Prostate Cancer Statistics

Question: Why does prostate cancer only get half the funding of breast cancer, even though they are both as common? There were 185,895 men diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2005. (The second leading cause of death, among men.) There were 186,467 diagnosed breast cancer cases in 2005. Why does breast cancer research get twice the funding, and nearly all of the media spotlight? http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/statistics/ http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/

Answer: Its amazing how often you hear feminists complain that healthcare funding for women is less than for men, but the facts don't support this at all. In the UK for example: "A man diagnosed with prostate cancer has only one-quarter of the cash spent on research into his disease compared to the amount devoted to a woman’s breast cancer. The wide discrepancy shows the scale of the discrimination against men. The two diseases kill similar numbers" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article579050.ece This issue is a bit like the 'sexist' wage gap - feminists just refuse to see sense.

Question: Do I have prostate cancer? Hi I am a 13 years old male and I asked this in a previous question but did not get much responses. I have had to pee frequently for almost a month now. Also I have pain in my penis and I can not achieve an erection ( I usually can). I went to the doctor recently and he gave me a urine test. Based on that my doctor told me I do not have any infections or diabetes. He told me because of this he did not need to do more tests as he can not think of any else that I could have. I later left but felt worried as I probably should have told him that I did want to take more tests. Now I am 13 so the chances of me getting prostate cancer are extremely rare ( so rare that they do not have statistics for people who get prostate cancer under 35 ) but I am still worried. I told my parents but they say that I'm fine and that its all in my head. When I told my dad of my erection problem he told me it was my head causing it. Although I think if it was physiological I would know and I really think that it is physical. My doctor told me that I am probably just drinking too much and that if it still continues for 3 to 6 months to come back. Now should I do what my doctor says or should I go sooner if I do not feel content. Now my doctor is pretty old and he has seen a lot of things so I feel like I can trust him but I am still not sure. Do you think I should go now or watch and wait to see what happens. P.S. My doctor does not know of my erection problem because I was too afraid to tell him. Also I have been waking up once a night to use the bathroom but sometimes I do not. If someone could please answer it would really mean a lot to me. To the 1rst answer I meant drinking water not alcohol. I meant drinking WATER not alchohol WATER I am 13 people what do you think.

Answer: Statistics are kept but there are no teenagers with prostate cancer. You have to at least go through puberty to have the hormones to develop it. If you doctor thought it was a possibility he would have checked.

Question: Concerns prior to scheduled Prostate Cancer Biopsy and I am hoping someone (perferrably a urologist) can? assist me in making an informed decision. I am scheduled to have Prostate Cancer Biopsy on 05/24/07. Here is a brief history of events up till now: Vital statistics and hx are as follows: Age: 38; Sex: Male; Ht: 5' 5"; Wt: 162 lbs; Father: recently passed away at the age of 73 2ndry Prostate Cancer which got metastasized and as a result he had bone cancer as well; Mother: has diabetes and previously has had benign tumor removed; Older Brother: Healthy; Race: Asian-Indian. On 04/23/07 blood test done and the results indicated PSA level of 3.5, subsequent to this FreePSA test done on 05/04/07 and PSA level: 3.68. The normal range is 0-2.5. Based on some some chart scoring had a value of 8 indicative that I probably have a 24% chance of having prostate cancer. Visited Urologist on 05/16/07 and DRE was conducted and was normal. Should I wait 8 weeks and have another PSA test or go for Biopsy as suggested by the Urologist? Don't want to be sliced & diced but also want peace of mind!

Answer: The above answer has the right conclusion, although all the facts are wrong. While PCa at your age is rare, it's hardly unknown. You have an significantly elevated risk due to the fact that your father had it. PSA is not an indication of cancerous tissue, it's produced by both normal and diseased prostate tissue. The absolute number turns out to be fairly meaningless, as "normal" could be anywhere from .5 to 8, mostly depending on the size of your prostate and general health. It's best to have regular PSA tests, and to keep a chart of your results. A rapid increase in PSA is more concerning than a high absolute number. Free PSA is the percent of PSA which isn't attached to protein. If it's very low, there is a higher chance that your PSA reading is caused by cancer. A DRE can only detect cancer when it's extensive enough to be palpable. In parts of Europe, adoption of PSA testing has been slower than in the US, and DRE is still a preferred detection technique. But DRE will miss cancer in it's earliest, most treatable stage. In the US, the overwhelming majority of men are diagnosed with biopsy following abnormal PSA readings, and never reach the stage of having a positive DRE. If I were in your place, I would take the biopsy. Although biopsy isn't the most pleasant experience, it's the only way to find peace of mind. If it's negative, I would continue being vigilant, and have PSA tests every six months, charting the results. Given your family history, it pays not to take chances. What you can expect from the biopsy is a few minutes of discomfort, followed by a month of bleeding. It's not the worst thing that can happen to you.

