# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/101 "2009-04-18T03:47:28Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > I don’t know. Have you asked them? > > Maybe they have other corporate sponsorships. Maybe their research has shown that their demographic responds better to, say, scholarship efforts and big shiny horses. Maybe it just hasn’t occurred to them yet and they’re waiting to hear from people like yourself that it’s important to you. And it’s possible that it’s never occurred to anyone to set up a “white congressional caucus” either. It’s easy enough to come up with epicycles, but one simple explanation has broad explanatory power. Identity politics and political correctness. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/102 "2009-04-18T04:51:55Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > An update: > > Recently, I heard on the radio about the [Revlon walk to fight women’s cancers](http://www.revlonrunwalk.com/) > > It seems to me this supports my position that it’s all about identity politics and political correctness. [L](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.1060989/k.FE99/Athletes_for_a_Cure.htm)[u](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.47513/k.A63B/Home_Run_Challenge.htm)[c](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.4068985/k.47B9/Strikeout_Prostate_Cancer_Challenge.htm)[k](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.49886/k.815/Arnies_Army.htm)[i](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.5051911/k.A3B3/One_Man_Scramble.htm)[l](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.667901/k.97E8/Champions_Tour.htm)[y](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.2638837/k.63D5/Eagles_for_a_Cure_Program.htm) [f](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.49929/k.D4B9/Tennis.htm)[o](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.3256365/k.DA5F/Movember.htm)[r](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.47473/k.C817/Safeway.htm) [u](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.690021/k.93EB/Republic_of_Tea.htm)[s](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.410465/k.9CB0/FORTUNE_Magazine.htm), “it seems to you” [d](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.47480/k.CEB7/Lamkin.htm)[o](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.1075995/k.7EAB/Baume__Mercier.htm)[e](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.79623/k.4830/Esquire_magazine_supports_the_Prostate_Cancer_Foundation.htm)[s](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.1714333/k.D02B/Gillette.htm)[n](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.928311/k.9731/Giorgio_Armani.htm)’[t](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.82985/k.FCB6/HUGO_BOSS_supports_the_Prostate_Cancer_Foundation.htm) [e](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.2283299/k.B4EF/NBA.htm)[q](http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.859681/k.A018/Neiman_Marcus.htm)[u](http://athletes.kintera.org/faf/home/default.asp?ievent=275345&lis=1&kntae275345=D2ADB251A27242EF9E1AA3C8EF80CF66)[a](http://www.prostatecancerclimb.org/)[t](http://www.ustooevents.org/site/TR?fr_id=1210&pg=entry)[e](http://www.keys100.com/) [t](http://www.stylelist.com/blog/2008/12/10/playboy-bunnies-shave-mustaches-for-prostate-cancer-fundraiser)[o](http://www.fathersdayrun.ca/) [fact](http://www.jimmyv.org/about-us/news/43-v-news/661-december-4-2008-espns-dick-vitale-and-michael-wilbon-stand-up-in-the-fight-against-prostate-cancer.html). [This](http://www.trentstampstake.org/2007/11/maybe-women-are-just-better-fundraisers.html) is actually a pretty decent opinion piece by someone very knowledgeable about charities. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/103 "2009-04-18T09:15:53Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > And it’s possible that it’s never occurred to anyone to set up a “white congressional caucus” either. It’s easy enough to come up with epicycles, but one simple explanation has broad explanatory power. Identity politics and political correctness. Epicycles? I disagree that your simple explanation, “Identity politics & political correctness,” is, in fact, simpler than my explanation, “follow the money.” But at any rate, your explanation is lacking in evidence. You seem to just want to take the fact that Revlon is funding research for women’s cancer as both an example of identity politics at work and proof that identity politics is the motivation for Revlon’s research. In reality, the burden is on you to provide evidence regarding their motives. Just saying that you think it’s a simple explanation is nothing like saying it’s the factual explanation. For that matter, you haven’t even established that Anheuser-Busch _doesn’t_ contribute to men’s issues equally with women’s issues. Or that Anheuser-Busch’s male::female customer ratio is equivalent to Revlon’s male::female customer ratio, making them a reasonable comparison. Or that, overall, men receive subpar care and attention from cancer researchers (yes, even if Susan G. isn’t personally agitating for it, it’s possible men are doing just fine. It’s your job, since it’s your argument, to demonstrate that men are suffering in this area.) ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/104 "2009-04-18T11:18:04Z")
Identity politics and political correctness with respect to Anheuser-Busch? Well, yes, beer commercials are disproportionately directed at men. Identity politics and political correctness with respect to white members of congress? Well, yes, members of congress are disproportionately white. So what’s your point, other than to throw about phrases that are loaded with negative connotations? What it comes down to, brazil84, is that you are smearing perfectly normal and healthy behaviours (people supporting charitable causes) with negatively loaded terms such as identity politics and political correctness. A much more healty approach would be to discuss how other charitable causes can direct their efforts to become as successful a breast cancer has. What you are doing is no more than an insult to people who are trying to make a positive difference in the lives of people affected by breast cancer. