On Theology and Health with Mr. Melvin Lars

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/06/19

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Before we were talking about theology and masculinity, this time, we will talk about men’s health issues and men talking about them. Lars, you were on a talk show years prior. You talked about one of the most serious health issues for someone.

You had cancer. They have to meet an oncologist because they have cancer. Mine in this culture do not talk about minor health issues. Yet, you took the time ad courage on a talk show in public to talk about a major and potentially life threatening health issue.

Why did you go on a public talk show to talk about this? What was the health issue in more detail?

Melvin Lars: The reason for going public was because of our male pseudo crap [Laughing]. I, like most males, ignored symptoms. They were severe. I had a rash. It did not cure itself. I talked to a friend who is a physician. He thought it might be a food allergy.

They found this to be leukemia. It was the white blood cells and lack of red blood cells. The rest was history. I wanted to talk about it. I wanted to inspire others. It had nothing to do with how masculine or tough I was. I could bench press 500 pounds or more, I could squat 600 pounds or more and I was the picture of health.

I was successful as a coach, I worked every day, I would see red while driving at night, I assumed that the automobile ahead of me was putting on their brakes. Unfortunately, blood was leaking into my eyes. The red that I was seeing was my own blood.

I want to inspire men to be more conscious of their bodies and to get assistance with questionable health concerns.

Jacobsen: What seems like the reason for “pseudocrap”? In this particular branch of pseudocrap, the not talking about health complications from a rash to blood leaking in one’s eye.

Lars: Scott, with the whole process as men, we do not whine, complain. We do not talk about uncomfortable things. Those “unmanly” things. That, in and of itself, is a detriment to men and young boys getting in touch with their realities and they have a tendency to develop this sense of invincibility.

Because we do not control what happens in the atmosphere, we do not control what happens to our bodies. Acute promyelocytic leukemia is a very rare form of leukemia and there is no known treatment for it. As the oncologist and I discussed this ailment and its causes, the oncologist stated; “We do not know what causes it, we theorize that it may be caused by stress.”

My only options were to adhere to several experimental procedures or basically return home to die. We began receiving chemotherapy and was in and out of cancer treatment centers for approximately two years. Unfortunately, the chemotherapy did not work, the leukemia would appear to be in remission for short periods of time before returning. However; it was only my faith and believing in a higher power, that is allowing us to have this conversation today.

None of the experiments worked. I was told. I would not see my 40th birthday. Evidently, they did not consult with God. I am 65. I turned 65 yesterday. From a male’s perspective, we cause more physical and mental damage to young boys and young men with all of this false machismo.

Jacobsen: One of the conversations arising in the public discussion more now. It comes in various forms. It comes in the form of youth, especially young men, who commit suicide and “succeed” more at it. Young women attempt suicide more.

However, with the focus on young men, there are veterans who come back from war. They acquire shell shock or PTSD, or conditions around it. That relates to the public health conversation. It not only deals with the body but also the mind.

Veterans, young men, and other suffer from depression, suicidal tendencies, and other things. For instance, they may be mildly schizophrenic, where, in a normal context, most people most of the time will interpret the situation accurately.

However, these individuals will process the information in a slightly wrong way. So, they get the wrong interpretations. They behave inappropriately based on the wrong interpretation or wrong processing of information.

How do we then have those conversations around mental health apart from a conversation around physical health?

Lars: That is an interesting issue. We see mental health as a weakness. We see it as a flaw. Unfortunately, in a world of both men and women who perceive themselves to be this strong, invincible human specimen any form of perceived weakness is viewed as being flawed. They see mental health as a negative “human trait” in the individual.

With PTSD sufferers who are veterans, no one ever discusses the fact, that, these problems were pre-war. Most of the individuals — and I am not a therapist, if there were extensive psychological studies done on individuals before they were allowed to go into the military, there would be many more people being seen as “unfit” for the military.

Because of the potential damage done to the individual, but also to others if and when they are subjected to having to stay alive by dodging bullets and mortars/causing the death of someone else. Mental disabilities and other less accepted human frailties are things people do not want to talk about it.

One of my cousins, who is now a police officer did not pass the psychological aspect of the exam. However, he got a second chance to take the exam. This time [Laughing], he passes the exam. I think, “If he is psychologically disqualified the first time, then he will be psychologically disqualified the second time.”

He will remember the questions and know not to answer the questions honestly. That is an atrocity and endangers provides a “war-zone” giving a green light to people that may ultimately hurt themselves and others. The psychological problem was already there.

