# Politically Correct Cancer **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2009, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005 "2009-01-19T16:39:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/21 "2009-01-19T19:59:17Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Sure, and the “breast cancer” dog seems to be eating a lot of other dogs. The question is why. The same reason any business does better than its competitor. They do a better job with raising awareness about their cause. They buy lots ad spots on TV and billboards. You might as well be asking why does McDonald’s get more attention than a lesser known chain that makes equally tasty food. Because they do more attention-grabbing shit. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Hence my quote above. But considering the amount of suffering that prostate cancer has caused women (when their husbands, sons, fathers, grandfathers and other loved ones get it) perhaps they might be inclined to write a check for it at the same time they support the Komen foundation. Well, perhaps instead of focusing on women’s dollars, it would make more sense for prostate cancer charities to go after men just as breast cancer advocates have tapped into the female demographic. The thing is, though, how many men do you know do or will go around wearing prostate cancer ribbons or participate in walkathons? This kind of thing I see women doing not men, and I don’t think it’s just because “woman cancer” fundraising is more prevalent. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/22 "2009-01-19T20:06:23Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Well, perhaps instead of focusing on women’s dollars, it would make more sense for prostate cancer charities to go after men just as breast cancer advocates have tapped into the female demographic. The thing is, though, how many men do you know do or will go around wearing prostate cancer ribbons or participate in walkathons? Well, sure. Call it different styles of being charitable. Organize a golf tournament for charity and men will be clustered all over the place. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/23 "2009-01-19T20:07:45Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, because as was pointed out, different cancers are actually different diseases. Their etiology is similar but not the same and their treatment is different. The reason Breast Cancer has the gravitas it has is because a bunch of highly motivated women went out and made a movement. I would also add that these women already have marketing on their side– not breast cancer awareness, but simply breast awareness. Breasts sell cars, watches, clothes, much of the time wihtout the need for an actual woman’s body or face. If sex sells (and I’m actually on the fence about that one), they’re already ten steps ahead of most other cancer-related charities. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/24 "2009-01-19T20:10:37Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > I would also add that these women already have marketing on their side– not breast cancer awareness, but simply breast awareness. Breasts sell cars, watches, clothes, much of the time wihtout the need for an actual woman’s body or face. If sex sells (and I’m actually on the fence about that one), they’re already ten steps ahead of most other cancer-related charities. I think there is some truth to that. But I also think that some credit should be paid to the amazing organizing effort. So often we look at success vs lesser success as though there is some sort of victimization, some sort of injustice going on just because one person’s success was greater than another’s. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/25 "2009-01-19T20:13:09Z")
Since the anti-abortion people now claim that “abortion causes breast cancer,” I’m surprised they don’t boycott breast cancer fund raisers on the grounds that women who have had abortions shouldn’t be treated for breast cancer, as they caused their disease. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/26 "2009-01-19T20:19:19Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Since the anti-abortion people now claim that “abortion causes breast cancer,” I’m surprised they don’t boycott breast cancer fund raisers on the grounds that women who have had abortions shouldn’t be treated for breast cancer, as they caused their disease. Only if they also eat Krispy Kreme donuts. (I actually do have a bone to pick with breast cancer fundraisers that sell plastic goods of dubious origins or carcinogen-friendly make-up lines.) It must be difficult dealing with an ‘unpopular’ disease or syndrome, hoping that some celebrity or their relative gets it and brings it to the public’s attention. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/27 "2009-01-19T20:28:02Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > And second - given that there are separate fund raisers for different kinds of cancer, an element of political correctness has crept in. Who gets breast cancer? Women. It’s a cause that women (and everyone, for that matter) can rally around. Who gets lung cancer? Smokers. Those people are pariahs and get what they deserve. I don’t think this is an example of political correctness or hard-heartedness. I do think there is an element of personal responsibility for the individual who smokes and develops smoking-related cancer or vascular disease. We all make horrible choices at times and we are all cavalier about those choices until the consequences catch up to us personally. But when they do, it’s not unreasonable to expect that those around us will have a diminished sympathy for our plight, hypocritical though it may be. Breast cancer is more glamorous; no doubt. And its victims do seem less responsible for its plight. On the other hand, the cigarette smokers have collected far more money from suing tobacco companies, individually and collectively, under the premise that their cancer must be someone else’s fault. I think that diminishes their sympathy level as well. Having said that, I have never seen anyone who thinks less of a smoker with cancer than some other cancer victim. There may be less eagerness to “fight” what is seen as an elective illness with donations, but I don’t think there is antagonism or even disregard at a personal level. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/28 "2009-01-19T20:49:29Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, because as was pointed out, different cancers are actually different diseases. Their etiology is similar but not the same and their treatment is different. And there are various different diseases which are referred to under the umbrella of “breast cancer.” A quick internet search I did disclosed “ductal carcinoma,” “lobular carcinoma,” “angiocarcoma,” “adenoid cystic carcinoma,” and “Paget’s disease,” among others. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/29 "2009-01-19T20:54:44Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The same reason any business does better than its competitor. They do a better job with raising awareness about their cause. They buy lots ad spots on TV and billboards. I disagree. For example, suppose that 10 different organizations all did an equal amount of advertising trying to get donations for specific diseases or categories of disease. AIDS, breast cancer, lung cancer, childhood leukemia, and so on. Do you think that all of the organizations would end up receiving an equal amount of donations? Or do you think that some would do better than others? ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/30 "2009-01-19T21:34:16Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I disagree. For example, suppose that 10 different organizations all did an equal amount of advertising trying to get donations for specific diseases or categories of disease. AIDS, breast cancer, lung cancer, childhood leukemia, and so on. Do you think that all of the organizations would end up receiving an equal amount of donations? Or do you think that some would do better than others? I think its different than just advertising - awareness is bigger than that. Its a matter of effective advertising. Is the message personal? If you spend ten million dollars trying to raise money to cure a cancer that is rare, that has personally touched very few people, and the people that it touches are not empathetic - you aren’t going to raise as much money as if you spend that same money for a cause that has touched a lot of people (which breast cancer has), strikes down empathetic victims (like children), or appears to be an epidemic. Same with tax dollars - few people are writing to congress to get them to fund treatment of pheochromocytoma - lots of people are writing for additional funding for childhood leukemia or breast cancer. Congress responds to its constituents. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/31 "2009-01-19T21:54:25Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I disagree. For example, suppose that 10 different organizations all did an equal amount of advertising trying to get donations for specific diseases or categories of disease. AIDS, breast cancer, lung cancer, childhood leukemia, and so on. Do you think that all of the organizations would end up receiving an equal amount of donations? Or do you think that some would do better than others? Not necessarily, but breast cancer is well out in front of many other cancers in terms of advertising…so it shouldn’t be surprising that gets the most attention. All things being equal, perhaps prostate and breast cancer should get equal donations, but all things aren’t equal because the latter has done a better job at getting the word out. Perhaps the problem with prostate cancer and other causes is that they haven’t had success in turning men and other at-risk groups into a major source of donations and message-preachers. **Mr. Moto** mentioned using golf tournaments as charity events to raise awareness in men. Sounds like a great idea. Is this going on? Are prostate cancer survivors taking to the mic as spokesmen and advocates for the cause? They probably are, but not to the same extent that breast cancer surviors do. This may have something to do with the differences between men and women when it comes personal health issues. Generally speaking, women are more apt to talk about these kinds of things. The absence of lung cancer survivors who can be visible champions for the causes of early detection and treatment research should not be downplayed, either. If a disease has a poor prognosis, it makes more sense to focus on prevention. There’s a great deal of that in the form of anti-smoking campaigns. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/32 "2009-01-19T23:10:01Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > I think its different than just advertising - awareness is bigger than that. Its a matter of effective advertising. Is the message personal? If you spend ten million dollars trying to raise money to cure a cancer that is rare, that has personally touched very few people, and the people that it touches are not empathetic - you aren’t going to raise as much money as if you spend that same money for a cause that has touched a lot of people (which breast cancer has), strikes down empathetic victims (like children), or appears to be an epidemic. Ok, so we are back to the original question . . . why is lobby/advertising (apparently) more effective with breast cancer? As another poster pointed out, it’s a dog eat dog world. Presumably the lung cancer folks would displace the breast cancer folks if they could. See my answer below. > [@](#): > > Same with tax dollars - few people are writing to congress to get them to fund treatment of pheochromocytoma - lots of people are writing for additional funding for childhood leukemia or breast cancer. Essentially, there is a bias at work. For one thing, many people have a “women and children first” mentality. For another thing, it’s possible to sell breast cancer by painting women as victims in a politically correct fashion. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/33 "2009-01-19T23:19:40Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Not necessarily I guess you agree with me that the answer is “no.” > [@](#): > > Perhaps the problem with prostate cancer and other causes is that they haven’t had success in turning men and other at-risk groups into a major source of donations and message-preachers. Perhaps. But perhaps men who lobby and/or fundraise in connection with cancer are more likely to do so in a general fashion, as opposed to doing so in a narrow, more sex-specific manner. Perhaps men are less inclined to turn prostate cancer into a political issue. ---
