[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 79 KB, 406x560, 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3839923 No.3839923 [Reply] [Original]

>Driving my car home the other day
>See a billboard
>"Support Women's Cancer Research"
>It didn't even mention any specific type of cancer like breast cancer, just "Women's Cancer"

How does this make you feel?

Also, this is the largest Cancer fund in Australia, backed by government. Look at the sort of sexist shit they endorse:
www.cancer.org.au/Newsmedia/mediareleases/mediareleases2011/30September2011.htm

>> No.3839935

killsexism.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/men-the-disposable-sex-breast-cancer-vs-prostate-cancer/

Rage=engaged

>> No.3839929

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article579050.ece

"A man diagnosed with prostate cancer has only one-quarter of the cash spent on research into his disease compared to the amount devoted to a woman’s breast cancer. The wide discrepancy shows the scale of the discrimination against men. The two diseases kill similar numbers"

>> No.3839946

prostate cancer kills old men

breast, ovarian and cervical cancer kill younger women

this is ageism, not sexism

>> No.3839952

>>3839946
Proof or gtfo

>> No.3839969

>>3839929
wtf since when could i read the times


and on topic, so what? you're complaining because women are finally banding together to solve their problems? guys have been doing that for years, excluding women just as women here exclude men. at least in this respect we can say things are truly equal

>> No.3839971

>>3839952
no proof needed for a hypothesis

but people don't care when old people get sick nearly so much as when the young do

>> No.3839981

>>3839969
It's not a case of women banding together, it's unfair funding by the government.

It shouldn't be based on who whines more, just who needs it more.

>> No.3839982

>>3839952
go look up some basic stats yourself. different cancers occur at different times in your life

>> No.3839983

>and on topic, so what? you're complaining because women are finally banding together to solve their problems? guys have been doing that for years, excluding women just as women here exclude men. at least in this respect we can say things are truly equal
Eh, 1/10.

>> No.3839989

>>3839982
You made the claim, the burden is on you

Right now I'm happy to assume both types of cancer occur at roughly the same age

>> No.3839994

>>3839981
>just who needs it more.

women. breast cancer kills more than prostate cancer since the latter attacks older men and cancer slows down remarkably as you get older by that stages it can't be said for certain whether someone died of old age or the cancer

>> No.3839995

I'm more interested on knowing if all the funds are supporting X-type of cancer.

Then again, if I wanted to help, I'd donate directly to the research center instead of donating a few cents at X store. In other words, where does that money go?

Merchandise doesn't sell me, either ("look, I have this pink shirt as a proof I'm helping them!").

>> No.3839996

>>3839994
Once again, you need to post stats otherwise it's just b/s

>> No.3840001

>>3839923
>Implying men can't get breast cancer.

Fuck you, sexist OP.

>> No.3840003

>>3839989
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/incidence/age/


breast cancer attacks women. its the predominant form of cancer they suffer from at all ages, whereas prostate cancer only attacks in later life.

>> No.3840002

Did somebody say quints?

>> No.3840000

>>3839989
can't be bothered. maybe just use google?

>> No.3840006

>>3839996
>the sky is blue [citation needed]

you must eb a real fun guy to be around

>> No.3840014

>>3840003
Fair, the rates suggest that women are more prone to cancer by about maybe 10%? That's before the age of 50.

Since when does age have anything to do with it?

And since when does a 10% difference justify a 400% spending difference?

>> No.3840022

>>3840003
>cancer attacks

I think a different verb would be better....

>> No.3840027

it's not a case of prioritising genders, its a case of prioritising cancers.

cervical and breast cancer attack women at all stages in their lives. So cancer charities for women stack up.

testicul and prostate cancer attack men at different stages.So male cancer groups are more dispersed. It's not an issue of sexism, it's an issue of men not getting their shit together. testicular cancer groups don't often team up with prostate cancer groups in the same way women's charities do with their pink ribbons and marathons and shit.

>> No.3840028

>whereas prostate cancer only attacks in later life.

OK, what about testicular cancer? It's the biggest form of cancer for young men

>> No.3840031

>>3840028
see: >>3840027

>> No.3840034

>>3840027
Dude you can not deny that there is unfair funding.

>> No.3840037

>>3840034
I didn't say there wasn't but it's to do with the organisation of cancer support, not male vs female favouritism

>> No.3840041

>>3840022
i thought there might be a better word. suggestions?

>> No.3840043

>>3840037
I believe there's a lot of favouritism.

People are much more inclined to be sympathetic towards women, and the organisations know this and exploit it to shit.