Question: 5.02 PSA and family history of Prostate cancer? Not even 60 and dealing with this. Statistics say 25-35% chance of positive? I dont have urination problems, back pain or anything like that..but there was a little blood in my urine( urine test) that has since cleared. Also just finished Lyme treatment. Anyone with similar experiences? Outcomes?

Answer: I'm female so I don't have any personal experience but I have looked up some information on this for you on different angles- the other possible causes for an elevated PSA and the Risk Factors for Prostate Cancer. This is definitely a question you need to bring up with your doctor though because they are the only ones who can tell you if it is or isn't something you should be concerned about. Hugs & Best Wishes! Gretchen PSA Evaluation Prostate-specific antigen (PSA), is an enzyme produced by the prostate gland. Normally, small amounts of PSA enter the bloodstream from the prostate. Larger amounts of PSA are enter the blood when the prostate gland is enlarged, infected, or diseased, such as with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), prostatitis, or prostate cancer. The level of PSA in the blood can be determined by a simple blood test. PSA blood test results are reported as nanograms per milliliter, or ng/ml. Normal levels usually range from 0 ng/ml to 4 ng/ml, although what is considered normal may vary with age and race. Mild to moderate increases in PSA -- between 4 and 10 -- are considered borderline, while levels over 10 are considered high. The higher the PSA, the more likely the presence of prostate cancer. **************************************************** Non-Cancerous Causes of an Elevated PSA What Else Can Cause an Elevated PSA Besides Prostate Cancer? Thousands of men each year are told that they have a high PSA level after undergoing a routine screening test. The most important and most concerning cause of an elevated PSA is prostate cancer. However, prostate cancer is only one of many potential causes of an elevated PSA. Virtually anything that irritates the prostate will cause the PSA to rise, at least temporarily. Six Non-Cancerous Causes of an Elevated PSA 1. Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) 2. Prostatitis 3. Prostate Biopsy 4. Recent Ejaculation 5. Digital Rectal Exam (DRE) 6. Bicycle Riding ************************************************************** Prostate Cancer Risk factors By Mayo Clinic staff Knowing the risk factors for prostate cancer can help you determine if and when you want to begin prostate cancer screening. The main risk factors include: * Age. After age 50, your chance of having prostate cancer increases. * Race or ethnicity. For reasons that aren't well understood, black men have a higher risk of developing and dying of prostate cancer. * Family history. If your father or brother has prostate cancer, your risk of the disease is greater than that of the average man. * Diet. A high-fat diet and obesity may increase your risk of prostate cancer. One theory is that fat increases production of the hormone testosterone, which may promote the development of prostate cancer cells. * High testosterone levels. Because testosterone naturally stimulates the growth of the prostate gland, men who use testosterone therapy are more likely to develop prostate cancer than are men who have lower levels of testosterone. Also, doctors are concerned that testosterone therapy might fuel the growth of prostate cancer that is already present. Long-term testosterone treatment also may cause prostate gland enlargement (benign prostatic hyperplasia).

Question: What are the statistics regarding survival rates for specific diseases between, say, the US and Canada? How do the survival rates for breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart attack and other common ailments stack up? I ask because in one country the government is far more involved with health care than in the other.

Answer: Using heart problems as an example, survival rates in the USA are about 20% better than in Canada. Given the job our government here in the states does running the existing programs, it would be a dangerous thing to let them mismanage health care as well.

