MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory &#187; sex

http://www.sbhcs.com/hospitals/newark_beth_israel/mservices/oncology/surgical.html

Radiation Treatment of Prostate Cancer & Second Cancers; Sexual Content on TV & Teen Pregnancy Risk

Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 01:51:25 +0000

RADIATION TREATMENT OF PROSTATE CANCER & RISK OF SECOND CANCERS

Exposure to high doses of ionizing radiation, whether from a nuclear explosion or from radiation therapy for cancer, has long been known to increase the risk of cancer formation.Â A growing body of clinical data is helping to further develop our understanding of secondary radiation-induced cancers.Â

Much of our current understanding about radiation-induced cancer is based upon long-term observation of the Japanese survivors of the World War II atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Â In particular, an increased incidence of leukemia, myeloma, and cancers of the thyroid, breast, lung, stomach, esophagus, ovary and bladder has been identified in atomic bomb survivors who were close to ground zero.

Following the catastrophic failure of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in Ukraine, in 1986, an excess of leukemia and thyroid cancer among workers who were involved in the clean-up of the reactorâ€™s contaminated debris has already been documented.

More recently, several studies have reported upon the incidence of secondary cancers in adults who were treated with radiation therapy for lymphoma during childhood and adolescence.Â An increased incidence of cancers of the lung and the female breast has been confirmed among patients who previously underwent extended-field chest irradiation (also known as mantle radiation therapy) for Hodgkinâ€™s Lymphoma, and these secondary cancers typically occur 15 to 20 years following treatment.Â Rare cancers of the bone and cartilage, called sarcomas, have also been associated with prior radiation therapy treatments.Â Now, a new research study suggests that certain forms of prostate cancer radiation therapy may also be linked to an increased risk of subsequent radiation-induced secondary cancers.

Currently, there are several different treatment approaches available for prostate cancer therapy.Â Surgery can be performed to completely remove the prostate gland (prostatectomy) when the tumor is still confined to the prostate.Â Implants of radioactive seeds, placed within the prostate gland (brachytherapy), can also be used to destroy cancer within the prostate.Â External beam irradiation is another form of radiation therapy, but unlike brachytherapy, external beam irradiation is delivered by a machine that concentrates radiation onto the prostate gland from a source external to the body.Â Although great progress has been made in fine-tuning the delivery of radiation to the prostate gland with both brachytherapy and external beam irradiation, there is, inevitably, some â€œcollateral damageâ€ that occurs to the organs and tissues that surround the prostate, as it is impossible to confine 100 percent of the delivered radiation dose to the prostate gland alone.

A new study, in the Journal of Urology, evaluated the cancer treatment records of more than 240,000 men who had previously been treated for prostate cancer with prostatectomy, brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy or a combination of brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy between 1988 and 2003.Â The data for this study was collected from the massive Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) national cancer database, which is maintained by the National Cancer Institute.Â This study was conducted by researchers from Columbia University and the Mount Sinai Medical Center.Â

In this study, the authors compared the incidence of subsequent cases of cancers of the bladder and rectum occurring in these 243,082 men.Â The men who underwent prostatectomy alone, and who did not receive any radiation therapy, essentially served as the â€œcontrol groupâ€ for this study.

An almost insignificant increase in the risk of bladder cancer was seen in the men who underwent brachytherapy alone.Â However, there was a more pronounced and statistically significant increase in the risk of both bladder cancer and rectal cancer observed among the men who received either external beam radiotherapy alone or combined brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy.Â Compared to the men who underwent prostatectomy alone, external beam irradiation was associated with an 88 percent increase in the relative risk of developing bladder cancer, and a 26 percent increase in the relative risk of developing rectal cancer.Â Among those men who received both brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy, the relative risk of developing bladder cancer was 85 percent higher than what was observed in the men who underwent prostatectomy alone, while the relative risk of developing rectal cancer was 21 percent higher.Â (It should be noted that â€œrelative riskâ€ is a measure of the difference in risk between two patient treatment populations, and is not the same as the â€œabsolute riskâ€ of developing a particular disease.)

In this retrospective study, which involves a relatively short duration of clinical follow-up, external beam irradiation for prostate cancer (either administered alone or in combination with brachytherapy) was associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing subsequent cancers of the bladder and rectum.Â

Since most studies of radiation-induced secondary cancers have shown an average biological lag time of 15 to 20 years between radiation therapy and the diagnosis of secondary malignancies, the findings of this study may actually underestimate the long-term risks of secondary bladder and rectal cancers in men who have previously received external beam radiotherapy as treatment for their prostate cancers.Â At the same time, however, recent and continuing improvements in the accuracy of radiation therapy delivery have significantly reduced the â€œinnocent bystanderâ€ effect, whereby clinically significant doses of radiation are absorbed by the organs that surround the prostate gland (namely, the bladder and the rectum).Â As a final note, all retrospective studies that are based upon prospectively collected data, such as this study, are subject to potential biases, including the â€œcompletenessâ€ of the clinical data that is present within large databases such as the SEER database.Â However, based upon a large body of clinical literature on this topic, the findings of this particular study are not at all surprising, or unexpected.

All patients who are planning to undergo therapy for prostate cancer should first talk with their oncologists about the unique risks and benefits associated with each potential treatment option before choosing the best and most appropriate form of therapy.

SEXUAL CONTENT ON TV & TEEN PREGNANCY RISK

Although the effects of violent and sexual content on television, or on video games, on adolescents and young adults is the subject of considerable debate, there are multiple recent studies that appear to substantiate the concerns of many parents who wrestle with these issues.Â For example, several clinical research studies have recently found that children who frequently play video games with violent themes are more likely to engage in aggressive or antisocial behavior at school and at home.Â

In view of the enormous impact of teen pregnancy on individuals, families and society, many parents and family advocates have viewed with alarm the increasingly unfiltered sexual content present in both movies and television shows.Â A new Rand Corporation study, just published in the journal Pediatrics, has concluded that there may well be a significant link between exposure to television shows with sexual content or themes, on the one hand, and the likelihood of pregnancy prior to age 20.Â This study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, which is part of the National Institute of Health (NIH).

In this study, data from prospective surveys of teens were analyzed over a 3-year period.Â A total of 1,762 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 anonymously completed surveys regarding their sexual experiences and their television viewing habits, and the same group of teens then completed the same survey one year later.Â The incidence of teen pregnancy in this group of adolescents was monitored for a period of 3 years.

Sexual content in television shows measured by the surveys included: (1) sexually-oriented behaviors such as kissing, intimate touching, and implied or depicted intercourse; and (2) discussions about sexual plans or desires, or about sexual behavior that had already occurred, or â€œexpert adviceâ€ about sexually-related topics.

The results of this study demonstrated a linear association between heavy exposure to sexual content on television and the initiation of intercourse and other sexual behaviors during adolescence.Â The teens who anonymously admitted to watching the greatest number of sexually-themed television shows were 2 times as likely to initiate sexual intercourse within the following year as were the teens who watched the least amount of sexual content on TV.Â In terms of age-related sexual behavior, 12 year-olds who watched the greatest number of television shows with sexual themes engaged in sexual activities at a level comparable to 14- and 15-year-old teens who watched the least number of shows with sexual content.Â An especially interesting finding of this study was that television shows that featured only discussions about sexual activities were still associated with an increased likelihood of engaging in intercourse, and in teenage pregnancies, among adolescents viewing such shows.Â

Other adolescent behaviors linked with the early initiation of intercourse included: older age, hanging out with older friends, achieving lower grades at school, sensation-seeking behaviors, and rule-breaking behaviors (e.g., skipping classes).Â

On the other hand, behaviors most associated with a lower likelihood of intercourse during adolescence included: having parents who monitored their teensâ€™ behavior, having more educated parents, having parents who disapproved of teenage sexual activity, and living with both parents (please note that the greatest deterrents to adolescents engaging in intercourse, based upon the results of this prospective clinical study, involved parent-related factorsâ€¦).

In this study, an early age at initiation of sexual activity (including intercourse), and the incidence of teen pregnancy, were found to strongly correlate with the extent to which television shows with sexual content (including mere discussions about sexual activities and behaviors) were viewed by teens.Â Conversely, minimizing viewing exposures to such television programming, and being supervised by two parents who disapproved of adolescent sexual behavior, was associated with the lowest rates of teen sexual activity and teen pregnancy.

Many parents will respond to the findings of this research study with something along the lines of, â€œNo, duhâ€¦.â€Â However, this is the first prospectively conducted research study to confirm what many of us parents have long believed. Â My advice is to stay connected with your teens, and stay involved with their lives, even when they demand that you do otherwise.

Dr.Â Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery,Â a widely published author, andÂ the Director of the Division of Surgical Oncology at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center:

Send your feedback to Dr. Wascher at: Â rwascher@doctorwascher.net
Â

To read more of Dr. Wascherâ€™s Health Report columns, please visit his

website at: Â http://www.doctorwascher.com

http://www.sbhcs.com/hospitals/newark_beth_israel/mservices/oncology/surgical.html

Viagra & Sexual Function in Women; Patient-Reported Adverse Hospital Events; Curcumin & Pancreatic Cancer

Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:03:44 +0000

VIAGRA & SEXUAL FUNCTION IN WOMEN

In previous columns, I have reviewed research studies of female sexual function and dysfunction (please see my Archives).Â This is a very complex area of research, given the large number of both biological and behavioral factors at work in human sexuality.Â Further complicating matters is the enormous difference in sexual behavior and physiology between men and women.Â Male sexual dysfunction, which most commonly results from an inability to obtain a satisfactory erection (erectile dysfunction), is often treatable with Viagra and similar drugs.Â These medications function by dilating the arteries that supplies the erectile tissues in the penis, thus improving blood flow to these tissues.Â In the absence of sexual arousal, however, these medications do not have any significant effect on erectile function.Â Because the majority of cases of sexual dysfunction in women are related to a decreased level of sexual desire, or libido, previous research trials of Viagra, and similar drugs, in women have been disappointing, as these medications do not directly affect the sexual arousal pathways in the brain.

However, a new prospective, double-blinded clinical research trial in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggests that women who are experiencing decreased libido associated with antidepressant medications may, in fact, benefit from Viagra.Â This study was performed by researchers at the University of New Mexico, and an important disclaimer has been made by both the studyâ€™s authors and the Pfizer Corporation, which manufactures Viagra.Â Not only was this research conducted with the financial support of Pfizer, but several of the studyâ€™s authors (including the primary author) have a history of receiving funding grants from Pfizer.Â

Financial links between clinical researchers and for-profit pharmaceutical and medical device companies are coming under increasing scrutiny by medical ethicists due to the obvious potential for conflicts of interest (I often receive offers to speak on behalf of such companies, or to participate in research projects with their funding, and I have always politely declined such offers from for-profit companies).Â Unfortunately, due to the very modest pool of research funding available from governmental and non-profit sources, research scientists increasingly find themselves between the proverbial â€œrock and a hard placeâ€ when it comes to obtaining sufficient funds to conduct their research.Â In the case of this particular research trial, all authors disclosed their fiduciary relationships with Pfizer, and Pfizer published a disclaimer indicating that the company had no role in the design or conduct of this study, or in the writing of the manuscript that resulted from this research.Â While these disclaimers do not completely exclude the possibility of bias in favor of Viagra by the Pfizer-sponsored researchers, these public disclaimers, as well as the randomized double-blinded design of this prospective clinical trial, represent the most open and honest way of performing clinical research with a commercial sponsor which is also the manufacturer of the drug being studied.Â Nonetheless, all research studies that are conducted with financial support from commercial entities that have a vested interest in the outcomes of such studies should be viewed with a very critical eye.

This multi-institutional research trial enrolled 98 women with a diagnosis of major depression.Â All of these women gave a history of normal sexual desire and function prior to beginning treatment with antidepressant medications known as â€œSRIs,â€ or serotonin reuptake inhibitors.Â (These medications are known to cause decreased libido in both men and women as a side effect.)Â A crucial difference in this particular study, when compared to previous research looking at the treatment of sexual dysfunction in women with Viagra, is that the women in this study reported previously normal sexual function prior to starting treatment with SRI antidepressant medications.Â In previous Viagra studies, women volunteers reported decreased baseline sexual desire, and without any apparent medical or pharmaceutical causes.