>> No.3840052

>>3840043
Yes those organisation got their shit together to support their cause. in other words they are organised.

its not because they people in charge think men don't deserve sympathy or support.

>> No.3840056

it's about what we're trained to feel about different body parts - breast cancer charity gets lot of money because women are still seen as just childbearers and tits are a necessary part of that process. This allows a lot of testimonials and such about how mastectomies made a survivor "not feel like a real woman" or whatever. That resonates with people

On the other hand no one wants to hear about a guy's prostate. Hell, guys don't even want to hear about it and as I understand it a lot of them try to avoid checks.

>> No.3840059

>>3840043
>I believe

is that scientific?

>> No.3840060

>>3840052
If they suddenly started lobbying for "men's cancer" specifically, it would backfire. either because A) it would be seen as sexist, or B) it wouldn't win the sympathy of the general population and people rely on this stuff for jobs.

>> No.3840064

>>3840059
Nope, just my opinion

>> No.3840069

>>3840041

Cancer can occur.
>breast cancer occurs in women. its the predominant form of cancer they suffer from at all ages, whereas prostate cancer only occurs in later life.

It cannot "attack." Cancer results from any one of a number of errors in the mechanisms which control cell division. It's like saying that your DNA attacks to produce proteins. Shit don't make sense.

>> No.3840071

For those of you saying that there is no sexism in this, imagine for a second you are driving along like OP and you see a sign saying "Support Men's Cancer Research"

And then imagine that a government funded research organisation started putting out ads saying "Real women support X-cancer"

It wouldn't go down very well and you all know it

>> No.3840084

>>3840064
Then it's off topic


>>3840056

it also may have something to do with the fact that fewer men are actually willing to go to the doctor for regular health checks unlike women.


>>3840060

yes if THEY started supporting another cancer group they're attention would be divided and chances are less progress would come out of any cancer research. But no one's stopping a guy from setting up charities or research funds. But guys don't seem to be as willing to do it. maybe it's because you've got the whole proud alpha male thing . I know because im kinda like it as well. I worry if i ever get cancer i probably wouldn't tell anyone about it until its too late

>> No.3840086

>>3840069
The word "attack" is used purposely because it implores sympathy. In reality, cancer spreads slowly and doesn't know what it's doing, it just "grows"

>> No.3840094

>>3840086
you really are reading far too much into it. See what you want to see. replace the word attack in this thread with occur. I'm fine with it.

>> No.3840099

>>3840071
Yes I wouldn't like to live in a world of highly contrived examples from your imagination.

>> No.3840102

>>3840086
I'm going to assume ignorance instead of maliciousness.

>> No.3840103

ITT: so many moral faggots

>> No.3840112

>>3840069
I know how cancer develops. I simply used the word attack (for types of cancer btw male and female) because when cancer occurs it's not very pleasant for the host, is it whether they're male or female

>> No.3840118
File: 37 KB, 526x473, 1310971042546.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3840118

>Not having a general cancer day
Problem, society?

>> No.3840119

>>3840102
it's not either, it's that the distinction is irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned. see: >>3840112

>> No.3840133

>>3840103
>moral faggots
>>>/b/

if you're truly amoral, you relinquish your right to pass judgement.

>> No.3840146

>>3840071

Pretty much this. Feminism = Double standards.

Also I have to say that testicular and prostate cancer awareness is not nearly as big as breast cancer awareness. In fact, I can't even compare them because I don't remember of ever being "awared" of balls cancer.

>> No.3840157

>>3840112

>This unemployment is attacking me.
>This being fired is attacking me.
>This diarrhea is attacking me.
>My parents' divorce is attacking me.

None of those sentences make any sense, but all are unpleasant experiences.
I was simply suggesting that saying "attacks" implies an incorrect understanding of the mechanisms involved in cancer, and can only serve to increase misunderstanding.

>> No.3840175

>women fight to make their diseases noticed because of discrimination
>they succeed
>men who are not willing to fight expect the women to hand them what they worked for so everything is "fair"
>they get nothing

Mediocrity can and should die of nut cancer.

>> No.3840201

>>3840175

How do you know men haven't tried to campaign for the awareness of cancer that affects men? Do you know what sexism is? Feminism?

>> No.3840206

>>3840175
>Fight for "equality"
>Disregard other sex
woman logic

>> No.3840253

>>3840102
Good sheep.

>> No.3840264

>>3840201

Why do you irrationally insist I was referring to all men? Typical manbaby logic.