I want to start out with a minor gripe. The word "masculism" is not a recognized word on the BlogSpot spell-checker and the word "feminism" is. Time to talk to the people at Webster's...
I have gotten a lot of good feedback on the items I have posted either on the comments section here, via Facebook or in person. First of all, I would like to thank everyone who has been reading. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one paying attention. I want to express again, however, that I'm not setting out to change everyone's mind out there. I will settle for just starting the conversation and helping people recognize that a conversation needs to take place. I figured I would use today's entry to address some things that have been raised by others who have read the blog and maybe start new discussions.
FROM P.J.: Actually MLB does a prostate cancer thing on Father's Day similar to their breast cancer promotion on Mother's Day (blue instead of pink). Plus they do more for prostate cnacer by donating money for each home run hit during the week of Father's Day and partnering with One-A-Day to donate $10 for each strikeout during the season and playoffs.
Thanks a lot to my "Other Little Brother" for filling me in on this. I applaud MLB for having a matching day to correspond with the Mother's Day festivities. The only issue I would raise is that I knew about the pink bat thing and I consider myself an avid baseball fan. I have never heard of this program and I think that alone kinda makes the point. I still like my idea better about the flesh-collored bats with purple rings...
FROM NICOLE: I think women go through pretty invasive exams at least once year from the time they're 18... as I'm sure you've been made aware. They are certainly not comfortable, but maybe more socially acceptable. Guys are taught by a homophobic society to be horrified about anything going in their rearend, when honestly, if you're not gay, something being shoved up your rear isn't going to make you gay.
In no way did I mean to marginalize the medical procedures that women go through. Having been present for MANY internal vaginal exams over the last year, I understand just how uncomfortable they can be. I was also informed by my friend Christa exactly what a mamogram entails. I learned just how uncomfortable that can be. I believe that we are taught that nothing should enter a straight man's rectum. I think that adds to the discomfort. I maintain that a prostate exam is still more uncomfortable that a B.S.E. but I understand the point totally.
FROM MPJCWBOSS: I think the fault lies with society in general. Society has always dictated that men be strong, never scared, never crying, never sentimental etc...this makes it impossible for men to even think about expressing their feelings openly and, therefore, they do not get the attention in many aspects of life that they want and deserve.
This is just a small part of the killer comments that my godmother leaves on my blogs. If you have time, try to read them. She raises some excellent points. She basically just boiled the whole problem with gender roles down to its bear bones. Men are expected to act a certain way as described and that contributes (at least at the basic levels) to EVERY problem that men face in regards to gender discrimination. Just as women spent most of human history trying to escape their roles as the less intellegent, weaker mothers and homemakers, men need to escape the same types of classifications made on them through these roles.
FROM M.G.: I was reading on a newsboard recently about a guy who felt unsure how to handle the following situation: He said "I was at a restaurant the other day and I saw a little kid slip and bust her face right in front of me. But I don't feel safe looking at kids anymore let alone, touching them so I just stepped over her and kept on going."
We're in a society now where if a guy just looks at a young girl for more than a second, he might be labeled a pedophile and because of it, guys feel unsure and really hesitate in situations that might clearly call for them to do the right thing and help someone out.
He also mentioned that he's not entirely sure if this is a masculist issue. I would say that it is in the way that men are seen more as potential sexual predators than women are. It made me remember an issue that was raised a few years ago when I was heading on vacation. I was going to visit a friend who works at Disney World. I LOVE going to Disney and I was planning on seeing her for a few days and hanging out in the parks for the other days. It was my father who raised the issue. He didn't like the idea of me going out in those parks alone because he said he "knew what he would think if he saw a guy walking around a place like that alone..." Not only is this a masculist issue, it may be a whole entry unto itself sometime soon.
The last issue I want to discuss today was apparently raised by my uncle this past weekend. He heard about my blog for the first time and mentioned that he had been seeing gender discrimination a lot on TV in commercials. He said that the male is always made to look like an idiot and is corrected or outdone by his girlfriend or wife. He used the example of the old Country Crock commercials with just the hands and the voices. For next week I would like to know some of YOUR ideas on gender discrimination in television commercials. Do you see it in the Country Crock ads? Do you have any examples of your own? How about some where the same happens in reverse?
I look forward to some fun ideas and hopefully an active discussion about this in the next post. Thanks again for reading! It really means a lot to me. :-)
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
On "THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER" (Part 2)
(Before I begin, I have been asked to add the following disclaimer: At no time did Kelly say that I was a bad father. She did not suggest that I would end up being a worse parent than her simply because I am a man. She was making a generalization about cultural norms... Thank You.)