Over the 8-week course of this study, half of the women volunteers received Viagra and the other half received a sugar pill (placebo) that was identical in appearance to Viagra.Â The women were instructed to take their assigned pills just prior to engaging in sexual activity.Â None of the women volunteers, or the research personnel conducting the study, were aware of which pills were Viagra and which were placebo pills in this double-blinded study.Â Throughout the study, previously validated female sexual dysfunction surveys were administered to all of the study volunteers, and all of the women maintained a personal diary of their sexual activity.Â Additionally, blood levels of female sex hormones were measured in all of the volunteers.

During the course of this study, 22 women (22% of the women who entered the study) dropped out of the study for various reasons.Â However, the researchers also, appropriately, included these 22 women in their final analysis.Â When the data was analyzed, the researchers noted a 60% improvement in sexual function among the women who had received Viagra pills (when compared to the patients who had received the placebo pills).Â In all patients, sex hormone levels in the blood were within the normal range, and did not significantly differ between the women taking Viagra versus those taking the placebo pill.

Although this study is the first ever to find a favorable effect on female sexual function with Viagra, it is important to understand that the results of this study are probably not applicable to the general population.Â Viagra, and related drugs, have no effect on the areas of the brain that control baseline sexual desire.Â These drugs work, very specifically, on the genitals (and not on the brain).Â Therefore, it is not at all surprising that these drugs have been shown, by multiple studies, to have no effect on women who are experiencing decreased libido that is not due to the side effects of other medications.Â In this study, however, women who reported previously normal levels of sexual desire and function, and who secondarily developed sexual dysfunction as a side effect of SRI antidepressants, appeared to benefit from Viagra.Â Because the mechanisms of sexual dysfunction are different when comparing primary sexual dysfunction versus that caused by SRI medications, Viagra may offer the latter group of women an effective therapy by improving genital function.Â

The most important clinical consideration arising from this study is that both men and women with major depression frequently stop taking their antidepressant medications because of the sexual dysfunction that can be induced by these drugs.Â If, indeed, depressed women can benefit from Viagra, as men have, then they are more likely to continue taking their antidepressant medications.Â Nothing in this study contradicts previous studies that have shown no benefit from Viagra in women with primary sexual dysfunction.Â However, for women taking SRIs for major depression, Viagra, and similar drugs, may help to reverse SRI-associated sexual dysfunction, and may therefore improve compliance with antidepressant therapy. Â This would, clearly, represent a â€œwin-winâ€ situation for such patients.

PATIENT-REPORTED ADVERSE HOSPITAL EVENTS

In 1999, the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimated that nearly 100,000 Americans die every year due to medical errors (the vast majority of which involve errors in dispensing medications).Â Although this report subsequently set off a firestorm of debate regarding the accuracy of the IOMâ€™s data and conclusions, there is no doubt but that numerous injuries and deaths result, every year, from negligence and errors in medical and surgical care.Â Today, primarily as a result of the IOMâ€™s landmark report on medical errors, there is an enormous emphasis on improving the quality of care in the United States, using multiple approaches to drive down the incidence of preventable medical and surgical errors.Â Currently, the careful review of patient medical records is one of the most important methods in use to detect evidence of medical errors and patient complications.

A new research study, just published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, offers a sobering assessment of how well our current approaches to medical error discovery are functioning, as well as suggesting how we might further improve medical error detection.Â This study was performed by researchers at Harvard University and Brown University.

In this study, the medical records of patients who were recently discharged from the hospital were randomly selected and reviewed for evidence of medical errors.Â Additionally, these patients were contacted and interviewed, and additional evidence of potential medical errors was collected directly from these patients.Â The researchers then compared the medical records of these patients with the results of patient interviews in an effort to assess how well the medical records documented apparent medical errors.

Nearly 1,000 patients participated in this study, and 11% were found to have experienced at least 1 adverse event during their hospitalization, based upon a review of their medical records.Â Based upon direct patient interviews, however, the researchers determined that at least 23% of the patients had experienced some sort of adverse event (or events) during their hospital stay.Â Moreover, many of these adverse events were not only serious but preventable as well.

Although the authors of this study pointed out that patients may not be able to clearly recall every in-hospital adverse event when being interviewed months after discharge, the findings of this study still raise the very worrisome possibility that our current mechanisms of medical error discovery are missing many serious and potentially preventable errors.Â The results of this study strongly suggest that hospitals should implement routine post-discharge interviews of patients as part of the important process of identifying medical errors.Â This patient-centered approach may represent a very important new tool in our efforts to reduce medical and surgical errors to the lowest achievable level.

Â Â

CURCUMIN & PANCREATIC CANCER

Regular readers of this column already know that cancer of the pancreas is a particularly nasty type of cancer.Â More than 90% of patients diagnosed with this disease will eventually succumb to it.Â (Dr. Randy Pausch, the Carnegie Mellon Computer Sciences professor who touched the world with his poignant book, The Last Lecture, died yesterday of pancreatic cancer, at the age of 47.)

Currently, surgery is the mainstay of pancreatic cancer treatment, but the overwhelming majority of patients with pancreatic cancer are not candidates for surgery by the time their disease has been discovered and diagnosed.Â Even among the minority of patients with pancreatic cancer who are candidates for the radical surgery used to treat this dismal disease, the long term survival rates are very poor.Â Although chemotherapy and radiation therapy are often used, particularly in advanced cases of pancreatic cancer, their impact on this disease has not been highly effective.Â Therefore, a tremendous amount of research is underway to try and find more effective treatments for one of the most formidable causes of cancer-related death in the world.

Curcumin is well known to connoisseurs of Indian food, as it is a principle component of tumeric, which is used to make curry.Â Numerous laboratory studies have demonstrated that curcumin has both anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory activities, and so there is a great deal of interest in testing curcumin in humans as an anti-cancer medication.Â A new study, just published in the journal Clinical Cancer Research, examines the clinical effects of curcumin supplements in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.Â This study was performed by researchers from the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.Â

In this study, 21 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer received oral curcumin supplements, and were reassessed for response every 2 months during the course of this study.Â In addition to radiographic imaging studies of their tumors, blood levels of proteins associated with both pancreatic cancer tumor activity and response to cancer treatment were measured every 2 months.

In one patient who received curcumin, no tumor growth or spread was noted for more than 18 months, which is remarkable for advanced pancreatic cancer.Â In a second patient, curcumin supplementation was associated with a 73% reduction in tumor size, which is also a remarkable response for pancreatic cancer, although this dramatic response was only temporary in this patient.Â Although the tumors of the remaining patients did not appear to respond as dramatically as was observed in these two patients, the blood levels of proteins associated with cancer treatment response revealed a significant biochemical response to curcumin supplements in the remaining patients as well.

Why two patientsâ€™ tumors clinically responded, however transiently, so well to curcumin and the others did not is unclear at this time.Â However, all patients who received curcumin showed biochemical evidence of anti-cancer activity in their blood.Â Although the overall clinical effects of curcumin in this early-phase clinical research study were not very dramatic in absolute terms, the fact that any of the patients with advanced pancreatic cancer in this study experienced any clinical benefit from this non-toxic dietary supplement is actually quite remarkable.Â In highly lethal cancers, like pancreatic cancer, which are refractory to most of our treatments, even incremental clinical signs of progress, such as were demonstrated in this study, are cause for celebration.Â As this was only a small early-phase clinical study, additional and larger prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical research trials with curcumin are warranted, based upon the results of this small study.

Dr.Â Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery,Â a widely published author, andÂ the Director of the Division of Surgical Oncology at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center:

Send your feedback to Dr. Wascher at: Â rwascher@doctorwascher.net

http://www.doctorwascher.com

http://www.sbhcs.com/hospitals/newark_beth_israel/mservices/oncology/surgical.html

Erectile Dysfunction & Frequency of Sex; Muscle Strength & Mortality in Men; Cryoablation for Prostate Cancer

Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:29:13 +0000

The information in this column is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute medical advice or recommendations by the author. Please consult with your physician before making any lifestyle or medication changes, or if you have any other concerns regarding your health.

ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION & FREQUENCY OF SEX

A few years ago, I reviewed a research paper that found a lower incidence of prostate cancer in men who frequently engaged in sexual intercourse.The response of readers fell, predictably, along gender lines, with most male readers enthusiastically embracing this novel putative prostate cancer prevention activity, while many female readers took a less exuberant view of the results of this particular study.Now, a new study in the American Journal of Medicine reports on the apparent relationship between erectile dysfunction (ED) and frequency of sexual intercourse among older men.

In this Finnish public health research study, 989 men between the ages of 55 and 75 (average age was 59.2 years) were assessed with a validated ED questionnaire, and were followed for an average of 5 years.The men were also questioned about coexisting ailments that are known to be associated with ED (among this cohort of nearly 1,000 men, 32% had hypertension, 12% had heart disease, 7% complained of depression, 4% had diabetes, and 4% had a history of stroke).When ED-associated illnesses were statistically corrected for, the researchers were then able to assess the relationship between number of episodes of intercourse per week and the incidence of ED.

In this study, men reporting intercourse less than once per week had twice the incidence of ED when compared to the men who reported intercourse at least one time per week.The authors of this study, therefore, concluded that more frequent sex is protective against the development of ED.

Human sexuality is complex both in terms of behavior and in terms of biology.I wish that I could fully embrace the results of this study and its findings, but there are a number of weaknesses and potentially false assumptions involved in the authors’ conclusions.First of all, this study has not, in my view, adequately excluded the very likely probability that the men who had intercourse less than once per week did so because, in fact, they already had significant ED, and that ED was, itself, a direct cause of reduced coital frequency.Secondly, this study suffers from all of the potential weakness of survey-based public health studies, namely the potential for bias being introduced by the patients who completed the surveys, as well as, potentially, bias introduced by the people who constructed the surveys (and by those who tabulated the data from these surveys).On top of these potential biases, it is well known (both in research circles and throughout general society) that men are notoriously "subjective" in answering questions related to their sexuality and sexual performance.As the conclusions of this study rest squarely upon the accuracy of the answers that these men provided on the study’s questionnaires, one has to question both the accuracy of the data collected and, in turn, the conclusions based upon such data.Likewise, this study did not evaluate the myriad social, economic, emotional, physical, pharmacological, and interpersonal factors that play such a powerful role in human sexuality.

There may indeed be some element of "use it or lose it" biology at work relative to the potency status of elder men.However, I do not think that this particular study’s data is "potent" enough to conclusively prove that more frequent intercourse leads to a reduced incidence of ED (i.e., rather than the other way around).

MUSCLE STRENGTH & MORTALITY IN MEN

There are many measures of overall health and fitness, many of them related to the extent of aerobic (cardiorespiratory) exercise capacity.A new study, in the British Medical Journal, examines muscular strength as a predictor of mortality in men.This study was performed by the Karolinksa Institute in Sweden, the University of Granada in Spain, the University of South Carolina, and the University of North Texas.

In this prospective clinical study, nearly 9,000 men between 20 and 80 years of age were followed over an average of 19 years.All study volunteers were assessed for muscle strength and aerobic fitness using standard exercise physiology testing.During the very long period of follow-up, 503 of the men died, including 145 deaths due to cardiovascular causes and 199 deaths due to cancer.The researchers then adjusted for coexisting health factors in these men, including age, level of physical activity, smoking history, alcohol intake, obesity, other medical conditions, and a family history of cardiac and respiratory illnesses.The male volunteers were then categorized into three groups, proportional to their age-adjusted level of muscular strength.

When compared to the men with the lowest level of muscle strength, the men with the highest level of muscle strength had a 29% lower risk of death due to cardiovascular disease and a 32% lower risk of death due to cancer.The risk of dying due to any cause was also reduced by 23% for the men in the group with the greatest muscular strength.

