etc.). In brief, men’s budget is half of women’s.
We hear that women die of heart disease as often as men. We don’t hear that the average woman who dies of heart disease is 75 or older (6) – by that time, the average man has already been dead for 3 years. (7) Prior to the age of 65, men still die from heart attacks at a ratio of almost 3 to 1 compared to women. (8) Even after the age of 85, men’s death rate from heart disease is still slightly higher. (9)
We often discount the gap between men’s and women’s life expectancy as due to biology. But in 1920, American men died one year sooner than women; today, men die seven years sooner. Currently, men die sooner of all 15 leading causes of death.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. death rates for all races, all causes
One of the more disturbing aspects of these numbers is the 1.25 death rate ratio for boys relative to girls for children aged 1-4. Of course, feminists probably attribute this to poor life style choices and propensity for violence among the little tikes (the boys, that is).
I believe the homicide rate for male and female infants shows a similar disparity. That is, boy infants are more likely to be murdered than female infants, with the killer most likely to be the mother (perhaps the mothers were all acting in self-defense).
Clearly, the lives of boys and men are valued less than the lives of girls and women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
boy infants are more likely to be murdered than female infants, with the killer most likely to be the mother (perhaps the mothers were all acting in self-defense).
This is worthy of consideration, but I doubt it was in self-defense. Personally, I'd blame the Patriarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are correct that more male children are murdered than female children: However, the nuber killed by mothers vs. fathers are statistically even.
Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-99:
31% were killed by fathers
30% were killed by mothers
23% were killed by male acquaintances
6% were killed by other relatives
3% were killed by strangers
Of those children killed by someone other than their parent, 82% were killed by males.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm
Gender of offender Relationship, 1976-99 : Most of the children killed are male and most of the offenders are male
In addition to violence, more male babies die in infancy than female babies. (This is true in most mammals by the way). In humans, this is believed to be the reason why more male babies are conceived and born than female babies 1.05:1. The ratio levels out after birth with more male babies dying in their first year. For example, more male babies die of SIDS. Scientists don't know why this happens but the phenomenon appears to be non environmental since other mammals and particularly primates follow the same pattern.
However, if a male baby dies at .5 years say, that has a profound mathematical effect on male average age at death, as does any significant pattern of males dying at very young age. This is yet another factor, in the average age at death disparity between males and females.
Again, it would seem to me that an area where we could decrease male deaths significantly is in the area of violence and accident prevention. Of course we should also work on disease prevention, cures etc but the most obvious one to attack is the death by accident and violence. I mean, a lot of males don't live long enough to get diseases and die a more "natural" death at old age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You apparently did learn. About how to lie with statistics:
However, if a male baby dies at .5 years say, that has a profound mathematical effect on male average age at death, as does any significant pattern of males dying at very young age. This is yet another factor, in the average age at death disparity between males and females
Trouble is with this is the amount of female children dying at that age isn't factored out of the equation as well.
Lies. Damned Lies. And Statistics.
Who was it that coined the phrase here, "Statistical Morality?" That whole post would deserve to be trotted out again.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 13, @09:53AM EST (#94)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that was Uberganger's post. Hope I got his name right. ...Statistical Morality indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 13, @10:13AM EST (#95)
|
|
|
|
|
"Again, it would seem to me that an area where we could decrease male deaths significantly is in the area of violence and accident prevention. Of course we should also work on disease prevention, cures etc but the most obvious one to attack is the death by accident and violence. I mean, a lot of males don't live long enough to get diseases and die a more "natural" death at old age."
Lorianne:
The disparity needs to be remedied across the whole spectrum of men dying younger than females. You bring up one area, and keep harping on it as the main reason for the disparity when it isn't. Your wrong! It is misinformation like yours that robs research dollars away from many areas, where men are in far greater need of research dollars than women. Many of the dollars that should be spent to address the valid medical problems that more severely plague men's lives are siphoned off to be spent on frivious or bogus women's programs (VAWA). You do a disservice to all men to distort the true facts so egregiously. You are clearly one of the reasons men will continue to languish in their deplorably neglected conditions in life. Shame on you and all feminists who commit such abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is more money being spent on breast implants and Viagra than on Alzheimer's research. This means that by 2020, there should be a large elderly population with perky boobs and huge erections and absolutely no recollection of what to do with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly Lorianne.
I've often pointed out that breast research is a cash cow. Kind of like World Vision. They make up their costs in administrations costs. Its not really a generous organization that gives to the poor it is a business.
One thing I believe is that on a larger scale men don't care about doing a 'walk athon' for prostate cancer. There are a number of reasons for that. One is, men are conditioned not to complain. Another is men work enough through the week. But feminism, with government funding, has learned how to appeal to women about going to the doctor.
Most feminists just defer and say do your own 'activism' when I point this out. Even though the law is something like 'equal protection, equal representation' blah blah blah, we all know its a rag anyways. But then the ball drops because those same feminist lobbiers lobby so that men specifically can not get federal funding. Very interesting. Why would they care?
Great joke by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 13, @02:26AM EST (#91)
|
|
|
|
|
"One is, men are conditioned not to complain. Another is men work enough through the week. But feminism, with government funding, has learned how to appeal to women about going to the doctor."
If men ever got an equitable chance to complain about the real hardships they endure in their lives, they way women complain about their hardships, the femi-nuts would have to take a number and wait in line 'till doomsday. Even if we had half the commissions and offices women do, we still wouldn't have enough men to keep them going. We all have to work for a living.
O.k. this is the big chance for all those "kept" drop dead handsome, male gigolos to speak up and prove me a liar. What, it doesn't work the same way for men that it does for women when it comes to that? No kidding?
Ray
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My goal is not equal outcome as far as life expectancy. The large difference in life expectancy between men and women is an indication that something may be wrong and that things should be examined. The proof that something is wrong is the huge gap in funding for research on female specific diseases and funding for research on male specific diseases (and male specific aspects of health concerns shared by males and females).
Phlegmnists are often criticized for demanding equal results, rather than equal opportunity. Demanding an Office of Men's Health to match the Office of Women's Health (or the elimination of the Office of Women's Health to match the non-existence of the Office of Men's Health) is a demand for equal treatment under the law and under the government. Demanding equal funding for research into male specific diseases is a demand for equal treatment by the government. Neither is a demand for equal results.
Since the feminists know their are being taken well to task for demanding equal outcome, they will twist what fair minded people say into a demand for equal outcome. I don't know about others here, but I demand equal treatment by the government. Let the results fall where they may.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