When I pressed Kelly for further information she said, "Well, don't you think I'm the better organizer and multitasker?" A quick look around our living room at her breakfast dishes and massive amounts of coupons and fliers, followed by a doubting glance led her to elaborate. She said that studies have shown that women are better at multitasking and organizing than men are. I invited her (as I invite any of my readers) to find such a study online anywhere in our vast internet. She said she probably could but was too tired to try at that exact moment. The subject has come up a few times since including a day when she ended up reading the last post entry. She doesn't deny making any of the statements that I attributed to her, but resents me using her in my blog without permission. The truth is that if I tried to relate the story using a false name I would run into 2 problems: lack of BELIEVEABILITY and RELATION TO THE WRITER. Simply put, it kinda means more that the mother of my only child holds this opinion and I never realized it.
Back to the matter at hand, I personally have never seen a study claiming that women are better at these life functions than men are. I even did a Google search for the subject. The closest I could find is that women BELIEVE they are better multitaskers and problem solvers than men. I had a sneaky suspicion that if I scanned a little further ahead I would find an expected related statistic... Sure enough, most men agree. A Wall Street Journal article suggested that women may gain more skills in these areas through activities such as child-rearing. This seems to suggest that the cause and effect are reversed. The "primary caregiver" develops more skills in these areas and in the majority of households, that person is a woman.
The argument here seems to be whether or not women are better parents through biology. In the animal kingdom as a whole, the female of most species is the primary caregiver for the young. Biology does seem to play a large part there. Mammals feed their young milk from the female and thus it is more important that she be around during the early part of life.
Just for fun, let's pretend Kelly, Jacob and I were ELEPHANTS: (Any "fat jokes" made in the comment section will be quickly deleted!)... In the elephant world, the male mates with the female then leaves to roam the savannah on his own. The calf is then cared for by the mother as well and her herd of other adult female elephants in the family. I'm pretty sure that Jake would be fine if he was the elephant calf in this scenario. He would feed from his mothers teats until he was old enough to eat grasses and leaves and such. I also have no doubt that Kelly's mother and sisters would support Jacob and protect him from lions. If the roles were reversed, I'm also sure that I could fend off lions fairly well BUT, sadly, no milk. (I really don't envy this part of the female's biological role.) I dare say, Jake would not survive for long without food. In the elphant world as with all mammals, the female is vitally important to the survival of the young.
Well gee, Steve, doesn't that kinda make the argumet that women ARE better parents? It might if it weren't for one annoying little detail... we're NOT elephants. Humans have used science and technology to develop a milk susbstitute that works nearly as well as breast milk. The Leche League people can take issue with me on this, but the truth is that many babies grow up to live long and healthy lives having never tasted breast milk. I am in no way saying that children are just as well adjusted if they have no relationship with their mothers. I am only saying that a child can survive without ever having known his father OR his mother after birth. WE have escaped out biology in this case.
I have searched for quite a while and have yet to see any study that suggests that men are better parents than women. The fact that most people believe this is true does not validate it. I do believe that the average woman in her 40's may indeed be better at organizing and mulitasking. But let's use the following logical steps if we choose to make that statement:
1.) Being the primary caregiver for a child is the hardest job that anyone can undertake. It involves using all of your problem solving skills to hold things together particularly during the early years.
2.) Most primary caregivers ARE women and therefore much more women than men have cared for a child for a significant period of time. THEREFORE>>>
3.) On average, women are better at organizing and multitasking than men.
You can feel free to agree or disagree and of course your comments are welcomed. The point of the post, though, was that Jake was already 3 months old before I knew that his mother felt like this. I still kinda' laugh thinking about people who knew us in high school seeing us now, like this: Steve fighting for gender equality despite Kelly's sexism... Mr. Pisanelli would probably have a heart attack!
Anyway, stay tuned for my next post when I head "into the mailbag" for the first tiume to address some comments and e-mails that I have gotten since I started this blog. Who knows? You might just see your own comment mentioned!
When I pressed Kelly for further information she said, "Well, don't you think I'm the better organizer and multitasker?" A quick look around our living room at her breakfast dishes and massive amounts of coupons and fliers, followed by a doubting glance led her to elaborate. She said that studies have shown that women are better at multitasking and organizing than men are. I invited her (as I invite any of my readers) to find such a study online anywhere in our vast internet. She said she probably could but was too tired to try at that exact moment. The subject has come up a few times since including a day when she ended up reading the last post entry. She doesn't deny making any of the statements that I attributed to her, but resents me using her in my blog without permission. The truth is that if I tried to relate the story using a false name I would run into 2 problems: lack of BELIEVEABILITY and RELATION TO THE WRITER. Simply put, it kinda means more that the mother of my only child holds this opinion and I never realized it.
