|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The semi-bullying and nagging tone of the whole website? I especially love how they want us to be able to perform, but it's unreasonable for us to be afraid of virtual emasculation by treatment. Why the hell should they care, especially now that married women are entitled to cheat on their spouses?
I get screened because I want to live, not because some woman wants me to service her needs.
And I'll be damned if I let anyone harrass me into complying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The semi-bullying and nagging tone of the whole website? I especially love how they want us to be able to perform, but it's unreasonable for us to be afraid of virtual emasculation by treatment.
I think this does indicate some progress. They actually state that men actually matter! Contrast this with the two anti-suicide campaigns towards the end of the Clinton administration and you'll see a world of difference. [Quick summary of the campaigns: "The slaves are killing themselves and we should do something about it!]
It might be a start, but I'm not going to get optimistic yet. They still have that "We can't let the slaves die on us!" mentality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.brprostate.org/
I get screened because I want to live, not because some woman wants me to service her needs.
And I'll be damned if I let anyone harrass me into complying.
This is an excellent attitude NoLoveLost. But let the "girls" at the site above know about it. You are preaching to the amen corner here. They have an e-mail feedback area so let them know about their misandry. The "girls" poor little things, may not realize they are being misandric. If you do contact them please post their reply here too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote to them stating these facts just before I posted here. I'm still waiting for a reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>* We believe that saving men's lives is as important as saving women's lives."
Good Lord!! What kind of society do we live in where this statement even has to be made??!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here are woman fighting for you. You sit here and defend to the teeth your right to run 'your' movement however 'you' want to, even if it goes to extremes. Well, here are a group of women actually acomplishing things, and all you can do is bitch?
Hello!?
They are fighting for the same goal, but doing it their own way. And doing it effectively. Get over it. They are making headway on a topic which effects men. Fighting your allies is rediculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jen,
With all respect, I am reticent to consider anyone my ally just because we oppose a common foe. I can only be considered an ally if their opposition is for the same or similar reasons as the ones I hold. Yes, it's a positive half-step forward on the issues of men's health. I oppose their motive for it. I don't like the idea of saying "by virtue of the power driven women hold, we deem that men's lives must be saved to keep them useful to us."
It's an uneasy alliance because the spirit of a true ally is simply not there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can see why people are finding some things on the website offensive. That said, I'd like to think that most people here would consider their objectives much more important than the potential for offence or even any ulterior motives. Still, almost all of the things said here about them are negative. If they are achieving things and all the response they get is hostility, even from those with the same goal, I wouldn't blame them for stopping.
If anyone is going to write to them to complain, that's fair enough but please also show appreciation. We need their help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe their goal is the same, but their motives definitly are not the same. Like somebody else said here, they are just afraid that their slaves will die. 200 years ago a slave-owner would have done just the same to keep his slaves alive like these hypocrites are doing now.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't know that. You are assuming. Their tactic could easily be read as -how to get everyday women to care about protate cancer, because everyday men don't. Women can get their spouses and boyfriends to do what a direct ad cannot-go to the doctor. YOU are reading the selfish motivation, it is a guess on your part.
Women are not enemies. Feminist ideology is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jen wrote: Women are not enemies.
I know there are female individuals who care for men and I respect these women for that. But this is an initiative started and runned by a bunch of middle-class females, who are only concerned about their own interests. My experience with this kind of female initiatives is, they don't give a shit for men, they don't even give a shit for working-class women.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviosuly we each have our own opinions on this, but I have to agree with Jen. We may not like everything about the effort they are making, but they ARE making one. One that will ultimately improve mens health. We're not exactly in a postition to demand that all of our battles end with no casualties. I consider it a victory if more men are healthy and beat prostate cancer because of these efforts. That's the bottom line. We'll lose credibility if all we do is fold our arms and say "yeah thanks, but it wasn't perfect" on the rare occassion that we do get some help. Lets be grateful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree, Bledso.
