Back in December, bloc posted the following article in his blog:
It sparked a lively discussion (including incredulous variations of "what-the-hell-is-this-guy's-damage" criticisms). The following is my response to it (which was initially posted in his entry's comments section):
"First, I notice this Jim Rutz guy has mentioned exactly zero years of medical study in his mini-bio at the end of the article. Any person offering medical opinions knows (or ought to know) how important it is to state their experience with health or medical study. And, no, starting your own church doesn't count as health or medical study. He also has neglected to cite the sources of his "recent research" by unnamed "doctors." This leads me to conclude that he's probably just mouthing off, and not actually trying to educate anyone. Because if he were trying to educate anyone, he would have shown more evidence of his claims.
Second, if he had done any research into the subject, he would have found that (as several other astute people have mentioned here [in the comments section]) cow-milk is worse for human health than soy milk. I remember from my highschool biology class that cow-milk (and fast food and high-trans-fat foods, etc) can lead to, among other things, obesity, flatulence, and even osteoperosis! In the health video, we were told that people suffering from osetoperosis (which is a dire lack of calcium) are told NOT to have dairy products, as that will only exacerbate the condition. Countries that serve Asian cuisine which includes tofu (and consume far less meat and dairy than Westerners) not only have less problems with obesity--they also have less problems with osteoperosis. So I would infer that they're doing something right.
Third, Mr. Rutz states that soy milk is bad for boys because it will lead to smaller penises, "sexual confusion and homosexuality." This is utter crap. I have not done any organized kinds of research, but I know two guys from the South who were raised on the most greasy, bloody and/or dairy-laden foods known to man--and they are both out and proud of it. The only time they've ever had anything with tofu in it was when they first came to San Francisco--and they both disliked it and went back to eating steaks and what-not. Because they like it. Additionally, penis size is varied and absolutely no indication of homo- or heterosexuality--there are straight guys with small and large sizes, just as there are gay guys with small and large sizes.
Fourth, lastly, and most heinous (I think) of all, this nutjob has the following to say about why soy milk is bad for girls:
"If he is a she [heh heh, 'he-she'...], brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood."
I'm told from very reliable authorities on the subject (i.e. women I've talked to) that menstruation--while being initially shocking due to its sheer unexpectedness--is generally quickly gotten over, and thus nothing that will "rob" a girl of her childhood, by itself. It's just something that happens to female human beings and has to be dealt with each month, and which does not necessarily affect a girl's interests or personality (and if so, it's only temporary). Also, there are a hell of a lot of things that can cause girls to get their periods early--none of which can be attributed to any soy products. Among those possible influences are obesity (which, as we've already established, can't be blamed on soy milk), the presence of stepfathers, stepbrothers or genetically unrelated males (and their genetically unrelated pheromones acting as subconscious biological triggers), and prolonged childhood sexual abuse.
And this whackjob is worried about soy milk?
If he's really into protecting children and their health and what-not, I think Jim Rutz needs to seriously reconsider his priorities.
And, in addition to being a terrible actor and an ugly excuse for a human bring, Chuck Norris ought to rethink who he gives his support to. But then again, he was a D.A.R.E. advocate--and that program was a monumental waste of tax dollars."
...
Apparently, Rutz was e-mail-bombed so much (by fans and critics alike) that he actually wrote out a SIX PART explanation (including on-line footnotes of some sort, most of which all lead to the exact same bible-thumping site) of why soy is bad, wrong and evil. SIX PARTS. The last part, for your information, expounding on his fervent belief that soy is an illegal waste product, and that anyone who eats soy is...like, putting waste in their mouths. Or something--to be honest, I just browsed it this morning and couldn't stop laughing long enough to analyze it properly.
All I know is, if I can squeeze it into my schedule, I'm definitely taking this guy to task like I've promised to do to Chuck Norris. Because I'm a sucker for verbally backhanding morons.
