Are Legislators targeting traditional males for extinction?

That's the question I ask more and more frequently these days.

First came Senator Biden and the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), lavishly funded to the tune of 1.6 Billion dollars, and totally ignoring the fact that Women are the LEAST frequent victims of violent crime in America. Even the argument that VAWA legislation will diminish domestic violence is ludicrous, as demographically speaking, married women, especially married women with minor children, are the very least likely to be victimized by their spouse across all socio-economic categories.

Indeed, statistics indicate that the most likely victims of domestic violence tend to be those women, single or divorced, who are themselves acknowledged initiators of violence, and their barterers are seldom their former husbands, but rather their current lover/boyfriend/recent acquaintance of in many instances, an immediate family member where intimacy is not involved. A significant number of domestic violence victims report having been battered by their lesbian significant other.

Given the decade's old practice of politically correct feel-good legislative bias, I was not surprised by the results of my preliminary research into government funding of health research programs.

Call me cynical, but the recent expression of concern over Men's health issues, and the subsequent promulgation of policies, practices, resolutions, photo-ops, etc..., of numerous incumbents and candidates (many of these individuals having avoided the issue of men's rights, and ignoring the valid health care concerns of American males), has prompted me to look further into the issue of tax-dollar funded research, and to be honest, how little 'bang' taxpayers are receiving for their 'bucks'.

One of the immediate anomalies/disparities I discovered during my preliminary research, involves the enormous expenditure of the Department of Defense Funds on Cancer research, specifically Breast Cancer Research. Having lost both parents to Cancer, I cannot argue that such research is vital, I do however question the basis for DoD funding this research instead of the more traditional, and I would suggest, expected Department of Health and Human Services?

Given the wildly disproportionate expenditure of tax-dollars on programs and research targeting women, this approach to research funding only obfuscates the true cost of programs focusing on women.

Was it the administration's intent to avoid public scrutiny and conceal these hundreds of millions in research funds that focus specifically on women's health issues by shifting them to the DoD budget?

More importantly, how much of the DoD research on Breast Cancer is being duplicated by other similar research programs? Programs that are already being fully funded through D.H.H.S. and the private sector? These questions grow in their significance given the fact that the majority of all federally funded health related research is focused specifically on issues concerning women's health, while programs for children and men go begging.

Certainly, at the very least, such practices only exacerbate and perpetuate the myth that Federal Defense spending is the biggest expense to the taxpayer. Yet whenever cuts in defense spending are proposed or realized, the cuts always target military pay, pensions, commissaries, training, weapons programs, and military personnel medical programs, while funds for breast cancer research have continued to increase annually.

Indeed, given the hundred's of millions involved, shouldn't DoD research be oriented toward DoD needs, such as nerve gas anti-toxins, vaccines for diseases that our troops are likely to encounter, Agent Orange, or (most poignant to those who saw Christopher Reeves at the DNC), funding the research targeting those Americans suffering from full or partial paralysis (a great many of these citizens were or are paralyzed as the result of military service) resulting from trauma?

If nothing else, some of these funds should and must be allocated to competently staffing and fully funding our Veterans Hospitals, and addressing the growing problems of mental illness and homelessness that effect thousands of Viet NAM era combat veterans.

Doubtless an argument will be made that Cancer Research is a legitimate defense department concern, but such argument's evaporate under scrutiny, again raising allegations of institutional discrimination and gender bias. If Cancer Research is a legitimate concern of the DoD, why are funds so disproportionately focused on spending 95.7% of research funds on only 13.05% of it's fighting force based on gender?

Particularly the 13.05% of our fighting forces that are least likely to ever see combat!

Have we allowed the administration's feminist agenda to redirect our defense budget and become a "pork barrel" for feminist lobbyist's and an increasingly anti-male congress? Has the obscene social acceptance of anti-male discrimination practiced in our family and civil courts been allowed to contaminate our concept of national defense?

The constant barrage of media propaganda that consistently depicts the female as eternal victim, the poor underdog, is certainly contradicted by the accompanying figures, (see accompanying tables) yet both Congress and the Senate remain sanguine to the truth in their zeal to capture the female vote.

Is Washington biased against Males?

The Washington Post, on August 6, 1996 ran a story by Rick Weiss that lends credence to such speculation.

Even a cursory overview of the facts reveals that over the past 4 years, the DoD doled out $210,000,000, $25,000,000, $150,000,000, and $70,000,000 respectively, for research into the prevention and treatment of breast cancer. This primarily the result of Nationwide lobbying efforts led by the Washington-based National Breast Cancer Coalition. Despite research data indicating that almost as many men die of prostate cancer (40,400 annually) as do women from breast cancer (46,000 deaths annually), House members continue to place concerns over re-election before the health and well being of male citizens.

As with most relevant research by the DoD, body count is important, and as usual, the national media eschews significant facts in deference to the brevity of sound bite journalism.

While most media outlets (the major networks themselves are often cited as being gender biased) attribute the differences in death among genders to the systemic bias of our patriarchal society, they are scrupulous in their failure to report that Prostate Cancer was diagnosed in 244,000 men last year as opposed to 182,000 cases of breast cancer diagnosed in women! Given recent changes in total population vis-a-vis total male/total female population, the difference in the number of deaths of women from breast cancer, and the number of men who die from prostate cancer, are so small as to be (as if even the needless death of one human being could be considered insignificant--Ed.) statistically insignificant.

