From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Followup-To: soc.women,soc.men
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 01:13:41 GMT

I found this post in soc.men and thought it was interesting, so I'm
including the complete text.

In article <1992Sep27.182222.4017@mr.med.ge.com> larry@ducktales.med.ge.com (Larry Landwehr) writes:
>
>                    The Politics Of Appeasement
>
>                          Larry Landwehr
>                          Copyright 1992
>
>
>Last week the senate voted 89-4 to cut $200 million from military
>projects and spend $185 million of it on breast cancer research.
>The senate is involved with feminist issues legislation including
>family leave, stalking, violence against women, abortion rights,
>and higher penalties for job related sex discrimination.
>
>Congress is going out with a bang. It is out doing itself by
>indulging in a last minute orgy of self flagellation and
>appeasement.
>
>Congress, especially the congresses of the last twenty years, has
>a long record of buying votes with pork barrel legislation. But
>now it is scared. The members of congress sense a growing anger
>across the country directed at them. Unfortunately, they are still
>listening to the same people who got them in this fix. The special
>interest groups have managed to convince Congress that the people
>are angry because Congress hasn't done enough for the special
>interest groups!
>
>People are angry at congress because Congress has sold the people
>out. People are angry because Congress has sacrificed the principle
>of the greatest good for the greatest number. Instead of representing
>the people who elected them, Congress has sold it's soul.
>
>In the past, members of Congress would engage in the fine art of
>pork barrelling by trying to get public money directed to their
>constituents. Ever wonder why the space program fires rockets from
>Florida and has a major communications outpost in Texas? That was
>pork barrel. Ever wonder why so many military posts are
>concentrated in so few states? More pork barrel.
>
>In the old pork barrel legislation some people benefited more than
>others, but space program facilities and military posts had to be
>built somewhere. Everyone in the country benefited at least
>indirectly.
>
>In the new form of pork barrelling, things have been twisted. Now
>special interest groups are not constituents. They are often
>national groups with access to the national media. Now legislation
>is passed that benefits the members of the special interest groups
>- at the expense of other groups. When money is spent on women's
>health issues, there is less left for general medicine. Men have
>a life expectancy that is seven years less than women. So why is
>so much more money spent on women's health?

Something like 40,000 American women die each year from breast cancer.
Are you saying that it's wrong to fund a disease that mainly strikes
women (although breast cancer can also strike men)?  Do you feel the
same way about cancers that only strike men--penile cancer, testicular
cancer, prostate cancer?  Should research and treatment of them not be
funded because these are cancers of a special interest group--men?

Since women suffer less from cardiovascular disease when they're of
child-bearing years, should we only research such disease in older
people and forget about younger men with these diseases?  We don't
want to appeal to the special interest group of younger men with such
diseases.

Do you have any figures that "so much more money (is) spent on women's
health" other than the breast cancer figure?  Do you have any figures
on the percentage of women used in research studies?  Do you know, for
example, if the "aspirin-a-day helps cardiac patients" claim works for
women, since no women were included in this study?

>Politicians talk about divisiveness in this country. Well they
>caused it. The general public is fed up with paying for special
>interest programs. They can tell when they are being used. The
>media shoves it in their faces every day with more calls for new
>programs.
>
>When are the politicians of this country going to wake up? When are
>they going to quit plundering the public treasury? When are they
>going to quit pandering to special interest groups?
>
>Only when the people demand it.

I hardly think that breast cancer which kills mostly women is an
appeal to a special interest group.  I do find it interesting that you
appear to consider men's issues general issues, while women's issues
are only a special interest group's issues.  We should be concerned
that the average man's lifespan is 7 years shorter than a woman's, we
shouldn't be concerned with 40,000 women dying each year of breast
cancer.

Nearly one in four American women will come down with breast cancer in
her lifetime.  This could be your mother, sister, daughter, or wife.

From: larryf@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Larry Ferreira)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:18:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Forced Fatherhood Executive Summary
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA