You don’t wear pink in October? You hate women.
You don’t participate in a walk for a cure during October? You hate women.
You don’t give as much money during October as feminists would like you to give to breast cancer? You asshole.
Hey, did you know September was Prostate Cancer Awareness Month? Apparently, the ribbons are blue.
Let me start off by saying that I fully support the fight against all forms of cancer, and I am sincerely sorry for any of you readers who are suffering from, or have loved ones who have dealt with cancer.
With that being said said, the last month of pink ribbons, ridiculous NFL uniforms, and 5k walks full of fat people getting their first exercise in a year is a perfect illustration of feminist propaganda. Breast cancer gets far more publicity (therefore, awareness), and funding than any other form of cancer. The National Cancer Institute, which is a federal agency and receives its funding from Congress, spent nearly $603 million last year in research for breast cancer. That $603 million is more than double the amount of funding that prostate cancer received. Here’s a chart showing where all the funding goes:
| Cancer Type | 2010 Spending (in millions) |
2011 Spending (in millions) |
2012 Spending (in millions) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lung | $281.9 | $296.8 | $314.6 |
| Prostate | 300.5 | 288.3 | 265.1 |
| Breast | 631.2 | 625.1 | 602.7 |
| Colorectal | 270.4 | 265.1 | 256.3 |
| Bladder | 22.6 | 20.6 | 23.4 |
| Melanoma | 102.3 | 115.6 | 121.2 |
| Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma |
122.4 | 126.4 | 119.5 |
| Kidney | 44.6 | 46.2 | 49.0 |
| Thyroid | 15.6 | 16.2 | 16.5 |
| Endometrial (Uterine) |
14.2 | 15.9 | 19.1 |
So the question is, why does breast cancer get so much more funding than prostate cancer? Is it because there more than double the amount of diagnosed breast cancer cases than prostate cancer cases? Nope. In 2013, the American Cancer Society predicted there would be 232,340 new cases of breast cancer, versus 238,590 new cases of prostate cancer. Is it because the chances of developing breast cancer are more than double the chances of developing prostate cancer? Nope. Women have a 12.38% chance of developing breast cancer, while men have a 16.5% chance of developing prostate cancer. You can see that chart here.
Why then, since the NCI is government-funded, is there so much more funding going towards the pink ribbons of titties versus the blue ribbons of prostates? The government, the services it provides, and the laws it writes, cater to women. From birth control to divorce laws to deadly diseases, the government has made it clear that they will be pinning the pink ribbons on their suits, not blue. I didn’t even know Prostate Cancer Awareness Month existed until I began my research for this article.
Did you?
Now, to be fair, boobies are sexy. Prostates, lungs, and kidneys are not. There is certainly an amount of sex appeal that goes into why breast cancer funding and propaganda is vastly ahead of other forms of cancer. Breasts are synonymous with femininity, sex, and womanhood. Prostates are a topic that men are going to avoid at all costs. I also have to readily admit that breast cancer is much more prevalent in younger women than older women, whereas men are much more likely to suffer from prostate cancer past the age of 65.
In addition, in economics there the equimarginal principle, which states how a consumer allocates resources between various goods so as to obtain maximum satisfaction. Meaning, that though some forms of cancer may be far more vicious than others, there may be worthwhile medical and financial reasons not to pursue those specifics paths. However, that is beyond the scope of this article.
I am willing to cede these arguments, but that that does not justify the way the current budgets are laid out.
So the question is, why does a government-funded center place so much more money into the health of women versus the health of men?
Say hello to feminism. Again. And again.
Once again, the government is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate feminists and white knights to secure their vote. They have to, as the public backlash for cutting funding to breast cancer and raising the budget for men’s health would likely cause riots in the street with women threatening to cut their own nipples off in support of breast cancer. Look at the previous article I linked, and how Jezebel rips the NFL into shreds for donating “only” $3 million for breast cancer research.
Since the program’s inception four years ago, the NFL has raised $3 million for breast cancer. In 2009, the League made $8.5 billion. Last year, they made $9.5 billion. Commissioner Roger Goodell has set a revenue goal of $25 billion per year by the year 2027. A million per year out of between $8.5 and $9.5 billion in revenues? Pardon me while I don’t slobber all over the NFL’s pink-drenched marketing campaign.
Roger Goodell is too busy worrying about his players dying of brain injuries to be concerned what feminists think about his league’s budget, but our Congressmen (~82% of Congress are men) aren’t the same. They are only concerned about securing the next round of votes so they can stay in office, wielding their sticks of power.
Considering the men in office dividing up the NCI funding are assholes (according to themselves), you’d think they’d be a little more concerned about the health of their personal asshole.
For now, prostate cancer will continue to be painted invisible, drowned out by shades of bright pink. Feminism has painted it that way.
I’m glad the feminist idea of equality continues to ring loud and hypocritical.
Read Next: The Party Slut Anthem
I’ve been asking the question for months….. Thx for the stats…
A few months ago I was sitting in a wine bar/restaurant when the resident, loud-mouthed, “princess bitch” waitress started going off about one of her friends who has testicular cancer and how dumb it was for him to think about having a prosthetic testicle implanted during the surgery. So I asked her what gave her the right to call him stupid. I also asked her if she ever had cancer and had gone through all of the negative emotions, horrors and unknowns that go along with the disease. She hadn’t. Then she asked me what gave me the right to speak (i.e., defy her opinion) on the subject. I then told her I am a testicular cancer survivor. Then I told her to shut the fuck up. She begrudgingly shut the fuck up.