It's up to men and men only to educate themselves about prostate cancer and to do something about it for their own sakes. Those that don't will die, and that is the consequence of remaining wilfully ignorant. There is far more at stake here than survival rates. What is at stake is the very idea that we should owe our lives to anybody's self-serving cause other than our own. There is such a thing as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Motives are important. Intentions are important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also agree with Jen on this. Maybe the reasoning or wording isn't set in the ideal jargon to satisfy some, but the goals of elevating men's health is exactly what we've been demanding.
Let's get over this demand for orthodoxy and welcome actions by people who support the issue of men's health.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women are not enemies. Feminist ideology is.
That comes across as a dodge, Jen. If you had to deal day in and day out with women poisoned by that ideology, and look at crap like this site which purports to show how much women care about men by bashing them just like the feminists have, you would know that the difference which you claim to be there is just not visible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:48 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate what they're doing and especially their pointing out that men's lives should be given equal value (although, as someone else point out here, it's outrageous that our policymakers have to told that). But it's also true that the approach helps show the magnitude of the double standards, chivalry and misandry that we are up against, in that results come faster when women fight for men's rights than when men fight for men's rights, and in fact it often winds up being framed in terms of improving men's health for the ultimate purpose of improving women's health (maybe not so much with this group at issue here, with with others). The Men's Health Network, for instance, which has been fighting for a national office of men's health for years, gets results quicker when they send women lobbyests than when they send men lobbests. I say that *not* as an attack on the women lobbyests who help us - they are very much appreciated - but only because it shows the bias that we're up against. What works, works, and I thank those who are doing good things; but boy does this show how far we are from equity.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you guys like to believe that everything will be fine now, just because some women, who don't know what else to do with their time, telling you what to do with your prostate, that's fine with me. Maybe next time they tell you to cut off your balls because it's good for men, you can't get cancer in your testicles. Will you still say they are fighting for the same goal?
With all respects, I don't buy their bullshit. It's my prostate and no blue, yellow, pink or whatever colour ribbon woman, is going to tell me what to do with it.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, Jen, they are not fighting for me. There is nothing in those arrogant condescending ads which would inspire me to go get screened. I have no woman in my life to give me no more "nookie" until I get screened. And, I DO happen to "know dick" about the disease, having had several friends go through it and having some related issues with it myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:55 AM November 24th, 2004 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't you think it would be a tad bit offensive for a men's group to start up a breast cancer awareness campaign just because men enjoy looking at breasts and don't want women to lose them to breast cancer? I believe they have good intentions. Just change the "healthy and able to perform" to just healthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent point.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most men don't know their prostate from their elbows.
They barely know where their prostate is. ("Is it under my armpit?")
Most men think a PSA is an organization of parents and teachers that meets at their children's school. Or it's that test you take after high school to get into college? ("Is it marked on a curve?")
In fact, there are more men afraid of prostate cancer screening than prostate cancer itself. ("You're going to stick what up where?")
Ask men their PSA score and they'll give you a puzzled look. "(You'll have to talk to my wife or partner about that)"
Ignorance and denial are the states they want to go on living in. Based, of course, on the premise that "What you don't know won't hurt you. "
And the lifesaving value of early detection is diminished by visions of impotence and incompetence dancing in their heads. ("You mean I'm not going to be able to get it up again?")
Clearly guys know nothing. Nada! Nil! Zip!
Thanks, I know what and where my prostate is. I also know that the PSA test neither conclusively finds or rules out the presence of prostate cancer. I also know that the gloved hand up moon river test will only find large tumors on the near er side of the prostate. I know that the more invasive test is painful, bloody and also hit-or-miss (if you don't happen to skewer a tumor, it can come up negative). I also know that prostate cancer is a slow-growth cancer, and that it occurs mostly in elderly men who often die of other causes without ever showing a prostate cancer symptom. I know that aggressive treatment of prostate cancer doesn't prolong life, and does often leave the patient incontinent and effectively neutered.
Apparently I know a lot more than this website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Virginia there must be a Santa Claus because the misandry lovin' state of Georgia has since the year 2000 a Department of Men's Health!
See: http://www.communityhealth.state.ga.us/
if you don't believe it!