Even the men who exhibited muscle strength somewhere in between that of the men in the lowest and highest muscle strength groups appeared to also enjoy a lower risk of mortality.The risk of death due to cardiovascular disease in this intermediate group of men was 24% lower than that of the "lowest muscle strength" group, while the risk of death due to cancer was 28% percent lower, and the risk of death due to any cause was 28% lower.

Upon further analysis of their data, the authors of this study found that the association between muscular strength and a reduced risk of death due to cancer, or due to "all causes," remained even when adjusting for the level of cardiorespiratory (aerobic) fitness.However, among those patients with poor cardiorespiratory fitness, increased muscular strength was less protective against death due to cardiovascular disease.

In summary, increasing levels of muscular strength appear to be protective against death due to "all causes," cardiovascular diseases (e.g., heart attack and stroke), and cancer.Even among patients with poor cardiorespiratory fitness levels, increased levels of muscular strength still offered some protection against death due to various causes.Given the strong interrelationship between muscular fitness, on the one hand, and overall health and fitness, on the other hand, it is not entirely clear if muscular strength is, by itself, a major contributor to the reduced death rates observed among "muscularly fit" men in this study (i.e., rather than muscular strength being only one of several interrelated health factors that, together, reduce the risk of mortality).However, the authors of this study did adjust their statistical calculations in an effort to correct for health factors unrelated to muscular strength, and they still found that muscular strength, by itself, reduced mortality rates.So, I’ll see you at the gym soon, in the weight training sectionâ€¦.

CRYOABLATION FOR PROSTATE CANCER

New approaches to the treatment of prostate cancer are being investigated, in addition to existing surgical and non-surgical treatments.Cryoablation is a technique that uses probes, inserted into the prostate gland, to freeze both the cancer and the surrounding normal prostate gland.Although there is currently no data available from prospective, randomized clinical trials comparing cryoablation with standard therapies, there is a growing body of clinical data looking at the benefits and risks of cryoablation versus other more established therapies.

A new study in the journal Urology reviews the cumulative data, thus far, from an online data registry (the "COLD Registry," or "Cryo Online Data Registry") encompassing 1,198 patients who have undergone whole prostate gland cryoablation for prostate cancer.The institutions participating in this study included the Cleveland Clinic, the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Columbia University, the University of Calgary in Canada, and the International Society of Cryosurgery in Trieste, Italy.

The patients included in this study were grouped according to tumor-related risk factors into low, intermediate, and high risk groups.The average age of these men was approximately 70 years, and the average length of follow-up, to date, has been 2 years (136 of the patients have been followed for at least 5 years).

Following whole gland prostate cryoablation, 77% of the patients were deemed to be free of detectable prostate cancer 5 years following treatment.When broken down into separate prognostic risk groups, 85% of the low-risk group appeared to be disease-free at 5 years, 73% of the intermediate-risk group appeared free of disease at 5 years, and 75% of the high-risk group was clinically without evidence of recurrent prostate cancer at 5 years (using a different scoring system, 62% of the high-risk patients were clinically free of disease at 5 years).

Recurrence rates confirmed by re-biopsy ranged from 15 to 38%, depending upon the clinical indications used to recommend re-biopsy (38% of the re-biopsies performed for rising prostate antigen, or PSA, levels in the blood were positive for residual or recurrent prostate cancer within the prostate gland).

Complications associated with whole prostate gland cryoablation included breakdown (fistula) of the adjacent rectal wall (0.4%), incontinence of urine (5%), and impotence (91% of patients were impotent without the use of erectile dysfunction drugs or devices, and 75% were impotent despite using medications or devices).

Although a longer follow-up of the entire group of these patients may reveal very different trends, the findings of this study, thus far, compares rather favorably with other methods of prostate cancer treatment in terms of efficacy and complications.However, as in other clinical studies of whole prostate gland cryoablation, the incidence of impotence following cryoablation appears to be significantly higher when compared to radiation therapy or nerve-sparing prostate surgery, while the incidence of incontinence of urine appears to be much lower for cryoablation when compared to other therapies.

Although this particular study offers very useful information, we will have to wait for the results of randomized prospective clinical trials that perform head-to-head comparisons between cryotherapy and other conventional prostate cancer therapies before cryoablation can be accepted as an equivalent (at least) therapy when compared to more established treatments.A small randomized prospective clinical trial in Canada, which compared cryoablation with radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer, completed enrollment of all of its patients in April of 2007.It will be at least another 5 years before mature data is reported from this trial.If that data is favorable, then cryotherapy may become accepted mainstream treatment for at least some prostate cancer patients.Until then, whole gland cryoablation should be considered an experimental treatment, and should be limited to properly accredited clinical research trials, in my view.

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, a widely published author, and the Director of the Division of Surgical Oncology at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center:

Send your feedback to Dr. Wascher at: rwascher@doctorwascher.net

http://www.doctorwascher.com

Video: This is What Feminism Looks Like

Manipulating – This is What Feminism Looks Like

Joe Soltys — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:42:39 +0000

Â

A new PR campaign to promote feminism reminds me of my children; shove everything under the bed where mom or dad can’t see it, then presto, the room appears clean and tidy.
This same tactic is being used for a promotional video put out by the Feminist Majority. In the video, numerous well-known Hollywood actors, male and female, offer their opinions and perceptions on what it means to be a feminist.
I have to admit the production is well crafted, and will be very influential when viewed by the general public. In its purest form, the ideology of feminism cannot be argued: Equality for men and women that transcend all aspects of life.
And this is the image and mood the video embraces. But as we all know, the devil is in the details.

This video chooses to present feminism as a historical movement that was essential in achieving many of the gains women enjoy today, and how it is still essential to address the modern day inequities that still persist. It also presents the feminist movement as a historically benevolent movement that is embolden through its use of compassion, pragmatic thinking, selfless activism, and the deep desire to help those who are marginalized in society.

So I thought, if feminist and their movement truly embody these altruist qualities, why the need to promote themselves? As the saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words”.

This is what troubled me the most about the video. This contradiction concerning the need for feminist to promote themselves in spite of all the humanitarian, legendary, and iconic events it claims it has been responsible for.

To put it in perspective, did Mother Teresa have to promote herself? Did Gandhi have to promote himself? Did Dr. Martin Luther King have to promote himself? These individuals never engaged in self promoting. Their messages were extremely powerful, but only because their actions ultimately provided the catalyst that fueled and validated their messages. And by action, I mean using the appropriate methods to carry out the message by maintaining a standard of integrity, morality, and ethical behavior.

It should also be noted that each of the people I mentioned was greatly humbled, meaning they understood the power of humility. Thus, in order to change others, it meant they themselves must be willing to acknowledge their own faults, and be willing to change also. Therefore, the act of humility brought creditability to them as individuals, and ultimately, brought credibility to their message and their movement.
The feminist have to promote themselves because they have no humility. They have lost creditability with the general public, and more importantly, with the majority of women. They have used sexism to fight sexism, stereotypes to fight stereotypes, and have avoided accountability for their questionable behavior while forcing others to be held accountable for theirs.
Therefore, it appears to me the vague and opaque message about what feminism really means in the video was intentional, because if any amount of clarity seeped in, the benevolent, altruistic image of feminism would begin to deteriorate rapidly.

Let me present my view of the feminist movement with respect to some of the views that are offered in the video:

One woman says feminism is not about hating men.

Really?

As a man who grew up during the feminist movement, I have been bombarded with aggressive, sexist, and discriminatory comments about men from feminist icons. Let me provide an example:

Marilyn French:

– Not many men have both good fortune and good sense.

– Men stumble over pebbles, never over mountains.

–Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relations with men, in their relations with women, all men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, their codes.

Gloria Steinem:

– A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual.

– If women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the beginning of our menstrual cycle when the female hormone is at its lowest level, then why isn’t it logical to say that, in those few days, women behave the most like the way men behave all month long?

– Pornography is the instruction. Rape is the practice, battered women are the practice, and battered children are the practice.

Andrea Dworkin:

– A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered.

–Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimized by it.

– Men know everything – all of them – all the time – no matter how stupid or inexperienced or arrogant or ignorant they are.

The hate and contempt for men within the feminist movement is well documented. However, not one powerful feminist will step forward and admit this truth without conditions. Nor will they apologize for letting the movement become embroidered with such gender hatred, or make a serious commitment to vilify one of their own who has preached male sexism, as they have done to many men found guilty of sexist behavior towards women.

Another woman says feminism is about treating women not as somebody special, but just as equals.

Then why do feminist spend so much time in Washington, and in the family court systems across the nation, fighting for special privileges for women?
Feminist fight any legislation that would ensure child custody cases automatically assume joint custody unless conditions prove otherwise. They favor legislation that conforms to custody inherently belonging to the mother – yet they claim they want no special privaleges.
They fight any legislation that awards resources to male victims of domestic violence, and have been known to walk out of domestic violence seminars when male victims are discussed, because they find male victims irrelevant. This despite their vocalization for men and women to be treated as equals.
They fight any legislation that would bring serious consequences to women who falsely accuse men of rape, sexual assault, or domestic violence, because according to them, it could cause more consequences for true victims trying to find justice.
So the pain and destruction of men’s lives perpetuated by unconscionable female behavior is ignored by feminist who, by their own actions, show feminists put more value on the well-being of women first, rather than show concern for the safety and justice for both men and women. Five men mistakenly sent to prison is nothing more than collateral damage in their process to ensure one true female victim of violence is not hindered in her pursuit of justice. This is their “equality”.

One woman implies feminism is about self confidence. She says that if a woman is self confident, then this confidence will be experienced in the bedroom. She then gives the stereotypical provocative wink and nod. Another woman states that if she wants to wear a really short skirt, then she is no less a feminist for doing so.

If there is one aspect of gender politics that irritates me the most, it is the blatant hypocrisy of how feminist, and females in general, approach female sexuality.
Feminist make it clear that the use of female sexuality to sell or promote products/events is sexist, degrading, and is a symbol of male dominance of women. Yet, here they are using the same tactics to promote feminism. I mean, I have to assume the bedroom reference was put in not just for women, but also to appeal to male viewers. Otherwise, why the provocative wink and nod?
I’ve written about this situation before, and here is my conclusion: Using female sexuality to sell or promote products/events is OK if the beneficiary is a woman – otherwise it’s sexist.
And a woman can flaunt her sexuality all she wants, but if a man mistakens her flaunting for something more, itâ€™s his fault.
Women play both sides of the fence with their sexuality, vacillating between victim status and empowerment status, depending on which position gives them the most power. And feminists are no different.

Michael Moore says we [men] have held all the power for ten thousand years and look what we have done with it, implying men have failed miserably.

Well Michael, if I use you as an example, I think us men have done quite well with it. The industry in which you make your living was created by men, and this male industry has helped you gain incredible financial success. Also, this male environment has also provided you with considerable status that most people will never see. And you achieved your success by creating documentaries that have challenged the actions and behavior of some of the most powerful industries and individuals in the world, and youâ€™re not imprisoned, or exiled for doing so. This is because you live in one of the most emulated democracies in the world, which by the way, was idealized, constructed, and actualized by men.
You’ve done very well in this f***ed up male dominated system, and I don’t recall hearing that you’re sacrificing all your privileges and gains within it, in an attempt to show commitment to your beliefs.

It is well documented that feminism is not the benevolent, altruistic movement the video tries to portray it as. The actions of feminism, historically and presently, do not corroborate the words and images portrayed in the video. This is why it is forced to launch a PR campaign. A campaign such as this is usually reserved for those that have fallen out of favor with public opinion. And feminism is definitely in that category, with polls showing most women who believe in womenâ€™s rights refuse to call themselves feminist – a big red flag for their movement.

But as I have shown, feminism has no one to blame but themselves. It has spent years holding others accountable for their malevolent actions, but refuses to honestly acknowledge or rectify their own. Feminism will never achieve the status or image they desire until they first achieve the arduous trait of humility. This is a form of empowerment shared by all real altruistic individuals and organizations, and it brings validity and credibility to their causes. It embodies the spirit that we come together through our imperfections, not become more divisive because of them.