Back to the matter at hand, I personally have never seen a study claiming that women are better at these life functions than men are. I even did a Google search for the subject. The closest I could find is that women BELIEVE they are better multitaskers and problem solvers than men. I had a sneaky suspicion that if I scanned a little further ahead I would find an expected related statistic... Sure enough, most men agree. A Wall Street Journal article suggested that women may gain more skills in these areas through activities such as child-rearing. This seems to suggest that the cause and effect are reversed. The "primary caregiver" develops more skills in these areas and in the majority of households, that person is a woman.
The argument here seems to be whether or not women are better parents through biology. In the animal kingdom as a whole, the female of most species is the primary caregiver for the young. Biology does seem to play a large part there. Mammals feed their young milk from the female and thus it is more important that she be around during the early part of life.
Just for fun, let's pretend Kelly, Jacob and I were ELEPHANTS: (Any "fat jokes" made in the comment section will be quickly deleted!)... In the elephant world, the male mates with the female then leaves to roam the savannah on his own. The calf is then cared for by the mother as well and her herd of other adult female elephants in the family. I'm pretty sure that Jake would be fine if he was the elephant calf in this scenario. He would feed from his mothers teats until he was old enough to eat grasses and leaves and such. I also have no doubt that Kelly's mother and sisters would support Jacob and protect him from lions. If the roles were reversed, I'm also sure that I could fend off lions fairly well BUT, sadly, no milk. (I really don't envy this part of the female's biological role.) I dare say, Jake would not survive for long without food. In the elphant world as with all mammals, the female is vitally important to the survival of the young.
Well gee, Steve, doesn't that kinda make the argumet that women ARE better parents? It might if it weren't for one annoying little detail... we're NOT elephants. Humans have used science and technology to develop a milk susbstitute that works nearly as well as breast milk. The Leche League people can take issue with me on this, but the truth is that many babies grow up to live long and healthy lives having never tasted breast milk. I am in no way saying that children are just as well adjusted if they have no relationship with their mothers. I am only saying that a child can survive without ever having known his father OR his mother after birth. WE have escaped out biology in this case.
I have searched for quite a while and have yet to see any study that suggests that men are better parents than women. The fact that most people believe this is true does not validate it. I do believe that the average woman in her 40's may indeed be better at organizing and mulitasking. But let's use the following logical steps if we choose to make that statement:
1.) Being the primary caregiver for a child is the hardest job that anyone can undertake. It involves using all of your problem solving skills to hold things together particularly during the early years.
2.) Most primary caregivers ARE women and therefore much more women than men have cared for a child for a significant period of time. THEREFORE>>>
3.) On average, women are better at organizing and multitasking than men.
You can feel free to agree or disagree and of course your comments are welcomed. The point of the post, though, was that Jake was already 3 months old before I knew that his mother felt like this. I still kinda' laugh thinking about people who knew us in high school seeing us now, like this: Steve fighting for gender equality despite Kelly's sexism... Mr. Pisanelli would probably have a heart attack!
Anyway, stay tuned for my next post when I head "into the mailbag" for the first tiume to address some comments and e-mails that I have gotten since I started this blog. Who knows? You might just see your own comment mentioned!
Saturday, May 16, 2009
On "THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER"
This may be a bit of a departure from the normal big, political, stat-filled argument based on some heated political topic. This one is more of a rant about something that has been bothering me lately and goes right to the heart of masculism. I want to talk about Kelly...
A little back story here: Kelly and I have known each other since we were 12. We met in middle school and have maintained a very close relationship ever since. While I have never held very strong political opinions (though I so love to argue), Kelly is probably left of Lenin. She has always considered herself quite the liberal with very progressive views on social and economic policies. I have disagreed on much of what she believes but I have always respected her opinions. Through much of high school, Kelly was seen as a sort of champion of feminism. She supported women's rights and specifically believed that a woman should not be punished for having a child. She felt that a large reason that women were labeled as the "inferior sex" was the fact that men are the primary breadwinners while women are the primary caregivers. I agreed with that opinion.
When I was in college, I took a course called "Global Business and Society". That was Marist's way of teaching business ethics without making it appear that they were trying to push their own Catholic ideas on their business students. The course was taught by a Lutheran Pastor who had some very conservative fiscal views and reactionary opinions to things we had been hearing about through mass media. One of his favorites was the often used feminist statistic that, on average, a 40 year-old woman makes less money on-the-dollar than a man in the same position. His argument went something like this:
"Not only is this statistic NOT a 'travesty', it actually makes a lot of sense. In the United States, women are still seen as the primary caregivers for children and often take short to very long periods of time in their late 20's and early 30's to take care of their offspring. On AVERAGE, by the age of 40 women have around 2 years less experience than men and should be paid less based on that alone."
