Self-Harm

According to the BBC - and to the politically-corrected 'professionals' who masquerade as therapists, psychologists etc etc - Women have higher rates of self-harm than men.

This, however, is not true.

It is one of the customary deceits that is designed to hide from the world that it is men, not women, who are the majority of victims of, in fact, most things.

The 'evidence' that women are more prone to self-harm than men is carefully selected in order to ensure that women appear to be the majority of victims when it comes to self-harm, and any type of self-harming that men are prone to engage in is sneakily categorised as something else.

For example, ...

Many people indulge in behaviour that's harmful to themselves, such as smoking or drinking to excess. But people don't smoke to damage themselves - harm is an unfortunate side-effect. The reason they smoke is for pleasure. Yet people who cut themselves intend to hurt themselves.

The idea here is to give the impression that the millions of people who smoke or drink to excess (men mostly) are not in any way attempting to harm themselves, but, in fact, a significant percentage of people actually do smoke or drink to excess precisely because they no longer care what harm they do to themselves - so miserable about themselves do they feel.

Men also self-harm in many other ways. They take drugs. They behave violently. They commit crimes. They no not bother to go out socially, to climb the career ladder, to study, to care about their general health.

"I don't care if I crash the car."

"I don't care if I get cancer."

"I don't care if I get caught."

"I don't care if I lose all my money."

There are numerous ways in which men self-harm, but these ways must be hidden from view lest the public wake up to the fact that women are not quite as deserving as men when it comes to receiving help for 'self-harm'.

Indeed, the fact that men self-harm more so than women is recognised quite happily and openly when it comes to debates about the reasons why men die earlier than women.

"It is all their fault," is how the general discourse about this matter goes.

"Men drink and smoke too much. They do dangerous things and get themselves killed. This is why they die younger than women. It's got nothing to do with the fact that they receive much poorer health care."

In other words, when the debate is to do with the reasons why men are outlived by women, the politically-corrected 'professionals' agree that men are self-harming more so than women (the implication being that men only have themselves to blame for harming themselves and, hence, for living shorter lives) but when the debate is about self-harm itself, the politically-corrected 'professionals' suddenly change their tack. They deny that men 'self-harm' more so than women!

But it gets worse.

If you take the trouble to wade through various current international reports (e.g. from the WHO) concerning the allegedly poorer health of women in developing countries, you will see that billions of extra dollars are now being diverted to support programs that are specifically concerned with women's health.

And yet, in nearly all these countries, the women still outlive the men!

So, how is it possible that the health of women is worse than that of men?

Well, here follows a crude outline of the scam currently being used by these international organisations to argue that women in the developing countries are, in fact, worse off than men when it comes to health, even though they live longer.

In the developing countries, the differences between the life expectancies of men and women are smaller than are the differences found in the more prosperous countries - such as those in the west. From this, it is argued that women - biologically speaking - should be outliving men. 

And, apparently, they should be outliving men by seven years! - just as they do in the more prosperous countries.

And so because the women in the developing countries do not live a full seven years longer than their men, this is said to be indicative of just how poor is their health compared to the health of their men.

In other words, it is increasingly being accepted that women should outlive men by about seven years - and, further, if they do not do this, then this is to be seen as an official indication that their health is poorer than that of their men.

Needless to say, the argument that the lesser longevity of men is due to inherent biological factors is also being used as an excuse for not helping men.

"What can we do? It's genetic. Nothing to do with us."

But you will not hear this same argument being used when it comes to all the medical issues that specifically concern women; such as breast or ovarian cancer; even though such things are also, clearly, and wholly, 'genetic' and 'biological' in origin.

In summary, it has been ordained that men die younger than women because it is their fault and because of their biology. Women, however, should simply live much longer than men, and they need many extra billions of dollars expended on them in order for this to happen.

...

 - my underlining ...

Men on a slippery slide in future hermaphrodite world 

July 11, 2008 The Age (Australia)

...

ARE men the new endangered species? According to a Melbourne bio-ethicist, they're way up there with pandas and polar bears.

In a speech titled Should human beings have sex?, Dr Robert Sparrow yesterday told the Australian Medical Students Association convention that females could soon rule the world as hermaphrodites without any biological use for men.

With the help of some frozen sperm at first, females could procreate on their own until stem-cell technology meant bone marrow and other human tissue could be converted into sperm, the senior lecturer at Monash University's Centre for Human Bioethics said.

To reach this post-sex world, Dr Sparrow said parents wanting the best for their children should start choosing baby girls through IVF because they live longer and have more opportunities in life.

"There are significant restrictions on the opportunities available to men around gestation, childbirth, and breastfeeding, which will be extremely difficult to overcome via social or technological mechanisms in the foreseeable future. Women also have longer life expectancies than men," he said.

Dr Sparrow said his somewhat "tongue-in-cheek" argument was based on a line of thought about medical ethics that suggests medical technology should be used to serve the welfare of individuals and remove limitations on the opportunities available to them.

"I argue that, if these are our goals, we may do well to move towards a 'post-sex' humanity. Until we have the technology to produce genuine hermaphrodites, the most efficient way to do this is to use sex selection technology to ensure that only girl children are born. Girl babies therefore have a significantly more 'open' future than boy babies," he said.

The argument, Dr Sparrow says, started developing in his mind after the professor of practical ethics at Oxford University, Julian Savulescu, suggested in 2005 that "designer babies" should be created by enhancing their DNA before birth.

When asked if people should act on his suggestion, Dr Sparrow said he didn't expect many people would take up the challenge just yet.

"I don't think we're seriously looking at a world of only girl children just yet, but I do think that when philosophers start talking about using medical technology to achieve things that aren't about health, so increasing people's IQ or life expectancy for example, you have to ask why we shouldn't all be girls," he said.

...

That's right, Boys. This professor of Bio ****ETHICS**** is using the fact that men live shorter lives than women not as a rallying call to help men - when it comes to their health - but to exterminate them.