About the same time I was asked to play a solo acoustic set to open up an event raising money for breast cancer. Having the “power of the microphone,” I
announced while raising money for breast cancer was a noble endeavor, all of
the gynocentric focus across the nation regarding breast cancer cast a long
shadow on all the types of cancer. I announced that while men too can develop breast cancer, men also have their gender specific cancers. I then told the
crowd that I was a testicular cancer survivor and that perhaps next year’s
event should be focused on prostate and/or testicular cancer. I got a couple “golf claps” from a few men in the crowd. The rest of the crowd, especially the women, looked at me like I was a misogynistic bastard from Mars. Fuck ‘em.
Every time I’ve dared to bring up the unequal funding/treatment of breast cancer w.r.t. other diseases and the fact that men generally live shorter lives, people pretend I’m just some bitter asshole who hates women. They try to say, “But people die of breast cancer, you shouldn’t poo-poo this.” They cannot wrap their minds around the fact that male lives have historically always been unpleasant and short, they remain shorter than women, and coddling the women by putting special emphasis on only their problems is simply more inequity in that department.
The implant discussion. Women who had breast cancer are never criticized if they decide to have an implant. Men with testicular cancer even have to deal sometimes with the incredulity of their doctors. “Are you a vain man?” is one of the more harmless questions. Not to mention that those questions are asked within hours of the initial diagnosis. Testicular cancer is known to be very fast spreading and your operation is within the next days. The implant is ideally inserted at the same time as the operation occurs, meaning you get a life altering diagnosis and you have to decide if you want an implant and on top of this you have to deal with doctors who are not on your side if you want an implant…
I think if it ever happens to me, I want my implant to come with some cool electronic functions. A wi-fi IP cam might be nice, I could always be recording.
Damn what is causing this disease?
(Testicular cancer survivor here – 10 years since diagnosis) While I agree that breast cancer gets way too much media coverage compared to other cancers, I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a minute. Testicular cancer in particular is highly survivable. 95%+ cure rate. Even Lance Armstrong, who was a few short months away from death, made a full recovery.
Prostate cancer is similar – highly curable, and it grows so slowly that more often than not men diagnosed with it die from other causes before the cancer kills them.
So on one hand I can see why testicular/prostate cancer doesn’t get the same kind of coverage. Not saying it’s *right*, but I understand the logic.
Yeah, comparing the survival rates on cancer.org, looks like breast cancer is far more likely to kill you if not caught early enough.
I’d like to see where you got that information? Where as I agree with your results on testicular cancer, where is prostate cancer similar?
According to my sources (http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-037116.pdf) 1 in 36 men die from prostate cancer; 1 in 36 women (and 1 in 3142 men) die from breast cancer.
The success of breast cancer funding initiatives is due largely to one Norman E. Brinker, inventor of casual fine dining and the self-serve salad bar, who amassed a fortune of billions from his many restaurant franchise endeavors. His sister-in-law was Susan Komen , and he established the Komen fund in her memory. His wife, Nancy Brinker, has managed the charity for many years, at times running afoul of the feminists (not hard to do). In all the hoopla over breast cancer research funding, nobody mentions the man Norman E. Brinker, who made it all possible.
ROK should profile guys like Norman E. Brinker to contrast the adulation of incorrigible cads like Perforio Rubirosa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_E._Brinker
So it was a MAN who amassed the wealth and gave it to his sister-in-law Komen but the MAN languishes in obscurity. Typical.
We’re too busy mentioning Nancy Brinker skimming off the top of that charity these days…
This ‘brave new world’ continues to baffle me. What more could women want? There’s over 400million difference between the funding of prostate cancer and breast cancer, do they not see/notice how many prostate cancer victims will be affected by this?
Facts like these that make me a little fearful for the future generations. I’m not even sure if I want to have children anymore, especially a son. If I do, it has to be some remote island or foreign/exotic village.
I don’t think they’ll stop until
-All men are feminized mangina’s
-All men completely subservient to all woman
-All masculine men demonized/ostracized from society
-All women seen as demi-gods/goddesses
Feminism greatly boosts and maintains rampant consumerism therefore the Citadel(Media/Corporations/Government) have got nothing to lose
They’re not going to stop until it’s burned to the ground. The problem, as mentioned, the people who can stop it at a government level won’t because feminists have their testicles in a vice.
I don’t think they’ll stop there. They’ll start complaining (again) that ‘there are no good men’ and ‘no manly, in-charge, dominant, manly men left.’
I can’t tell you guys how happy I am that the Pink backlash is finally beginning to see the light of day. For years I would get nauseous watching this industry being passed off as charity, and people would look at me like I was the devil whenever I would try to show them what breast cancer awareness month really is. It was scam that preyed on peoples willingness to help in the beginning and now it preys on people who do not want to be shamed for not participating in this corporate charade. There is absolutely no interest in finding a cure because that would spell the end of this billion dollar industry…
I can’t wait until the newest research on CD-47 antibodies is shown to be successful during trials — and wipes out the “Pink Ribbon” industry.
No more pink shoelaces on NFL athletes, no more annoying ‘for the cure’ races blocking off streets I need to cross….
On the other hands, I have a bad feeling the entire industry would morph into something else. Even once cancer is cured, they won’t be able to just go away…
You still need to catch it early right? The entire “breast cancer awareness” industry would take a whole new turn towards monthly tests or some other crazyness.
If that laminated flyer asking for donations for breast cancer is still sitting on the counter on the mens locker room at the gym when I go in tomorrow I am throwing it right in the trash.
