Pity there is neither a debate here nor a servicable pit to remove to. See y’all in another thread.
This is interesting. I have been thinking about the advertising for breast cancer and was actually going to put something in the pit about it.
The number 1 cancer type is prostate cancer (in 2005, anyway) but I have seldom even heard it mentioned on TV or in the papers, yet, hardly a month goes by without hearing about a race or run or walk or something else about breast cancer.
I realize that breast cancer can be disfiguring and there is tremendous psychological damage, but, hey, lets get some perspective.
Bob
I have no idea where you live or what you read where you never or rarely encounter references to prostate cancer, I see many such references all the time.
That notwithstanding, there are probably a lot of reasons why prostate cancer gets fewer public campigns: it is an embarrassing cancer that most men would prefer to ignore; it is already rather easily treatable*, it strikes far more men in their later years while breast cancer strikes a lot of women in their middle years and a high number below 35, and prostate cancer typically takes quite a while to bring about death while its victims tend to live productive lives until its final stages.
- Prostate cancer has the unfortunate habit of killing its victim with or without treatment, but the various treatments do tend to push the typical morbidity back up above the age of 60 when it is more “acceptable” to society for a person to succumb. I suspect that if breast cancr primarily struck women abve the age of 60, it would get less press and support, as well.
You haven’t provided any actual proof. All you’ve done is point to an example and declare that your explanation must be correct.
Because no one product is attractive to all people, therefore advertising efforts are aimed carefully at specific sub-groups which have been determined, after serious study, to contain the people most likely to be susceptible to the product’s advertising.
Similarly, charitable groups aim their efforts at specific causes and specific people for whom those causes resonate. A charity who’s focus group was “everyone” would find very little success.
There’s no mystery about that. There’s a whole industry devoted to these sorts of marketing considerations.
I had two points, towit:
-
Some corporations provide community outreach aimed at minority groups - for example, minority based scholarships - because they’ve determined that it’s important for their advertising efforts to achieve positive word of mouth amongst minority groups and those sypmathetic to them.
-
While you’re correct that providing scholarships aimed at white people would be socially unacceptable, the historical & legal reasons for its unacceptability are too complex to declare it simply a matter for political correctness run amok.
Even if you demonstrate that there are, numerically, more advocacy groups devoted to women than men - something for which you have not even begun to provide numbers - it wouldn’t mean that advocacy on behalf of men was less acceptable. In order to prove the unacceptability, you’d have to provide instances of men’s advocacy efforts being disparaged.
The double-standard you point to in the racial issues, is, as I said above, the result of historical and legal actions that don’t have any direct comparison to gender issues. It’s not a useful comparison.
I agree with this much - it’s worth asking if the efforts at establishing such fields as ‘women’s issues’ and ‘men’s issues’ have really been helpful at addressing the issues themselves. And political correctness is not necessarily a bad thing where it encourages an understanding and improvement on equality & courtesy.
tomndeb - One of the most important parts about breast cancer awareness is that it’s educating people to do their monthly exams. It wasn’t that long ago that breast cancer was only discussed in whispers. The breast cancer awareness efforts have made real impact in changing the way women feel about touching their own breasts and checking up regularly.
I think a better effort for men’s groups would be to focus on doing monthly testicular check ups in addition to regular self breast exams. Yeah, it’s a little embarrassing. Embarrassed is better than sick.
Yes, that part of my response was out of line here.
You are criticizing the good works of others in this thread.
Please–let us know about those good causes that are being neglected! As I was just reminded, this is not The Pit.
The ball is in your court.
First, sorry about the cancer.
There is a sense that lung cancer is “earned” by bas behavior - even though there are subtypes that are not driven by smoking - I’ve known people who have died from both types. Lung cancer really is more like three to six types of cancer, all of which happen to occur in the lungs.
Non-lung cancers have much less stigma than lung cancer.
For better or worse, cancers are funded, in part, by the priorities expressed by the patients and by the medical people - both clinical and research focused.
Breast cancer has a sympathetic profile, whether it strikes the 33 year old mom, or the 55 year old grandmother.
The Komen People have had had success in engaging the public and corporate partners. The AHA has had some success in promoting heart disease awareness for women through their red dress events.
The raging debate in terms of prostate cancer concerns the utility of screening, including the PSA test. The current battle, led by Otis Brawley and friends, is that PSA screening does more harm than good, at least as measured at a population level. The prostate people lack a certain proficiency in promoting their cause - I suppose that little blue donuts make a less appealing symbol than those pink ribbons. Then again, the view of prostate cancer is more a matter of a cancer striking old men, where breast cancer is viewed as striking down mothers and wives.
The Lieukemia/Lymphoma people have had plenty of success - see, for example, those purple-shirted runners and bicyclers and triathaloners.
The key to the success of these fundraising programs, be they public or private is initiative. It is necessary to engage the patients, families, survivors and clinicians involved with the disease.
While there are valid issues in hashing out the allocation of funds, I’m not inclined to fault people for advocatiing their cause.
Having said that, there is not a basis for a single, coherent cancer movement - the cancer umbrella covers many, many different disease. While there is the potential for multi-cancer treatments (see, for example, Gleevec, Taxol, EGFR antagonists and the like), there is much that depends on the individual cacner in question.
From a private fund-raising/advocacy perspective, you’re not going to grab people over “cancer.” You’ll engage someone for lung cancer if someone they knew died from it, or has it. It’s easier to market movements for diseases that strike women and children.
As for funding cancers in the same way - this assumes that all cancers are in the same place in terms of programming requirements. With some cancers, there is a strong base of clinical knowledge and treatments that can lead to many “shovel ready” activities. For others, we basically don’t have the basis for clinical trials.
Finally, there are significant disparities between what is being done and what is beiing covered in the media.
This was painful for me to read. I didn’t get from the OP that they were hating other cancer victims, or other women. Or, necessarily, that his wife was a smoker.
They do have real difficulties ahead of them, and some of those difficulties include the emotional experience of being a person with cancer, or being married to a person with cancer. It includes grief and anger, among other things. Don’t kick 'em while they’re down, huh?
StuffLikeThatThere, cancer* survivor
*A neutral kind, not one that caused people to assume vicious things about me, like I was getting what I deserved.
Depending on how you define “good works,” yes.
For one thing, see the OP.
That’s not all I’ve done, but let me ask you this: How many examples of political correctness and identity politics would satisfy you that these forces are pervasive in America today?
Exactly. That’s what identity politics is all about.
So, you condemn private corporations for using their own funds to promote actions that will enhance thier profit lines and you want to pretend that their motives are “political”?
There’s glory for you.
This blog is sort of interesting on the fundraising differences between the two:
http://www.trentstampstake.org/2007/11/maybe-women-are-just-better-fundraisers.html
And from the linked article:
Shit, I’m starting to think Post 102 is invisible. There are dozens of links that refute brazil84, as well as the link just posted by Dangerosa. 