Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

tsiehta

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If we just look at deaths then 29,775 people were diagnosed with cancer in 2009, 15,364 men and 14,441 women.

8,911 of the men will die within 5 years of diagnosis
7,220 of the women will die

Yet all of the awareness and HSE freebies are around breast cancer and cervical cancer.
Were the statistics the other way around it would be a national scandal.

Found this Time magazine article which is interesting reading http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/13/almost-every-type-of-cancer-kills-more-men-than-women-study-shows/

My main point is where are the health campaigns for the guys?

You can't just ask where the campaigns are without defining what kind of campaign you want, for which kind of cancer, and justifying the need for it. To justify it, there needs to be a high incidence of the cancer in younger males, it has to be treatable/curable if caught early, and there has to be a generally poor prognosis in those diagnosed.

As for men generally dying of cancer more than women, as your link points out, the men dying from cancer now are those who were young in an era when men drank more and smoked more than women.

That said, there is indeed a cultural factor involved in which men do not go to the doctor as often as women and tend to ignore health problems, and I would welcome a campaign to encourage that. I wouldn't bash female specific health campaigns just because this does not exist though.

Pawwed Rig

PucaMama wrote: »

breast cancer, cervical cancer and prostate cancer are all fairly different so they obviously cant be dealt with in the same way.

That is true however surely some level of an awareness program could be provided for male cancer? Even a little education through the school system. It couldn't hurt.

tsiehta wrote: »

To justify it, there needs to be a high incidence of the cancer in younger males

Why only young males out of interest?

That said, there is indeed a cultural factor involved in which men do not go to the doctor as often as women and tend to ignore health problems, and I would welcome a campaign to encourage that.

I hear this all the time but am not sure how true it is. I have had occassion to visit a fair number of GPs over the years and with all of them it is a case of listing your symptoms as quickly as possible, scribbling a perscription and getting you out the door. Only once has a GP ever attempted to engage me in a wider health check. With this kind of service I am not inclined to spend €60 for every ache and pain.
Always in the waiting rooms covering every wall is information about women's health issues.
Hopefully if the promised free GP care comes in things will even out somewhat but I am sceptical that that will ever happen.

I wouldn't bash female specific health campaigns just because this does not exist though.

No, on the contrary I think they are great ideas. I would just question the one sided nature of the resources being thrown at the campaigns and believe that alot more could be done for other types of cancer awareness. For example other than reading this research earlier I would have had no idea that skin cancer had such a high incidence in Ireland.

GalwayGuy2

when i hear things like what i bolded above i think its something that belongs in the conspiracy forum. women dont hate men, at least i dont and neither do the women i no. we dont want to take away anyones rights. i happen to like men but not this stuff. comparing cancer treatments and getting competitive about it etc really does no one any good.

You should read below the bolded point.

And I never said women hated men. But it's funny you thought I said that.

Strangely, I hear that our society is misogynistic society that seeks to take away women's rights every singly day.

newport2

tsiehta wrote: »

You can't just ask where the campaigns are without defining what kind of campaign you want, for which kind of cancer, and justifying the need for it. To justify it, there needs to be a high incidence of the cancer in younger males, it has to be treatable/curable if caught early, and there has to be a generally poor prognosis in those diagnosed.

As for men generally dying of cancer more than women, as your link points out, the men dying from cancer now are those who were young in an era when men drank more and smoked more than women.

That said, there is indeed a cultural factor involved in which men do not go to the doctor as often as women and tend to ignore health problems, and I would welcome a campaign to encourage that. I wouldn't bash female specific health campaigns just because this does not exist though.

As ever, when concerns about men's health are raised or the fact that men die years before women do on average, a few lines are thrown in to emphasise that it's mainly men's own fault. Sure they don't look after themselves like us responsible women do.

Chr1st, can you imagine if there was something that was killing lots of women every year and somebody tried to make the point that women only had themselves to blame for it?

PucaMama wrote: »

what disgust me reading this is not the victimhood creeping in, but the fact that its seen as a sexism issue breast cancer, cervical cancer and prostate cancer are all fairly different so they obviously cant be dealt with in the same way.

The point being made is that some people feel a disproportionate amount of the resources available go to fund cancers that only effect women. And yet this gets labled as "victimhood"? Do you think if 80% of funding available went on prostrate cancer and 20% on breast cancer, there might be a few "victimhood" articles in response to that? Would you see that as "victimhood" or women making the perfectly valid point that cancer that affects women deserves the same attention as cancer that affects men? I think there's a fair chance it would be seen as a "sexism issue" then too.

kiffer

No

PucaMama wrote: »

I realy dont think cancer screenings can be described as "freebies" :rolleyes:
so do you think men should be regularly screened? if so how often? and how do you suggest we convince men to go for screenings?