Holy burning eyeballs, Erin Gloria Ryan is a horrible writer. The awful sentence structure, the random capitalization for emphasis – where did that hack learn how to write? That article made my brain hurt; it reads like it was written by an angry 15 year old teenager. I guess that’s what I get for clicking on a link to Jezebel. Stupid me.
>implying feminists are more mentally advanced than a teenage schoolgirl
Not to water down the article – the focus on catering to feminist agenda and female entitlement IS real and prevalent – the statistics you posted are very contrived. Regardless of what the “predicted” diagnosis is or the risk percentage of Prostate Cancer vs. Breast Cancer; ACTUAL Breast Cancer diagnosis of recent years has outnumbered Prostate Cancer diagnosis, Prostate Cancer survival rates are higher than Breast Cancer survival rates, and almost double the amount of people (men and women) die every year from Breast Cancer over Prostate cancer. It’s a deadlier disease.
Of course, this does not negate the fact that Breast Cancer awareness month is super aggrandized and the media and political agenda is extremely pandering to women. I actually had no clue there was a Prostate Cancer awareness month, or that here was a color/ribbon.
References?
If you’re gonna make claims like that you gotta have the stats to back it up man.
Deaths per year from breast cancer is roughly equal to deaths per year from male suicide.
If you don’t like direct cancer stats, there’s plenty of other stats to demonstrate the invisibility of males in society.
“almost double the amount of people (men and women) die every year from Breast Cancer over Prostate cancer”
It’s more like 1.4 times as many deaths: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.20138/full
If
one looks only at cancers affecting the genital system, men and women
are more evenly matched in yearly deaths. Also, prostate cancer may receive relatively more funding than female reproductive cancers. For example, NCI
spending in 2011 for prostate cancer (~28,000 deaths) was $288 million,
while its spending in the same year for ovarian cancer (~15,000 deaths)
was $110 million
(http://www.cancer.gov/researchandfunding/snapshots/pdf/Ovarian-Snapshot.pdf).
Imagine if, instead of pitting one type of cancer against another, the NCI’s budget were reduced and most of it given to the SENS Research Foundation.
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/statistics/
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/
http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-031941.pdf
In the .pdf document go to page 17 to see survival rate statistics (at all stages and demographics).
And yes, sorry I was mistaken the deaths per year ratio is more like 1.45 times greater, not 2. Regardless, still far higher mortality rate.
I’m not arguing the emasculation of men in America – I’m just arguing the biased stats and cherry-picked excerpts that make the science of it all sound one-sided when that isn’t exactly the case.
This is why Movember rules. In November we get to wear moustaches and raise money for prostate cancer research. If you are not familiar with the organization then you should look them up and consider growing a stache.
I’m glad someone wrote about this on a mainstream game site. Breast cancer “research” has become an industry. If you question them, you’re an asshole. If you dont support them, you’re an asshole. Meanwhile, testicular and prostate cancer patients sit quietly on the sidelines while their flashy breasted counterparts get the lion’s share of funding and public acknowledgement.
It comes down to the feminization of men and society at large.
Being obedient and conformist = good
Asking unpleasant questions = bad
It’s on us men to raise awareness and create a “culture” of prostate (and testicular) cancer awareness. Business owners is particular hold this responsibility (and have more freedom to do something about it with less fear of repercussions).
The feminine imperative, nearly defined:
Jezebel rips into the NFL for only donating $3 million to Breast Cancer research.
Meanwhile ALL of the NFL players supporting those $3 million will have serious health problems later in life and probably significantly shortened lives because of their chosen profession, not to mention degenerative brain disorders because of so many helmet impacts. Also, the NFL is only just beginning to acknowledge this fact and spend some effort combatting these problems.
The mind boggles.
” . . .the NFL is only just beginning to acknowledge this fact and spend some effort combatting these problems.”
That’s easy, just turn it into a low effort, non-contact sport for girls.
All that money just goes to Big Pharma. Meanwhile natural cures that Big Pharma and Big Med can’t make money off of are being neglected as people’s donations go to an already multi-trillion dollar industry. Why? Because Big Pharma and Big Med knows we are fools and will keep on giving so they can get richer and richer and the natural cures will get ignored. Its a brilliant scam.
Let’s see Jizzabel back up the bark and donate $4 million then. I’ll not be waiting for that one. Not with the mythical wage gap out there, that is.
To society, a woman’s life will always be most valuable and important than a man’s life. Our history shows so. That’s the great paradox of all these modernity crap we got: women always are protected, but they are the ones always bitching and finding new things to complain about.
Also childhood cancer is left out of this hype, it kills thousands of children each year and NFL teams don’t acknowledge that. Terrible.
So glad you had the balls to write this. I’m all for the empowerment of women and mammogram awareness. Four out of seven of my mom’s friends have already survived the cancer. But as a young woman who’s had a localized malignant mass removed from my lady parts, I’ve complained to my friends and family about breast cancer month for years. Because shhh, other estrogen-related cancers are “embarrassing” to talk about. In an effort to make it less taboo to discuss about breast cancer, other cancers have been shoved under the rug. Not only does breast cancer receive a healthy portion of our national budget, but think about the private funding!?
I’ve been asked at practically every store this month to give to the campaign.
This overblown “feminist” thing happened because women are rabid and rally. It’s in our nature to get crazy about things like this. Y’all need to get it together and do something equally as big for prostate and testicular cancers. I’m glad the discussion is at least on the table now.
And, the very first thing is finger pointing. You must have gotten lady bit cancer from an STD so you deserve it for being a ho. Ummmm… no, just cancer thanks tho. Doesn’t anyone every finger point and say oh, you must have gotten breast cancer because you’ve ridden everything but your 12 speed? Nope.
Hope your in the clear now 🙂
Ovarian before I’d ever had sex. But thanks for your well thought out, and well written, comment.
Had surgery last month for mine. It is sad that awareness has not come as far as we may have wished. I told only a few people and with 2 exceptions, I immediately was suspected (by friends and family) of having gotten it from an STD.
While I don’t resent in the slightest the funding and lack of blame for breast cancer awareness, as you indicated it’s the embarrassing ones no one seems to want to talk about or rally around.
It just occurred to me from your response that you may have thought that I was saying that directly at you. Sorry, I should have worded that better so it didn’t come across wrong.
Oh, I see! Apologies for getting on the defensive. This site is brutal, so I assumed the worst. But yes, I completely agree with you. Cervical cancer is a serious issue that I could discuss for hours. I’ve got your back on that one, girl.
My fault. I know that being female on these sites when you agree with the writer or a poster, it’s like open season!
I don’t know what you went through, but my experience was at a centre (and they were wonderful) but with every room I was in plastered with posters about HPV and cancer. And the first question wasn’t do I have HPV (no) it was How long? I felt so defensive. The same ward was the prostate centre and I wonder, is it the same? I felt like I was being blamed for my own cancer and think that this could also be what men who have testicular or prostate cancer go through.
My support was 2, one male and one female neither of whom asked. One best friend for 20 years and one kicking up his little frog legs on this forum 🙂
At least for testicular cancer that is not the case. The causes for this type of cancer is largely unkown but studies have shown environmental causes like the extensive use of fertilizers to be a main suspect.
I did not know this. So, why isn’t this part of, well let’s call it what it is, the marketing plan for promoting awareness? Something like huge posters for banning pesticides with a Men, Guard your Balls or too much Bullshyte causes cancer type theme?
As of yet, it is still a theory, with strong evidence but not strong enough. That is due to the fact, that testicular cancer, compared to other forms of cancer, is realtively rare. Not all nations have national cancer registries, which makes it even harder to find conclusive data.
This article pretty much sums it up:
http://www.emcom.ca/health/testicular.shtml
Interesting. What about prostate cancer? I know that in Canada they just did a new fundraising campaign for hockey and ball hockey and it was huge success. (should have been done years ago, but still, it was a very well laid out an advertised plan and the turnout and funding for that was absolutely wonderful.
So are you two going to make out?
Great. Now kiss her, and film it.
Having survived an Insulinoma on my pancreas, and spent 15 days on the Gastric ward with mostly prostate & bowel cancer men, I am whole-heartedly in agreement. We are expected to man up & wear pink. No thanks. I fully believe in charity, but most charities are businesses, and big pink is the worst offender.
I had no idea until I read this article there even was a blue ribbon for prostate cancer. Is that just USA?
Should also be noted that a lot of breasts are infected due to women gluttonously eating, drunkenly partying, delaying having children so they can slut around, etc. These women don’t deserve any more sympathy than smokers who get lung cancer.
AFAIK prostate cancer is not associate with lifestyle factors (except maybe not ejaculating frequently enough), though maybe if they spent more on research they could find some
The irony of that is that don’t get to ejaculate (well, other than with their hand, but fuck that) because the girls won’t spread their legs for the nice guys.
Therefore, one could almost conclude that being a nice guy is a cause of prostate cancer.
If you TM that on a bumper sticker, it’ll make millions.
I’m not being hateful here (you can read my comment below), but you’re completely disregarding hereditary breast cancers, the gross amount of hormones in American food, and even the aluminum in deodorant. Unless you eat raw foods, never drink, and walk everywhere… you’re argument sucks.
Also, some prostate and colon cancers are caused by HPV. Do you also want to make that awkward for every straight man with colon cancer? Please don’t. Do your research.
That same argument could be applied to the male gender. Should a man who faces prostate cancer who is obese, partying or slept around be less deserving of support and funding?
I don’t think so.
I hope not. If I would have had to fill that questionnaire out, I would be dead. Not that I am giving those activities up just yet…
Well …. hmmm… your not obese! lmao If you ever get prostate cancer, I’m sure it can be traced to the amount of times you get told to stick objects up your butt per week.
Should start taking down names. Just in case :p
Most western women get their bewbs manhandled every weekend by various strangers anyway. So say you’re out whoring around, who knew that it also served as early detection? Another reason breast cancer doesn’t need as much funding. Just watch out for those std’s guys…
Ummmm… okay, I’ll try to keep that in mind if I ever go out whoring and some strange man grabs my bewbs. Thanks, I think lol
“AFAIK prostate cancer is not associate with lifestyle factors”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16076700
Now you know. Follow the steps I did and in future you will know these things in advance.
Don’t be the dude who writes a forum post asking what a word means.
Also don’t be the dude who associates association with causation. Working on a road crew may increase your chances of getting hit by a car, but it is crappy driving that causes it.
The overriding risk factor for cancer is simply age.
“the etiology of prostate cancer remains largely unknown”
True, and just as true for breast cancer. From The American Cancer Society:
“Many risk factors can increase your chance of developing breast cancer,
but it is not yet known exactly how some of these risk factors cause
cells to become cancerous. Hormones seem to play a role in many cases of
breast cancer, but just how this happens is not fully understood.”
The truth of it, oddly enough, is why it is . . . irrelevant.
