This is Paul's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Paul's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Paul
Recent Activity
Yes, it's great to be able to report on some real positives for men and boys for a change, instead of finding ourselves with our backs to the wall trying to fight off the negatives that assail us from so many quarters. Interesting to note that the top ten issues identified by IMD are precisely those that have been the consistent focus of the Men's Rights Movement for many years already; and precisely the ones that have also been so badly neglected or ignored by our society. Indeed in many cases the knee-jerk reaction of the mainstream has actually been to insist that no such issues exist, and to vilify anyone who dares to raise them. Is the tide of misandry starting to turn at last?
You have done sterling work John, for many years, and been a great inspiration in the fight for justice and fairness - and for increasing the funding available for cancer research, which CRUK in its blindness has chosen to block rather than give up on its appalling sexism. But you have earned your escape from the fray and hopefully others will pick up the torch. The signs are good.
Hope this comment is relevant then: re CRUK's neglect of prostate cancer, I looked at the Henry Scowcroft article that is linked above. It was written in 2008, and I wanted to add my own comment as an update. But I cannot find any way on the CRUK website of making a comment. So I will make it here instead if I may! Well, it's now more than halfway through 2012, more than 4 years since Henry's article, and nothing has changed. We still have a consistent 10,000+ men dying of prostate cancer every year. The graph is flat-lining and there is still no national screening programme for the disease, or indeed for any other male-specific cancer; and I strongly suspect there is never going to be any. It is certainly still many light years away, and with a long line of hurdles waiting to trip it up if it ever gets as far as being proposed as a viable possibility. Meanwhile the main diagnostic tool remains the archaic and unreliable PSA test, or the DRE which consists of a GP probing blindly around in your rectum trying to guess whether your prostate feels abnormal or not. That is, provided you have got as far as persuading your GP to give you any test at all, since the standard instructions to doctors faced by men asking for a test, is to try to talk them out of it in the hope that something else will kill them before any cancer does. That hasn't changed either. This is the weak link in the chain: it is no use progressing with more sophisticated drugs to treat cancer if those drugs are not applied to sufferers until it is too late. It is like a restaurant producing more and more delicious meals, but forgetting to unlock the door so diners can come in to enjoy them. The priority must be to find a proper diagnostic tool, and then apply it nationally through a proper screening process, like women already have, so the cancer can be caught in good time. Until that happens, there will be no let-up in those unnecessary male deaths. For 10,000 men to die each year from a disease that is highly curable if caught in time, but who die because it is not being caught in time, is a national disgrace. The absence of screening is not just a weak link; it is a non-existent link. Men have no chance of diagnosing themselves because the symptoms of prostate cancer are so similar to many other benign conditions. That's why proper screening, rolled out nationally to all men in the high risk age range, is imperative. But it is not given any priority and is nowhere in sight. So sadly, Henry's bland assurances that there is no anti-male bias in cancer research continues to be belied by the facts; and by human nature. Because it seems to be a very natural instinct, on the part of both men and women, to give females priority in the survival stakes. This is why there has historically been such neglect of male cancer research and treatment (which even Henry has had to admit to) while that for women has flown ahead. I don't detect any change in that attitude; the accepted orthodoxy is still that women's lives are more important. Certainly more important than those of a few thousand old men who are going to die soon enough anyway, and whom it will cost too much money to save. It is the same assumption across the board in all aspects of health care: we spend far more on women's than on men's, and everyone - including the medical profession - seems perfectly comfortable with the life expectancy gap between the sexes, because there is again no sense of urgency to close it, or indeed any national policy to do so. As long as the females are far ahead and being taken care of, everything is just fine. CRUK's latest annual report tells us the same story. Funding for research into breast cancer: 42 million. Funding for research into prostate cancer: 20 million. Looks like the priorities remain well entrenched: women's health is at least twice as important as men's. At some time in the very near future, if it has not happened already, the number of deaths from prostate cancer will overtake the number of deaths from breast cancer - even if you include the increasing number of male deaths from the latter (because they are increasing, and will continue to do so as long as male breast cancer is ignored and excluded from the screening programme). But even that will not change the priorities. Sorry Henry, but I don't buy your "no prejudice against men's health" platitudes. Denial is a very common response to anyone who complains. There is prejudice, it is proven and clear; and CRUK is right at its forefront.