Question: Is the strong presence of breast cancer advocacy within the media causing other forms of cancer to be ignored? Breast cancer is a horrible form of cancer; the statistics prove that out. However, one in five men will develop prostate cancer. My spouse had a form of cancer that gets little if any recognition. I have lost relatives to other forms of cancer that get negligible amounts of public attention. The reality is, that not a day goes by without breast cancer drawing some form of attention in the media. Is it time that the battle against cancer within the media encompasses all forms of cancer rather than just solely breast cancer? I am in no way diminishing the effect that breast cancer has on women and their families. Hopefully, no one I love ever has to face it. However, the marketers and the media provide this disease with an abundance of coverage on a year round basis. You cannot go into any major retailer without seeing a pink ribbon or the color pink in any sales promotion. The men's sections even have pink ties with pink ribbons on them for sale. This is not just an October phenomenon. Other cancer forms do exist and do ruin lives. It would not be a bad thing for the disese itself to become the enemy not just the various forms of it. Kiryalaya, the link you provided is fascinating. It is a must read for anybody who has cancer or loves someone with cancer. It was amazing to me that the research money spent on heart disease is less than the amount spent on breast cancer. I know very few people who have not been affected by in some way by heart disease. I don't think I have ever asked a more poignant question on Yahoo!Answers. Many of your answers are great and I cannot choose a best answer. This will have to be voted on. I wish the best to the cancer survivors who responded to my question. Thank you.

Answer: I can understand why this issue is frustrating for people with other types of cancer and their families, and of course breast cancer support is particularly high profile at the moment because it's October - Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I agree that awareness needs to be raised about other cancers too.and while I hate 'competitive illness' I can see why there is resentment about an imbalance in awareness raising and fund raising. But bear in mind that breast cancer awareness campaigns and BC Awareness Month started as a campaign by ordinary women, many of them with cancer, to raise awareness so that people knew the symptoms, examined themselves regularly, attended their routine mammograms etc. Enthusiastic participation and hard work by women made it grow into something nationally, then internationally, recognised (and then big business cashed in). Any group of people can start such an awareness campaign for any illness. There are other cancer awareness months, ribbons etc; but no cancer campaign has had the sheer hard work put into it that breast cancer awareness has. And it's worth noting that all the pink, fluffy publicity around this time of year has negative consequences for breast cancer patients too - I believe that the whole thing is counter-productive, that the marketing and fund-raising hype surrounding breast cancer, by trivialising a deadly disease, is leading people to believe that breast cancer is a) not very serious, certainly not as serious as many other cancers (many women with breast cancer have been told - by people who don't have it - that it's a 'good' cancer to get) and b) curable. (my neighbour said to me 'they've just about got breast cancer licked, haven't they?' Really? How come someone dies from breast cancer every 15 minutes in the US?) I've even heard it said that it's a ‘fashionable’ or 'sexy' cancer - my sexy prosthesis and sexy scarred, one-breasted body are evidence that it's no such thing. Yes other cancers need awareness campaigns (many have them as I’ve said, but they don't receive so much support – or, crucially, have as much work put into them). I have had several family members die from other forms of cancer But don't lose sight of the fact that breast cancer is a killer disease with disfiguring surgery, gruelling treatments and so far no cure. Just because aspects of BC awareness trivialise it, doesn't mean it's trivial.

Question: Was the American Cancer Society lying then or are they lying now? For decades, the American Cancer Society has rammed the importance of breast and prostate cancer screening down our throats. They gave us fantastic statistics about the success rate of treating early detection. Now they come out and say that they have overstated the effectiveness of screening and even say that it causes risks of over-treating some cancers while ignoring others. If they were lying for decades, then they are guilty of one of the biggest frauds in history and should be held accountable. If they are lying now, the only reason is in the world for them to come out with this at this point and time is because the Obama administration asked them to. Can you imagine how much costs would drop by not covering breast and prostate cancer screenings? So, was it decades of fraud, or is it a deadly manipulation by the Obama administration? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/health/21cancer.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=american%20cancer%20society&st=cse Chewy and PJ...the facts are there. from 1980 to 2000 the percentage of death from breast cancer has gone down 20% due to early detection. In prostate it is almost 25%. So now they come out and say that it is POTENTIALLY CAUSING RISK? ARE YOU SERIOUS???? YOU ARE BUYING THIS CRAP??? Eman....considering the timing, what Obama and his Czars have said, and the obvious lunacy of this...to not see it you are short of marbles. Woodles...your analysis is thorough, and the most naive of them. Take a look at Obama's "Give her a pill" comment. Take a look at his Czars and their PAST REMARKS about determinations of treatment based on cost-benefit. Take a look at the original legislation...before they took out the part which led to Palin calling it "Death Panels"....funny they claimed there were no such provisions, but within a week of her "Death Panel" statement, they said that they were taking those provisions out that she was referring to. They took out what was not there? Or if they were not what they appeared to be, why take them out. I guarantee that you have not read any of the legislation. I HAVE. I have read, and traced HR3200, and it was a nightmare. From there they have to cut costs. The current Senate bill leaves between 14 and 25 million uninsured...and when you leave off the illegals there are only 30 million uninsured to begin with. And you trust maniacs who keep being caught lying?????