So do we just bury our collective heads in the sand and refuse to care, ignore the sight that is right before our eyes? What about our military? No one wants to discuss the true reality of the situation. I will preface with this. One of the most irresponsible things people continually do is to ignore the signs of mental illness, disregard those that cannot help themselves, your congress and senate persons refuses to pass legislation to assist veteran homelessness, veterans health care, veteran joblessness not to mention; veteran suicides (22 suicides per day is being committed by veterans) rates, and then have the audacity to insult their intelligence was some empty self-serving statement as if they are paying homage to the military, by stating, “Thank you for the service.”

It is an empty, wasted statement. You are talking about somebody putting their life on the line every day. Then when you watch the Senate, especially here in the United States, and Congress with bills being proposed for military assistance, many of them are not passed on the Senate floor.

You have the audacity to tell people, “Thank you for your service.” Then we do not want to pay them any money. This is a huge problem, as we talk about people being vulnerable with PTSD and mental illness. They commit suicide. Society has caused in individuals through constant bullying.

We have damaged people with the constant bullying. They feel, “I cannot live up to the expectations. I might as well take my own life.”

Jacobsen: Often, the men filtered into the military will be poor. The poor men tend to be minority men. It exacerbates already extant problems. Not only for men but also communities.

Lars: Yes, as you shared the question, Scott, the warmongers in the office. People try to get angry with the messenger. If you have ever noticed, Scott, 99% of the people talking about being pro-war. They are never in the military.

You cannot get them to go to war. There is something to be said about it. This patriotism and dying for the country. If I make the statement and am not willing to do it, what does this say about me? This is why you have so many men confused, who take their own lives.

They do not know how they will stack up. I always say, “Careful who you listen to.” We have a leader in this country who dodged military service all of his life. He has the audacity to talk about “being tough.”

That is where people need to be careful. They need to be careful when they vilify and talk about these young men being weak and not being good patriots. All that foolishness. When the person doing all the talking, they were the quintessential coward.

Jacobsen: Some of this. In this conversation, I see two streams. One stream is the idea that there is historical inertia: men need to fill the military. Men feeling as if they need to be part of the military. It is almost like an unconscious historical inertia.

I see another stream. Those who find a political benefit to themselves to make appropriate statements, for themselves, about national pride, military pride, saving the world, and so on. Usually, they or their children will not go into the military.

They have the option, or the finances, to not have to go into the military. It is not an individual and familial risk for them. It may not be for them an aggressive thing. It may be them not reflecting on what they’re saying, something reflective.

If someone talks about patriot love and having national pride, what are the symbols? The military, the police, the administration — Republican or Democratic, these become markers of someone who is a true American, a real American.

Those who may be conscientious objectors become anti-Americans. Someone saying this. It comes with certain benefits — in many cases, it seems. If they keep saying them, they become like the Lord’s Prayer or the Nicene Creed.

“I do not know what to pray about today. So, I will say the Lord’s Prayer.” It becomes, “I am simply saying it.” In other words, “I am reflexively and not necessarily consciously saying and stating things that, to me, feel like truisms and feel good to say them because they have come with rewards prior.” They get an A on the patriot test.

Lars: You have stated very well, exactly what I am talking about. It is why I call it pseudo-crap. Because it is a conditioned response. Again, I am not a psychiatrist, psychotherapist, or psychologist, it is like the experiment of Pavlov with the dog. The bell rings, the dog thinks it’s dinner time and begins to salivates.

It is a conditioned response. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Scott, it is like the bully on the playground. The bully on the playground knows who to pick a fight with. The bully looks for the attention of other people.

Even though, he or she pretends to be tough. He or she looks for attention from the people standing around watching and applauding. However, when it is their turn to fight, they will not fight, but they will try to talk others into fighting.

All of these people doing this big-bad, tough talking are just talk and no action. I will be very frank with you, man. My family is filled with military individuals. Two nephews retired, recently, my son was in the military. (I was not in the military). Several uncles and aunts, were also in the military; I see and hear over and over about the devastating mental and physical affects that they continue to endure as a direct result of having served in the military.

I hear people with means talking about how much of a patriot they are themselves. However, they are never in the military. They do not take the chance. They let someone else take the chance. So, they can continue to enjoy their lifestyles, wave their flags and fool themselves into believing that they are the epitome of patriotism. That is the biggest hypocrisy in the world, as I see it.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Lars.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.