Now, whether or not you agree with him is totally up to you. It does seem to make some logical sense. People with more experience get paid more money. I can also see how someone like Kelly might view this as a punishment for women who choose to have children and stay home to care for them. I personally don't agree with her, but I respect that opinion.
Fast forward to May 22, 2008. Kelly and I discover that we are going to be parents. At that moment MANY decisions had to be made about how we were going to care for the baby with our limited income and time. It took several months of discussions but we came to the following conclusion: My job can be done at night and her job comes with health insurance. The stage was set for the increasingly common stay-at-home Dad scenario. Today, Kelly and I live together and take care of our son Jake as a team with me staying at home during the daytime (occasionally assisted by his grandmother and aunts) and she cares for him in the evenings while I work.
Around a month ago, when this whole masculist fire was lit within me, she was lying on the couch listening to me rattle on about the masculist issues that were brought up in the Wikipedia entry. I made some mention of the idea that women are constantly seen as the primary caregiver of the child. In further research, I found some statistics on the number of times that child custody is awarded to the mother in divorce cases in which both parents petition. She sort of laughed and said, "Well you gotta' know that makes at least a little sense..." Up until that moment I wasn't aware that I had the ability to cast an intimidating glare. Apparrently she was taken aback by my facial expression and tried to explain herself. Unfortunately, one sentence was uttered that there was just no coming back from: "Women are just better parents."
(To be continued...)
A little back story here: Kelly and I have known each other since we were 12. We met in middle school and have maintained a very close relationship ever since. While I have never held very strong political opinions (though I so love to argue), Kelly is probably left of Lenin. She has always considered herself quite the liberal with very progressive views on social and economic policies. I have disagreed on much of what she believes but I have always respected her opinions. Through much of high school, Kelly was seen as a sort of champion of feminism. She supported women's rights and specifically believed that a woman should not be punished for having a child. She felt that a large reason that women were labeled as the "inferior sex" was the fact that men are the primary breadwinners while women are the primary caregivers. I agreed with that opinion.
When I was in college, I took a course called "Global Business and Society". That was Marist's way of teaching business ethics without making it appear that they were trying to push their own Catholic ideas on their business students. The course was taught by a Lutheran Pastor who had some very conservative fiscal views and reactionary opinions to things we had been hearing about through mass media. One of his favorites was the often used feminist statistic that, on average, a 40 year-old woman makes less money on-the-dollar than a man in the same position. His argument went something like this:
"Not only is this statistic NOT a 'travesty', it actually makes a lot of sense. In the United States, women are still seen as the primary caregivers for children and often take short to very long periods of time in their late 20's and early 30's to take care of their offspring. On AVERAGE, by the age of 40 women have around 2 years less experience than men and should be paid less based on that alone."
Now, whether or not you agree with him is totally up to you. It does seem to make some logical sense. People with more experience get paid more money. I can also see how someone like Kelly might view this as a punishment for women who choose to have children and stay home to care for them. I personally don't agree with her, but I respect that opinion.
Fast forward to May 22, 2008. Kelly and I discover that we are going to be parents. At that moment MANY decisions had to be made about how we were going to care for the baby with our limited income and time. It took several months of discussions but we came to the following conclusion: My job can be done at night and her job comes with health insurance. The stage was set for the increasingly common stay-at-home Dad scenario. Today, Kelly and I live together and take care of our son Jake as a team with me staying at home during the daytime (occasionally assisted by his grandmother and aunts) and she cares for him in the evenings while I work.
Around a month ago, when this whole masculist fire was lit within me, she was lying on the couch listening to me rattle on about the masculist issues that were brought up in the Wikipedia entry. I made some mention of the idea that women are constantly seen as the primary caregiver of the child. In further research, I found some statistics on the number of times that child custody is awarded to the mother in divorce cases in which both parents petition. She sort of laughed and said, "Well you gotta' know that makes at least a little sense..." Up until that moment I wasn't aware that I had the ability to cast an intimidating glare. Apparrently she was taken aback by my facial expression and tried to explain herself. Unfortunately, one sentence was uttered that there was just no coming back from: "Women are just better parents."
(To be continued...)
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
On BREAST CANCER vs. PROSTATE CANCER
"Like the victims of breast cancer, there's something I'd like to get off my chest. We all must fight and hopefully, one day, titty cancer will be a distant mammary..."~Eric Cartman "South Park"
Offended? Good. Me too.
I'm probably not breaking any new news here about cancer. It sucks. I realize that there will likely not be anyone reading this who doesn't know someone who has been affected by cancer at some point in his or her life. Off the top of my head... Aunt Mary, Aunt Susan and Jason. Mary went through hell and came out in pretty good shape on the other side. Jason is still going through the hell that is cancer treatment now. Aunt Susan wasn't so lucky.... :-(
When I first read the section on masculism on Wikipedia, I was amazed that cancer was even listed as a masculist concern. I didn't think that it really seemed like a gender discrimination issue. Here's what it said:
Bias in health concerns; for example, more advertisements and awareness for breast cancer than prostate cancer, though both cancers kill approximately the same number of people each year.