If the feminist agenda burdened state government of Georgia can at least give recognition (however lame) of the ongoing crisis of men's health then there must be some progress.
And with this view in mind I see the Blue Ribbon Prostate Initiative (though condescending as it may be) a positive sign of progess too.
These are steps in the right direction and it is up to men to guide the BRPI to a more man friendly outlook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Most guys don't know dick about prostate cancer."
"Finally it pays to think with your dick."
(over photo of naked man holding hands over his crotch) "What do we have to do to remind you to get a prostrate screening, tie a ribbon around it."
"How to make sure he gets a prostate cancer screening - No screening, no nookie."
and my favorites, the 2 pics of women labeled SHE "suffers from prostate cancer."
Obviously, they engaged the same advertising firm that Verizon, Geico, Subway, DV advocates, and all the rest of our favorites use. "Let's show how much we care about men by bashing them over how stupid we think they are and play to stereotypes."
After 20+ years of being beaten about the head with "all sex is rape" and "1 in 4 women are raped" and an almost daily barrage of how much women hate sex, most of the premise of this site is laughable. I have seen so little evidence to refute the impression that women absolutely hate sex (coming from women, that is) that combined with the bashing I simply cannot see this site as expressing any real concern for men at all, simply how inconvenient it is for women when we die.
As a man who saw his PSA go from 3.7 to 4.5 in six months, then jump to 7.5 in the next six, gone through an ultrasound probe and needle biopsy which took a dozen 1.5 inch long core samples out of a gland the size of a walnut and pissed blood for a week, there was almost nothing about that site which I did not find patently offensive.
I wonder what the female reaction to a breast cancer campaign with slogans like "Most women are boobs when it comes to their breasts" would be.
(sigh) It's gonna be a long gender war if this is what women think passes for expressing concern and regard for men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You make some very valid points, and I've reconsidered my earlier position. Although I like the goals of this group, the message is targeted to completely feminist-indoctrinated anti-male women. Is this the only way to get women to accept such a program for men? I think not. Rather, these style ads perpetuate the feminist negativity that is so prevalent today.
I think it's OK to complain about the ads, while praising the goals. I sent them the following short email:
================================================
Your initiative is long overdue and welcome. Finally some concern about male-specific health issues.
But I must ask, why do you find it necessary to insult us while trying to save us?
If we applied the same standards of disrespect to breast cancer ads, we would have slogans such as:
"Breast cancer means no more titty sucking for you!"
"Of course she's stupid, but someone has to protect those great knockers."
It's very difficut to be optimistic these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a nice double standard for you. What happens when the 'all sex is rape' feminists happen to be in the same discussion with the 'deny men sex as coercion' feminists? If women are in control when sex happens, it must be them raping us!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:03 PM November 24th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Get back under thy bridge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh plz,
You are SO obvious. Lemme guess, you type that, then [cut and paste] it on your feminazi site and pretend WE said it ... right?
Such an amateur.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read what JenK has been saying and the back and forth replies.
I have the most sincere respect for Jen and care for her as a buddy, but I must, very respectfully, partially disagree with what she says.
The CAMPAIGN is good, but in it's presentation it will not "attract" men to it. Humor is WONDERFUL (people laugh at me all the time), using men's natural drives is a good idea (to an extent), but this campaign's "posters" are TERRIBLE.
I mean, sure this board is full of MRAs, and of a certain mindset, but look at how many men react to it(the ads). Also, and seriously hear me on this one: look at who the ads are REALLY targeting: (IMO) WOMEN.
They are clearly from and TO a female mindset and don't "click" on men's radar.
I wrote up some breast cancer awareness advertisments to illustrate the point (that they look like they were written by men, that MEN would find them humorous, and that it "makes sense" to men (the dense ones) that this is how to reach women):
Quote:
If she won't go for screenings hold up her bra and remind her that after her mastectomy that she won't need to wear this any more.
Quote:
Remind her during sex that if she doesn't get screened that she won't have anything for you to hold on to.
Quote:
Don't like men staring at your breasts? Don't have a breast exam for lumps and you won't have to worry about that any more.