Sadly, for all its self-aggrandizing about teaching empowerment, this movement cannot, and has never shown an ounce of humility. It refuses to acknowledge that it has made any serious mistakes. I liken the feminist movement, and this new promotional video as a modern day re-creation of the fairy tale â€œThe Emperorâ€™s New Clothesâ€.
The day I see a video that celebrates the achievements of feminism, along with a sincere look at its faults and consequences – by feminist themselves – is the day I know the feminist movement has matured.

Until then, I guess were subjected to watching videos of feminism as seen through their own rose colored glasses, their own limited clarity, and their own recognition as societyâ€™s panacea. In other words, if we really want a true picture of feminism, we need make sure we look under the bed.

Contact:

soltys.joe@gmail.com

http://jsoltys.wordpress.com

Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

Advertisers Trying To Get It – From A Woman

Joe Soltys — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:18:39 +0000

There has been much debate about how advertisers portray men and fathers in the media. For sometime now men’s rights and father’s rights groups have been creating awareness and engaging in protests campaigns in an effort to derail the common default logic that the best way to reach the male consumer is to portray him as dumb, selfish, immature, irresponsible, inferior to women, and most disturbing, show numerous acts of physical violence upon him, particularly by women, as standard humor that leads to increased sales.

Besides the obvious absurdity in the advertisers logic, a strong argument for the men’s and father’s protest groups is based in solid logic; would advertisers use the same approach for women? Of course not. The public outrage would cripple their image and strangle their sales revenue. Advertisers inherently know that the risk vs. rewards in portraying women in such a manner is not good business.

But for men, advertisers throw simple logic under the table, and proceed with a logic similar of someone suffering from serious head trauma. The pendulum swings to the extreme opposite of female consumer rationale, and dives head first into a world where humiliation and loss of dignity are revered as the gateway to the elusive and capricious emotional mosaic of the male consumer. Advertisers believe his attention and loyalty is derived from polarizing his humanity, demonstrating to him that he is not just a human being who makes mistakes, but he and his manhood, as a whole, are delegated as an unequivocal mistake, which society reluctantly tolerates.

Advertisers defend this type of male advertising by consistently referring to the fact that their focus groups approved it. Well, excuse me for being such a prick and placing the whole arduous logic thing back in their laps, but just because a focus group approves of something, does it automatically remove the corporations involved from any responsibility? Years ago in this country, a focus group would have approved without hesitation an advertiser’s campaign of dressing white people up in black face to sell products to black people. The suggestion would never leave a person’s lips today.

Consider that a requirement in today’s business schools is to teach diversity issues, cultural differences, minority sensitivity issues, and ethics. And all major corporations have extensive programs and policies in place to construct a corporate culture that is aware and sensitive to these issues. So sorry corporate America, blaming focus groups for insensitive advertising is a blatant cop out. You are well aware of the intention and impact of your advertising. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the advertisers and the corporate clients for the creation and implementation of any advertising campaign, and how it will affect those in society. Both of them have the opportunity to stop careless advertising of men and fathers, and with all their education and training, it is apparent they have chosen not to.

So is progress being made? Yes it is, and a woman is leading the way. Her name is Rose Cameron and she is the “go to girl” in advertising circles when corporations want to find out how to capture the attention of the elusive male consumer.

In an article written by Jason George titled, Delivering the Male, Rose implies her skills may be the result of her attitude. She states, “I just love men.” And as senior vice president and planning director for Leo Burnett USA advertising agency, Rose found herself becoming an expert on men after the agency asked her to oversee a global study of men in 2005. What the study found was that men were becoming more insecure and confused about their roles in society as it rapidly changes. Rose says, “[Men] are losing all their institutions. All day they have to control the way they behave, and they need places to relax. Men have to decompress somewhere,”

The article notes how she applies her skills when visiting the Hooters restaurant chain. Rose says it’s success is not based on the girls. Instead, it’s a place whose careful consideration and construction in the details of the environment make men feel very comfortable and very relaxed – a place where they can be themselves.

The study she took part in showed that 74% of the men interviewed (over 2000 participated) said they could not relate to the male images portrayed in modern advertising. The study proved that advertisers were out of touch with male consumers.

The article then states these interesting facts:

According to the study, the greatest insult to a man is when someone declares that “he’ll never amount to anything” (29 percent), followed by “everyone laughs behind your back” (24 percent) and “you’re stupid” (21 percent).

Rose Cameron shows how compassion and understanding for men and fathers concerning the issues they face in their lives is the best way for advertisers to connect with them. The article gives an example of how McDonald’s used this totally “radical” approach to connect with fathers in comparison to Pizza Hut, whose similar ad used the traditional humiliation method.

Both ads used the concept of how the family responds emotionally when dad is responsible for dinner that night. The Pizza Hut spot showed the wife and children in fear of putting this responsibility in the hands of dad, and emphasizes how shocked they are that dad actually has the mental ability to bring home a dinner favorite without screwing up. The McDonald’s ad portrays fathers faced with a similar responsibility, but the emotions are different in this spot. Dad intuitively knows what pleases his family, and more importantly, the ad shows his children waiting in anticipation when dad is bringing home dinner, because to them, dad has proven himself on many occasions that he cares about his families happiness, and can be counted on to do the right thing.

So what’s the down side to all this?

To put it bluntly, advertisers aren’t really concerned with how men or fathers are portrayed in their advertising. They’re only concerned with how to connect with them on some level in order to sell products for their clients. Rose Cameron’s work to change the thinking of advertisers concerning men and fathers began, and is still, predicated on the success of sales revenue coming from a particular demographic, not out of a concerned corporate consciousness. The 2005 men’s study was initiated not because advertisers felt an uncomfortable feeling about their work, or felt they were becoming morally or ethically shallow. It was initiated to address sagging numbers for a particular demographic. In my opinion, it appears the bottom line – the spreadsheet- is a greater priority than simple respect and ethical integrity towards the consumer for advertisers and their clients.

I’m not attacking Rose’s work. Sshe properly demonstrates to advertisers that men and fathers are more than just data/numbers, and are actually human-beings who are well aware on some level of society’s lack of sympathy, understanding, or interest in their well-being, particularly when juxtaposed to women’s issues.

So what’s the next step?

Keep putting pressure on advertisers to change. Keep writing letters. Keep reminding them that us men and fathers are more than their narrow judgements of us.
And remember, it will take time. Be patient with them.
These people have proven they’re a little slow when it comes to understanding what we want.

Contact:

Photo courtesy of Free Images

http://www.sbhcs.com/hospitals/newark_beth_israel/mservices/oncology/surgical.html

Benefits of Full Drug Coverage for Medicare Patients?; Parent-Teen Conversations about Sex; Soy (Genistein) & Prostate Cancer

Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:28:15 +0000

BENEFITS OF FULL DRUG COVERAGE FOR MEDICARE RECIPIENTS AFTER HEART ATTACK?

Patient compliance with medications following a heart attack has been shown to improve survival. However, recent studies (please see my column for 3-2-08) have pointedly confirmed that many patients stop having their heart medications refilled within a year or two of their heart attack. With an estimated 47 million uninsured people in the United States, and many millions more with inadequate healthcare insurance, it is not surprising that many patients decide to stop taking costly medications. A new study in the journal Circulation has examined the potential benefits (in terms of additional years of quality life added and costs associated with the treatment of cardiovascular disease) of eliminating out-of-pocket medication costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

Using complex statistical modeling, the researchers considered the potential benefits of providing 100% drug coverage for the following types of cardiac medications: aspirin, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors and blockers, and statins. When considering the current Medicare Part D medication coverage plan, patients enrolled in this plan at the time of their heart attack were projected to live, on average, an additional 8.21 quality-adjusted life-years, while incurring an average of $114,000 in medical treatment-related costs. However, based upon a hypothetical 100% drug coverage model, which assumes that all patients will take their medications as prescribed (i.e., because out-of-pocket costs for drugs are eliminated), additional quality-adjusted life-years following heart attack was estimated to rise to 8.56, while total costs associated with medical treatment was estimated to be $111,600 per patient. Thus, based upon this statistical model, switching to a 100% drug coverage benefit for Medicare patients, following a heart attack, might be expected to both extend lives and decrease the cost of medical care for individual patients (although the anticipated increase in lifespan, with the addition of 100% medication coverage, would actually nullify any significant overall cost savings, according to the results of this study).

Of course, it is one thing to try and hypothetically estimate the costs and benefits that might arise from a change in existing drug benefits coverage, but the reality would almost certainly be a bit more complicated. First, and foremost, the high cost of medications is not the only factor that has been linked to poor patient compliance with medications. Medication side effects and the inconvenience associated with taking multiple medications are also well-known significant impediments to patient compliance. It is unlikely that compliance with medications will ever reach 100% in any substantial population of patients, even with a 100% drug benefit. Additionally, the administrative costs associated with transitioning to this enhanced drug benefit plan, were it ever to be enacted, might further siphon off some of the individual patient savings projected by this study. Finally, as a physician who treats a large volume of patients from socioeconomically depressed communities, I have to wonder if physician prescribing patterns might also change if patient co-pays were no longer required for medications. In my own case, when presented with the option of several equally effective drugs for patients, I try to select older, generic medications for my patients, in order to reduce their out-of-pocket expenses. If co-pays were completely eliminated, I wonder how many physicians would then adopt a “sky is the limit” approach to prescribing medications.

Despite my reservations regarding this study’s projected benefits from implementation of a full drug coverage plan for Medicare patients, there is no doubt but that the skyrocketing costs of medications, and mandatory patient co-pays for these medications, cause many patients to stop refilling their prescriptions. Undoubtedly, the elimination of patient co-pays would indeed significantly improve patient compliance with their prescribed medications. On the other hand, the Medicare entitlement plan is projected to become insolvent if current and predicted expenditures are not radically reduced. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer for the inherent conflict between limited healthcare budgetary resources and spiraling healthcare costs. From a purely clinical perspective, however, I would strongly favor 100% medication coverage for the poor and elderly, as these are the patients who would benefit the most from such coverage.

PARENT-TEEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SEX

Every parent I have ever known has dreaded having “The Talk” with their teenage son or daughter about the birds and the bees. It is no secret that many parents find the topic embarrassing and uncomfortable to discuss with their progeny. At the same, the pressure on teens to engage in sexual activity has never been greater than it is in our current sex- and body-obsessed culture. Recent studies have suggested that as many as 1 in 4 teenage girls have already become infected with sexually transmitted diseases in the United States, and in certain inner city and minority populations, the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases in teenage girls may actually be as high as 50%.

A great deal has already been written about the best approach to having this critically important discussion with your son or daughter, although most of us parents already understand that there is simply no perfect way to actually go about it. However, a new study in the journal Pediatrics does provide some helpful clinically-based evidence about how to talk to your teenager about sexual topics.

In this study, 312 adolescents, and their parents, participated in a randomized, controlled clinical research trial involving structured interventions in parent-teen communication about sexual topics. The teens completed surveys at the beginning of the study, and then at additional specified intervals after the interventions were completed. At each survey, teen respondents had to report the extent (if any) of parent-teen discussion of each of 22 specific sex-related topics. The study’s two primary endpoints were the number of times that parents and teens engaged in discussion of sexual topics, and the number of times that each specific topic was discussed.

Based upon the surveys completed by the teens, repeated discussions of sexual topics with their parents were associated with a closer relationship between parents and their teens, and a higher level of communication between them (both in general and in terms of discussing sexual topics). Teens who reported that they did not have repeated discussions with their parents about sexual topics reported a much lower level of feeling close to their parents, and a lower level of openness between them and their parents in discussing sex-related themes. Those adolescents who reported discussing the greatest number of specific sex-related topics with their parents also reported a significantly greater sense of openness of communication with their parents than did the teens who reported that fewer specific topics were discussed.

While the results of this study appear rather intuitive, they nonetheless reinforce the importance of repetitive discussions, between teens and their parents, about sex-related topics. In this clinical study, both repetition and increased breadth of discussion appeared to be associated with an enhanced teen-parent level and openness of communication, both with respect to discussing sex-related topics and in general communication as well. While these sensitive but very important discussions can leave both parents and teens feeling a bit uncomfortable initially, an open, honest, and repetitive approach to such discussions appears to work the best.