Learn what a risk factor is and why we use them.
Hint: they are a tool of ignorance.
the whole idea of celebrities getting worked up about it, or politicians, is more a political move to be trendy than anything else. Same goes for the charities where the leader is working on his/her political career, and the majority of the donations go to keep a useless administration working.
well, about the actual cancer pharmaceutical companies are making billions off NOT curing/ and preventing cancer. (for any healthcare drug released, the stock price and market capital of the company gets jacked up, as the news of it(and patent is released).
healthy eating can prevent cancer, i’d go for a more or less paleo solution w/ intermittent fasting(and i never get sick, even when everyone else is in winter).
it pains me to have people around me not taking healthy eating seriuosly, incl. my close family members, “oh, everyone is going to die someday, occasionally(everyday) doesn’t hurt to eat junk”, (ok, get a drink if you’re going to party, but don’t go for a pizza, pasta and burger every night on top of that), And then getting all surprised when a tragic chronic disease hits them, as if it was a bad voodoo curse (which i am partl affected by too hearing the news).
but as related to the article none of that would matter, as the article would suggest when you’re insensitive and don’t feel it’s clever to “fun run for cancer.”
“. . .don’t go for a pizza, pasta and burger every night on top of that. . .”
Why not? Be specific. Don’t cite risk factors, cite mechanism.
Anglo society has long been gynocentric. Feminist Anglo females display all of the following – racism, classism, elitism, hypocrisy, inconsistency, intolerance; usually with regards to men, and also towards other (superior) ethnic/foreign females.
Anglo females have privileges without obligations, and the entire society is geared towards placing them on a pedestal.
Is it any wonder things are so fucked? And pink is everywhere during the month of October?
Truth is, women never had it so good, but no that’s not enough. We want more more more more more until we kill the goose that lays the golden egg – Anglo men.
A hard truth many aren’t ready to accept.
The reason breast cancer is a problem is because women keep delaying child birth so they can ride the alpha cock carousel.
Does not having a child put women at greater risk for breast cancer? I honestly have no idea. It’d be interesting to see some statistics.
If riding the carousel would be a risk factor we would have an epidemic at our hands…
But to answer your question, having or not having a child is not a factor. Drinking too much alcohol, obesity, smoking and having bad eating habits in general on the other hand are definitely risk factors.
Interesting timing TM, I’ve just signed up for some fundraising events for Prostrate Cancer.
Although I’m sure there’s a feminine imperative factor in here, it’s worth noting that enormous corporations have had much more success monetizing breast cancer than prostate cancer.
At least partially because women like spending money and are more excited about worrying (esp solipsistically), but the fact remains: it’s more profitable to promote breast cancer awareness than prostate awareness.
Even if all the consumers were exactly the same, most people would rather get a mammogram than a finger up the pooper (in a clinical setting, anyway).
Guys need to understand: women DO NOT CARE if you live or die.
It’s instinctive, biological, and emotional. If a man dies, women’s eyes go blank. After a few seconds of fake compassion, they lose interest completely, and change the subject. If another woman dies, they get all upset.
This is based on a million years of evolution. Men are the expendable hunters and soldiers. Their deaths are normal and expected by society.
This is why 50/50 men/women in political power cannot and will not ever be a stable system. While male politicians will pass laws that protect women in society, female politicians cannot and will not make any effort to pass laws protecting men. Any society with significant numbers of female politicians will always eventually marginalize men (leading to a male underclass, leading to war or revolution which topples the society).
Must be great being a girl. never have to do any hard work, everyone helps you and protects you and u can get fucked any goddamn time you like. Cunts
I work at a full time prestigious job, and I cook my husband dinner and desert every night when I get home. I often serve it to him in lingerie, which I wear to show off the body I keep toned because I know it will make him happy.
You know why you only get lazy loser girls? Because YOU ARE A LOSER WITH A CRAPPY PERSONALITY. Good guys land good girls. My husband is awesome, so he landed a hard working woman who wants to shower him with affection. You are a loser, so you can’t get a quality girl. You have no one to blame but yourself.
And if you weren’t a loser, you could also get laid any time you like.
Over-under on this little lady is now 5’1″ and 180 pounds. That’s 155 centimeters, 113 kilos for the sultry, strong, lingere-straining siren. Betting window is now open!
Having a career does not make you a quality woman. Are you a good mother? Are you slut-free? Do you refrain from resorting to standard anti-male shaming tactics? Do you realize that we do not care about how much you earn? Are you aware that 22y.o. housewife beats 32y.o. career woman?
You probably fail on all counts so you are not a “quality woman.” Calling a man a “loser” does not make you “quality.”
I have read your posts on this site; you are the poison of which we speak. Let’s hope your “husband” finds the manosphere.
All faults in their marriages aside, my dad has been gone over a month and my mom hasn’t gotten over it. Everyone else has come to grips with it to some extent. Her? Not so much.
Maybe the reason that such women exist is due to the worthless men who give them the time of day. There’s more to that, but you get the jist.
A woman with a true nurturing capability should never be so crass.
hahaha, there’s nothing funnier when you see a loser bitch about how all women are evil.
If women don’t care, then why do women overwhelmingly make up the people who work in non profit healthcare that attends to male specific diseases; prostate problems, testicular cancer, etc?
Guess what buddy, there are men who are awesome and women who are awesome, men and women who are okay, and men and women who are fucking terrible. And if the only women who you encounter are terrible, it is because YOU are terrible and can’t attract better company.
“Any society with significant numbers of female politicians will always eventually marginalize men (leading to a male underclass, leading to war or revolution which topples the society).”
