To: Hon. Annette King, New Zealand Minister of Health
Dear Annette King,
Thank you for your letter of 18 Feb 2003
and for the information contained in it on the NZ Guideline Group's
ongoing review of evidence on screening for prostate cancer. That letter
was a response to my accusation of (not necessarily deliberate) anti-male
gendercide. I say "not necessarily", because of the existence
of views such as those expressed in the "Society
for Cutting Up Men Manifesto" on the page: http://www.ai.mit.edu/~shivers/rants/scum.html
. I don't know how many Lesbians in the Ministry of Health have such
views, and neither do you -- unless you consort with them.
The comparison with Sadam Hussein is apt. The UN has for years been
putting pressure on Sadam Hussein to reveal details about all current
and past weapons of mass destruction, and Sadam Hussein responds by
delaying, ignoring some issues, making a show of complying, and giving
partial responses. I would not accuse you of delaying, but I think the
other comparisons fit.
Healthcare is a weapon of mass destruction, when it is withheld from
certain parts of the population. Abortion is one area where a section
of the population is not only denied healthcare -- unborn infants are
actually killed by the health system at taxpayer expense, if this happens
to be convenient to the mother alone. The father is not officially consulted
-- he just has to support the child or pay child support if the mother
decides not to abort the infant.
The position of men in New Zealand is better than the position of
the fetus -- but not much better. I will mention just two health-related
issues here: wartime military service and healthcare. Since women got
the vote in New Zealand, they have comprised a majority of the electorate.
This electorate has voted in governments that have declared wars in
which conscription or social pressure has caused large numbers of conscripted
or volunteering men (and no women) to endure battle, to kill people
they had no grudge against, to feel massive fear and boredom, to suffer
minor and major injuries, including amputations and other permanent
harm -- and death.
The New Zealand Equality Education Foundation is grateful for your
statement that information is being prepared that will inform men about
the PSA test for prostate cancer. That is certainly a step in the right
direction. What we are asking for, however, is an across-the board focus
on men's health in general, including information, research, prevention
and treatment. Even the Men's Health slots on television (which seem
to have stopped, anyway) seemed to focus on erectile disfunction --
which is arguably more a problem for women than a problem for men, anyway
!
You write:
"There are few men-specific programmes
because most of men's major health afflictions are non-reproductive
and affect women as well."
I disagree with this on two grounds:
1. As the page http://www.spine-health.com/topics/cd/osteoporosis/osteopor04.html
makes clear, women's hormone-mix is involved in osteoporosis, although
osteoporosis is not a reproductive affliction, as such. Similarly, one
would expect men's hormone-mix (which differs substantially from women's
hormone-mix) to have health consequences outside the purely reproductive
sphere as well -- but for these to be discovered, publicised and dealt
to, there would have to be a non-Feminist culture willing to devote
funds to this end. Feminism (the state ideology of New Zealand) requires
that women be thought of and treated as victims of male oppression,
and so is incompatible with efforts to improve any aspect of life for
men -- lest this confuse the ideological picture;
2. It is largely because many of men's
health afflictions also affect women that any funds at all are thrown
in their direction. We simply do not know how many health afflictions
men have that do not affect women, because people like yourself dominate
the Health sector internationally and prevent any focus being placed
on Men's Health. The medical specialisations of Gynecology and Obstetrics
are a standard part of the medical landscape, but even the word "Andrology"
(see: http://www.andrology.com/)
would not even be recognised by most people as meaning "The science
of diseases of the male sex." Male Health problems, when they are
studied, are usually hidden away in Urology, which also covers women's
"plumbing".
We are grateful that you agree that it is a major concern that men
visit primary healthcare services less frequently than women. However
we resent the fact that you should find it necessary to add the words
"especially Maori and Pacific Island men". That betrays a
refusal to focus on men as a group, and an aversion to considering the
needs of men other than Maori and Pacific Island men. It is obvious
that (as we stated in our letter) if men visit primary healthcare services
less frequently than women, and if this causes extra costs to the taxpayer
in terms of greater male than female hospital admissions, as well as
the premature death of many men, then the solution, in terms of your
own Primary Healthcare Strategy, is to target men for special attention.
Your reply to us ignored the issue of research funding. This is a
crucial issue, because you cannot have much hope of finding what you
don't actually look for. Unless funds are targeted at research into
male health, people like you will be able to continue to belittle the
problem and to blame men for their bad health.
The New Zealand Equality Education Foundation calls on the Government
to establish chairs of Andrology at all New Zealand's university medical
faculties, and a department of Andrology at at least one major hospital.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab,
Acting President,
NZ Equality Education Foundation |