SOY (GENISTEIN) & PROSTATE CANCER

The effects of so-called “natural products” on disease prevention is an area of great interest to me, and to millions of other health-conscious people. An area of particular interest to me is the prevention of cancer through lifestyle modification, including dietary habits and natural supplements. (Estimates by public health experts have suggested that up to 80% of all cases of cancer might be prevented by lifestyle changes alone.) At the same time, the dietary and “nutritional” supplements industry, with its multi-billion dollar annual sales, continues to promote its products as having significant disease preventing properties, even though the scientific evidence for such claims is often weak, or altogether absent. With these facts in mind, one must be very careful to maintain a healthy level of skepticism about the myriad claims made by the manufacturers of many of these supplements, or by enthusiastic supporters of such products. With these cautionary statements in mind, an interesting new prostate cancer research study appears in the current issue of the highly respected journal Cancer Research.

Genistein, which is found in soy-derived foods and products, has been the subject of intense cancer-related research. A member of a class of plant-derived substances known as isoflavones, genistein has been found to have antioxidant properties, as well as weakly “estrogenic” effects, which mimic the effects of the dominant female hormone estrogen. Additional research has also shown multiple other biological effects for genistein, as well.

A great deal of genistein research has been directed at the two human cancers that are most closely linked with exposure to female and male sex hormones: breast cancer and prostate cancer, respectively. Unfortunately, as is very common in clinical research, the findings of many of these studies have often provided contradictory results. In this new study, human prostate cancer cells were implanted into immune-deficient mice, and the effects of dietary genistein supplementation in these mice was then studied.

The mice were divided into two groups: one group received genistein supplements and the other group was fed only standard “mice chow.” Blood levels of genistein were measured, and the mice receiving genistein were confirmed to have circulating blood levels of genistein comparable to those seen in men taking genistein supplements.

The findings in this animal model were rather dramatic. Although the implanted tumors in the mice receiving genistein supplementation continued to grow just as much as they did in the mice not receiving genistein, the spread of tumors to other organs in the mice receiving genistein was reduced by an astounding 96% when compare to the mice that did not receive this isoflavone supplement.

These results are very intriguing as prostate cancer, as with most other types of cancer, causes death primarily as a consequence of tumor spreading throughout the body (also known as metastasis). Although genistein supplementation did not appear to reduce the growth of the implanted primary prostate tumors in these mice, a nearly 100% reduction in tumor metastasis was observed. Whether this effect is long-lasting or not cannot be determined from this clinical study. Just as importantly, this study cannot tell us whether or not similar beneficial genistein-associated effects will also occur in humans with prostate cancer. However, ongoing and recently completed human clinical research trials will, hopefully, provide important answers to these and other important clinical questions.

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, a widely published author, and the Director of the Division of Surgical Oncology at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center

Doctor Wascher’s Home Page: http://doctorwascher.com

Send your feedback to Dr. Wascher at rwascher@doctorwascher.net

Domestic Violence Prevention – More Hyperbole Than Truth:Part 3

Joe Soltys — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:08:57 +0000

I previously wrote how I feel anti-sexist advocate Jackson Katz is one of many domestic violence advocates who use hyperbole in their work, which in turn, leads society towards more of a misunderstanding, rather than a greater understanding, of domestic violence and its causes. Mr. Katz postulates that a “masculinity crisis” is responsible for much of male violence, not only towards women, but also towards men themselves. In parts 1 and 2 of this series, I addressed these claims and found some of his statistics to be distortions of the truth, and some other statements to be not completely irrelevant, but not overwhelmingly convincing either.
In this last part, I want to focus on some of the latest research into domestic violence, and show how those who claim to be vigilant in eradicating domestic violence are actually the ones who may be putting future victims at risk. All because of politics and pride.

But in order to understand these new theories, I will focus on the smallest percentage of all domestic violence cases. This will be serious violent offenders which are traditionally male. Most of what I am going to talk about comes from three sources. The first is an article called “Inside the Heart of Marital Violence”by Hara Estroff Marano. This article appeared in the Nov/Dec issue of Psychology Today in 1993 and was last reviewed in January of 2007.
The second source comes from “Domestic Violence and Attachment Theory: Clinical Applications to Treatment with Perpetrators” by Dr. Daniel Jay Sonkin. Dr. Sonkin has spent 25 years treating perpetrators of domestic violence, and his views differ from most DV prevention advocates with respect to causes and treatment of male domestic violence perpetrators.
The third source will be my own experiences from working with men in group therapy. I was personally a victim of various forms of abuses during my childhood manifested by an alcoholic environment. For a couple of years I took part in group therapy that delegated to men-only. I used this therapy to rebuild various pieces of my life, and in turn, helped many other men do the same. It was through this experience that I learned so much about male behavior, including anger, violence, accountability, responsibility, masculinity etc. But most importantly, I became familiar with attachment/abandonment issues. The group work also taught me how complex men and masculinity can be.

To make this part of the series as brief as possible (and avoid a part 4), I’m going to generalize. For more details and a better understanding, it is best to read the actual sources. I also want to note that I agree with the core principles of the research, not all the details.

The New Kid on the Block

The introduction of neurobiology on the study of domestic violence has eroded the feminist Duluth Model approach to DV, which predicates patriarchy and distorted gender roles as the bases for almost all violent incidents. It also is adamant that men be labeled perpetrators and women victims. As one can see, this is a must, for to include women as perpetrators, and men as victims, renders the Duluth Model an invalid theory. This is why new research showing women equally capable of initiating violence in a relationship sends waves of insecurity and panic through the DV prevention culture. It’s like telling Christians that Jesus wasn’t really crucified. You’re challenging a belief that even inspite of overwhelming evidence supporting your claim, it will be vehemently denied. The Duluth Model is similar in the sense that it is a belief system that many have built their reputations and life’s purpose around; therefore, that it HAS to be true.
And what also is disturbing to the traditional DV advocates is that this new research shows that in order to truly understand and mitigate domestic violence, advocates will have to focus more compassion and understanding on the abuser rather than the victim – another blow to the Duluth Model.

The science of neurobiology allows researches to understand the intricate details of how the brain processes thoughts and actions. In some work, researchers can monitor brain activity while thoughts are being processed in real-time. By using sophisticated technology, researchers can now monitor a person’s or persons conscious and unconscious reaction to different stimuli, record the findings, and then compare the findings with control groups (“normal”). This field of science has lead to some remarkable findings in determining different catalyst behind violent behavior in men within the context of family violence.

One such researcher is Dr. Sonkin. He has researched the correlations between what is found in the neurological testing of male batterers and combines it with attachment theory psychology. Dr. Sonkin’s research has found an important condition present in male abusers. He has found the vast majority of male batterers have insecure attachment issues. To generalize, these men were affected negatively in childhood by their caregivers, usually the mother, father, or both, which in turn effectively disrupted the individual’s emotional growth, resulting in immature responses and actions by the individual under various stimuli. At a time when the caregivers should have been acting as the template for logical, mature, and intelligent reasoning to emotionally charged events, and instilling the growth of empathy and sympathy for the child, the caregiver(s) instead used emotionally immature or inappropriate responses and actions in many situations – usually abusive actions – and constructed a template for the child in which emotional growth and maturity was essentially halted. Dr. Sonkin says, for children who are raised without the security of a stable caregiver,

“Their particular behaviorally coping mechanism may become more behaviorally sophisticated, but the net result will essentially continue as the individual ages. Research has documented that adults assessed as having an insecure state-of-mind or insecure attachment style with regard to attachment have a greater difficulties in managing the vicissitudes of life generally, and interpersonal relationships specifically, than those assessed as securely attached.”

Dr. Sonkin also emphisizes their are different levels of attachment issues, brought on by various negative experiences – not always serious abuse -and this is why a “one size fits all” treatment of abusers is insufficient. And he emphasizes that attachment issues are “a process, and that it changes over time.”A once secure and healthy individual can undergo a traumatic experience or series of negative experiences and become an unhealthy insecure individual. Neurobiology has found the attachment process is malleable.

Neurobiology has linked the formation of attachment issues to the early stages of development of a child when it is found dramatic “wiring” of the brain, particularly the right brain takes place. It is the formation of this wiring that will set the foundation for future self-regulation and the implicit self according to psychologist Alan Schore who has worked extensively on attachment theory using data from numerous professional fields. His work has found that the right hemisphere of the brain needs healthy development because it is responsible for such things as reflective function, empathy, response flexibility, social cognition and emotional regulation. This is what is missing in the abuser.

So what does this all mean? Basically it means that “masculine identity” and “gender role” are symptoms of violent men, not the cause. In reality, due to some unusual event, or series of events early in a man’s life – usually violent or abusive – his ability to form trusting and intimate relationships was halted. The neurological patterns in his brain used for coping do not mature, resembling more child-like patterns than adult. This is not something that can be overcome with anger management classes. Anger management will work on one time offenders, but will not work on serious abusers.

Lending credibility to abusers having neurological problems, rather than patriarchy issues, is the discovery that numerous batterers had suffered some kind of head injury in their life. Dr. Alan Rosenbaum found that in a small sample of batterers, over 60% had suffered significant head injury. This included loss of consciousness, concussion, or post-concussion symptoms. He then conducted a more thorough study and found that over half of batterers had suffered serious head injury at some point in their life, and concluded that “head injury may increase the chance of marital aggression by a factor of six.” He is also currently involved in research which shows low serotonin levels may act as a component that triggers aggressive behavior in men. His work has shown the drug Paxil as being effective in minimizing aggressive behavior.

Personally Speaking

In my work with men, the attachment theory is much more plausible than the Duluth Model. And I can say with confidence that it is not only present in abusers, but also present in many men who have suffered abuse at the hands of caretakers, but who have not become abusers.

Let me put attachment and abandonment theories into my own words using my own experiences with it. I am not a licensed therapist so what I say has absolutely no value other than it is my personal experience that I choose to share. However, I my words are the layman’s perspective.

I personally had undergone numerous abuses in my childhood growing up in an alcoholic environment. Later in life, I chose to take part in a group therapy delegated to men only in an effort to rebuild various pieces of my life. I worked on myself, and in the process, helped other men who had also suffered, put their lives back together. In the time I spent doing this work, I learned a lot about male behavior. Part of it included learning how attachment and abandonment issues affect men. This is my perspective from my own experiences and the experiences of others. It is predicated on childhood abuses including mental, emotional, physical, and sexual.

I’ve listened to many personal stories of different abuses placed upon men as children. And I was surprised to find that the number of abuses committed by mothers, or other female caretakers, is equal to the number of abuses by men and fathers. There is no gender war here, each are guilty. And this is an important note to remember: If society really wants to stop domestic violence, it starts by holding men and women equally accountable and responsible. What I discovered is no man is born an abuser, someone or something made him that way. And it is usually traced back to a caregiver.

The term “power and control issues” is used extensively in social circles, but rarely are the actual causes of this behavior given equal amount of time. These issues arise from a great source of insecurity. And thanks to feminism, society perceives these issues as simply being a matter of conscious choice. They are not. They are a matter of survival for those who suffer from them. The need to control arises from unbridled fear. In my work and the work of others, it manifest from a feeling of helplessness in the face of immense terror – actual or perceived.
A child relies exclusively on its parents to provide security on many levels. This is an inherent awareness, recognized emotionally by the child, if not fully understood. Many fears of the developing child are assuaged by the caregiver(s), and when handled properly, it leads to healthy emotional development. To the perception of the child, the caregiver(s) are God-like. Unconsciously, the child knows its existence could not continue if the caregiver(s) ceases to exist.
But what happens when the caregiver(s) is also the source of immense terror? How does the immature mind process the thought that its very existence is dependent on an individual that produces some of its most tremendous fears?
God, it seems, sets up a dynamic of becoming both creator and destroyer.