When has this ever happened in the history of the world?
Solid work. Interesting too, that what does not show up on the list of research money is Pancreatic. While the annual new cases are “only” around 45,000, the annual deaths are nearly that, at 38,000; one of the highest mortality rates of all cancer types.
In comparison, breast cancer, with some 232,000 new cases per year “only” results in 40,000 deaths. In all, in the upper end of treatment-remission efficacy. Sure, that is a lot of deaths and no solace for those who do not win the battle, but it is hard to ignore the politics, the prioritization, particularly when posed next to far more invasive, painful, and deadly of cancers.
I’ve thankfully had no breast cancer in my immediate family, but have seen friends families go through it. While I would never want to marginalize, diminish suffering of any kind for any cancer patient, all of those women have moved on with their lives. They are entitled to run around all they want with the pink ribbons; they have something to celebrate, to relate to; they are invested.
I have, however, watched my father and my father-in-law both die of Pancreatic cancer. There is no ‘treatment’, not even a dedicated chemotherapy; no effective surgery, no effective means of pain management. Essentially it is a death sentence at diagnosis. 95% don’t make it beyond a year. And I can assure those who haven’t seen it up close, they would rather have just about any part of their body removed as opposed to suffering the complete annihilation from the inside out. Of the four people I know who have had Pancreatic, none – or no one else for that matter, are not running around with ribbons of any kind.
And to your point: my fathers died at 68 and 71. So compared to the 40’s woman with a lump, those men were already long disposable. The fact that they were both still working full time and the sole economic providers for their wives and families is just one more rounding error.
There are serious issues with the relationships between gov’t funding and the scientific community that go well beyond just the feminization and pandering, but I appreciate the light shed into this particular dark corner.
I’m sorry for your loss(es).
Once you start digging around, its becomes very interesting and frankly, obvious as to how the government, feminism, game, and biology all interlink. We’re an adaptive species, it just takes some digging to start seeing the domino effect of corruption.
Thanks TM. Death as a part of life and all that.
As a man, I’ve been aware of these things for quite some time. It is interesting though, to see women get a glimpse. Unfortunately it is often too late and/or too isolated for them to see the larger issues. In the case of my mom, she saw the cancer funding/research issues even how the doctors approach things differently with my dad’s illness and it was eye opening for her. Yet it wasn’t enough for her to follow the puppet strings to the top. Like most women, the death of her husband means that she was the victim. It is still about women’s suffering.
I’m not being cold, just the reality that when it comes to fairness, men are ballast. Soon enough my mom was championing my sisters quest to turkey-baster her way to motherhood because she is entitled to a child, because there are/were no good (enough) men for her to marry, etc.
Truth and reality as it relates to how men see the world, what men value and desire, are irrelevant outside of how they might serve a woman. These views are invasive, structural. My mom holds onto the fem-power even after watching her husband of 40 years pass, and raising two sons in this fem-centric circus. Still pressing me to get married even as my brother continues to be victimized by his ex and the state six years after she frivorced him after cheating on him from day 1. Crazy.
Outside of feminism, the main reason for breast cancer getting so much press is because it affects younger women, and affects them visibly. Take a look at Angelina Jolie. She had a dual mastectomy based on the fact that she’s a carrier of a gene that significantly increases her risk for it. I mean, Angelina fucking Jolie, a very attractive woman (but a terrible actress).
I was ready to criticise this article because I thought the author had omitted the fact that breast cancer survival rates were a lot less than prostate cancer rates, however I was actually totally wrong.
UK data states that 5 year survival rates for prostate cancer are 81.4% where as breast cancer is actually higher at 85.1%.
I also wondered which cancers had the greatest death rates, UK statistics suggest that we should throw a whole lot more money into Bowel and lung cancers as these are vastly under represented in funding.
Source:
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/mortality/cancerdeaths/
” . . .lung cancers as these are vastly under represented in funding.”
They put warning labels on the cigarette packages, hence they think they’ve solved the problem.
Magical thinking is everywhere.
Lung cancer kills more women than breast cancer. The funding from politicians and the spectacle of the NFL is done to win votes and viewership from ignorant women. It has nothing to do with their health. Great article.
An entire article posted on November 1 about the lack of prostate cancer research and not a single mention of Movember?! http://us.movember.com/
Men need to go on strike. No more curing diseases. No more creating genius new technologies so women can use them to complain about how stupid men are. No more anything.
Here’s the question you need to ask yourself: Is a woman going to cure breast cancer? Fucks no.
No one can predict the future.
Why is every article on this website so depressing. Now we have Mom’s posting, dads with kids posting, cute women with boyfriends and husbands posting, girls talking about their ovarian and cervical cancer with other girls in the comment section posting…just WHO the fucking fuck is this website for anyway????????
It’s an article on an open forum raising to raise awareness, which sorry, but that does include Mom’s, Dad’s and horror of all horror, women who have also had a less funded cancer that would like to become more involved and agree with the writer on the topic.
I definitely don’t speak for every female in the world, but I have male friends, brothers, co-workers that I have every right to be concerned about. If this is a topic that concerns them and can help them, then I have every right to be involved and be allowed to question why so much money goes to one cancer and not to others.
I don’t see any cute women with BF’s and husbands posting; but, obviously the discussion about our cancer relates to Grace and I, which does correlate with the topic of awareness of lesser funded cancers. Don’t you think that’s an issue in itself. Where are all the women with boyfriends and husbands?! This should be a huge concern for them too.
