Cats vs dogs, men vs women...

Svenskaflicka

Fountain
Joined
Jun 9, 2002
Posts
16,142
I just visited ihatemen.com.

The disclaimer says that the site really isn't about hate, but is more of a place for venting frustration.

What do you think?
 
Where are the sites for I hate women; I hate dogs; I hate cats?

Why can men die of prostate cancer and even breast cancer without everyone buying a token or running a race to prevent it? When was a man told to check for lumps in his chest?

I don't hate men or women but this sort of humour seems one sided. It seems to be humour, not sexism.

Og
 
I just visited the site, and I love this statement on the index page: IHateMen is an Equal Opportunity Discriminator. That said it all to me. It's a good site, and it is supposed to be tongue in cheek. Let the battle of the sexes rage on. :D

Just for the record, I don't hate men. Only a few of them. ;)

Lou :rose:
 
oggbashan said:
Why can men die of prostate cancer and even breast cancer without everyone buying a token or running a race to prevent it? When was a man told to check for lumps in his chest?
My disclaimer: I don't know that I truly hate anyone (though a few persons deeply disturb me and cause riotous emotions I don't enjoy). I love and appreciate men, the idea of them, the idea of the masculine, and their apposition and balance to me.

Re. the above statement Ogg: it's well known now that medical science has severely neglected female physiology and biology; medical researchers have only recently begun to include women in their data. It's only in the past few years (perhaps a decade) that 'Doctor' has taken into account the differences between the sexes with regard to heart ailments and certain cancers.

Women were forced to march and run for breast cancer research. It's not fun.

Perdita
 
My wife and daughters ran for breast cancer this year. I supported them.

In this country the ratio of spending (on research about and treatment of) for female specific cancers to male specific cancers is about 5:1.

Screening for prostate cancer is almost non-existent yet it often shows no symptoms until it is too late for treatment.

Prostate cancer just doesn't have a high enough profile. Male breast cancer doesn't seem to exist in the public's mind and is not diagnosed.

I don't like this imbalance but I don't want research and treatment of female specific cancers reduced. I want male specific cancers to be addressed as well.

Og
 
oggbashan said:
Screening for prostate cancer is almost non-existent yet it often shows no symptoms until it is too late for treatment.

Prostate cancer just doesn't have a high enough profile.
Very interesting; evidently there's a difference scene here in the states. P.
 
Mass screening for cancers has been downgraded.

Mobile chest X-rays were common. Now they aren't, yet we have increasing cases of TB.

Breast cancer screening has been restricted to certain categories of women only even though research shows that more screening would reduce deaths.

It is a question of financial priorities. The downside of a free National Health Service is that people believe that it should deal with every minor complaint from a cough or cold to a minor graze. Our emergency facilities are often crowded with people who could take an aspirin or make an appointment to see their doctor tomorrow. However much service is available the demand grows beyond the service's capacity.

Successive governments have tried to tackle the problem but haven't found a solution. "Free" entitlement seems to suggest that people should not have any responsibility themselves. Some people "demand" immediate services for minor complaints while elderly people are reluctant to "bother" their busy doctor.

The politics of the National Health Service could keep me writing for days without generating any new ideas. The governments have tried everything. The current idea is to throw money at it but even that isn't working.

A frustrated Og who sees his doctor about once every 5 years for a long standing injury.
 
Back
Top