[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Heart Disease Research Short-Changing Men
posted by Matt on 05:36 PM February 19th, 2005
Men's Health Ray writes "Here's a study presented at the 2nd International Conference on Women, Heart Disease and Stroke - Marital stress kills . "Elaine D. Eaker worked with colleagues from Boston University to analyze marital discord and its effects on heart disease and overall mortality." "While the men who kept quiet during a conflict did not suffer harmful health effects, the women did, she found." Whoa Nellie! Could this story be just one more example of advocacy research, propagandized through our feminist controlled news media??? If this story is true, then this fact strikes me as even more amazing - MEN HAVE A 70% GREATER RISK OF DYING OF HEART DISEASE THAN WOMEN . What's going on at the American Heart Association? Is the American Heart Association now spending the money donated to it on an agenda driven by gender feminist ideology, instead of spending that money on an "as needs dictate" basis?"

Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Over Gorilla | MSN on Men, Women, Love, and Depression  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Whatever next? (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 07:00 PM February 19th, 2005 EST (#1)
Wouldn't surprise me if we see (Government funded) conferences on "Prostate cancer in Women".
Hotspur
Re:Whatever next? (Score:1)
by Gregory on 11:27 PM February 19th, 2005 EST (#2)
I wrote the director of the American Heart Assn a couple of years ago complaining about their neglect of male heart disease in their PR campaign. I received a response telling me that heart disease is the leading disease killer among women and that many women are ignorant of the risks and symptoms, etc etc. It side-stepped my point about the neglect of males and the greater risks among men under 65. I'm not too eager to contribute any more money to the AHA, at least not until they change their public message and their educational emphasis with all its gender bias. There's nothing wrong with discussing the health risks to women and preventive care, but it shouldn't be at men's expense.
Re:Whatever next? (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 12:22 PM February 21st, 2005 EST (#4)
Anyone hear of the "WEAR RED FOR WOMEN" campaign?

As Indians we tend to wear red, freaquently.
I wear red braid-wraps on occasion. But I have been careful not to wear them or anything else red while this campaign goes on.
When they represent MEN equaly when it comes to heart disease, then I'll wear red all over. My not wearing red is a show of protest.

Maybe we could protest this as a group. You know "WEAR BLACK FOR MEN" in honor of the men who die from heart disease because of this bias.

  Thundercloud.
  "Hoka hey!"
How about just wearing black for men? (Score:1)
by canaryguy (nospam.canaryguy@nospam.stealthfool.com) on 08:28 PM February 21st, 2005 EST (#5)
Maybe we could protest this as a group. You know "WEAR BLACK FOR MEN" in honor of the men who die from heart disease because of this bias.

I like it! But why stop there? Black for our huge laundry list of grievances...

It just occurred to me: For all the ribbon colors, nobody wants Black! Why not take it and run with it?

Runner up: Hunter Green...
Re:How about just wearing black for men? (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 11:59 AM February 22nd, 2005 EST (#6)
Hmm. The symbolism of that black ribbon might be just what we need. No one wants it. The same way no one (read feminists) wants men. black is considered a bad omen. (It will be for feminists)
And black is the color often assotiated with mourning and death. Rather appropriate, I think.
Let's DO it!

  Thundercloud.
  "Hoka hey!"
Re:How about just wearing black for men? (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 04:59 PM February 22nd, 2005 EST (#7)
"The symbolism of that black ribbon might be just what we need. No one wants it. The same way no one (read feminists) wants men. black is considered a bad omen. (It will be for feminists)
And black is the color often associated with mourning and death. Rather appropriate, I think."


When I went to that recent one man protest at the San Diego Domestic Violence Council I wore the yellow T-shirt emblem Hate Target of Domestic Violence Law on the front of a black T-shirt and sat facing all the speakers. I had a dress jacket on over it when I went it, but took it off and hung it on my chair. I also wore black dress slacks, and black shoes and socks.

Once before, when I wore that much black to a gathering where I was with friends, someone asked me, "Who died?"

I thought about that when I picked the colors and said to myself, "The outfit's perfect." Being Southern California, you don't see that much black, due to the heat. The color itself says, "This is a serious, somber business."

Ironically, I saw a show on PBS last night called, "Unforgivable Blackness," about the life of Jack Johnson. He was the first black heavy weight champion of the world. According to the documentary narrated by James Earl Jones, he was persecuted (and prosecuted) for his choices as a black man, just for doing things that were his right as an American. In a nutshell his trouble was far, far more a consequence of the prejudice and bigotry of the time he lived in, than anything illegal he did. People of that time didn't like the color of the women he chose to be with. They even made a Federal case out of his behavior. Woodrow Wilson, the President who gave women the right to vote, did nothing to ease rules that could have made his "blackness" less of a crime, but did allow stricter Federal segregation policies in Federal workplaces to appease the mood of the time.

There's certainly a parallel to what is happening to the lives of many men alive today (black and white), where the consequences of the prejudice of our times is "unforgivable maleness." "Unforgivable maleness" is prosecuted through any number of gender feminist originated laws: domestic violence, sexual harassment, child custody, child support, etc.

I respect Jack Johnson for living his life as a free man in a legal style of his choosing, and I certainly respect the "National Coalition of Free Men" who help me to express my rights as a "free man" living in America today. I only regret that Jack Johnson is not alive today so I and other "free men" could picket the court houses unconstitutionally persecuting him for his "unforgivable blackness," and his "unforgivable maleness." Sadly, there are endless other opportunities.

Sincerely, Ray

Connect the Dots... (Score:2)
by Roy on 02:49 PM February 20th, 2005 EST (#3)
The article concluded --

"Women need to learn to take better care of themselves, and try in positive ways to express their anger and to avoid the breaking point," said Goldberg, author of "Women Are Not Small Men." And women should rethink the old adage about keeping the peace at all costs, she said.

In light of her findings, Eaker said doctors should consider adding questions about marital discord and the effect of a spouse's work when taking medical histories. That way a physician can address the issues or refer the patients to counseling, if needed, she said."

Now, connect this recommendation that doctors should "probe" about marital discord with the ongoing feminist push to have hospitals include questions about domestic violence in their intake procedures.

It's not too much of a stretch, given the rabidly anti-male climate in the legal system, to imagine this formula:

(1) (Doctor) -- "Oh, my dear, you're suffering from marital discord!"
(2) (Hospital's state-mandated Women's Advocate) -- "Did you know that marital discord is a form of abuse? Please sign these forms..."
(3) (Cop) -- "Sir, you're under arrest!"
(4) (Public Defender) -- "Man, I'd just plead guilty to the charge of perpetrating marital discord. It's only a Class A felony. Six months and you're once again a free man!"

A tendency towards paranoia does not mean that you're NOT being targeted...


"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear." - Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
[an error occurred while processing this directive]