Since this is a public site with public comments, anyone is likely to view them. If you want to keep out half of the population you need to do some id checks.
Hey I just heard on the news
like an hour ago that there is a “movement” to bring awareness to
prostate cancer of growing out mustaches. See here;
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com…
OK I googled that and see its not a new thing as that article is from
2 years ago. I guess November is “Movember” – the month for national
prostrate cancer awareness and its a tradition for men to grow mustaches
during November/Movember for this purpose.
So gentleman…. grow out your facial hair and show solidarity with your brothers suffering from PC (prostate cancer, not political correctness 😉 …)
Plus, the ladies lurve facial hair as well so its a win/win/win!
(I accidentally posted this comment on the wrong blog so now I’m reposting it here)
This reminds me of something I’ve thought a lot about as a researcher of owls (specifically the Northern Spotted Owl in this case). The Spotted Owl (along with another “cute” creature, the panda) has been the “poster creature” of endangered species for a long time now (George H. W. Bush said of Al Gore, “This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme we’ll be up to our necks in owls and outta work for every American.”). In response to the disproportionate amount of attention given to endangered species that are given, some people have started to point out the uglier endangered species and how they are also worthy of preservation (http://news.discovery.com/animals/endangered-species/ugly-animals-need-saving-130618.htm but look up “ugly endangered species” and you’ll find many articles on the subject).
Unfortunately, cultural Marxism has taken over our society to such an extent that thinking critically and objectively is now looked down on as bigoted and backwards. But let’s challenge this by using our minds and fighting for truth.
Man, it was so refreshing to read this post. I am so utterly sick and tired of seeing pink all over NFL and college football players. These are young men (mostly) that have no clue how they are being used. Maybe the picture will be clearer to them when their football careers are over, their wives divorce them, and they are left working as Walmart greeters.
What’s especially sad about this is that a huge percentage of NFL players actually end up in bankruptcy not long after their playing years are over. These players should be worrying more about themselves and securing their financial future than wearing pink. The NFL would help them in that regard by advising players not to get married until AFTER their careers are over, if ever. But, of course, the NFL would never do that. The NFL is too worried about figuring out all the ways they can make players wear pink.
I have to say, I am very encouraged by men in the so-called manosphere calling bullshit on contemporary feminism. Those voices were few and far between 10 years ago when I was writing a blog on these topics.
Meanwhile, Obama can fuck himself. I don’t know it any of you have noticed, but along with our tax dollars going primarily to women’s “issues,” all men are now required to have medical insurance for maternity care, mammograms, and the like. Why? So that women can be subsidized with cheaper medical insurance …. by men.
It’s not like a cure for breast cancer will ever be found. This whole pink campaign has been going on for how long now? How much profit has been made? Finding a cure would bring said profit to a screeching hault. There are several companies that just slap some pink on their merchandise and pocket all of it.
In Homer Simpson logic…. Women have two breasts and men only one prostate so of course the funding should be double…. doh !….
I work at a cancer research facility, and I am not a fan of the pink ribbon campaigns, because these are charities with huge administration costs and way too high pay rates for charities, so not enough of their money actually going to breast cancer research. They also are not, as this article points out, allocating funding where it is most needed. Also, when it comes to companies that sell “pink” merchandise, very little of that money actually gets to a cancer charity, it’s really just a marketing gimmick.
But your hysterical reaction to how breast cancer gets more coverage because society hates men is completely ignorant and makes you look a bit off balance, to be honest. Up until a few decades ago, the media and government pretty much refused to even discuss breast cancer. It was deemed to sexual and racy a topic to discuss publicly. Women weren’t being widely advised on how to screen themselves for cancer. Newspapers and magazines typically not only refused to print stories on breast cancer, they refused to even allow advertisements for breast cancer support groups.
The taboo about discussions on breast cancer spurred family members of women who died into changing things. They were angry, and they organized. Over time, they grew into a huge lobbying power, and a well funded one.
This had nothing to do with “screw men.” The movement started as a backlash against censoring health care information. Then, like many well intended movements before it, it grew into a lobbying group with business savvy who figured out how to market to funding groups and gain popular support. Let’s face it, at this point, the pink ribbon has become trendy. Its a way for people to show off how compassionate they are more than actually helping breast cancer victims and research.
if the reason it is actually so popular is because the government and society favors women, then why does heart disease receive so little attention and funding, when that is the #1 killer of women, not breast cancer? Why don’t more deadly and aggressive forms of cancer that affect men just as often as women get more funding?
Follow the money, guys. It’s all about the money, nothing more. They came up with a good gimmick, like the girl scouts with their cookies or livestrong with their cheap yellow bracelets.
Charitable giving shouldn’t be done in response to slick marketing. This kind of marketing typically appeals to a donor on how it makes them feel themselves. Actual charitable giving should be based on effectiveness of serving people in need, not what makes you feel all proud and warm inside because you’re such a great person, and if I wear this pink t shirt everyone will know!
The modern prevalence of the pink campaign is about marketers preying on people’s narcissism, not sexism against men.
Ha, I love you losers deleted my comment completely debunking your entire piece and demonstrating the fact that you are literally using the same arguments against breast cancer that fat activists use (except they claim thyroid cancer is underfunded because thyroid problems are associate with fat people), and using the exact same whiny rhetoric.
Seriously, reading the comments, you guys sounds exactly like TITP, just substitute “women” for “thin people” and “men” for “fat people.” A bunch of fucking pity party losers talking simultaneously about how awful their lives are because they are powerless against the matriarchy, and how you hate militant feminists, even though you use the exact same language in the exact same way, just with the genders reversed.