Answer: I think you said it, it's a way to not cover certain procedures. The government is not going to pay for someone to get yearly screenings for cancer....no way in hell. So they start to play devils advocate and say "yeah, it's good...but". Just a prelude to what will come with government health care. Rationed health care. Hip hip hooray!

Question: When the USA 5 year cancer death rate is higher than socialized medicine, how is that lying? One poster asked a question about why republicans are distorting the truth about socialized medicine. Here is one fact - Cancer rates in the USA are much higher than in the rest of the world. Everyone has access to the same drugs and same medical procedures. The question to ask is - why is there a difference between the USA and the rest of the world on cancer survival According to the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics, the five-year relative survival rate for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1993 and 1995 (and thus followed up to 1998 or 2000) was 59.8 percent, The National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database puts concurrent U.S. rates at 95.4 percent. As with the more recent figures, there is indeed a significant difference, The USA and Japan have highest cancer survival rates http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=91106 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716184419.htm

Answer: Averages are based on percentage of population and by different grading standards. It's the same as calling us the biggest polluter when actually China and India are but, because their population is higher, they show less "carbon usage" per person! They same "research" probably puts us low in infant mortality rates also because, once again, we grade differently. But if you use as a source someone's "evidence" who advocates for socialized medicine, I think it may come up a bit BIASED, don't you?

Question: Are You as Dizzy From Giuliani's "Socialized Medicine" Spin As I Am? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071102/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_cancer_fact_check;_ylt=AiE472fQj7DirIhBjgnblces0NUE http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_bogus_cancer_statistic.html "Rudy Giuliani's latest radio ad, which began airing in New Hampshire this week, draws a stark picture for anyone diagnosed with prostate cancer in England. "I had prostate cancer, five, six years ago," the Republican presidential candidate says in the ad. "My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United States, 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine.� Giuliani is wrong about that. Fortunately for the English, their chances of surviving prostate cancer are far better than Giuliani claims: The actual five-year survival rate is 74.4 percent, according to the United Kingdom's Office of National Statistics. Even those in the U.S. have a better chance than what Giuliani states..." Thoughts?

Answer: 44...74...aah! it was probably just a typo. smallest of mistakes, coulda happened to anyone, lol.