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/105 "2009-04-18T11:40:53Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Epicycles? Yes. > [@](#): > > I disagree that your simple explanation, “Identity politics & political correctness,” is, in fact, simpler than my explanation, “follow the money.” I’m a little confused. A moment ago you seemed to be claiming that you did not have any explanation. And now you know. In any event, “follow the money” is not really an explanation, since it just opens the door to another set of questions. Why would a corporation perceive that it’s in its interests to directly support the interests of some groups but not others? Why would a corporation perceive a benefit in funding “minority” scholarships but not scholarships directed at white people? > [@](#): > > But at any rate, your explanation is lacking in evidence. You seem to just want to take the fact that Revlon is funding research for women’s cancer as both an example of identity politics at work and proof that identity politics is the motivation for Revlon’s research. In reality, the burden is on you to provide evidence regarding their motives. If it were just Revlon you might have a point, but the pattern I see is everywhere. It’s politically and socially acceptable to specifically advocate on behalf of certain groups but not others. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/106 "2009-04-18T11:44:49Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Identity politics and political correctness with respect to Anheuser-Busch? Well, yes, beer commercials are disproportionately directed at men. > > Identity politics and political correctness with respect to white members of congress? Well, yes, members of congress are disproportionately white. I’m not sure what your point is. > [@](#): > > What it comes down to, brazil84, is that you are smearing perfectly normal and healthy behaviours (people supporting charitable causes) with negatively loaded terms such as identity politics and political correctness. Let me ask you this: If Google announced that it was setting up a special scholarship program for promising white students (and had no such program for students of other races), would you say that’s a “perfectly normal and healthy behaviour”? Simple question. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/107 "2009-04-18T12:12:21Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > My wife has just begun a battle against lung cancer (I don’t want to turn this thread into our personal struggles – a topic for another thread). But we’ve spent much time in the past few weeks watching TV from her hospital bed, and have been barraged with commercials for a 3 day walk raising funds for breast cancer. > > We find this a bit depressing…my wife says she wishes she got that cute pink cancer, and not stupid ol’ lung cancer. > > So first, a general question: why does each kind of cancer need to raise funds separately? > > 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. First, my most sincre condolances to you and your wife. Smoking killed both my parents – with my mother it was lung cancer. Why does each cancer raise funds separately? It comes down to where funds are directed. For example, with lung cancer, the best use of funds is in preventing people from taking up smoking, whereas using funds to prevent people from smoking will not be anywere near as helpful when dealing with breast cancer. Please also note that dealing with a health issue means a lot more than simply directing funds toward medical interventions. Think back for the last ten or twenty years. Which health issue has been brought to your attention more frequently, smoking or breast cancer? No smoking in the workplace. No smoking in public rooms. No smoking in restaurants. No smoking in public vehicles. Prohibition of the sale of cigarettes to minors. Warnings printed on cigarette packages. Smoking prevention advertisements in papers, on radio, and on television. Prohibition of tobacco advertising. Disproportionate taxation of cigarettes. Lawsuits against tobacco companies. The social, legal, political and financial resources that have been poured into dealing with the health issue of smoking have been massive. Complaining about breast cancer being a socially correct disease when compared to lung cancer ignores the simple fact that most lung cancer is preventable, and that massive resources have been and are committed to promoting prevention. As far as being barraged by commercials concerning a three day walk for breast cancer, that’s not a function of political correctness, that’s simply a media blitz to promote a specific fundraising activity. It could just as easily be a media blitz for any number of different activities. This month breast cancer, next month prostrate cancer, the following month lung cancer. Ever happen to be stuck watching television when Jerry Lewis’ Muscular Dystrophy telethon is on? Or when Heart and Stroke’s Big Bike comes to town? Or during Cancer Society’s Daffodil Days? As far as lung cancer goes, I can’t speak for where you live, but where I live, in Ontario, on an ongoing basis I come across a great many more smoking prevention advertisements than I do breast cancer advertisements. Again, I wish you and your wife the very best in dealing with her lung cancer. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/108 "2009-04-18T12:19:12Z")
Brazil, you are so far off topic that discussion with you is pointless. If you want to discuss the merits of race based scholarships, or beer advertising for that matter, take it to another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/109 "2009-04-18T12:26:16Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Please also note that dealing with a health issue means a lot more than simply directing funds toward medical interventions. Although not central to this thread, a topic worth looking into in another thread would be the cost/benefit ratio of funding for medical intervention as compared to that for public health. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/110 "2009-04-18T12:41:09Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Brazil, you are so far off topic that discussion with you is pointless. That’s incorrect. The thread is about political correctness and racial double standards often bring political correctness into sharper focus. Besides, if the discussion is limited to one or two narrow issues, then the epicyclists can easily invent rationalizations. Only by looking at these issues in the context of society as a whole can we see what’s going on. * * * Of course you didn’t answer my question, so I will answer it for you: > [@](#): > > If Google announced that it was setting up a special scholarship program for promising white students (and had no such program for students of other races), would you say that’s a “perfectly normal and healthy behaviour”? The answer is “no.” You (and others) would probably\* revile Google as racist. There probably\* would be a widespread boycott of Google. Similarly, if Google set up a special scholarship program for boys (and not girls), it would probably\* catch a lot of flak. On the other hand, if Google set up a special scholarship program for girls, folks like you would probably\* characterize it as “perfectly normal and healthy behaviour” ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/111 "2009-04-18T13:49:48Z")