I will admit that, at first, I didn't believe it. I mean I certainly am aware of the prevalence of breast cancer awareness activities and fund raising efforts and the total lack of such awareness for prostate cancer. I simply figured that it was because prostate cancer was not nearly as common as breast cancer. I CERTAINLY didn't think that they two affected the same number of people in the United States every year. As it turns out, I was right. According to the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) prostate cancer does not affect the same number of men as breast cancer does women... by percentage, it's more.
Prostate cancer is difficult to detect in its early stages so it is much harder to recognize than breast cancer. I actually know how to give myself or someone else a breast self-exam. This could likely have to do with the extensive amount of time I have spent in OB/GYN offices over the last year. I don't think that I would ever even ATTEMPT to give myself or someone else a prostate exam. As a comic, I can tell you that there are probably thousands of hours of material written on getting a prostate exam at the doctor's office. Very few jokes, however, concern breast cancer. Why the double standard? I have a few possible answers.
One of the core beliefs of masculism as I see it is that feminism has worked. One of the great contemporary issues of feminists has been breast cancer research and awareness. Who could blame them? Although this disease is not indemic to women, the "fairer sex" is overwhelmingly more affected than men are. I almost feel that there must have been a moment when feminists were excited to find a disease that affects women almost exclusively. It was a cause that all women could rally behind because every woman is afraid of it. I don't blame them. According to recent statistics, 22% of women last year died from some form of cancer. Take something that dangerous and find a form that affects women almost exclusively... elementary.
I have talked to a few women who have all agreed that the scariest part of breast cancer may be a common treatment. I think we all know what I'm talking about. MASTECTOMY! I'm not sure there's any woman alive that would welcome the thought of loosing one or both breasts. I am reminded of a quote from the movie "Erin Brockovich" where a cancer riddled woman asks if she can still be called a woman if she has lost both breasts and her uterus. It still makes me sad.
At least we can say that most of this country is aware of breast cancer so the movement has certainly worked. Everyone knows what a pink ribbon means. Even Major League Baseball held special events this past Sunday (Mother's Day) promoting breast cancer awareness. Players, coaches and umpires wore pink wristbands and many players used pink bats. I won't dare say that any of these are bad things, but aren't they a little slighted? I mean, there are no female players or coaches in the MLB and yet the whole league has come out in visual support of this cause. Why isn't there a Prostate Cancer Awareness Day? We could have the players use flesh-colored bats... with purple rings on the end. Hehe.
I think another major issue is the examination used to determine prostate problems. While I would never recommend performing a BSE in a crowded bar (and certainly not without the woman's permission), it certainly is far less invasive than a prostate exam. Just as I'm sure that no woman wishes to lose a breast, I am also fairly certain that few men want anyone to insert anything in their rectums outside of some good old fashioned bedroom fun. Most don't even like it to happen there. The truth is that most men fear the EXAM more than they fear the actual disease! If they are under the impression that having the test will be worse than the cancer, I think they are sorely mistaken. Prostate cancer causes problems urinating, ejaculating and (much more frightening to men) can cause significant "performance issues". If a woman is afraid that she cannot be considered a woman without her breasts, how should a man feel like a man if he is not able to have an erection?
Penn and Teller theorize that we are more aware of breast cancer because "men like boobs" and thus the whole population is behind the cause. I'm not sure I totally agree with that. But I do think that we need to be more aware of prostate cancer in this country at totally equal levels as we are aware of breast cancer.
In summation, I really don't know for a fact why prostate cancer is not as often discussed or feared. Do you have any ideas? If so please leave a comment. You might be the first to ever do so on my blog!~~STEVE
BTW... If I have scared you with all this talk of cancer, I wouldn't worry too much. Statistics also show that you are still much more likely to die of heart disease anyway.
Offended? Good. Me too.
I'm probably not breaking any new news here about cancer. It sucks. I realize that there will likely not be anyone reading this who doesn't know someone who has been affected by cancer at some point in his or her life. Off the top of my head... Aunt Mary, Aunt Susan and Jason. Mary went through hell and came out in pretty good shape on the other side. Jason is still going through the hell that is cancer treatment now. Aunt Susan wasn't so lucky.... :-(
When I first read the section on masculism on Wikipedia, I was amazed that cancer was even listed as a masculist concern. I didn't think that it really seemed like a gender discrimination issue. Here's what it said:
Bias in health concerns; for example, more advertisements and awareness for breast cancer than prostate cancer, though both cancers kill approximately the same number of people each year.