Junk bond trader, Michael Milken, whose diagnosis with prostrate cancer in 1993 led to his founding of the CaPURE Foundation, (Ed. This foundation is dedicated to promoting prostrate cancer research and issues relating to men's health) has been instrumental in promoting public and legislative awareness of prostrate cancer. The growing interest and public support for men's/father's rights initiatives and the increased awareness of men's health issues is receiving attention from both researchers and legislators.

This session, the subcommittee version of the Senate Appropriations bill again called for $150,000,000 in expenditures for breast cancer research, while offering only token funds of $7,000,000 for research on prostrate cancer.

In full committee however, (thanks to the efforts of Senator Mark Hatfield (R.-Ore.) calling for an additional $93,000,000 for prostrate research (to be taken from unused weapons money) the final wording of the appropriations bill provided $150,000,000 in research funds for breast cancer, and $100,000,000 in research funds for prostrate cancer (still wildly out of proportion for DoD purposes, but a definite step in the right direction --Ed.).

Even though the actions of concerned Legislators such as Senator Hatfield and the efforts of Mr. Milken and the CaPCURE Foundation, are commendable and have shown moderate success, the obstacles to ending the pervasive anti-male bias in our society remain formidable.

Indeed, the House version of the appropriations bill currently calls for $100,000,000 in funds for breast cancer research, and $0 for research on prostrate cancer! (Ed. Now is the time to write or phone your elected representatives, while they are back home campaigning for votes.)

Certainly this lack of Legislative will is attributable to media promoted ignorance of the issues and Legislators misguided presumption that "female voters" are the key to their re-election objectives. This, above all, clearly demonstrates the urgency for enacting term limits at every level of government, and for reforming our election process. In fact, the anti-male, anti-father environment of the House of Representatives should stand as an indictment of any who would oppose the swift imposition of such limits and reforms. Especially when you consider that (at the time this is written) the full house appropriations committee consisted of only 3 women out of the 57 house members.

Were these house members influenced by PAC contributions? Were they pressured by an administration arrogantly secure in it's prospects of re-election?

My view would be that both of these concerns played a role in House members decision to eliminate funding for prostrate cancer research. It is also my view that these Legislator's, for whatever reason, have failed, both in their obligation of service to their constituency, and in their sacred duty to honor and uphold the constitution. The families, the father's, brother's and son's of this nation can ill afford such failure.

We cannot, as voters, taxpayers, or concerned citizens, support any Legislator who considers the rights of children and men less worthy of protection than those of women, nor can we support any Legislator who rises to the call of feminism, or who subscribes to an agenda that views gender discrimination as legitimate public policy.

Purely from the perspective of taxpayer/citizen, there are some enormously important concepts inherent to this current Anti-male Legislative agenda. Primarily, I fail to see how any of the governments objectives can be achieved unless we as a society continue to produce enough responsible, productive, taxpaying citizens to finance the burdens governmental infrastructure. With a great deal of bi-partisan rhetoric over ending affirmative action, I find it curious that Legislator's are only now calling for an end to affirmative action at the point in our history where affirmative action initiatives might actually help societies males. That elected officials have chosen to pursue policies that discriminate against half this nations population based simply on gender, and have utilized tax-dollars to do so, should make all of us, both women and men, keenly aware of the importance of maintaining a dialogue with our elected representatives, and of the necessity for all of us to vote and to encourage others to vote.

For males, voting is no longer an act of conscience, it's an act of self defense.

Department of Defense Cancer Research.

Total number uniformed   1,457,892

Female                               191,583             13.05%

Male                               1,276,353             86.95%

Officers                             243,168

Female                                31,114               13.29%

Male                                  203,054               86.71%

Enlisted                           1,233,724

Female                              160,434               13.00%

Male                               1,073,290               87.00%

Source: DoD Manpower Data Center (703-696-6823). Numbers do not include cadets.

Source: Washington Post, August 6, 1996 DoD Research Expenditures.

1993 Total DoD Cancer Research Expenditures.                  $215,000,000

Breast                                                                                  $210,000,000

Prostate                                                                               $    5,000,000

1994 Total DoD Cancer Research Expenditures                   $  30,000,000

Breast                                                                                  $  25,000,000

Prostate                                                                               $    5,000,000

1995 Total DoD Cancer Research Expenditures                   $155,000,000

Breast                                                                                  $150,000,000

Prostrate                                                                              $    5,000,000

1996 Total DoD Cancer Research Expenditures                   $  75,000,000

Breast                                                                                  $  70,000,000

Prostrate                                                                              $    5,000,000

1993 thru 1996 Total DoD Cancer Research Expenditures   $475,000,000

Breast                                                                                  $455,000,000  95.79%

Prostrate                                                                              $  20,000,000    4.21%

Total DoD Cancer Research Expenditures per Uniformed Personnel

Breast  $455,000,000   or    $2375.51.51 per uniformed Female

[NCFM HOME PAGE]

Go to the TOP of this page.

National Coalition of Free Men
PO Box 129
Manhasset, NY 11030