How do we convince men to go for the free screenings?
Step one would be to have free screenings.

The ages at which different cancers strike are indeed different so obviously giving 20 year olds screenings every 3 years wouldn't be needed...

We give and push screenings to women of all ages but none to men, even though more men get prostate cancer than women get cervical cancer because the men are generally over 55 when they get it is crazy...
It actually sounds like "ah sure he's done his work. he's of no value now... not like those young women".

September was apparently Blue September...
Which was an awareness month for cancer that men get more often.
You know what would have been great? If the ads had said "testicular cancer and prostate cancer" rather than "did you know there are certain cancers only men get"

IvyTheTerrible

kiffer wrote: »

How do we convince men to go for the free screenings?
Step one would be to have free screenings.

The ages at which different cancers strike are indeed different so obviously giving 20 year olds screenings every 3 years wouldn't be needed...

We give and push screenings to women of all ages but none to men, even though more men get prostate cancer than women get cervical cancer because the men are generally over 55 when they get it is crazy...
It actually sounds like "ah sure he's done his work. he's of no value now... not like those young women".

September was apparently Blue September...
Which was an awareness month for cancer that men get more often.
You know what would have been great? If the ads had said "testicular cancer and prostate cancer" rather than "did you know there are certain cancers only men get"

I thought it was mostly women over 50 that got breast cancer?

kiffer

No

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

I thought it was mostly women over 50 that got breast cancer?

Yes?
And women under 50 get free cervical screenings every 3 years...
Breast cancer kills more women than prostate and testicular cancer kills men.
But cervical cancer kills less women than them...
That's what I've gathered from the last few pages.
Is that right?

Pawwed Rig

I found this. I do not know too much about the medical side if I am honest (more a statistics kind of person) but the table below tells an interesting story.

miamee

(The table is not appearing for me?)

Pawwed Rig

miamee wrote: »

(The table is not appearing for me?)

Hmmmm
try this

GalwayGuy2

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

But it's part of a wider misandric culture



Just sayin'

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

And I never said women hated men. But it's funny you thought I said that.
.

You did though

misandry
mɪˈsandri/
noun
noun: misandry

1.
the hatred of men (i.e. the male sex specifically)

The Corinthian

PucaMama wrote: »

what disgust me reading this is not the victimhood creeping in, but the fact that its seen as a sexism issue breast cancer, cervical cancer and prostate cancer are all fairly different so they obviously cant be dealt with in the same way.

I'm sorry, but how does spending public resources (free screenings, awareness campaigns) for those cancers that target only one gender, and ignoring those cancers that target the other gender tie into your assertion that different cancers should be treated in different ways?

Are men better off not knowing anything about testicular cancer? Will encouraging screenings increase the incidence of prostrate cancer? Please let us know how this is explained through the logic you've given, because it doesn't seem to add up too well.

Unfortunately, the reality is that there is a strong element of sexism where it comes to these things; where it comes from is another debate (I would blame men ourselves as much as anyone else), but it does demonstrably exist, and without any need to delve into conspiracy theories.

bluewolf wrote: »

You did though

Now, you're being naughty, because he's just denied that he ever claimed that women hated men - to which you give the dictionary definition of misandry, which oddly enough is not "the hatred of men by women".

He cited "a wider misandric culture" which is a little bit more complex than 'women hating men'. Instead, it's a product of patriarchal definitions of men, that have gone untouched during the last century, whereby men are still defined as protectors and providers, who's role is to sacrifice themselves for the good of the family if necessary, while, at the same time, having lost the privileges of that role, that were very much touched during the last century.

One could point to feminism as sharing responsibility for this - both by ignoring patriarchal norms that did not directly affect women, and nowadays by monopolizing victimhood so that men's roles remain largely ignored - but men too have a responsibility, because we just dumbly went along with it all, and feminism, last time I checked, was not a synonym for 'women'.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Is it another case of women seeing themselves as a group where us men see ourselves as individuals?

The marketers have also made breast cancer awareness "fun". It's a big excuse to cover everything in pink and have fun where I'm not sure if marketing prostate cancer in this fashion would work.

This issue reminds me of male/female achievement in state exams - if boys out perform girls it's a problem that needs to be addressed but if girls out perform boys it's a sign of progress and a great achievement for females.

DamoKen

bluewolf wrote: »

You did though

misandry
mɪˈsandri/
noun
noun: misandry

1.
the hatred of men (i.e. the male sex specifically)

He didn't though unless a joke is now to be taken as the posters point. He even pointed that out in a subsequent post to correct Puca Mama who also only read the first line of his post.