In order to survive, the child recognizes that he has only himself to rely on to fulfill his needs. He turns inward and obsesses over all personal thoughts and actions. This will be perceived later as selfish thoughts and actions, but to him it is essential for survival.
At the same time he becomes hyper-sensitive to all environmental nuances. This behavior is developed to assess and respond to all possible future “attacks”. Simple changes in body language, tone of voice, or focus of attention by others are seen as clues to the future behavior and mood of those around him. This skill may actually become highly developed; as it has shown many times to be effective in helping him perceive and avoid imminent danger from the caregiver. However, while becoming skilled at perceiving these nuances, the child cannot effectively judge these subtle changes. Because of the historical abuse, he sees most of these subtleties only as an imminent personal threat. His world is one of constant potential threats – until proven otherwise. Trust is the one of the most highly valued commodities to him. The loss of trust can become the loss of emotional safety, security, and stability; consequently, the loss of self.

As Dr. Sonkin mentioned earlier, his coping mechanisms may develop throughout life, but the actual causes of the behavioral issues are not being treated. I call these coping mechanisms containment skills because they allow the individual to function somewhat normally in society by containing, rather than acting out most impulses. But the core issues are still imposed on some level within all thoughts and actions.

In most cases, as an adult he will unconsciously enter a relationship looking for the nurturing, caring, and acceptance that was never present in his life. In the beginning of any new relationship, the excitement of love, intimacy, and attention soothes the wounds of the past. His partner becomes the provider of lost innocence, provider of emotional safety and security, and most of all, her emotional commitment to him is seen as some sort of epiphany, emancipating him from his personal feelings of a fragile existence and fragile sense of self. She is now GOD, and his existence cannot perpetuate without hers.

As the “newness” of the relationship wears off, he begins to use his well developed skills of intercepting intimate nuances. He will try to analyse these nuances out of habit to “protect” himself from any “attacks” that may be imminent. His partner may now face an alarming sense of issues concerning power, control, and dis-trust emanating from him.
Her constant reassurances will not be enough though. Five minutes of reassurances does not overcome multiple years of emotional damage. His anger will build as he starts feeling more insecure, and his emotional skills lack the ability to cope with this situation. It needs to be understood, most angry men are not really angry at all. It is the emotional tool they use to guard against the release of tremendous sadness.
He will begin to act out, as his “survival” skills take over. He cannot bear the pain of inadequacy and worthlessness again. He will use any means possible to “control” the situation. His sense of value, self, and emotional security is at stake. To him this is a serious threat and it may require serious measures. She is no longer his partner, she is a symbol of everything negative he has been taught to believe about himself.

My How Things Have Changed

I shared my personal experiences with you in order for you to understand with greater clarity some of the new research I am going to present next.

Let me quote one of the sources I am using, “Inside the Heart of Marital Violence” by Hara Estroff Marano:

For decades, the puzzle of spouse abuse has been summed up in the question, “Why do they stay?” As if that were all there is to it—the manufacture of victims of a gender hierarchy that encourages men to demonstrate their dominance. But the question is misogynistic; it fails to grapple with a very obvious fact: that between batterer and batteree there is a relationship, and a very powerful one. It has a dynamic that stubbornly defies what is well known at the nation’s 1,300 shelters for abused women: the vast majority of battered women return to their abusers. If intellectual curiosity is not enough of a reason, then certainly protecting women requires that their marriages finally be probed.

Researchers and clinicians (many of them hard-core feminists) now peering into the very heart of domestic violence find, even to their own surprise, that it is far more complex, and far less dark, than most had imagined. In a turnabout that might just as well serve as a symbol of all else that is now being learned, the crucial question turns out not to be “Why do they (the women) stay?” Rather, it is “What makes them (the men) so vulnerable, so dependent?”

Violence may indeed reflect patriarchy run amok and men may indeed use violence to exert power and control over women. But there’s a dirty little secret in the world of domestic violence: It almost always arises from feelings of powerlessness. Men experience their own use of force as a loss of control. Abusers do not enjoy being abusive.

This new research focuses extensively on the abuser. Here are some of the key findings:

* There are elements that work at the cognitive level, like a propensity to misread social cues and attribute hostile intent to others. There are defects in interpersonal skills, like a lack of ability to deescalate the conflict that is inevitable in relationships. There are intrapsychic deficits—a hypersensitivity to abandonment, inability to control negative emotions, and poor impulse control.

* Apart from the coercion, the relationship between batterer and partner has a positive side. It is typically a highly romantic and deeply loving relationship. Both are drawn by the fantasy and reality of having found acceptance for the first time in their lives and feel their relationship is “special,” a unique haven from an outside world.

* Not every interaction, not even every argument, in an abusive marriage is violent. Some issues turn out to be uniquely troublesome in these relationships. Violent men seem to have deficits in processing social information in specific situations—typically, they negatively misinterpret their wives’ behavior when, for example, she pays attention to anyone else. Such situations induce an inner panic because they hint at rejection. “These men are very dependent on their wives,” explains Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Ph.D., a psychologist at Indiana University. “They constantly want their wives’ attention. If they sense signs of rejection, they experience it as a real threat. Violence is related to jealousy and security of attachment. If they think their partners might leave, they become violent.”

* Without deflecting responsibility for male violence, it is possible that batterers are also somehow biologically different. “I started from a straight feminist perspective,” reports family therapist Gillian Walker, M.S.W., also at the Ackerman Institute. “I’ve had to broaden the lens as I go. I’m struck by how many of these men are learning-disabled. Or how often they had their heads pounded into the ground as kids.”

* The stereotype of battered wives as fragile, passive, placating, docile, and self-deprecating does not do justice to their actual role in relationships. Women prove to be the more functional members of these couples. What’s more, during confrontations, they reciprocate anger and contempt tit for tat and don’t back down. They do not act as if they fear being beaten later. But no matter what they try, once the violence starts, nothing they do can stop it. “The wives are beaten,” says Seattle’s Jacobson, “but not beaten into submission.”

* Most women in battering relationships are themselves violent, a fact that has proved very politically troublesome to victims’ advocates. But Jacobson’s studies provide powerful proof that their violence occurs only in response to their partners’ attacks. Fear turns out to be the telltale emotion. “Only the husband’s violence produces fear in a partner,” reports Jacobson. “He has the unique capability to subjugate his partner by battering. That’s why I can’t believe in husband abuse.”

Note: I am not in complete agreement with the last statement, but left it in its entirety out of respect for the researchers.

The article goes on to say:

“Almost all the men we’ve treated come from families where there was physical violence. The women don’t necessarily come from violent households but from families where they were unmothered. The unmothered girl and the abused boy are two lost souls who don’t trust the world outside. The paradox is they only feel safe together.”

And as for the abusive men:

“We see that some large vulnerability activates them into the abusive rage. There is a deep disturbance in the person, and he believes it is the female’s job to soothe him, to keep him at bay. He sees her job as to make him feel powerful, to attend to him, to meet all his needs, when he wants. If not, that’s when there is violence.

These researchers, unlike traditionalist, have had success in treating couples with violent marital histories using this new information. They do something that makes traditional DV advocates look on in angst – they enter them into couple’s therapy. This infuriates the traditionalist because it implies the woman may risk being held accountable for her actions in the violence encounters. This is seen as “blaming the victim”, something that is abhorred in traditional prevention circles (unless of course you’re a male victim). And it means his word is as valuable as hers. According to Virginia Goldner, a DV researcher, traditionalist argue, “How can the victims of violence who have elected conjoint treatment speak and enjoy justice when perpetrators’ truths are judged equal?” She counters, “After much soul-searching, [I] rejected the polarities of either/or thinking about domestic violence in favor of “the more difficult, but more hopeful, stance of both/and.”

For those who treat violence related couples, the male is required to end the abuse immediately, and must sincerely hold himself accountable. Safety is paramount. And the therapist must be able to find some kind of emotional bond resembling reasonable love and commitment. When those conditions are met, the two can enter therapy together. One researcher noted, “What we’re finding is that we have to fix these men at the individual level as well as at the societal and couple level. These men do not have the social skills to participate in the culture.”

The Duluth Model – Seeing the World as Flat

While research on domestic violence is becoming more fluid, the one thing that has remained consistent is how our judicial system views and deals with violent men. Thanks to prevention advocates, the Duluth Model is overwhelming used as the instruction manual to handle domestic violence situations by authorities, municipalities, court systems, and counseling services. Not only have feminist and DV prevention advocates promoted this theory, but in some states it is illegal not to use it as a model of understanding the cause and treatment of domestic violence. And due to political pressures by activists and feminists, most municipalities and related social services refuse to stray or deviate from the Duluth Model. In other words, even though their may be better approaches in the treatments available to diminish the cycles of violence, they cannot be implemented due to legalities or politics.
Dr. Sonkin notes:

“Imagine living in a society where laws were used to dictate a type of medical intervention for cancer or heart disease. Every time a new drug or treatment approach was developed, either it couldn’t be utilized or a new law would need to be rewritten. Well, that’s the case in the domestic violence field. Many states such as California have essentially mandated the Duluth Model into the law, even though numerous evaluations of the Duluth Model have found that program participation has no impact on recidivism.”

And that brings up another interesting point. The Duluth Model is extremely antiquated by social research standards with its methods being implemented in the early 1980’s and never receiving serious scrutiny until recently. After twenty years of lack luster results, it is still vehemently defended by its believers, and therefore, maintains its monopoly over other treatment programs.
All this information seems to contradict those in the prevention circles who say they are willing to do anything to end the cycle of family violence.

In Summary

When I wrote the first part of this series, I wanted to show how Jackson Katz and other domestic violence prevention advocates use more hyperbole than truth to promote their message. I hope I have shown this to be true. As one can see, a “masculinity crisis” created by various forms of media is not the cause of serious domestic violence. Nor is it really about “gender roles” and patriarchal leanings. These are only symptoms of a much larger and deeper problem. It obviously is more complex than some would like to believe.

If DV prevention advocates and feminist really want to solve the issue of domestic violence, it would require having to show compassion and understanding for the perpetrators. It means having to take men’s issues seriously by giving them value, giving them time and resources, and letting go of the indolence towards men and their well-being as seen in the ever present behavior of applying simplicity to their issues, rather than sincerely engaging themselves in the complexity of men and their lives. I think I have shown that liberally applying labels of “problem and control” issues along with “masculinity” issues for most male ailments is an avenue convenience for some, rather than an avenue of truth.

I also want to point out that Mr. Katz and others want men to stand up and take responsibility for their actions. I agree with him. The beginning of any serious change begins with those who have harmed others in some way to hold themselves accountable. When I began changing my life, it was instilled in me by the program that I had to accept responsibility for my actions regardless of my past. I implemented this belief along with many other men. However, it is because of this belief that I write about Mr. Katz now. You see, Mr. Katz and other feminist have have assiduously applied the responsibility factor into so many gender causes, almost always at men. But once a person has truly learned how to accept responsibility, it opens his or her eyes as to how many people do not. If Mr. Katz becomes very successful in helping men accept responsibility, then by proxy he creates a movement of men who will see the irresponsibility in his theories, the irresponsibilities of the traditional domestic violence prevention field, and the irresponsibility of traditional feminist thought – just as I have.

And maybe these “new” men will also noticed the same irony in all of this that I did. An abuser is usually someone who takes small, or insignificant bits of information and immediatley perceives them as a “crisis”. He reacts to these events with what some might label emotional hyperbole. In this series, I wrote how DV prevention advocates take certain information and exaggerate it into a “crisis”, thereby creating hyperbole.

Hmmm!

Anyway, hope you enjoy great success in your work Mr. Katz. I have bought one of your books and I’m hoping my opinion will change after reading it. If it does, I will surely write about it soon. You see, it doesn’t take me twenty years or more to figure out I’m wrong.

Contact:

Photo Courtesy of: Morguefile

Domestic Violence Prevention – More Hyperbole Than Truth:Part 2

Joe Soltys — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:42:41 +0000

In my last article, “Domestic Violence Prevention – More Hyperbole Than Truth: Part 1″, I wrote about Jackson Katz, an anti-sexist advocate who’s work focuses on the so called “crisis” in masculinity, and how this crisis leads to violence against women and other men. I wrote that I’m sure Mr. Katz means well, and truly wants to help men, but the fact that his “cause and effect” ideology is based in feminism thought which blames and shames men, and relies on hyperbole to draw its conclusions, leads me to believe his success will be limited.