I hope these clearly illustrate that YES the idea of a campaign from prostate cancer is good, but the advertising is HIGHLY unlikely to "reach" men, just as MY advertisments would never be taken to heart by women.
Give it some thought.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since this is an issue in which I have a personal stake, and am relatively informed about, I'm going to take the next step of suggesting some improvements to this campaign to make it something which could actually have some value.
First, the entire premise they are quoting is false. Treatment options are so limited that the only thing early detection does for a man is decrease his probability of dying from it. Since the prostate wraps entirely around the urethra, surgery carries a high risk of permanent urethral damage - leaving the guy alive and wearing Depends the rest of his life. (they basically have to nearly gut you.) The situation is very analogous to what happens when a woman has a C-section. Once the muscles and tendons in that area are cut, the woman usually cannot deliver normally and all future pregancies have to be delivered surgically. The same is true when someone with a knife goes mucking around between a guy's legs. Early detection may leave a guy "able to perform" his breadwinning role, but that was not the impression I got that the site was talking about. Although, the "selfish" reasons they cited may include that.
Radiation can burn the urethra to the same level of destruction, and the radioactive seeds can do the same, even if the risk is less, plus the jury is still out on their effectiveness.
As someone else has already pointed out, the numbers of men who DIE from it are not the whole story. A great many more men are diagnosed with it, and current practice when it is diagnosed in a man over 65 is to just monitor it closely because it is such a slow growing cancer that it is likely the guy will die from something else first.
The highest risk categories are -
1) men with a family history of the cancer,
2) black men over the age of 40-45.
At least they did use a lot of black males in the ads, unlike the oral cancer campaign who chose an attractive female in her 20s as the poster child when the real risk group for oral cancers is the same age group of black males as for prostate cancer.
One of the things which really ticked me off about the site was under the reasons -
"The Blue Ribbon Prostate Initiative was started by women who are veterans of the breast cancer wars."
WHAT "breast cancer wars"? Who was on the "other side" from these women in that those "wars"? Were there thousands or millions of men lined up on the other side saying "NO! Don't do that research to save women's lives!"
Fairly consistently, the most energetic and vocal opponents to ANY increase in funding for prostate cancer research have been women who were afraid that ANY money spent on it would be taken away from breast cancer research (despite the fact that breast cancer research gets more than 3x the money that prostate cancer research does) - leading to the horrible situation where one man's life might be saved at the cost of one woman's. That whole zero-sum-game mentality has been prevalent throughout the entire gender war.
What is really needed?
1) More funding for research into treatment options - women have seen their treament options expanded from radical mastectomies, to simple mastectomies, to lumpectomies. The treatment has become progressively less invasive and more sparing of the total person.
2) More support for men who go through treatment. When a woman lost a breast, she could count on a great deal of sympathy for how her sexual self-concept and confidence were affected. The prospect of spending the rest of his life incontinent and impotent is every bit as daunting to a man as the prospect that they will no longer be able to turn heads and have this unattractive scar are to women.
In short, I see this site as being a whole lot like Rudyard Kipling's observation that bringing civilization to those backward black "savages" was "the white man's burden." I don't see these women needing a pat on the back for doing something which APPEARS to be doing something for men, but is actually useless, because they are dislocating their own shoulders patting themselves on the back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great informational post !!!!
I have to admit my ignorance on the subject.
BUT, and isn't THIS telling, I knew about breast cancer due to PSAs, "movies of the week", a Law and Order episode, and having a few women who have had either mastectomies or lumpectomies.
Appreciate you taking the time to type all that out.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no prob, steven. I think it is also telling that in one post I put more information about the disease than I found on the entire blue ribbon site. Wouldn't it make sense to put info about prostate cancer up front on a website about it?
Instead, if a man went there, the first thing which would hit him in the face would be man-bashing.
It's the fact that women genuinely believe this is "helping" us that I find most scary.
"Well, missy, we manniggers sho is thanfu' for yo hep. Lawd noes we doan no nuffin 'bout it."
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