I will give this two cheers so far, but reserve the third until we see how the writers bring the storyline to a conclusion. Because we need to remember just how misandric these soaps really are. It is very hard to find any male character in any soap who isn't either a clown, a liar, a cheat, a philanderer, a criminal, a thug, an addict or just too plain stupid for words (clue: every male who appears in some form of headwear episode after episode is a member of the "male idiot" club. It's their uniform). Plus of course a few murderers and even serial killers thrown in just for good measure, to remind us that men are not just bad; when they put their minds to it, they are very bad indeed. Men are not people in soaps; they are just negative stereotypes, whose main purpose seems to be to remind us of how hopeless the male sex is while making the women look superior. The male abuse storyline in Corrie needs to end with the abusive woman being exposed and punished. But is that going to happen? Or is she going to be given excuses for her behaviour, that enable her to wriggle out of responsibility and end up being portrayed as just as much a victim as Tyrone? I suspect the latter. I understand her father is already being lined up as the real villain of the piece, so we get the familiar standard message: if a woman does anything bad, it is never her fault and she must be allowed to get away with it; because there is always a man behind her who made her do it, and he is always the one to blame. So the storyline could yet get twisted round to exonerate the female by making yet another male yet another scapegoat/patsy. That's why I am holding back on that third cheer.
I have said it before and I will say it again, because it does not cease to be true: female performances in sport are measurably inferior to those of men, across the board in just about every area of physical endeavour. The only exceptions are where the sports are simply different - such as gymnastics - or those where women have a horse or a machine of some kind to help them. That is exactly why women get their own sections of so many sports: athletics, cycling, rowing, swimming, tennis, golf, hockey, football...because everyone knows that if there was no sex segregation, women would be beaten out of sight time and again by the men. This is reflected in the Olympics where, in my view, the overwhelming majority of women competitors should count themselves dead lucky even to be in the Games to begin with, considering they qualify for them with significantly inferior performances that would never be good enough if they were recorded by men. A guy can run 100 metres in 10.5 seconds and will get nowhere, no medals, no plaudits and no recognition, because all the top men are thundering home in under 10 seconds flat; while any woman running the same distance in 10.8 seconds will be a national heroine, feted and honoured, and with every prospect of winning an Olympic medal. Fair? Only if you are happy to turn a blind eye to the gender apartheid practised so openly that nobody even seems to notice it. I watched an American woman competing in the Olympic heptathlon: the javelin throw. She had three attempts, all of them demonstrating that she was clueless. The first and third were dismal no-throws; the second effort, if you can call it that, went something like 21 metres. Utterly pathetic. And this woman was representing a great nation like the USA? She didn't even know the rudiments of one of her seven events. There are probably about 100 million schoolboys worldwide who could have done far better. But will any of them ever get to be Olympians, or represent their countries at international level, and have their names and faces on television? Only if they change sex, it appears. No wonder Jessica Ennis won the heptathlon by a country mile; what did she have to beat? I looked at her seven event performances, and I figure I could beat her at three of them. And I am a nobody, nearly three times her age and with no particular credentials. But then, I am a man. This is why I get highly irritated by arrogant, mouthy women like Denise Lewis sounding off about not getting the same recognition as male athletes. When you can match their performances, ladies, you will maybe have a point. Until then, just be thankful you are female, because that is the sole reason why you have a place at all in the premier sporting event in the world; otherwise you would never get anywhere near selection, let alone being able to shoot for gold medals, money and glory. You have a massive artificial leg-up over literally thousands of men who are better than you, but who have a far harder task trying to get to the top of their tree because it is hugely tougher to climb, and far more competitive, than yours. The Olympics is really two separate competitions: one for the best athletes and sportsmen on the planet; and one for the best of the lower-performing half of the human race, who get to be judged by a corresponding lower standard. That is why I don't rate the medals won by women as equal to those won by men. To me, that is the equivalent of saying that Accrington Stanley winning the npower division 2 of the football league is of equal merit to Manchester United winning the Premiership. It just isn't, no matter how much you cheer and bury the reality in overinflated hype. I am not trying to knock female athletes; it is good that everyone, male and female alike, has the chance to play at their chosen sport and to enjoy the best facilities for doing so. I am merely pointing out that equal rewards for what are clearly unequal performances, are simply wrong and unfair; and to indulge in bellyaching and false victimhood when you have already taken advantage of that unfairness to your benefit, over the heads of better people who were never given the opportunities you have had laid on a plate for you, smacks of self-indulgence, ignorance and a brand of sexism that is not any the less ugly just because it is being practised by women.
