<James
That statistic is not relevant if there are more men in the workforce in the first place which would not be surprising given that more women are homemakers/carers than men.>

"That Statistic is not relevant!" Mmmh an interesting point of veiw.

I guess then, that you would only regard it as relevant if the unemployment data showed that it was women who became unemployed instead of men.

I do know the saying "Damm Lies and statistics". It is amazing that some female journalists still trot out the old lie that women are paid 84 cents compared to a mans dollar. Like the saying goes "put rubbish in, you get rubbish out."

It nolonger amazes me when women seem extremely ready to accept data that supports the supposition that they are oppressed excetra, and strongly oppose any questioning of the supposed facts.

There was a program that I only caught the tail end of that showed if you were male and got cancer, that you were more morely likely to die when compared to women. The figures were astounding.

Now if it was reversed and more women than men died from cancer, there would be hue and cry. Politicans would be tarred and feather and be accused of sexism.

JamesH:"There was a program that I only caught the tail end of that showed if you were male and got cancer, that you were more morely likely to die when compared to women. The figures were astounding."

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=2&ind=68

This gives the figures for the US, which is 225.1/100,000 for men and just 155.6/100,000 for women. that means that a man is more than 60% more likely to die of cancer than a woman in the US.

For Australia the situation is not quite as bad, "only" 50% more men die of cancer than women(in 2001).

http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/can/ca01/ca01-c03.pdf

Much of the difference can be explained by the fact that many more men than women spend time working in the sun and historically, more men than women have been smokers. The first situation is only going to get worse as we watch the rapid transition of higher ed into a female preserve while men are forced into menial jobs, while the second will level out as the majority of smojers are now female. Of course, it is likely that as soon as female cancer mortality from smoking-related cancers looks like getting close to men's there will be a big injection of research funding...

As an aside, breast cancer was responsible for nearly 25% of all female cancer mortality and that has been the subject of massive funding and research so I'm sure the figures will be much lower today.

Prostate cancer was responsible for nearly the same number of deaths as breast cancer, yet we rarely hear of it. We don't have a "yellow ribbon" day for prostate cancer and we don't have high-profile sports people promoting "Foundations", so it is likely to be higher today I expect.

"Cancer in women is never acceptable"
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"...

James your comment proves to me that you will twist the meaning to suit your own purpose.

Think about it for a minute: if there are more men in the workforce than women then the GFC will probably (but not definitely) mean that more men will lose their jobs. Coupled with the fact that in general there are usually more women than men who remain in the home to raise children the probability is that more men will lose their jobs.

Now, do you understand what I am saying in relation to your statistic?

What is wrong with you men getting together and lobbying for a day for prostate cancer or other men's health issues. You are probably right that traditionally we have heard more in the media about women's health issues but this is changing:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/national%20mens%20health-1

I am not sure why perhaps because women traditionally talk more freely about health issues whereas men can in many cases refuse to even seek treatment or have check-ups. Although men are becoming more interested in their health over time as government programs continue to target men.

Antiseptic given your interest in absolute equality do you think we should enforce a law that CEO roles should be shared across the board 50/50 between men and women? That men should do more housework in the case where both spouses work as statistics show that women are still doing more than 50% of the share of home duties, childcare while holding down a full time job.

I suspect you won't be interested.

pelican:"I suspect you won't be interested."

You're right, because your questions are fatuous. If the best-qualified person for the CEO job is a woman, the Board will appoint her. That is becoming increasingly likely, since women make up 60% of Australian university students today and already nearly 53% of all practising professionals are women.

If women want a cleaner house than their men do, let them clean. If women want to work full-time, they have to prioritise their non-work time, just as men have had to do for a long time. The domestic arrangements of individuals are surely the preserve of individuals? Why would you advocate State interference?

On the other hand, cancer is a set of diseases that has been subject to massively disproportionate and genderised funding, leading to enormous inequities in the outcomes for men and women. To conflate the two issues is risible frankly and neatly encapsulates much of what is wrong with the gender debate.

pelican:"What is wrong with you men getting together and lobbying for a day for prostate cancer or other men's health issues. "

Good question, actually. Prostate cancer is an especial problem for men because of the method of screening, I suspect. Women are not often happy about having to submit to the speculum, but men are even less pleased about the finger. There are now other tests available, but the definitive test is still palpation. I suspect it is too late to change the current susceptible generation of men, but a well-supported advertising campaign directed at 30-something men might well help in 20-30 years.

Antispectic
You mistake my meaning, I personally don't care if there are less women CEOs however, I thought you might given your devotion to absoulte equality in all things gender related. Despite women making up the higher % of uni students they are still less likely to become a CEO. I don't care about this as there are always reasons such as women are more likely to break careers midstream to raise children.

Unlike you I don't expect nor do I think we can ever achieve absolute equality.

My only hope is for some rationalilty and reason without inteference from personal baggage. If you are honest with yourself you have never once on OLO acknowledged when women are genuinely disadvantaged in comparison to men. You all but ignored my earlier comments about how the media and society perceive men and women differently in terms of sexuality.

C'est la vie.

It’s incredible what can be turned into a feminist plot!

While breast cancer and prostate cancer both have gender-hormonal causes, it’s making a false comparison to play one directly against the other.

Heart disease, which afflicts more men than women in virtually all Western countries gets the lion’s share of attention from the medical profession – of all diseases – because it kills the largest proportion of people in any Western population. I could play the gender card and argue that this discriminates against women because fewer women get heart disease, but I won’t because the argument is ridiculous.

Lung cancer is the most common cancer afflicting both men and women. However, of all the cancers that afflict women, breast cancer is the next most common so it gets a lot of attention from women’s health professionals. By contrast, more men develop heart disease and lung cancer than prostate cancer, so these get the lion’s share of attention from men’s health professionals.

Also, prostate cancer has been neglected as a medical issue in the same way that bowel cancer was for many years – because of the yuk! factor. Social debate surrounding medical issues has a tendency to prefer diseases that afflict less embarrassing parts of the body.

You could argue all day long about the politics of disease, but certain diseases capture more attention and funding for a variety of reasons, few of which are ever fair. Leukemia in children, which is relatively rare, gets more sympathy, attention, and most likely funding, than does arthritis in elderly people, which is as debilitating and painful as it is common. AIDS gets far more attention than diabetes or malaria, which kill far more people worldwide … and so on.

And for the record … feminism never adopted breast cancer as an issue. It’s had far too many other battles to fight.