Question: Women: Do you really believe that there is huge discrimination against you? Last time I’ve checked, I haven’t seen much of discrimination from the federal government when it comes for the employment and their pay scales. The federal health agency spends more money on women’s health than on men’s. According to the federal statistics there are 39 states that have an office of women’s health and only six have one for men. A search of more than 3,000 medical journals listed in Index Medicus found that 23 articles were written on women’s health for each one written on men’s. Although a woman is only 14 percent more likely to die from breast cancer than a man is from prostate cancer, funding for breast cancer research is 660 percent greater than funding for prostate cancer research. Even the post office has gotten into the act: there is only one disease for which you can buy a postage stamp and the profits will go to research to cure the disease: breast cancer, even though heart disease kills millions more men prematurely. It does not seem like discrimination to me. Is it really the truth that women make $.75 for every dollar that men earn? If an employer has to pay a man a dollar for the same work a woman would do for seventy cents, why would anyone hire a man?� And if it were due to male bosses undervaluing women, wouldn’t an all-female business soon put a male-dominated one out of business? It just doesn't make sense to me Traveller glass ceiling is a myth when equating for job difficulty, unpleasantness, hours per week worked, years of experience, etc., women earn more than men for the same work. Jobs as computer programmers pay well but require never ending training in highly technical material and long, deadline-driven days cogitating at maximum in isolation. Few women are willing to do that work, so 75 percent of programmers are men. Jobs in sweltering, being prison guards, sanitation workers, crane opperators, masons, clanging, carcinogenic iron foundries pay well, but few women are willing to do that work. According to the Jobs Rated Almanac, fewer than one percent(!) of ironworkers are women. Baba Yaga, you are greatly mistaking. I used to have a great respect for you, until you attacked me. I was just defending myself against your verbal abuse aimed against me. So, don’t confuse my despise for you and for a woman’s issues. I used to volunteer for the NOW organization while in college and for the Abuse shelters for battered women. When I have daughters I want them to be treated based on their actions. I want them to be treated equally to men on the work field. When I have daughters I want them to be treated based on their actions. I want them to be treated equally to men on the work field. I work as a teacher and my pay is equal to all female teachers who have started at the same time as me. So, I don’t believe it and I work for private school and not some public school. Baba Yafa I have never called you a feminazi or a lesbian. NEVER. Show me porof where I called you that. I olny called you a b***, because you called me a Chauvinist pig (when I am not one) nor have ever been one. Sorry for the misspelled words. I typed to fast and didn’t proof read anything. What are you trying to prove by posting my question from before? The contact of that question was the same as the one right now. We do not need the feminist movement in today’s society where the women are treated equally to the men. Wreckless, 11% of all Fortune-500 senior executives are women. Now, you may ask why such a smaller number. Well accroding to The primary reason for the 11% figure is that men, on average, are willing to devote more time to their career. And time it takes. A study conducted by Dr. Warren Farrell (presient of NOW and the only man to hold such postion) The Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs, found that the average CEO works 58 hours per week. Fortune 500 CEOs likely work even more. Most women make different choices. The October 10, 2004 lead story on 60 Minutes and the September 2003 New York Times Magazine story documented that a majority even of Ivy- and Stanford-educated female alumni did not work full time. Harvard Business School reports that only 38% of its female MBA graduates, during their childbearing years, work full-time. Baba Yaga again it was your response and not mine. You have not showed me where I called you a lesbian. Plus, it is unfair for you to not post the complete remark where I provided books on the topic to show that societies place standards on women rights. I really do not like it when people do not post the complete replies and just pick at sentence that best suits their needs. Pandora, I bow my head to you. Thank you for volunteering to serve, protect, and safe guard my freedom. I hope to one day see you as a general or maybe even as a secretary of defense. Good luck to you. Baba Yaga, I have never said that English was my native language. I have immigrated to USA couple of years ago and am still learning English. When I came to this awesome country I only knew one word which was, “hello.� FYI English is not the only language in the world. The language that I speak over 300 million people speaks it. If you would like I can debate with you in Russian and you will quickly see that my writing skills are in par with my verbal skills. Also, I never said that I teach in English, but I do teach in RUSSIAN and yes I am a teacher so Deal with it.

Answer: Obviously we have come an awfully long way from the days when women weren't allowed to vote etc. but I dont believe it is an equal situation as yet. I think the issue nowadays is not so cut and dry as somebody consciously discriminating against another based on gender. Unfortunately there are still men in powerful jobs who will not hire a woman for a position because they dont think a woman would be able to handle the job or they are afraid that they are just going to get pregnant and bugger off when they're needed but they are fortunately a minority. Middle management roles are often made up mostly of women but the dynamic shifts the higher up you get. Part of this is because it is not in most womens nature to go for a powerful job that requires cut throat decisions and ridiculous hours. Because of this not many women apply for jobs at an executive level and as there are less roles available at this level they end up competing against one another instead of helping each other succeed. Another hindrance to women is that alot of networking is still done on the golf course and not as many women play golf (sounds silly but I have heard first hand accounts of female executives missing out on crucial information or opportunities because they werent at a golf game they never even got invited to) With regards to lower pay the reason women get lower pay for the same job is because they generally accept the offered rate and men will quite often have more confidence to barter for a higher wage than what was on offer. This is mostly a confidence thing and there are definitely confident women out there but I read an interesting article once which suggested that when most men look at a job description for a new role they will confidently go for the job if they have about 80% of the required skills whereas a woman with 80% of the required skills would focus on the 20% she doesnt possess and probably not go for it. Anyway, it is an interesting question I have obviously focused on just the employment aspect because thats the only one I feel I have much knowledge on but with regards to the funding for breast cancer etc I think that is all about marketing. The organisations looking for money for breast cancer research are damn good at marketing, everybody knows about the pink ribbons etc. It doesnt make it any more important than any other disease, unfortunately its just all about business. Maybe we should all contact the organisations who arrange funding for research etc for mens diseases and tell them to pick up their act.

