Re: A Night with Ann Coulter

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
<andrelieven@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 16, 2:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> weaseled:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:04:06 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven

<andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 15, 2:30 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven

<andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
If prostate cancer were particularly curable, why is it, next to lung
cancer, the commonest cancer killer of American men?

That American men have a notoriously poor record of getting regular
medical checkups might play a role.

Now, lets use the reverse the sex test on this statement and see what
comes up:

If one was to say that American women have a notoriously poor record
of doing [ Thing A ], would that be a reasonable excuse for giving
such women fewer per capita resources and information ?

Of course it would be, thus, its also NOT a useable excuse when it
comes to men, unless you wish to stipulate to the fact that you are
biased against men, which would make you a sexist.

You appear to have completely missed my point, which was that with
regular checkups, prostate cancer is more likely to be caught in the
early stages, when it is highly curable.

You clearly have missed ALL of my points, that the pop news media
attention and funding for women's health issues is MUCH greater,
even when risks and fatality rates are similar.

Part of it is
that medical authorities have been taking a calculated risk with
those men's lives. Most medical organizations in the USA oppose
early detection by means of the P.S.A test.

All the public service announcements I've seen advocate it annually
for men over 40.

And, have you ever counted the number of such PSAs, and their hours
of airing with the number and timings of PSAs for women's health ?

Of course not, as I'm not obsessed with the topic.

Straw Whore; *** her on your own time.

Have you?

Yes. Because, without real DATA, conclusions are meaningless.

As you *admit* that you lack data, then you CANNOT make any
factual conclusions. Yet, you still try to; that betrays your view to
be not one of an informed person, but of a party-line ideologue.

Answer me this: What kind of lapel ribbon do you wear for prostate
cancer awareness ? Uh huh.

Whose fault is that?

Feminisms. Because they OPPOSE more attention/funding to men's
issues, including health.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?cat=92

U.S. News & World Report: 'Why Men Are So Good at Dying'
Monday, March 17th, 2008

"Yet, the bill has been the victim of controversy about funding
between the
men's health activists who argue that in the past 20 years medicine
has
tilted too far toward Venus and feminists unprepared to give up an
inch of
their hard-won territory. Men's health advocate Glenn Sacks, for
example,
makes the case in this column that men's health is underappreciated
and
under funded by the federal government.

When Men's Health Doesn't Count
By Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 10/9/02

Learn more about major areas of men's health like how to protect
against
Male Prostate Cancer. there are even more subtle issues specific to
men's
health like Health Supplements which meet the nutritional needs
specific
to men.

Congress is sending a message to American men: men's health doesn't
count.

The disturbing health and mortality disparities between American
whites
and blacks are well known, but most people do not realize that the
health
and mortality disparities between women and men are just as great.
For
example, the gap in life expectancy between whites and blacks is six
years, while the gender gap is 5.7 years. Adjusted for age, men are
1.6
times as likely as women to die from one of the top 10 causes of
death,
and blacks are 1.5 times as likely to die from them as whites.

Despite this, it is women's health, not men's, which continues to
receive
government attention and funding. For example, the National Institutes
of
Health--the federal focal point for medical research in the U.S.--
spends
nearly four times as much on female-specific health research as on
male-specific research. And though the average man is as likely to
die
from prostate cancer as the average woman is from breast cancer, the
Department of Health and Human Services' National Cancer Institute
spends three and a half times as much money on breast cancer
research as on prostate cancer research.

In fact, prostate cancer makes up 37% of all cancer cases but
receives
only 5% of federal research funding. In addition, the breast cancer
postage stamp has raised over $25 million for breast cancer research
since it began in 1998, while a 1999 bill proposing a similar stamp
for
prostate cancer research was unsuccessful.

When Congress formed the Office on Women's Health in 1991, its
goal was to improve women's health by directing and coordinating
women's health research, health care services, and health education.
Since then men's health advocates have been trying to create an
Office of Men's Health, with the goal of duplicating the OWH's
success. Yet while a new bill which will help to make the OWH's
funding permanent was just passed by the House, the Men's Health
Act of 2001 (H.R. 632) remains trapped in the House Energy and
Commerce Committee's subcommittee on health. If not rescued
soon, the bill will die when the 107th Congress adjourns this fall.