**Author:** ![susan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/susan/32/17537_2.png) [@susan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susan)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/34 "2009-01-19T23:20:40Z")
Deleted. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/35 "2009-01-19T23:40:47Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > But perhaps men who lobby and/or fundraise in connection with cancer are more likely to do so in a general fashion, as opposed to doing so in a narrow, more sex-specific manner. Perhaps men are less inclined to turn prostate cancer into a political issue. Perhaps you’re making stuff up - if not I’m sure you can find some cites for this idea. If we’re trying to figure out why breast cancer organizations have been so successful, I think we have to look at what the state of breast cancer fundraising was before those groups were around. If breast cancer research was underfunded, for example, that might explain why these groups have been so successful in linking breast cancer funding with a kind of soft feminism. Corporate sponsorship is also an issue here. A lot of companies, like Major League Baseball, appear to have found breast cancer research is an effective way to win goodwill among potential female consumers and fans. So they get involved that way. I’m not sure if it is possible to just fund “curing cancer.” There are cancer drugs out there that work on some cancers and not on others. Some cancers can be treated with surgery or radiation, others can’t. Different kinds of tumors can progress in very different ways. And people are most likely to give to funds researching diseases that affect them personally. You can decry that as selfish if you like, but really, it’s normal and there isn’t anything wrong with it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/36 "2009-01-19T23:45:53Z")
The breast cancer awareness has been raised by women’s groups, who have correctly noted that most medical research defaults to the benefit of men and have made an effort to highlight that women get breast cancer at a much higher rate and they wanted to do something about it and highlight the default at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/37 "2009-01-20T00:03:22Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Perhaps you’re making stuff up Rhetorically speaking, I have just as much right to speculate as does **you with the face**. > [@](#): > > I’m sure you can find some cites for this idea. What sort of evidence would convince you? Just from my general impressions, one of the basic principles of political correctness is that certain groups are on the approved victims list. This is very obvious when you look at racial issues. For example, consider a group which is dedicated to advancing the rights of black people. Socially, that’s perfectly acceptable. Similarly, if black legislators want to have a special group, that’s perfectly acceptable. By contrast, if somebody set up a group for the purpose of advancing the interest of white people it would not be socially acceptable. It would be seen as hateful and/or exclusionary. Same thing if there were a congressional white caucus. The same principle applies, albeit with less force, to gender issues. It’s a lot more socially acceptable to champion the interests of women as a group. Here’s an example: Why is it that death penaly opponents almost never argue that the death penalty is sexist because far more than 50% of people who are executed are men? The answer is that they know it’s not a winning argument. Anyway, if you want evidence, here’s a simple way to check what I’m saying: Do a news archive search on the following phrases: “men hardest hit” “women hardest hit” “blacks hardest hit” “whites hardest hit” > [@](#): > > Corporate sponsorship is also an issue here. A lot of companies, like Major League Baseball, appear to have found breast cancer research is an effective way to win goodwill among potential female consumers and fans. So they get involved that way. Sure, and – generally speaking – corporate sponsors also like to spend money on other causes which just happen to be politically correct. Hmmm . . . . I wonder why that might be? ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/38 "2009-01-20T00:26:07Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Ok, so we are back to the original question . . . why is lobby/advertising (apparently) more effective with breast cancer? As another poster pointed out, it’s a dog eat dog world. Presumably the lung cancer folks would displace the breast cancer folks if they could. See my answer below. Because, as stated, breast cancer is something that has touched a lot of people. And, as stated, a lot of lung cancer (though not all) is “self-inflicted” whereas a lot of breast cancer doesn’t appear to be (although things like alcohol consumption or overweight do increase risk). My 81 year old grandmother died with lung cancer (that wasn’t what killed her, but it would have fairly soon) - but after smoking for 65 years, it was “well, we’ve been expecting that for a long time.” My 38 year old sister had a mastectomy - that came out of the blue and shocked everyone. When my 40 year old non-smoking friends start getting lung cancer, I’ll march for lung cancer. Right now I’m busy doing the breast cancer thing because its touched my life - repeatedly (sister, aunt, cousin, two friends - one of whom is terminal - only my aunt was over 50). ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/39 "2009-01-20T00:30:56Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Perhaps. But perhaps men who lobby and/or fundraise in connection with cancer are more likely to do so in a general fashion, as opposed to doing so in a narrow, more sex-specific manner. If this is what they are doing, then perhaps they should revise this strategy. It’s not sound business sense. Who is going to care the most about prostate cancer? Men or non-men? > [@](#): > > Perhaps men are less inclined to turn prostate cancer into a political issue. You’re going to have to expound on that. I don’t see what’s so political about raising awareness and funds by appealing to people’s concern about themselves, their mothers, or their wives, etc. But let’s say it _is_ political. Obviously a few tugs at the heart strings helps to raise money. So those who don’t want to take this approach are going to have to accept the consequences of such. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/40 "2009-01-20T00:35:18Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Rhetorically speaking, I have just as much right to speculate as does **you with the face**. And congratulations on earning the right to speculate. I think her idea makes more sense, however. > [@](#): > > What sort of evidence would convince you? Find some and we’ll talk about whether or not it’s convincing. > [@](#): > > The same principle applies, albeit with less force, to gender issues. It’s a lot more socially acceptable to champion the interests of women as a group. There are prostate cancer research groups, and as far as I know, nobody’s out there accusing them of sexism. That said I’m not sure we disagree about much. Breast cancer research is very well funded and the link between that research and feminism is probably part of the reason. [Here’s a New York Times blog piece on the disparity in research funding for various kinds of cancer.](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does-it-add-up/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005.md?page=3)