Question: What do Conservatives think about this article about the dichotomy between American & Canadian healthcare? " Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care. In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada’s taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent. " " Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada’s GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada’s. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services. " " Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists’ care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs. " " Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is. " http://www.bspcn.com/2009/06/27/debunking-canadian-health-care-myths/

Answer: They cower in fear as their propaganda is invalidated

Question: Do men need to start standing up for their rights? Here in UK constantly in the media are stories about how girls are outperforming boys at school / uni, all of this government assisted with changes in the way children are taught and examined - to the detriment of boys. And then yesterday an article showing how men are much more likely to die of cancer, being failed by the NHS and no screening of male cancers (in particular Prostate cancer). see the following article regarding the cancer issue, the statistics included are quite shocking in my opinion..... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1193271/The-cancer-divide-Men-risk-NHS-prefers-save-women-says-cancer-expert.html My take on it is that women have been campaigning and getting what they want, and men have just stood by and now find themselves being discriminated against. oh my god it's lesbian hell already. I should qualify that..... lefty men-hating hell. Not sure what lesbians think of men really. ps I'm married with 2 children a boy and a girl, and I'm concerned that my son has it stacked against him when it comes to his education. that first man hate poster, I suspect she looks something like this.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millie_Tant calm doon Millie!! me sexist? take a look at your initial posting!!! Glad you are in the USA. phew!

Answer: I think people do need to be aware of issues that effect men. I'm a woman and I think it's crazy that society pushes breast and cervical cancer awareness but pays little attention to prostate or testicular cancers. Only in the past little while did the local high schools in my home town start educating male students about self checking. They've been talking about testing and self examination for women for years. Everywhere I look there are pink ribbons on everything from toilet tissue to cereal promoting or supporting breast cancer. When are we going to see a ribbon for the sons, fathers, uncles, and grandfathers we've lost to testicular or prostate cancers? I was in the Scout program and while I really enjoyed it and think there should be troops that allow both genders I think boys only groups should also be allowed. There are lots of girls only clubs and groups, however I notice fewer and fewer boys only groups. If I ever have a son I would like him to be able to do some activities with both genders but I think it would be good for him to have time with other boys his own age. Men and women should be equals and have the same opportunities.

Question: How should we assess statistical presentatons? Obviously, a lot of sociel and political issues are loaded with statistical measurement and analysis. It could be as simple as half the wetlands in Georgia will disappear within 50 years. Or 0.4% of men will get prostate cancer by age 60. So I'm going to give a generic scenario using a presentation of statistics. 1. There is 1 in 1,000,000 chance of X occurring. If Y happens over the period of 20 years, the chance of X occurring increases to 1.4 in 1,000,000. 2. If Y occurs, then the chance of X occurring increases by 40%. Now which of these would you be more concerned with, i.e. does one grab your eye more than the other? Notice that they say the exact same thing. I.e., they are both true. So how close should pay attention to statistics and how they are formulated and presented? ******************************** Which presentation would a person with no knowledge or experience in the particular area think about either statement? Is there any way to modify behavior by making "smart" presentations of statistics since they apparently can be manipulated.

Answer: 1. There is 1 in 1,000,000 chance of X occurring. If Y happens over the period of 20 years, the chance of X occurring increases to 1.4 in 1,000,000. This provides more information. Thus someone who really wanted understand what the statistic is communicating and understand the boundaries of the statistics would prefer this one. 2. If Y occurs, then the chance of X occurring increases by 40%. This is short, succinct, good for activist journalists, but really is inferior to the first presentation. LG