More infantile ad hominem abuse, Selena? Not many boys have joined Race for Life because CRUK shamefully refuse to publicise the fact that they are finally allowed to. Plus of course it is difficult for young boys to take part in an event where they are surrounded by females of all ages, many of whom are hostile to their presence and will not make them feel welcome. BTW the FA would be quite right to ban girls from boys' football teams. The presence of girls inhibits boys and brings a sexual dimension into the game that should not be there. Boys want to expend their energy focussing on playing the game, not being distracted by the presence of a girl they are not allowed to tackle and who will get all the attention and publicity purely because of her sex. Exactly the same reason why boys are banned from girls' sports teams. Let girls play in girls' teams if they want, nobody is stopping them.
Selena, thanks again for demonstrating that logical argument has no place in the mindset of someone determined to feel discriminated against and victimised, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You have had to dig deep to find any example of discrimination against females, and the one you have come up with is very minor since it affects one family only and has little relevance to anything else; the monarch is just a figurehead these days and has no real political power. You could say that favouring boys over girls for the succession is no worse than ships having female figureheads and names rather than male ones; and in any case, that discrimination is already in process of being addressed. But unfortunately for you, you have also shot yourself in the foot because the example you have chosen hides a clear case of anti-male discrimination, which is none the less real despite its being ignored. This is that when a king marries, his wife automatically becomes queen. But when a queen marries, her husband does not become king. Why not? Because of blatant anti-male discrimination that has been practised down the ages, that's why. Prince Philip has only ever been the royal "consort", standing in a decidedly inferior position to the present Queen. But if and when Prince William becomes king, Kate will be a full-blown queen alongside him. Indeed if you follow the media, she already seems to be a far more important personality generating more interest and attention, and we can expect that to continue. But did you not notice that piece of gender bias? Well neither did anyone else, because in the scramble to give royal girls the same birthright as royal boys, everyone seems to have overlooked the discrimination operating the other way. But then again, discrimination against males is acceptable and nothing to make a fuss about, don't you agree?
Re the Men's Hour item This raises a fundamental issue about men's rights and, very importantly, why men do not and often cannot claim those rights. In how many areas of life do we hear the same refrain: "the services and opportunities etc are available for men, but they just don't come forward and claim them, or show any willing to fight for them..." I believe it points up something in male nature that the way these services are delivered, fails to take into account: men are just not as demanding as women when it comes to reaching out and taking what is on offer. So putting a service out there and waiting for people to present themselves, works well for women but badly for men. We will always let women and children go first, then maybe take what crumbs are left...or maybe not at all. Responding only to demands will play into the hands of women, who are the more demanding sex. It is always the squeaky wheel that gets the oil. Those services, particularly in the health field, need to provide more outreach if they are going to give men a fair crack of the whip. But sadly wherever there is any outreach, it is nearly always for women only. Look at the national screening programmes for cancer, where the NHS gets off its backside for once and actually invites people to attend for screening. But who gets 100% of the invitations? There are only screening programmes for women, none for men. Instead we are expected to detect our own symptoms, put ourselves ahead of everyone and everything else (i.e. become a bit selfish) and seek out help in an environment that is so often either hostile or indifferent to our needs. It goes completely against the grain for most men. No wonder so many men die of cancer, even the more treatable ones. I see only two possible solutions: either these services have to change and adapt more to men's ways of doing things - which certainly means far more outreaching, and becoming much more male-friendly - or, men have to learn to do things for themselves. One such project is to offer health advice to men online. This is a big improvement, allowing men to access information in their own way and their own time, not needing to take time off work, and not needing to attend a surgery where they may be made to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. We need much more of this kind of approach. Other areas can be of more benefit to men in similar ways. We can access knowledge online or through our own research, instead of having to make do with information filtered by others before it reaches us - such as through the anti-male state education sector ot through the anti-male mainstream media. I guess what I am really advocating here is for men to go their own way - MGTOW actually works well for men, and can be applied in so many areas. Be your own boss and be your own champion, because nobody else will fill that role for you.
Toggle Commented Jul 19, 2012 on NEWS UPDATE at The Rights Of Man
Another factor is the difficulty of the work. Women players only have to play against other women, while men have a much harder task trying to beat other men. There is much greater depth in the men's game and it takes much more work and of a more intense nature for a man to succeed. If you had to measure the energy expended by Roger Federer in winning the men's title against that expended by Serena Williams in winning the women's title, you would find Roger had to work much harder.
Paul is now following The Typepad Team
Jul 18, 2012