|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 11:38 PM June 19th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The author of the article claims that studying, in men only, ailments common to both sexes, is 'sexist'. I believe that much of the record will give the lie to this claim.
Take, for example, open heart surgery. Heart disease/stroke (related) are far and away the top killer of both sexes (and given that there are so many cases, even a small incidence in younger people results in quite a number of younger people being afflicted with these ailments).
There are some excellent PBS programs on the genesis of open heart surgery (too lazy to look them up, they are there). It was first tried in significant numbers during WWII on GIs with bullet wounds to the heart/significant blood vessels. Under the circumstances, crude and desperate techniques that could never ethically be done under civilian conditions were tried. Much was learned. The resulting knowledge was brought back to the States and efforts were conducted in earnest through the '50s culminating in the '60s in usable techniques such as bypass. Just for interest sake, look up the name Christian Barnaard (sp?) sometime. The man had the status of a rock star due to his efforts in the field. If I remember correctly, some experiments WERE done on terminal women/girls during the '50s (I'll have to check). However, it is clear to me that experimenting on GIs wasn't sexist, it was simply desperate and correct.
Further, if one looks at what happens when the feminists seize control of the health agenda, one need look no further than the breast cancer fetish (were you aware of this or do you need your conciousness raised?). CNN (not FOX) stated sometime back that breast cancer receives 3x the coverage in the press that heart disease does. It also receives funds out of all proportion to that spent on prostate cancer, even though deaths from the two are of the same order of magnitude. I consider this unconscionable. Yes, breast cancer is bad, but so are all of the other diseases.
Note that when the feminists took control you got breast cancer sucking up undue attention/funds. When men ran the show, you had Jerry's kids. What does that say to you?
BK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 11:17 PM June 20th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Marianne Legato's op-ed piece about the health vulnerabilities of males is a good sign. I'm glad that the NY Times printed it. Maybe they only print male-sympathetic articles written by feminist leaning women.
Warren Farrell has been writing for many years about the health problems of men and society's neglect of male health -- going at least as far back as his '93 book "The Myth of Male Power." All of that stuff pointed out by Legato in her op-ed piece has been presented by Farrell for many years. He's written letters repeatedly to the NY Times, and they've repeatedly refused to print them.
The claim that only men have been studied and that that constitutes sexism against women is suspect. Farrell points out, for instance, that historically male prisoners were used for medical experimentation. That's because men's lives were valued less than women's, not more. Women were protected more than men, and because of their reproductive function, they were less likely to be used in earlier drug studies or other experimentation that might place the fetus at risk.
A great article to read on this topic is Dr. Andrew Kadar's "The Sex-Bias Myth in Medicine" which appeared in the Aug '94 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. He punctures many of the feminist inspired myths and misconceptions on which so much anti-male discriminatory policy has been established and justified.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
RandomMan writes "Despite the insulting title - consider what would happen to a male columnist using that phrase to describe women -