I will admit that, at first, I didn't believe it. I mean I certainly am aware of the prevalence of breast cancer awareness activities and fund raising efforts and the total lack of such awareness for prostate cancer. I simply figured that it was because prostate cancer was not nearly as common as breast cancer. I CERTAINLY didn't think that they two affected the same number of people in the United States every year. As it turns out, I was right. According to the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) prostate cancer does not affect the same number of men as breast cancer does women... by percentage, it's more.
Prostate cancer is difficult to detect in its early stages so it is much harder to recognize than breast cancer. I actually know how to give myself or someone else a breast self-exam. This could likely have to do with the extensive amount of time I have spent in OB/GYN offices over the last year. I don't think that I would ever even ATTEMPT to give myself or someone else a prostate exam. As a comic, I can tell you that there are probably thousands of hours of material written on getting a prostate exam at the doctor's office. Very few jokes, however, concern breast cancer. Why the double standard? I have a few possible answers.
One of the core beliefs of masculism as I see it is that feminism has worked. One of the great contemporary issues of feminists has been breast cancer research and awareness. Who could blame them? Although this disease is not indemic to women, the "fairer sex" is overwhelmingly more affected than men are. I almost feel that there must have been a moment when feminists were excited to find a disease that affects women almost exclusively. It was a cause that all women could rally behind because every woman is afraid of it. I don't blame them. According to recent statistics, 22% of women last year died from some form of cancer. Take something that dangerous and find a form that affects women almost exclusively... elementary.
I have talked to a few women who have all agreed that the scariest part of breast cancer may be a common treatment. I think we all know what I'm talking about. MASTECTOMY! I'm not sure there's any woman alive that would welcome the thought of loosing one or both breasts. I am reminded of a quote from the movie "Erin Brockovich" where a cancer riddled woman asks if she can still be called a woman if she has lost both breasts and her uterus. It still makes me sad.
At least we can say that most of this country is aware of breast cancer so the movement has certainly worked. Everyone knows what a pink ribbon means. Even Major League Baseball held special events this past Sunday (Mother's Day) promoting breast cancer awareness. Players, coaches and umpires wore pink wristbands and many players used pink bats. I won't dare say that any of these are bad things, but aren't they a little slighted? I mean, there are no female players or coaches in the MLB and yet the whole league has come out in visual support of this cause. Why isn't there a Prostate Cancer Awareness Day? We could have the players use flesh-colored bats... with purple rings on the end. Hehe.
I think another major issue is the examination used to determine prostate problems. While I would never recommend performing a BSE in a crowded bar (and certainly not without the woman's permission), it certainly is far less invasive than a prostate exam. Just as I'm sure that no woman wishes to lose a breast, I am also fairly certain that few men want anyone to insert anything in their rectums outside of some good old fashioned bedroom fun. Most don't even like it to happen there. The truth is that most men fear the EXAM more than they fear the actual disease! If they are under the impression that having the test will be worse than the cancer, I think they are sorely mistaken. Prostate cancer causes problems urinating, ejaculating and (much more frightening to men) can cause significant "performance issues". If a woman is afraid that she cannot be considered a woman without her breasts, how should a man feel like a man if he is not able to have an erection?
Penn and Teller theorize that we are more aware of breast cancer because "men like boobs" and thus the whole population is behind the cause. I'm not sure I totally agree with that. But I do think that we need to be more aware of prostate cancer in this country at totally equal levels as we are aware of breast cancer.
In summation, I really don't know for a fact why prostate cancer is not as often discussed or feared. Do you have any ideas? If so please leave a comment. You might be the first to ever do so on my blog!~~STEVE
BTW... If I have scared you with all this talk of cancer, I wouldn't worry too much. Statistics also show that you are still much more likely to die of heart disease anyway.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
On LIFETIME TV'S "Deadbeat Dads"
I just opened my e-mail a few minutes ago and found a newsletter from popular radio host and columnist Glen Sacks condemning a new Lifetime reality show called "Deadbeat Dads". Evidently it is an "ambush" reality show the likes of "Dog, the Bounty Hunter" in which Jim Durham, founder of National Child Support, hunts down fathers who are late on child support and resorts to some pretty extreme tactics to force them to pay. He will ALLEGEDLY foreclose on homes, repossess cars and use various methods well within his legal rights to extract these late payments from people. There are so many issues herein that oppose masculist views that I could not possibly go through them all at once. I guess I will just deal with the main issue of discrimination against divorced fathers in the U.S.
The plain truth is that most children in the United States live with 2 parents. Despite the statistics we keep hearing about divorce, many children still live in stable nuclear families. The sad fact, though, is that these numbers are declining as divorce becomes more prevalent in society. Truthfully, I am not as opposed to the idea of child support as many masculists are, but I do agree that there need to be some reforms in the system as it stands now. I will get into that at a later date I'm sure.