GalwayGuy2 wrote:

But it's part of a wider misandric culture that seeks to take away men's rights.

I'm joking with the above comment, and I'm undecided on the original point.

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

You should read below the bolded point.

And I never said women hated men. But it's funny you thought I said that.

Strangely, I hear that our society is misogynistic society that seeks to take away women's rights every singly day.

DamoKen

DamoKen wrote: »

He didn't though unless a joke is now to be taken as the posters point. He even pointed that out in a subsequent post to correct Puca Mama who also only read the first line of his post.

No, but the surprise and remark about "it's funny how you thought i did" - just wanted to emphasise that it's not completely out of nowhere that she got the idea

DamoKen

bluewolf wrote: »

No, but the surprise and remark about "it's funny how you thought i did" - just wanted to emphasise that it's not completely out of nowhere that she got the idea

...ok, so Puca Mama asserted something he clearly didn't say, he even went so far as to correct this, and you then back up and emphasis a point which is wrong to begin with but because he is "surprised" he was misunderstood your point stands?

Sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever. Why not just say you misread what he wrote and be done with it before the thread is derailed further.

One final point though. I would also have phrased it as "it's funny how you.." etc. Not because I'd be surprised, quite the opposite.

As in it's funny how often in the Gentlemen's Club points are misread, misrepresented or completely taken out of context.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note: OK guys enough of the 'he said she said' and back to the discussion thanks

A Neurotic

There's a very good reason that cervical cancer has a national screening program and prostate cancer does not: they're completely different diseases that can't be compared in any meaningful way.

There's a set of criteria (called the Wilson and Jungner criteria) which are used to determine whether any public screening program is worth putting in place. For example, there's no point in screening the whole population for a disease if it's not detectable with a simple, non-invasive test, or if it doesn't have a long prodromal stage, or if a firm treatment protocol is in place for the disease if it's found. Prostate cancer simply doesn't fit a lot of these criteria and can't be efficiently screened for on a large scale.

Wilson and Jungner criteria for screening wrote:

Knowledge of disease:
The condition should be important.
There must be a recognisable latent or early symptomatic stage.
The natural course of the condition, including development from latent to declared disease, should be adequately understood.
Knowledge of test:
Suitable test or examination.
Test acceptable to population.
Case finding should be continuous (not just a 'once and for all' project).
Treatment for disease:
Accepted treatment for patients with recognised disease.
Facilities for diagnosis and treatment available.
Agreed policy concerning whom to treat as patients.
Cost considerations:
Costs of case finding (including diagnosis and treatment of patients diagnosed) economically balanced in relation to possible expenditures on medical care as a whole.

Saying that effective awareness- and fund-raising for a certain kind of cancer is misandrist is pretty much the definition of the worst of the "men's rights" movement found on this forum - seeking out any and all discrepancy in gender-specific issues and decrying them as grossly sexist, before adding "if this happened to women can you imagine the blah blah blah". It's exhausting.

Pawwed Rig

A Neurotic wrote: »

Prostate cancer simply doesn't fit a lot of these criteria and can't be efficiently screened for on a large scale.

So should be just ignored then?

A Neurotic wrote: »

Saying that effective awareness- and fund-raising for a certain kind of cancer is misandrist

Who said that?

A Neurotic wrote: »

seeking out any and all discrepancy in gender-specific issues and decrying them as grossly sexist

That is what the thread is about - to highlight inequality. If you find that 'exhausting' then this or other equality related threads are probably not the threads for you.

The Corinthian

A Neurotic wrote: »

There's a set of criteria (called the Wilson and Jungner criteria) which are used to determine whether any public screening program is worth putting in place. For example, there's no point in screening the whole population for a disease if it's not detectable with a simple, non-invasive test, or if it doesn't have a long prodromal stage, or if a firm treatment protocol is in place for the disease if it's found. Prostate cancer simply doesn't fit a lot of these criteria and can't be efficiently screened for on a large scale.

Which criteria does, for example, prostrate checks fail on? Indeed, even on the simple, non-invasive testing side of things, it's hardly more invasive than Pap tests and significantly simpler.

I think you're falsely trying to apply criteria that do not fit, to justify something which unfortunately cannot be explained other than preferential treatment for dealing with one ailment over another on the basis of gender.

Saying that effective awareness- and fund-raising for a certain kind of cancer is misandrist is pretty much the definition of the worst of the "men's rights" movement found on this forum - seeking out any and all discrepancy in gender-specific issues and decrying them as grossly sexist, before adding "if this happened to women can you imagine the blah blah blah". It's exhausting.