Question: Regarding health care, does this not make sense to you? By Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) Washington, DC — With the Senate health committee convening daily to craft a comprehensive health reform bill, the basic outline of this landmark legislation is now clear. Yes, it will ensure access to affordable, quality care for every American. But, just as important, it will hold down health care costs by creating a sharp new emphasis on disease prevention and public health. As the lead Senator in drafting the Prevention and Public Health section of the bill, I view this legislation as our opportunity to recreate America as a genuine wellness society – a society that is focused on prevention, good nutrition, fitness, and public health. The fact is, we currently do not have a health care system in the United States; we have a sick care system. If you’re sick, you get care, whether through insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, community health centers, emergency rooms, or charity. The problem is that this is all about patching things up after people develop serious illnesses and chronic conditions. We spend a staggering $2.3 trillion annually on health care – 16.5 percent of our GDP and far more than any other country spends on health care – yet the World Health Organization ranks U.S. health care only 37th among nations, on par with Serbia. We spend twice as much per capita on health care as European countries, but we are twice as sick with chronic disease. How can this be so? The problem is that we have systematically neglected wellness and disease prevention. Currently in the United States, 95 percent of every health care dollar is spent on treating illnesses and conditions after they occur. But we spend peanuts on prevention. The good news in these dismal statistics is that, by reforming our system and focusing on fighting and preventing chronic disease, we have a huge opportunity. We can not only save hundreds of billions of dollars; we can also dramatically improve the health of the American people. Consider this: Right now, some 75 percent of health care costs are accounted for by heart disease, diabetes, prostate cancer, breast cancer, and obesity. What these five diseases and conditions have in common is that they are largely preventable and even reversible by changes in nutrition, physical activity, and lifestyle. MEGAN - No honey, I definately don't work for any medically related company. I'm one of the folks they've forgotten about since I don't have insurance anymore.

Answer: Yes it makes sense, CEO bonuses in the for profit health insurance industry alone could pay for immunizations for all children preventing a huge cost is hospitalizations. Early detection of high blood pressure reducing the need for kidney transplant. But, cleaning up the environment, air. water, and chemicals could really reduce the cost of medical care. Our healthcare mess is the direct result of what we allow business to do in the name of profit.

Question: Do feminists try to improve their interactions with men? I don't mean to 'pick out' anyone, but I have to ask a question based on the words of a feminist (who I will say I don't find to be a 'bad' feminist - perhaps misled). She claims that feminists are trying to improve their interactions with men... Yet I find this difficult to believe when we all we hear from feminism is "men are bad, men are to blame, women are victims, women are near perfect" (paraphrased). As I've said previously, I've as yet never found a single feminist 'study' which says something positive about men as a class/sex. I've seen ones which state that 'feminist men' (i.e. a tiny minority of men - not typical men) are 'better' than average men. I've read feminist 'studies' that say feminist relationships are better than normal relationships (i.e. stroking ego's of feminists, not related to men as a class/sex) and so on. I've also read some studies that speak positively of men - but they are not studies by feminists, so again, they don't count. So I'd like to know - what are typical feminists doing to improve their interactions with men. Bad mouthing men into shame - does not count. Exaggerating statistics to paint the majority of men as bad - does not count. Claiming most women are victims of oppression - does not count. Demanding men become feminists - does not count. Insisting men need to change - does not count. How are feminists improving interactions with men? Are they now listening to men's POV and realizing that men are not the problem (part of, perhaps - in so much as women are also part of)? Are they helping to promote men's causes (prostate cancer, divorce settlements, child custody, paternity fraud, maternal gate-keeping, massive suicide rates, longevity, general health, etc.)? Do feminists now seek to educate women on their choices which may lead to improved wages - as oppose pointing a finger of blame at men when a female earns less (due to her choices) than her male counterpart? Are they now pushing the radicals and distancing themselves - to prove their claims they do not tolerate man-hating, as oppose turning a deaf ear to it? These are just some suggestions on how feminism could prove it's claims - but I'm interested in feminists own experiences with improving interactions with men... Lyanthya - can I just confirm then, from your own words: "We try to establish and equalise women's position in what has heretofore been a man's world." a) you only seek to improve interactions with men for women's benefit only - not to benefit both sexes. b) you recognise that the business world was a man's world (as do I) - but do not recognise that the home has always been and remains even today a woman's world (whereas I do recognise this). Where did I say this? Of course we want to benefit both sexes. We want to benefit humanity. Equalising women's position means equalising responsibilities as well as freedoms. ~~~~ Yet you talk only of equalising women's position - why not equalising men's position where women dominate too? That is equality - your words express only one sex. As you seek to equalize responsibilities too - do you seek female criminals similar sentences to those which male criminals receive? # ...there's also the belief that "a man's home is his castle." ~~~ Meaning, he will protect it as if it were a castle/kingdom. ### However, I believe that positions in the home should be equalised, too. ~~~ So you seek to promote men being able to work p/t and be primary caregivers - thus enabling them to seek custody upon divorce, yes? Dad - I opened a website which aimed to bring feminists and anti's together where differences could be discussed without constant finger pointing/blaming. What have YOU done? Dad - Feel welcome to highlight precisely what I'm supposed to be 'jealous' of... You aren't answer the question - you're simply flapping.