You’re like male feminazis. meninazis?
Why don’t you spend a little time in the company of men who are actually well adjusted, successful, and most importantly, sane. You’re little loser echo chamber here is warping your sense of reality. i seriously can’t believe how oblivious you are to how winy and pathetic you sound. you aren’t masculine men, you’re a bunch of fat ugly bitter 45 year old chicks masquerading as men.
men get breast cancer too so if a cure was found it would benefit everybody
The subtitle of this blog should read:
“We’re pathetic, whining classless morons with the victim complex of a fat activist, and we can’t land a woman who isn’t vapid, weak, pathetic, or a bitch. Since this is the only kind of woman who will have anything to do with us, we surmise this is what all women are like. We also obviously came from trashy low class parents who never taught us how to behave well enough to actually land a woman of quality, and we are super bitter about how white trash we are and how our mommies didn’t love us enough.
Also, we actually are oblivious enough to think we seem cool and masculine and don’t realize we are a mirror image of a tumblr emo feminist blog.”
I found an interest reader comment in an article about how women in
Washington State prison are getting a “gender specific action plan,”
which basically means kid glove treatment, “gender education,” and
having their children literally in the prison with them. Check out the
article in the Seattle Times and especially look at the photo of women
felons pushing babies around in baby carriages inside the prison, as if
in a public park:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022187282_womensprisonxml.html
A reader commented:
“This article does an excellent job of …… furthering the idea that gender equality is not synonymous with gender neutrality.”
I found this to be a very interesting comment. My guess is that this
is the latest line of response being taught in Women’s Studies
departments as a response to so many men now asking why women want so
many exceptions to equality when it benefits them.
This is worth researching a bit more. I suspect that this type of comment is showing up in feminist writings and blogs.
It doesn’t pass the smell test (equality and neutrality are
different?), but not much in feminism passes the smell test. So I think
we are going to be hearing this type of line more and more as an excuse
for bias in family court and numerous other settings.
Separate but unequal.
Instead of complaining about “feminist propaganda” do something to get awareness to prostate cancer. Duh.
Ha come on, did you forget all about movember? It’s this month for the prostate cancer. It’s now, in november. Don’t play the victim, at my school we had nothing for the brest cancer month but every teachers are making movember (getting a mustache to collect money) and we can wear a hat or a tie for 1 dollar or more all the month. I think both cancers have their thing.
Don’t you guys have Movember?
http://www.movember.com/
Guys just stop being silly ‘MOVEMBER”s movement is fighting against the prostate cancer and its quite popular all around the word . Open newspapers, get some culture ….
Here’s different set of data comparing funding vs incidence of each cancer type in the population
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does-it-add-up/?_r=0
Breast cancer has it pretty good, but by per death, prostate cancer is coming a close second.
The discrepancy between funding per death vs funding per diagnosis for prostate cancer is interesting. On per diagnosis it is clearly behind, but per death it is getting close to breast cancer (especially compared to lung/pancreatic cancer!)
A feminist is simply someone who believes in woman’s rights. Nothing more. Saying you’re not a feminist means that you believe men should be superior to woman, and if you actually think that then anything you have to say has become invalid to me because you are ridiculous.
Bet we can all agree any type of cancer is horrible and deathly, sure all shall be researched for a cure and that no matter the gender we shall have the right to FREAKING LIVE. Yes, the budget destined to breast’s is quite higher than the rest and i neither feel like that’s ok, but also the mortality rate of breast cancer patients is higher than, let’s say ovary cancer (Not implying is less awful or that deserves less attention)… and i mean, BOOBS. Are you, heterosexual healthy males who like feminine voluptuous chicks, complaining about the amount of money that goes for SAVING BREASTS?! Then, what the hell with the assumption of females don’t caring when guys die?! Haven’t you seen them crying as crazy when ANYTHING dies? we’re all people. Then, donating money to a high profile cause (Hellooo! breast cancer!) is the way many politicians ensure they will get voters sympathy, most of those politicians are men, getting votes through ‘pathos’, they don’t care what’s the cause, just want people to see how nice they are. Later, the author is giving a politic perspective of CANCER implying feminists want men dead! I’m the only one who finds that kinda illogical? There’s also this guy in comments that says women wants to dominate males or making them ‘beta’ or whatever and i’m like ‘neh, maybe just creepy hardcore feminists’, but come on! Every ideology is crazy if you take it to the extreme.
(Blessings to all cancer patients and best wishes)
It’s easy to be a victim, you are better than that.
Use these hard feelings to go and organise charity events for prostate and other cancers then, and help gain recognition for them, rather than sitting on your arse and whining about it on a website (and a bad one at that). Stop being a bitter pacifist and go do something worthwhile.
I would like to know who called you an asshole because you did not donate money? Did someone REALLY call you an asshole or are you just being dramatic like a woman?
Boys I’d just like to stop you’re ranting for a minute. Men get breast cancer too!
Many of these large cancer charities are more about sustaining their own enterprise than they are about real cancer research, and along with you there are women who criticize the pink ribbon movement primarily because “raising awareness” is really not the same thing as “raising money for scientific research”. It is propaganda, I agree, but I think it is more corporatist than feminist. I think you can give yourself permission to opt-out. The NIH is responsible for the greatest amount of funds for cancer research, not these awareness campaigns or even the American Cancer Society.
The stupidity of the Breast cancer “scare” is the fact that women are more likely to die from heart disease than the very cancer they demand more money for research.