The great majority of divorced fathers pay their child support and are an active part of their child(ren)'s life. The "deadbeat dads" as they are called by some politicians and overwhelmingly by the media often earn poverty level wages. One U.S. study showed that only 4% earn $40,000 per year. Now are there men who abdicate their responsibilities despite being able to pay? Absolutely there are. But the idea behind the show seems to be that this is the norm rather than the exception. If the show airs and we learn that indeed these are fathers with the ability to pay, I may not cause too much of a stink about it. It cannot be ignored however that men with arearages have found themselves in that situation because they are UNABLE to pay.
I have so many feelings and statistics on this subject that I flat out refuse to post it in one entry. I will only say that I hope (assuming the show ever airs) it gives a full and balanced view of the child support system as it exists today... I might also be contented if they went after just ONE deadbeat MOM... We'll see what happens.
The plain truth is that most children in the United States live with 2 parents. Despite the statistics we keep hearing about divorce, many children still live in stable nuclear families. The sad fact, though, is that these numbers are declining as divorce becomes more prevalent in society. Truthfully, I am not as opposed to the idea of child support as many masculists are, but I do agree that there need to be some reforms in the system as it stands now. I will get into that at a later date I'm sure.
The great majority of divorced fathers pay their child support and are an active part of their child(ren)'s life. The "deadbeat dads" as they are called by some politicians and overwhelmingly by the media often earn poverty level wages. One U.S. study showed that only 4% earn $40,000 per year. Now are there men who abdicate their responsibilities despite being able to pay? Absolutely there are. But the idea behind the show seems to be that this is the norm rather than the exception. If the show airs and we learn that indeed these are fathers with the ability to pay, I may not cause too much of a stink about it. It cannot be ignored however that men with arearages have found themselves in that situation because they are UNABLE to pay.
I have so many feelings and statistics on this subject that I flat out refuse to post it in one entry. I will only say that I hope (assuming the show ever airs) it gives a full and balanced view of the child support system as it exists today... I might also be contented if they went after just ONE deadbeat MOM... We'll see what happens.
Friday, May 1, 2009
On RAPE
Compared to subjects like child custody, circumcision and child support, rape issues are not seen as one of the hot button issues raised by many men's rights groups. This doesn't make them less important but almost appear to be ignored as a "lost cause" by many men's activist groups. I want to explore why this occurs and why so many people seem to think that rape can only take place when the perpetrator is male.
Now statistics show that of all reported rapes, only 10% of victims are male. The same studies show that approximately 99% of perpetrators are male. Add that to the fact that only 2% of all accused rapists are convicted and the likelihood of anyone accused of raping a male doing any jail time are very small. In recent years, however, a few cases have become widely reported by the media (See: May Kay Latterno etc...). It seems like these cases are often ridiculed. I seem to remember an episode of South Park called "Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy" where 3 year-old Ike begins a sexual relationship with his kindergarten teacher. When his older brother Kyle attempts to report it to the police, the officers laugh and call Ike the "Luckiest Boy Ever". I have noticed that almost every comic who has discussed these cases takes a similar opinion and asks the same question. "Where were these teachers when I was in school???" We all laugh it off and ignore the fact that there is a crime with a victim involved.
I have always been sort of curious about whether or not it was even possible for a man to be rapedby a woman. Apparently, even a dedicated masculist can have stupid, sexist opinions every now and then. It wasn't until I saw an episode of Law & Order: SVU that I really started to wonder about the possibility. The episode is #310-"Ridicule"... an appropriate title. A male stripper had claimed that 3 women tied him up and raped him at a bachelorette party. I was a fan of the episode because it showed one of the major myths surrounding female-on-male rape. Elliot Sader (aka. Coolest Detective EVER) refuses to believe that a man can be raped since a man can't penetrate a woman without achieving sexual arousal. As we all know, sexual arousal=enjoyment... doesn't it?
Actually, no. Studies have shown that men experience an erection in a variety of situations including times of fear and anxiety. I believe that even many men seem to believe that if they become aroused it is a sign that they are enjoying the experience even if their senses tell them that they are not. This is probably one of the biggest reasons that men refuse to report being victims of rape. This pathology is also at play in cases of molestation. Many civtims of sexual abuse experience some kind of arousal during the abuse.
Another question that many people have is how it would be possible for a woman to overpower a man. I have no doubt that I will come back to this issue many many times but it remains true: Men are typically bigger and stronger than women. How is it possible for a man to be physically over powered by a woman? I have found 2 often forgotten explanations to this.