Answer: Its the same in 'real life' as on G&WS - if you don't agree with them they are out to get you and will use all sorts of underhand tactics.

Question: Why do some religions say masterbation is a sin? Dr. Andrew Weil says - "Masturbation is a normal sexual behavior that just about everybody engages in - 95 percent of males and 89 percent of females, according to current statistics. For many people, however, it remains a taboo subject and a practice that is still regarded as perverse or immoral. As recently as the late 19th century, medical doctors condemned masturbation as destructive to mental health, even recommending amputation of the penis as a way to cure the habit in compulsive males." "Now it appears that masturbation is not only normal, it may be healthy and protective, especially for young men. A team of scientists in Australia found that men who ejaculate more frequently between the ages of 20 and 50 are less likely to develop prostate cancer. The protective effect seems greatest for those in their 20s." Dr. Andrew Weil continues - "Now it appears that masturbation is not only normal, it may be healthy and protective, especially for young men. A team of scientists in Australia found that men who ejaculate more frequently between the ages of 20 and 50 are less likely to develop prostate cancer. The protective effect seems greatest for those in their 20s." "Results from the study, published in the August 2003 issue of BJU International showed that men who ejaculated more than five times per week were one-third less likely to develop aggressive prostate cancer in their later years. The result contradicts an older belief that high frequency of sexual activity increases the incidence of prostate cancer. The key difference is that earlier research defined sexual activity as sexual intercourse alone rather than focusing on the number of ejaculations. Dr. Weil concludes by saying - "The Australian team speculated that potential infections associated with intercourse might raise the risk of prostate cancer, whereas masturbation allows the prostate, together with the seminal vesicles, to discharge secretions and prevent the buildup of any carcinogens that may be concentrated in them. (Canine studies have demonstrated that certain cancer-causing compounds found in cigarette smoke do concentrate in prostatic fluid.) In my view, masturbation can be a normal expression of sexuality in both men and women. When done compulsively or addictively it can be irritating or exhausting, but in moderation it is medically harmless and may even be healthy. If the Australian findings are confirmed, they should become part of the advice doctors give men for protecting their reproductive systems." Well, now that I've received some responses I will tell you what I think :) I think masterbation DOES give a man or a woman a healthy release that is not dependent upon another individual providing the stimulation. I believe that when a religion or any other source tries to dictate what a person can do with their own bodies that the religion or other source has overstepped spiritual boundaries. I get my direction about my behavior DIRECTLY from GOD. I do not utilize a religion or another person to dictate the rules and regulations under which I live my life. I respect everyones right to choose to have or to not have a religion or any other person or belief system to guide them in their decisions about masterbation and any/all other choices. I also feel that some of the so called "primitive" peoples of the world are far ahead of many of the so called "civilized" peoples because the primitive people celebrate sexuality, they don't attach shame to it. Additionally - I feel very strongly that many women would be far better off masterbating than settling for an unsuitable relationship with a less than desireable man who will provide the woman's stimulation leading to orgasms. I am constantly shocked when I hear women saying that they prefer having orgasms that are the result of stimulation from a partner - yet all they can talk about is how horrible the person/partner is as a human being. For some reason these women think that masterbation is such a horrible sin, yet they don't feel as guilty getting some male they hardly know stimulating them. What's up with that?

Answer: What a pile of "&*@ theres nothing wrong with it, you will not go to hell, you will not destroy your soul, you will not go blind. End of story! theres wouldnt be enough room in hell anyway