Let’s have a look at citizen based public promotion of the health issues of lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and miscellaneous cancers. Citizen based public promotion requires a broad support base. That knocks miscellaneous cancers out of the park at the start, for usually there will not be a broad support base for a disease that only affect a very small portion of the population. Since support tends to be either self-interested or spouse- and family-interested, the support will tend to go to diseases that affect larger portions of the population, including lung cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer. Citizen based public promotion requires cancer survivors who have made it past the critical phase of their treatment and now have the energy to work on public promotion. That knocks lung cancer right out of the park when compared to breast cancer and prostate cancer, for the survival rates for lung cancer are too poor and too short. Citizen based public promotion requires people who are concerned with health. Traditionally, women have been more health conscious then men, so it is not surprising that they tend to be more frequently involved in citizen based efforts than men. Citizen based public promotion requires community based social networking. Traditionally, women have tended to have social networks that are more community based then those of men. It is easy for survivor support groups to arise out of a tradition of community based social networks. It is not so easy for survivor support groups to arise without such a tradition. The combination of women being more health conscious than men, and women being more involved in community based social networking, leads to breast cancer survivor support groups outdistancing prostate cancer survivor support groups. Out of these survivor support groups arise citizen based public promotion. Since breast cancer survivor support groups are often well established and well populated, they frequently and successfully mount citizen based breast cancer public promotions. Prostate cancer public promotions are fewer and further between simply because the underlying structure of well established and well populated prostrate cancer survivor support groups is usually not there. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/112 "2009-04-18T19:16:17Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I’m a little confused. A moment ago you seemed to be claiming that you did not have any explanation. And now you know. No, I’m just saying that my off-the-cuff guess as to the explanation is simpler than your off-the-cuff guess. > [@](#): > > In any event, “follow the money” is not really an explanation, since it just opens the door to another set of questions. > > Why would a corporation perceive that it’s in its interests to directly support the interests of some groups but not others? In the case of Revlon, I’m proposing that the vast majority of Revlon customers are women - therefore supporting research in issues which concern women helps Revlon achieve positive word of mouth among their target audience. > [@](#): > > Why would a corporation perceive a benefit in funding “minority” scholarships but not scholarships directed at white people? I assume it’s because minority groups’ money spends just like white people’s money - and, not incidentally, there’s more ‘minority’ people out there than white people. Corporations only ever care about one thing: making money. Supporting community causes is all just marketing. > [@](#): > > If it were just Revlon you might have a point, but the pattern I see is everywhere. It’s politically and socially acceptable to specifically advocate on behalf of certain groups but not others. The second half of your premise does not follow from the first. Just because it’s socially acceptable to advocate on behalf of breast cancer research does not mean that it’s socially unacceptable to advocate for testicular cancer research. As DMC pointed out, quite a bit of advocacy for men’s health issues is being carried out all around us. Why there are no ‘white only’ scholarships is a separate issue which involves historical and legal decisions which can’t be ignored. It’s not as simple as complaining that it’s socially unacceptable. The WHY of its unacceptability is still relevant. It’s only a problem if you can demonstrate that, even with the availability of minority scholarships, white people, overall as a group, are being shut out of colleges disproportionately. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/113 "2009-04-18T20:19:13Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > No, I’m just saying that my off-the-cuff guess as to the explanation is simpler than your off-the-cuff guess. :shrug: My explanation is not an off-the-cuff guess. > [@](#): > > In the case of Revlon, I’m proposing that the vast majority of Revlon customers are women - therefore supporting research in issues which concern women helps Revlon achieve positive word of mouth among their target audience. The vast majority of Revlon customers are people. So why not support research in issues which concern people? > [@](#): > > I assume it’s because minority groups’ money spends just like white people’s money - and, not incidentally, there’s more ‘minority’ people out there than white people. Corporations only ever care about one thing: making money. Supporting community causes is all just marketing. I have no idea what your point is here. > [@](#): > > The second half of your premise does not follow from the first. Just because it’s socially acceptable to advocate on behalf of breast cancer research does not mean that it’s socially unacceptable to advocate for testicular cancer research. As DMC pointed out, quite a bit of advocacy for men’s health issues is being carried out all around us. There’s a continuum at work. It’s not unacceptable to advocate on behalf of men, but less so than with women. That’s why I brought up racial issues, because the double-standard is a lot starker. > [@](#): > > Why there are no ‘white only’ scholarships is a separate issue which involves historical and legal decisions which can’t be ignored. It’s not as simple as complaining that it’s socially unacceptable. The WHY of its unacceptability is still relevant. The WHY is a different issue. Whether political correctness and identity politics is legitimate is a different issue. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/114 "2009-04-18T20:26:10Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Let’s have a look at citizen based public promotion of the health issues of lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and miscellaneous cancers. > > Citizen based public promotion requires a broad support base. That knocks miscellaneous cancers out of the park at the start, for usually there will not be a broad support base for a disease that only affect a very small portion of the population. I would guess that “miscellaneous cancers” affect far more people (and their families) than breast cancer. And that the total number of women in such a group is greater than the number of women who get breast cancer or who are in the families of people who get breast cancer. So why don’t we see a “walk for miscellaneous cancers?” > [@](#): > > Citizen based public promotion requires people who are concerned with health. Traditionally, women have been more health conscious then men Do you happen to have a cite for that? ---
**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:** [April 18, 2009, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/115 "2009-04-18T21:48:36Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I was listening to the radio months and months ago and someone was talking about why women’s hands and feet get colder than men’s. Blah blah bla de blah. But the interesting part went something like this: > > “So, people didn’t evolve to do this, except for women and people from Africa.” > > We-ell, kind of a big exception, isn’t it? > > Or I go to the cardiologist with my husband and sit reading the posters that describe heart attack symptoms. Waaaay down in the bottom right hand corner, it notes that women have different symptoms of heart attack. They didn’t list them. You might be interested in [this paper](http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=198535) on **Women’s health and medical trials** from the Journal of Clinical Investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/116 "2009-04-18T22:45:58Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I would guess that “miscellaneous cancers” affect far more people (and their families) than breast cancer. And that the total number of women in such a group is greater than the number of women who get breast cancer or who are in the families of people who get breast cancer. > > So why don’t we see a “walk for miscellaneous cancers?”… So why don’t **you** start one? There is absolutely nothing preventing your contribution to any of the excellent causes out there. Except your own inability to give a crap about anyone other than yourself. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/117 "2009-04-18T22:50:52Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Then why doesn’t Amheiser-Busch sponsor a walk for men’s cancers? (Or maybe they do? If they have, it certainly hasn’t gotten much attention.) Because their PR people figure (correctly or incorrectly), that [sponsoring small events at the local level](http://www.anheuser-busch.com/News.html) that avoid health problems is more to their benefit than championing research into solving health problems at the national level that will invite all sorts of invidious comparisons to the health problems associated with alcoholism and drunkenness. > [@brazil84](#): > > In any event, “follow the money” is not really an explanation, since it just opens the door to another set of questions. Much as posting bogeyman phrases that have vague and constantly shifting meanings such as “political correctness” and “identity politics” do. “Follow the money” provides a clear direction. Will a corporation built on providing services to women, (particularly women’s appearances), figure that it will get more bang for the buck sponsoring efforts to find a cure for an ailment that causes both death and disfigurement among women while a corporation built on providing a product associated with various health issues finds more bang for the buck avoiding health issues in its community outreach. > [@brazil84](#): > > Why would a corporation perceive that it’s in its interests to directly support the interests of some groups but not others? > . . . > If it were just Revlon you might have a point, but the pattern I see is everywhere. It’s politically and socially acceptable to specifically advocate on behalf of certain groups but not others. All companies have limited budgets and they tend to try to use the budgets intended for “good will” to appeal to their potential customer base. Direct financial calculations. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/118 "2009-04-18T23:24:35Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > So why don’t **you** start one? > > There is absolutely nothing preventing your contribution to any of the excellent causes out there. Except your own inability to give a crap about anyone other than yourself. Word. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/119 "2009-04-18T23:49:51Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > So why don’t **you** start one? > > There is absolutely nothing preventing your contribution to any of the excellent causes out there. Why would you assume that I have or haven’t done so? I am posting in this thread to criticize, not to solicit contributions or boast about my own good works. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005/120 "2009-04-19T00:09:35Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Except your own inability to give a crap about anyone other than yourself. This statement is neither established nor relevant to this discussion. If youi need to make personal assessments about other posters, do not do it in **Great Debates**. [/Modding] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-cancer/482005.md?page=7)