While I am specifically using Mr. Katz in these articles, it needs to be understood that his beliefs are indicative of the whole domestic violence prevention advocates. His name can be interchangeable with most individuals or organizations.

Let’s continue with some statistics that Mr. Katz uses in one of his videos found on YouTube. He states these statistics:

85% of men commit murders. For women, they usually commit murder in response to years of domestic abuse by a spouse
90% of men commit violent assaults
95% of men commit serious acts of domestic violence
95% of men commit dating violence
85%-95% of men are responsible for child sex abuse

Let me speak briefly about his statistics and similar stats, and how manipulative numbers can be. For the sake of brevity, I will touch on only the most obvious.

#1. — He claims male violence is the result of a distorted perception of masculinity from the media. However, male violence and crime have many variables that need to be considered before making a quality hypothesis with respect to its rise and fall such as economics, employment, education, population density, sex ratios, demographics, substance abuse, judicial resources, and parolee population. One cannot label male violence as a “masculinity crisis” without serious consideration into all the variables listed above.
For example, in the early 1900’s, America’s large cities saw a sudden increase in crime rates. But this was followed by a decline, and then resurgence in the 1930’s. This was followed by another decline during WWII, and then resurgence in the 1960’s through the 1970’s. It reached a peak in the early 1990’s before falling to some of the lowest levels in 2005.
My question to Mr. Katz is, “What media influences were so powerful on males in the 1900’s and 1930’s that caused a surge in male violence?” There really wasn’t any. And consider the explosion in various forms of media during the 1980’s through 2000 (cable TV, video games, the internet, multiplex theatres, home movie rentals etc.). If the media is responsible for male violence, why has male violent crime actually decreased during this same period?

When looked upon in the aggregate, and reasoned with ALL the variables I listed above, it becomes clear that men, masculinity, and their violence, is predicated more on multitude of personal life and environmental influences rather than media sensationalism.

Also, his first statement reeks of blaming the victim, something that is abhorred by feminist when directed towards women, but accepted without hesitation when directed at men. And it should be noted that he abhors those in society that normalize men’s violence, but he went out of his way to excuse female murderers, thereby provoking society to normalize female violence.

#2 and #5. — While it is apparent that men commit most violence, it still comes down to how one chooses to perceive those numbers. Mr. Katz and other feminist use those numbers to validate how masculinity is seriously flawed and needs to be “fixed”. However, if they really understood men and masculinity, they would see these numbers differently.

Maleness, if perceived without gender biases, is most likely to test the extremes of human nature. For example, males are more likely to have the highest IQ’s, but at the same time, exhibit some of the lowest. Males are more likely to be academic leaders, but also more likely to drop out of school in their lifetime. Males are more likely to be extremely wealthy, but also more likely to be homeless. Males have produced some of the world’s most violent, aggressive leaders, but have produced some of the most well known pacifist as well.
But what is usually missing from gender politics is the number of men that are just average men, which is always found to be the MAJORITY of men.
When we talk about men’s violence, we must remember that the majority of men do not engage in destructive behavior towards themselves or others. As a matter of fact, the majority of men care and work on some level to eliminate the violence against other men, women, and children in some way. Whether it’s through fatherhood, the job, or through everyday “man talk”, men show a genuine concern for creating a better environment for themselves, their families, their communities, and their country. While not always perfect, and still in need of more growth, masculinity has always found a way to adapt and correct itself.
So while it is true that a high percentage of men are responsible for some of society’s worst violence, the important thing to remember is how those numbers are calculated. They represent the percentage of males committing those types of crimes ONLY – which is representative of the extreme traits of men and masculinity. When juxtaposed to the average male population, the majority of men ARE NOT committing violent crimes. Serious crimes are being perpetrated by a minority of the male population. So from my point of view, his stats, and others like his, are more hyperbole than truth. While masculinity may have its flaws, and some of those flaws impose serious concerns, masculinity as a whole is definitely not in a crisis.

#3 and #4 — When it comes to domestic violence and the correlating statistics, it has become a chaotic numbers game where everyone claims to have the “real” numbers.

Here is what I can tell you from my own personal experience after looking at research and numbers over several years:

Men’s rights advocates are correct, and so are the feminist.

Again, it depends on what one wants to extrapolate from the numbers to further their cause that leads to the confusion and controversy about who is committing violence against whom and in what numbers.

The most honest assessment I’ve read concerning this controversy involves breaking down domestic violence into different categories. The first category is the most common, and it accounts for the majority of domestic violence cases. It is called situational couple violence. It consist of yelling and screaming that escalates into simple forms of violence such as slapping, scratching, hitting, hair pulling etc. While some couples may have reoccurring episodes, most incidents are isolated and usually do not occur again. In this type of domestic violence – again, the most common – women are just as guilty of instigating the violence as well as men.
This is the point of view of men’s rights activists.

The next type of domestic violence is what some call intimate terrorism. This involves power and control of a partner through various means including economic control, psychological abuse, physical violence, isolation from friends and family, and exertion of the belief of male dominance. Obviously this abuse is considered to be perpetrated by males more than females.
The last category would be domestic homicide. This is perpetrated mainly by men. But of all domestic violence, this occurs in the smallest numbers.
This is the point of view of the feminist.

So who is right? Both. However, when considering the overwhelming majority of domestic violence episodes, the men’s rights activists are closer to the truth than the feminist. Men and women are attacking each other daily on equal levels, but the more serious forms of domestic violence are usually perpetrated by men. And considering the most serious forms of domestic violence is the least likely to occur, that means the majority of men are not abusers, and the majority of women are not living in serious danger of being a victim of serious domestic violence as some advocates would want us to believe.

But I want to re-consider the perception of intimate terrorism as being exclusively male dominated intimate abuse.

If we include psychological abuse in its criteria, then women are equally capable of being perpetrators of this type of domestic violence upon their spouses and children as much as men. And as for isolating tactics, I have personally witnessed men, who after marrying controlling women, disassociate from their close friends and family members also.

But more importantly, let’s consider how much the dynamics of male/female relationships have evolved since the inception of the women’s movemen – most notably, economic power.

The assumption is made that men are always at an economic advantage over women. This may have been true 30 years ago at the beginning of domestic violence research, but it is definitely not true today. Consider that women have taken the lead academically which in turn, has led women to free themselves economically from men. However, women still choose to marry men with more economic power than themselves. In this age of female empowerment in which women demand the same power and status as men, the majority of women still refuse to propose to men, still refuse to “marry down” economically, and therefore, CHOOSE to become economically dependent upon men in long-term relationships. Therefore, I believe the economic control men have over women is not necessarily false, but in light of women’s changing economic and independence status, I feel we need to re-evaluate economic control as less of a masculine based perspective of accountability and responsibility, and see it more as a female one.

So in the overall scope of domestic violence, men’s rights advocates are actually closer to the truth about the realities of the daily violence males and females inflict upon each other. However, we as men, have to concede that the most violent forms, such as domestic homicide, is perpetrated mainly by men. But again, these acts are carried out by an extreme minority of men. The majority of men will not be guilty of this behavior within their lifetime. As for the intimate terrorism assessment, I think this is a gray area that needs to be studied further.

My point is not to undermine the seriousness of domestic violence. However, if we as a society are going to seriously address it, then we must strip the hyperbole from it, and get at the core of what is really happening. And the way I see it, men and women are equally responsible for engaging in it and perpetuating its existence. And I feel the current domestic violence prevention culture needs a serious make over. It is has been infected with too much contempt for men, and too apologetic towards female violence to be truly effective anymore.

In “Domestic Violence Prevention – More Hyperbole Than Truth:Part 3“, I will examine how feminist and DV prevention advocates are ignoring new cause and effect research that could help break the cycle of domestic violence in society. But because it doesn’t conform to “men bad, women good” feminist ideology, some advocates are trying to silence it.

Contact:

Photo Courtesy of: Morguefile

Domestic Violence Prevention – More Hyperbole Than Truth:Part 1

Joe Soltys — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:48:06 +0000

As a writer of male issues, I find myself facing a paradox when I come across individuals that are showing a genuine concern for men’s issues, but after further review, find their ideology behind the work is suspect, and/or their methods to address the problems appear to exaserbate the problem rather than offer a quality solution.

This came up again after I read and watched some material by Jackson Katz. Jackson is a male anti-sexist crusader that focuses on the violence perpetuated by men and boys. He uses research and experience to draw relationships to the causes of this violence. His biggest offender is the distortions of masculinity through the modern media which he says portrays and influences men and boys – and society in general – that violence and masculinty is a normal symbiotic relationship.

I had previously heard about Jackson Katz, and when I recently came across his name again I decided to look at what his thoughts are with respect to men, women, and domestic violence. What I found was a mixture of truth wrapped in traditional domestic violence hyperbole and mythology. What is even more troubling is that Mr. Katz seems like he truly means well, and truly wants to help men, but his ideological position is based in feminist mythology – which he openly admits. This creates a natural contradiction that cannot be overcome.
Feminists and their ideology is focused on compassion and understanding for women’s issues only. When it comes to the male gender and their issues, most feminist have repeatedly shown they would rather devalue, disparage, and use any methods possible to inhibit men from receiving the necessary attention or resources needed to address their problems. They will consider men’s issues only if men are willing to accept only THEIR concept of “cause and effect” concerning the genders, which is historically entrenched in the belief that women are martyrs, men are monsters.
This is why I cannot accept Jackson Katz as a true ground-breaker in addressing men, women, and domestic violence. His problems and solutions are based in rehashing the same mythology and hyperbole of the feminist. Instead of being an independent male voice in a sea of females and establishing a greater diversity and equality within domestic violence circles, he chooses to align with them and preach to the choir.

I’ll admit I have not read any of Mr. Katz’s books. Instead I chose to “look before I leap” in purchasing his work. This is what I found from various resources on the internet. I’ve put his position in bold letters, and my own counter-points in italics.

There is a “pandemic” of violence in this country with the majority of it committed by men and boys.

Fact: Serious violent crime in this country has been decreasing rapidly in this country for the last fifteen years. Actual violent crime fell by 56% from 1993 to 2005 – one of the the lowest levels ever. Serious violent crimes include rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide. Fact: For young adults between the ages of 12-17 who have committed serious violent crimes, between 1993 and 2005 the numbers show a decrease of 57% by these young offenders. For young adults (over 18 years of age), there was a decline of 58%.

Fact: Between 1993 and 2005, the rate at which individuals were victims of violent offenses using a firearm decreased 61%.

Fact: Rapes in this country have fallen by 57% between 1993 and 2005, and the combination of rapes and sexual assaults fell 35% between 1994 and 2005.

Fact: Intimate non-fatal violence fell from 1993-2005 by 60%, and female victims of iintimate partner homicide fell by 24%.

(All statistics come from the Bureau of Justice)

So as one can see, I’m already suspect about the message Mr. Katz delivers. If there is a pandemic of violence in this country, I would like to know how he derived this “crisis” from our nation’s crime statistics.

But what is more interesting is how he draws the relationships together. He claims the media is influencing men and boys with destructive masculine images which promotes violence upon women and males themselves. The usual culprits in this belief are rap music, violent video games, violent movies, professional wrestling, pornography, etc. However, this argument never seems to hold up to reality. If we are to believe that the media and its proliferation of violence and sexuality, coupled with overt or subtle gender conditioning is responsible for the violence perpetrated by men and boys, then the statistics I mentioned above would be trending in the opposite direction.
For example, the rise in violent video games over the last ten years should have resulted in a rise of violent crime – but it is trending downward. The influence of rap music over the last twenty years and it’s degradation of women as bitches, whores, and sex objects should have resulted in a higher rate of sexual assaults and rapes of women. Couple this with the easy access to numerous forms of pornography on the internet, and in accordance to this “cause and effect” ideology, crimes against women should be reaching all-time highs. But it’s not – it’s in reverse.