I certainly would not criticize private charities that raise awareness for conditions such as breast or cervical cancer. What I would criticize is public money being prioritized only for conditions that affect one gender over another. Indeed, how many typically male focused conditions receive anywhere near the same amount of government funding? Or any funding? A single one?

And this denial that there is even any kind of discrimination is pretty much the definition of the worst of the feminist movement found on this forum - perpetuating the myth that men suffer no negative discrimination and that too is exhausting.

GalwayGuy2

I know it was a mod note, but I'd like to explain that comment that has gathered so much attention

I was joking. Unless I take the feminist definition of misogyny, and replace it with misandry, then i don't believe there's an evil conspiracy to keep men down. I did mention on the very next sentence.

Also, it highlighted how often men hear the reverse of what caused such annoyance in this thread. Imagine hearing the we live in a misandric society comment day, after day, after day, in all forms of media and in education, and movies, and literature, and so on. Now, imagine that it's not just the society that is misogynistic, but the male themselves are misogynists and need to change.

It's kind of surprising how people don't think the above can have adverse effects on people's mentality.

Finally, I didn't mean the term misandry in the form that women hate men. I didn't mean it in any form of seriousness.

But, it was surprising how posters immediately thought I was talking about women.

Do people see misogynists as male, and misandrists as female?

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which criteria does, for example, prostrate checks fail on? Indeed, even on the simple, non-invasive testing side of things, it's hardly more invasive than Pap tests and significantly simpler.

I think you're falsely trying to apply criteria that do not fit, to justify something which unfortunately cannot be explained other than preferential treatment for dealing with one ailment over another on the basis of gender.

I certainly would not criticize private charities that raise awareness for conditions such as breast or cervical cancer. What I would criticize is public money being prioritized only for conditions that affect one gender over another. Indeed, how many typically male focused conditions receive anywhere near the same amount of government funding? Or any funding? A single one?

And this denial that there is even any kind of discrimination is pretty much the definition of the worst of the feminist movement found on this forum - perpetuating the myth that men suffer no negative discrimination and that too is exhausting.

I think what you'd have to do is break down the numbers if you are going to compare cervical cancer awareness with prostate cancer.

Cervical cancer risks start when women become sexually active, so tests start around late teen years whereas prostate cancer risks start around age forty for men, then you'd have to look at the population of each gender in relation to numbers at risk to determine if state money is distributed in a discriminatory manner.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Cervical cancer risks start when women become sexually active, so tests start around late teen years whereas prostate cancer risks start around age forty for men, then you'd have to look at the population of each gender in relation to numbers at risk to determine if state money is distributed in a discriminatory manner.

Then why don't free tests get offered once men reach forty? Why are the only conditions, cancers and illnesses that receive such government support those that affect women?

You, A Neurotic and others can pick at these all you want, but it doesn't change this fundamental and seemingly unexplainable fact.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then why don't free tests get offered once men reach forty? Why are the only conditions, cancers and illnesses that receive such government support those that affect women?

You, A Neurotic and others can pick at these all you want, but it doesn't change this fundamental and seemingly unexplainable fact.

Yeah that's a good point. I don't know why. Do you?

py2006

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Do people see misogynists as male, and misandrists as female?

Well the dictionary definitions says they should.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yeah that's a good point. I don't know why. Do you?

I do not know of any such support by the government in Ireland for medical conditions, illnesses or cancers that overwhelmingly or exclusively affect men. No free screenings, vaccinations, media campaigns or the like.

py2006 wrote: »

Well the dictionary definitions says they should.

It doesn't; the dictionary will define misogynists or misandrists as those with a hatred of women or men respectively, but it doesn't specify what gender they are.

There's plenty of female misogynists and male misandrists out there.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

I do not know of any such support by the government in Ireland for medical conditions, illnesses or cancers that overwhelmingly or exclusively affect men. No free screenings, vaccinations, media campaigns or the like.

It doesn't; the dictionary will define misogynists or misandrists as those with a hatred of women or men respectively, but it doesn't specify what gender they are.

There's plenty of female misogynists and male misandrists out there.

So I guess if you want equality then take away the cervical screening because I doubt Ireland can afford any more services on its health bill.

That or desocialise healthcare.

PucaMama

clairefontaine wrote: »

So I guess if you want equality then take away the cervical screening because I doubt Ireland can afford any more services on its health bill.

That or desocialise healthcare.

i would seriously hope no one would consider doing that :mad:

clairefontaine

PucaMama wrote: »

i would seriously hope no one would consider doing that :mad:

Well, if you want equality but cant afford it then they may have to.

PucaMama

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well, if you want equality but cant afford it then they may have to.

eh no, i dont think that will be done. :mad: how about trying to improve things for men without punishing women