According to Tracie Snitker, director of public affairs for the Men's
Health Network, "the number and quality of federally funded
women's health education projects is outstanding. But while
outreach programs teach women about breast cancer and cervical
cancer, there are few if any programs which educate men about
their own gender-specific health needs.

"We want to do for men what the OWH has done for women," she
adds. "Men need education about the cancers which
disproportionately affect them, such as prostate cancer, skin
cancer and colorectal cancer. Young men need education on
testicular cancer. Most importantly, we need to teach men to seek
preventative health care."

Part of the reason an Office of Men's Health has been so long in
coming is the common but nonetheless false perception that the
government and the scientific community have paid more attention
to men's health than to women's. In 1990 Senator Barbara Mikulski
(D-MD) made national headlines by citing the fact that
women-specific health research comprised only 14% of the budget
of the National Institute of Health (NIH). She called it "blatant
discrimination" and led the successful campaign for the creation of
the OWH. What Mikulski and many in the media who publicized
Mikulski's claims did not understand was that only 6.5% of the
NIH's budget went to male-specific research--the vast majority of
the NIH's research was gender neutral.

Today the disparity in favor of women in NIH research has grown, as
has the gender disparity in enrollments in non-gender-specific
studies.
According to the Government Accounting Office, one of the few areas
where men comprise the majority of research subjects is in initial
trials
of experimental drugs. These are the trials undertaken to ensure that
the drugs are not lethal or seriously harmful.

First, drugs are usually tested on rats and monkeys. If there are no
adverse effects, they are then tested on people--usually men. If the
men also show no adverse effects, the drugs advance to larger trials,
where women comprise the majority.

Considering Congress' repeated refusal to act to help men's health,
one can't help but wonder--is men's health as important as women's,
or is it merely more important than monkeys'?

This column first appeared in the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot (10/9/02).
------------------------------------------

People wear ribbons for breast cancer awareness
because organized women's interest groups have pushed the issue into
the spotlight. If you want equal time for prostate cancer awareness,
stop whining, and *do* something about it, instead of complaining that
women are getting all the attention.

As noted above, we are; its just that when women tried to raise
awareness
of their issues, men were NOT sabotaging them. Women's groups and
political representatives ARE trying to derail men's efforts.

Whens the last time that you saw a televised public service
announcement about a prostate cancer public awareness
event ? Exactly.

Fairly often in New York City, after the well-publicized cases of
Mayor Giuliani and Yankee Manager Joe Torre.

Numbers vis a vis women's health PSAs ? Uh huh.

Again, I have no idea. I don't sit at my TV counting and comparing the
numbers. Do you?

As Dr. Phil states, 80% of " question " are really statements in
disguise,
as yours just was, in an attempt to equate NOTICING something with it
being a bad behavior pattern.

I quite reject that Straw Whore, and I note that your repeated use of
this
tactic displays your lack of interest in any serious discussion on
this
topic; you seek only to marginalise any equality for men.

Oh, do you ever try to excuse women's breast cancer issues with
anything to do with women not using their available resources ?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?

You directly balemed men for not using existing resources;
if you were to use that *same argument* at women, why, there
would be no need for women-only political health offices.

Like, say, since abortion is so legal, why are there so many
out-of-wedlock babies being born still ?

Abortion rights have been severely restricted (and abortion providers
harassed) in many US States to the point where it is practically
unavailable in significant areas of the country.

Given the prevalence of US citizens to travel freely about their
country, I note that Greyhound, Amtrak, et al, still function, and
can take anyone to any other US location where they could
get such services; even an air ticket is cheaper than raising a
child. Those who do not grasp this point should not be trusted
with any form of arithmetic beyond 2+2=4.

Moreover, the right
to choose also includes the right to carry a pregnancy to term,
regardless of the marital status of the parents.

" Her body, her Choice... HER *responsibility*. "

As long as obligations accrue to the same degree that rights
to Choose do, I am fine with that point of view.

Google " C4M " for more information on this issue.

I'm curious as to exactly what the hell your point is.

No, you're not. You seek to marginalise men and our issues,
in the delusion that women can only be served when women
dominate the political and societal discourse.

I, of course, reject such misandrous sexism.

Andre

Wow. I'm speechless, other than to note that your discombobulated rant
is worthy of the finest Usenet Kooks.

.

Loading