Using deception and hyperbole to attract attention to their cause is not an unusual behavior for the feminist-based domestic violence prevention advocates. Some of the most notorious examples of feminist deception and hyperbole have been:

In the 1990’s, the president of the National Organization of Women proclaimed a March of Dimes study that reported battering during pregnancy as the leading cause of birth defects and infant mortality. The March of Dimes said no such study existed. NOW offered no apology.
A number of domestic violence studies presented to the public have claimed to be representative of the general population of women. However, further research into how some D.V. studies were conducted has shown some of the researchers conducted their studies using women housed in battered women shelters, thereby infusing an egregious bias into the research, which in turn, distorts the numbers by delivering excessively high results.
In 1993, it was reported by numerous domestic violence advocates that Superbowl Sunday is responsible for a surge in domestic violence for women. After investigating the claims, it was found no such research existed.

In his videos, Mr. Katz is perplexed as to why the media doesn’t use more feminist voices when covering stories about men and violence. Maybe it isn’t because they lie, maybe it’s because feminist are just too damn honest.

Here are some quotes from famous feminist thinkers:

Andrea Dworkin: A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered.

Marilyn French: All men are rapists, that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.

Germaine Greer: Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.

Maybe I’m too pragmatic, but I feel it doesn’t take a PhD in rocket science to begin drawing some conclusions as to why the media avoids these people. And considering Jackson Katz holds these people in adulation, I will continue to hold his sincere commitment to men and boys in question.

In the next article, “Domestic Violence Prevention – More Hyperbole Than Truth: Part 2“, I’ll dig deeper into some of Jackson Katz’s other statistics and claims, and use my own personal experience working with men to debate his beliefs.

Contact:

Photo Courtesy of: Morguefile

Yes, I Am An Extremist

Joe Soltys — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:39:32 +0000

Since I have been indirectly labeled an extremist, I feel this qualifies me to be in the position to reach out to others who may be the same.

This is how I felt after reading Jonah Bloom’s article at Glenn Sack’s blog. Jonah is Executive Editor and writer for Advertising Age, a weekly marketing and media publication. Mr. Bloom wrote a column titled, “When It Comes to Whining About Ads, Father Knows Best” with the sub-title “Extremist Group’s Rants Shouldn’t Detract Ways advertising Must Be Held Accountable”

Well, beginning an article that labels men and fathers – who are conscious about how the media and advertising agencies portray them – as “extremist” is a little extreme itself, isn’t it? In this day and age, when someone labels a class of people as an “extremist group”, it has the tendency to imply radicals who fly loaded passenger jets into skyscrapers. Obviously Mr. Bloom is skilled in extremist hyperbole himself.

But it gets worse.

Mr. Bloom’s article centers on the number of men and fathers who voiced complaints and opinions about the recent Superbowl commercials and the consistent double-standard they’ve felt in the media for some time. Advertisers are very conscious not to use visuals or language that might appear derogatory, degrading, or insensitive to certain groups of people in our society. However, there is one group that is always the exception – men.
Males as a whole are still the largest class of people that can be openly discriminated against without fear of serious reprisal. Portraying men as dumb, insensitive, childish, or on the receiving end of “humorous” violence, usually of the genital kind, can be seen in many forms of media. The particular commercial used as an example in Mr. Bloom’s article was the one produced by Pepsi which showed Justin Timberlake being mysteriously dragged towards a young woman drinking a Pepsi product. The whole commercial consisted of him enduring a brutal, endless stream of violent acts upon his person, including the proverbial “crotch crushing” present in so many forms of media.

The protesters were questioning this apathy towards males in the media, including advertising, when compared to women or other groups. I assume Mr. Bloom would be offended by a commercial that shows women enduring numerous episodes of genital and bodily violence in the name of humor. I say “assuming” because ironically, even though Mr. Bloom opened up his article with an e-mail received about this double-standard, he fails to seriously address it. Strangely, he avoids the whole argument concerning the disparity in violence directed at males and females in the name of humor even though it is the opening topic. He dismisses the commercial’s violence as simply “Justin Timberlake bumping into stuff”, and labels the men and fathers who voiced their concern as “unhinged individuals with too much time on their hands.”

While he chose a road of indolence when trying to comprehend and analyse the argument presented to him, he sure was tenacious and laborious in itemizing and analysing those who dared voice their opinion. Here is a sample of the words he chose to describe the men, fathers, and environment they create by protesting the negative images portrayed by the media and advertisers:

extremist, lunatic, assault, gaggle of men, loose coalition, attacked, tortured, trumped-up charges, acolytes, cheap, backlash, endlessly parsing, unhinged individuals with too much time on their hands

Let me just tell you Mr. Bloom, as a card carrying member of the extremist groups you mention, I am very upset by your choice of words. I am seriously dismayed that your extremist language is much more experienced than mine or my cohorts. Your choice of words makes me and my cohorts look like “extremists lite”.

He continues his harangue, and towards the end of the article he really shows his skills in the hypocrisy department. Invoking a pious guilt trip, Mr. Bloom thinks that there are more important issues within the advertising industry other than worrying about the negative images of men and fathers. He says the most pressing issues in the industry right now are: financial institutions with aggressive campaigns pushing credit to consumers whose debt loads are already crushing; advertisers spending billions to support an Olympics in a country with an abysmal human-rights record; companies with shocking environmental records making claims to environmental friendliness; the merits and pitfalls of advertising drugs directly to consumers; and that presidential primaries could come down to who spent the most on ads.

So I took a look at some of his recent articles to gauge his concern on these issues, the information he offers, and what he is doing to challenge this dark side of the advertising world. Here is what I found:

“A-List Agencies Are More Than Just New-Biz Machines”

“Agencies Will Have to Steer Marketers Toward the Big Ideal”

“A Brief Guide to the Ins and Outs of the Ad World in Summer”

“Attract Better Marketing Talent with Better Marketing”

“The Awards Shows Need to Tear Down Silos, but It Won’t Happen”

Well, I guess he’s really busy right now. He’ll get back to those serious advertising issues as soon as he can.

I’ll admit there are probably serious issues facing advertising today, but of course in the scope of ALL things, of course one can find many “other” issues such as, too many children starving, tragic acts of genocide, unbridled terrorism, famine, disease, and drought just to name a few. But the audacity of Mr. Bloom to use this tactic to challenge and de-value the sincerity of men and fathers who protest their negative image in various forms of media is a cop-out. It is even more offensive considering he chooses to invest the majority of his time in advertising – an industry whose sole purpose is to find ways to manipulate an individual’s psyche into believing he or she needs to purchase something they may really not need.

But I’m going to call a truce. If Mr. Bloom is willing to minimize his thoughts about men and fathers who voice their concern about their negative image in advertising and media, I’m willing to minimize my opinion about how hypocritical, self-absorbing, and narrow-minded his article is about this subject.
Who knows, maybe it will be the beginning of a beautiful friendship in which Mr. Bloom converts to the cause, and speaks out about the negative images of men and fathers in advertising.

No. I take that back. With his sharp tongue and pen, he’s too much of a risk. With him in the group, we would run the possibility of looking like a bunch of extremist.

On the opposite side of the spectrum…

Last Thursday night I was a guest on the B-Dub At Night Radio Program. I was asked by B-Dub to talk about one of my recent columns -”I Want Success… And Exploit Myself“- and also discuss men’s issues in general. B-Dub gave myself and the discussion of men’s issues a generous amount of time on his show. A download of the complete show and my interview is available at his website.
To show my appreciation, I’ve included a link to his website on the sidebar of this blog. I would ask others who are advocates of men’s issues to check out his work and display our appreciation by listening to his show. He has shown he is friendly towards men’s issues and it would be beneficial for us to help him succeed.
His show is on daily at 10pm eastern, except on Friday, when it starts at 12am eastern.

Contact:

Photo courtesy of : Free Photographs Network

I Want Success… And Exploit Myself

Joe Soltys — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:41:44 +0000

Who is actually responsible for overt female sexualization.

I asked myself this question after a week in which adult women were reported to be engaged in what some in society would label “improper” or “lewd” behavior.

First, the Sacramento King cheerleaders have brought attention upon themselves after provocative photos of the women surfaced on the internet. Second, Pamela Anderson completed two Valentine’s Day shows at the Crazy Horse in Paris, where she wore only a black body stocking while riding around stage on a motorcycle.

Most feminist and women rights supporters find the sexualization of the female body degrading and disrespectful towards women. The usual culprits they blame for this type of female degradation is male dominated entities such as corporate America, hip-hop and rap music, and of course, old man patriarchy.

But is that argument true today? Most women today are in position of greater opportunity, so objectifying themselves is a matter of choice rather than need.

Take the case of Pamela Anderson. This woman has made more money than the average male, has more valuable assets than the average male, and has more clout towards financial gains through the use of her name alone than any average American male. A long time ago she could have ditched using her sexuality as a means for financial gain and stability, investing her fortune instead into other business ventures. But she still chooses to use her body to make a living.

And she is not the only woman with tremendous opportunity at hand, but also enamored with flaunting her sexuality in some way – for better or for worse:

Carrie Underwoodis “sexin up her style” according to Fox News. The multi-platinum recording star performed at the recent Grammy Awards wearing black hot-pants and knee high black leather boots. She has decided to forgo her good girl image.
The mayor of Arlington in Oregon, Carmen Kontur-Gronquist, caused a stir when racy photos of her sprawled across the town’s fire truck wearing intimate lingerie surfaced.
Divorce attorney Corri Fetman gained national attention when she posted a sexually charged billboard in Chicago advertising her law firm. She also agreed to pose for Playboy, and author a column for the magazine.
The Spice Girls have made a serious come back, and it is reported the girls are showing more flesh than ever. It has also been reported some members have engaged in acts of lewd dancing with male fans on stage.
Miss Nevada, Katie Reese, lost her title after pictures surfaced of her engaging in lewd sexual behavior. In one photo she is kissing the exposed breast of another woman.
Miss USA Tara Conner almost lost her crown when her drunken and sexual exploits were exposed, including what the New York Daily News described as “steamy liplocks” with the current Miss Teen USA.
Lindsey Lohan has decided to pose nude for New York Magazine in a pictorial that pays tribute to the very last Marilyn Monroe photo-shoot in 1962.
Paris Hilton, heir to the Hilton fortune, was the featured dancer at a burlesque show at a Los Angels nightclub. Paris wore leather panties, leather bra, fishnet stockings, and heels during her performance.

And I could go on to include the names of many other women who’ve been blessed with promising futures and careers, but have still chosen to pose provocatively for magazines such as FHM, STUFF, Playboy etc, or have utilized sex as a tool to advance their careers. These women are not “down on my luck”, vulnerable, young, naive, women with starving kids at home. These are women who have achieved some kind of fame and status above most men and women in society.

Considering historical feminist ideology defines female exploitation as a natural by-product of women’s lack of power and status in society, the logical assumption would be that as women remove themselves from these constraints, the sexploitation of women would decrease. But has it? Women have begun to excel in many fields of life, most notably in academics. This has led to the rise of their success, status, and power in numerous professions including medicine, law, politics, business, and research to name a few. But at the same time, overt sexualization of women has increased with it.

So I come back to my original question. Who is really responsible for the current trend in overt female sexualization?

While the focus has been to blame men, patriarchy, and rap music, it is apparent that the real culprit is women themselves – not just women in general, but very successful and influential women. It appears to me that as much as women what to be respected for their minds, they also have an insatiable desire to create a persona that includes a strong sexual allure. Consequently, this is why I feel there is a rise in female exploitation. As women become more empowered, they have more opportunity and resources at their disposal to invest in this desire. Just look at the explosion in plastic surgery, Botox, and other vanity services whose clients are predominately women.

My point: It is not my place to tell women how to act or behave. But I am within my right to defend and counter the majority opinion that places shame and blame upon men and masculinity as the primary impetus behind the sexploitation of females in this country. When considering third world countries, where women have limited rights, and limited resources, I accept the argument that these women can be easily exploited. But here in the U.S., it is not so simple.

If society is truly serious about diminishing the sexualization of women, maybe it needs to accept the fact that some of its most successful women – the ones anointed with rescuing women from this societal ill – are the ones dragging women deeper into its very core.

Contact:

Photo courtesy of: FreeDigitalPhotos.net