First, there are more ways to subdue a man than simple physical force. Fear or guilt would be two good examples and two that are used far more often in male-on-female rape than simple physical overpowering. All too often, the perpetrator in a rape case is someone the victim knows well. According to a UCSC study, 31.8% of rapists in female-on-rape cases are either wives or girlfriends. Another strange statistic is that 22.6% of female rapists are ex-girlfriends while only 12.2% of male rapists are ex-boyfriends. I have no idea what to make of that one.
Second, people seem to forget that in a great many male-on-female rape cases, the victim reports being CHEMICALLY subdued. Have men developed an immunity to date-rape drugs? Is it impossible for a man to be too drunk to consent to sex? Come on now.
Another problem that many masculists deal with is the idea that there are "macho" expectations out of men. (I will deal with this issue a lot further in a future post about female-on-male violence in general). For the time being let's simply imagine the social ramifications of a man who reports being raped by a woman. We have already seen that these cases are ridiculed in the media. Many women refuse to report being raped because they feel humiliated by the experience. Add to that the stigma that goes along with a man being violently attacked by a woman. Is it really any wonder that men are more reluctant to come forward?
Masculists only seek equality. In rape cases, we would like to see these accusations taken as seriously as male-on-female rape cases. We would also like equality in sentencing specifically in statutory rape cases. I fear that we may be further off than we hope since few men's rights activist groups are even addressing the issue.... (sigh)
Now statistics show that of all reported rapes, only 10% of victims are male. The same studies show that approximately 99% of perpetrators are male. Add that to the fact that only 2% of all accused rapists are convicted and the likelihood of anyone accused of raping a male doing any jail time are very small. In recent years, however, a few cases have become widely reported by the media (See: May Kay Latterno etc...). It seems like these cases are often ridiculed. I seem to remember an episode of South Park called "Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy" where 3 year-old Ike begins a sexual relationship with his kindergarten teacher. When his older brother Kyle attempts to report it to the police, the officers laugh and call Ike the "Luckiest Boy Ever". I have noticed that almost every comic who has discussed these cases takes a similar opinion and asks the same question. "Where were these teachers when I was in school???" We all laugh it off and ignore the fact that there is a crime with a victim involved.
I have always been sort of curious about whether or not it was even possible for a man to be rapedby a woman. Apparently, even a dedicated masculist can have stupid, sexist opinions every now and then. It wasn't until I saw an episode of Law & Order: SVU that I really started to wonder about the possibility. The episode is #310-"Ridicule"... an appropriate title. A male stripper had claimed that 3 women tied him up and raped him at a bachelorette party. I was a fan of the episode because it showed one of the major myths surrounding female-on-male rape. Elliot Sader (aka. Coolest Detective EVER) refuses to believe that a man can be raped since a man can't penetrate a woman without achieving sexual arousal. As we all know, sexual arousal=enjoyment... doesn't it?
Actually, no. Studies have shown that men experience an erection in a variety of situations including times of fear and anxiety. I believe that even many men seem to believe that if they become aroused it is a sign that they are enjoying the experience even if their senses tell them that they are not. This is probably one of the biggest reasons that men refuse to report being victims of rape. This pathology is also at play in cases of molestation. Many civtims of sexual abuse experience some kind of arousal during the abuse.
Another question that many people have is how it would be possible for a woman to overpower a man. I have no doubt that I will come back to this issue many many times but it remains true: Men are typically bigger and stronger than women. How is it possible for a man to be physically over powered by a woman? I have found 2 often forgotten explanations to this.
First, there are more ways to subdue a man than simple physical force. Fear or guilt would be two good examples and two that are used far more often in male-on-female rape than simple physical overpowering. All too often, the perpetrator in a rape case is someone the victim knows well. According to a UCSC study, 31.8% of rapists in female-on-rape cases are either wives or girlfriends. Another strange statistic is that 22.6% of female rapists are ex-girlfriends while only 12.2% of male rapists are ex-boyfriends. I have no idea what to make of that one.
Second, people seem to forget that in a great many male-on-female rape cases, the victim reports being CHEMICALLY subdued. Have men developed an immunity to date-rape drugs? Is it impossible for a man to be too drunk to consent to sex? Come on now.
Another problem that many masculists deal with is the idea that there are "macho" expectations out of men. (I will deal with this issue a lot further in a future post about female-on-male violence in general). For the time being let's simply imagine the social ramifications of a man who reports being raped by a woman. We have already seen that these cases are ridiculed in the media. Many women refuse to report being raped because they feel humiliated by the experience. Add to that the stigma that goes along with a man being violently attacked by a woman. Is it really any wonder that men are more reluctant to come forward?
Masculists only seek equality. In rape cases, we would like to see these accusations taken as seriously as male-on-female rape cases. We would also like equality in sentencing specifically in statutory rape cases. I fear that we may be further off than we hope since few men's rights activist groups are even addressing the issue.... (sigh)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
