Actually I suspect we are talking about public funds too. I did mention them a few posts back.
Of course not. However, I am free to criticize their decisions as well as the aspects of our culture which informed those decisions.
That specific practice is bad (in my opinion) only in that it’s ugly. As you imply, people have a right to donate to whatever charity they want. If some stormfronter wants to make a donation to Katrina victims with the the stipulation that their money help only white people, they have a right to do that too. If they can find somebody to accept the donation, of course.
Does that mean yes or no? And by the way, would you mind showing me where I claimed (or speculated) that “it’s socially unacceptable to seek funding for prostate cancer”?
Do I really need to quote your own posts at you? You said it’s acceptable to seek funds for a disease that benefits women at the expense of men, but less acceptable to seek funds for a disease like prostate cancer at the expense of illnesses that strike women. You’ve failed to cite this, but hey, you’ve said it, so that should be good enough I guess.
“Less acceptable” is not the same thing as “unacceptable.” I don’t debate with people who strawman me. Please either show me where I said it was unacceptable or admit I said no such thing.
Your choice.
Before I go off looking for cites, I need to figure out exactly where your disagreement is (and indeed, whether you disagree at all). You seem to agree that that it’s more politically and socially acceptable to specifically promote the interests of men as opposed to those of women.
Are you saying that this principle does not apply in the case of research and treatment of diseases which predominantly affect particular groups?
I would think that you & your wife have some real problems right now. But you’re getting depressed because of your perception that another malignancy is more “politically correct.”
The American Cancer Society raises funds to fight all malignancies. Other groups exist because people went to the trouble of starting them. They didn’t whine about how unfair it was that other people were raising money & awareness.
Please–don’t waste your time hating other cancer victims. Or just women in general. Is your wife “blaming” others rather than blaming herself for the years of smoking? All that is irrelevant right now. You’ve got a real difficulties ahead of you. Please help your wife concentrate on getting well. Or, at least, enjoying the time remaining.
The last sentence here muddies your point. Having someone in company leadership who is actively involved in Cause A will likely bias the company’s charitable giving towards Cause A. Not only should this not be a surprise, but your anecdote doesn’t allow us to infer anything about society’s inherent bias towards Cause B.
Why exactly do you think that is and how does this counter anything I’ve written?
My point is that breast cancer has done a really good job of making people care about breast cancer by getting people to talk about it and visibly show support for it, whereas other cancers have not been as successful on that front either because of less effective advertising strategies or because the at-risk group (men, in the case of prostate cancer) are less likely to join the movement, so to speak . Pointing out the absence of prostate advocates among the leadership of your company doesn’t constitute an argument against this point. If anything, it supports it.
No one is preventing those “old boys” from picking up the prostate cancer mantle (or heart disease, or whatever).
It was a fair paraphrase. And you have still not supported this point.
You’re not going to look for cites. You’ll do what you always do: when you are asked to prove a claim, you’ll engage people in pointless analogies and arguments about what you said. It’s a stalling tactic and nothing else.
Yes. There’s not much call for ‘equal pay for equal work’ for men, for example. If you believe it’s not as acceptable to ask for prostate cancer research funding (or testicular cancer funding or some similar disease), you should support your claim. The Prostate Cancer Foundation says:
No, you set up a strawman. I’m not claiming that it’s socially unacceptable to advocate specifically on behalf of men. I’m claiming that it’s less acceptable than with women.
Both have higher incidents by age, but breast cancer is much more likely to strike a woman younger than 40 than prostate cancer is. More men get prostate cancer than women get breast cancer - but those men are often fairly old. You don’t get the PR mileage out of 60 year old men with a good cure rate as you do from 35 year old women getting cured. Plus, a 35 year old woman is going to have a lot of friends and family - likely generations going each direction - who support her and the cause. Where a 65 or 70 year old man has fewer friends and family left to support him and his cause.
My sister’s group for the Komen march this year was 40 people - it blurs a little since so many people know more than one person who has had breast cancer - so some of those people had more than one name on their number.
Would you agree that that the rate of colorectal cancer for folks under 40 is comparable to or higher than the rate of breast cancer for folks under 40?
Why do you assume I haven’t? I spent a few minutes and superficially it appeared that the rates for colorectal cancer were equal or higher than those for breast cancer for people under 40. Before looking further, I prefer to wait and see if there’s any serious dispute about the issue.
I have no reason to believe that concern for women with breast cancer is limited to women or that concern for prostate cancer victims is limited to men. The world is not as divided as some here seem to view it. We don’t live in compartments. Maybe there is only one group.
Paget’s disease is a softening of the bones. That can happen in many places in the body. I don’t think my adenoids ever came close to being in my breasts. Angio- usually refers to the heart, doesn’t it? “lobular carcinoma” probably relates to the lungs.
It’s obvious that I’m not a medical professional, but I don’t think these are under the umbrella of breast cancers. Could you provide a cite please?
jsc1953, try to fight it with a positive attitude. Learn what you can about recent success stories and hang in there! Find others who have been through this.
Why the focus on women regarding the lack of focus on prostate cancer or the like?
My understanding with prostate cancer is the main issue is one men have in general - they tend to be terrible at health maintenance. They go to get checkups less, go to doctors when they’re ill, get help later etc etc.
There are efforts going on now to get guys more aware about it, but then theres the small issue of the ‘ick factor’ as well, convincing guys to go get prostate checks hasnt exactly an easy sell, in Australia anyhow. That and until recently they werent even recommending checkups until over 50, so it wasnt even thought about by most guys till then, and often not even after.
Lung cancer wise, as said the main thing seems to be for now that prevention is by far the most effective intervention. Its less a case of blame and more a case of ‘too late’.