This has bothered me for as long as I can remember. Why is there a massive and vocal breast-cancer awareness/fund-raising machine? Why not just- cancer? Does the prospect of defenseless and cheated 8 year olds bother women less than the idea of their own demographic getting cancer?

I figured it was this, bear with me:

The lot that gains its political support by feigning sympathy and compassion for everything supports this bullshit. Now in order to be taken seriously by anyone afraid of breast-cancer, you have to kiss their ass or at least pay them lip service, because if you dont, you obviously dont care about curing breast-cancer.

If I were a candidate for Congress and stepped forward saying, "Cut this shit out, how about just plain ol' cancer research and medicine?" they would take this as some sort of blow to feminism and use it against me.

Anyway, Breast Cancer stuff bothers me a lot.

i found your reasoning to be as flawed as any man hating radical feminist.

they separate it into different types because people can relate to specific cancers. if somebody gets breast cancer and survives, they will want to work for a cure for breast cancer, not prostate cancer. a family member of someone with breast cancer will go hmm breast cancer that has affected me i will donate.

there are many different funds for many different diseases. i think this is one issue which you should just get over.

Breast Cancer is one of the most common killers in women. AIDS kills alot of people too, and they have just as many AIDS programs and fund raisers. The more people a cancer kills, the more attention it gets.

Jacross, that is bullshit. I personally had a few people within my family die of different types of cancer, and I have no intention of focusing on one type of it. Also, my fathers friends wife just died of breast cancer, and he feels the same way as I do.

I'm going with Spirit. I think it probably just makes them feel like less of a woman if they do survive it. After all, what's on the outside is what really counts, right?

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1009-08.htm

http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/articles/breastcancer.html

Breast Cancer is highly marketed, and alot of the funds are based on hidden intentions, but some of it is honest. Breast Cancer is one of the most common killers of women, so it's easy for feminists to latch onto it.

sky im gonna leave this one to you. the sheer lack of logic disturbs me.

but thankyou malaria, your post truely opened my eyes.

i think your father's friend has a little more on his mind than some charity.

and your example of not focusing on one type of cancer involves a family that has battled with a variety of different cancers. did you even think about this before you typed?

Yes, and I knew you would say something stupid about it.

Forget it.

You got that right Spirit. most of these disease charities are all fucked up. They probably go after breast cancer with such ferocity because they figure they can get their whole demographic to support it, and because its the most common for that demographic. I'm surprised there aren't more female celebs backing it. Now they're even trying to get the men, I've seen shit where they get on TV and say "men have it to.. GIMME MONEY BASTIDS!". I hate all of these fucking hypocritical diseased celebrites and the foundations that come with it. My grandfather has parkinson's and it pisses me off to see Micheal J. Fox and some of these other bastards going before the House and Senate begging for money to save their own asses. He wasn't in any fuckin charities before he got that shit. I would rather see them never get it now.

Basically my point is, fuck charaties. Give the money to me.

Alot of the breast cancer stuff is trying to encourage women to get mamograms.

I agree about the charities.

However, I know someone with breast cancer who will probably die from it. I now have a different opinion about the topic.

Nox

You also then know someone who has cancer. A lot of people have cancer. Its stupid that people have ribbons for breast cancer while ignoring other kinds.

What is the difference when death is still death and cancer is still cancer? Why focus on one certain type. Bah.

Because mamograms won't detect esophagal cancer...

the difference between spirit and malaria is that at the end of the day this really is pointless, malaria is going keen like it is a huge conspiracy.

Nothing could have varied my response to what you said malaria then your lame cutdown about "i knew you'd say something stupid". if you can logically defend what you said in reference to my commentary then I'd like to hear it. The thing is I dont think you can.

the reason there are different organisations for different cancers is because different cancers have different causes and different treatments.

Each cancer requires specific research into that area in order for any progress to be made. The fact that you think the best way to go is to find a magical cure all highlights the low level intellectual thought you really have given the matter.

I agree. Breast Cancer is used to compare the suffering of women with the suffering of imaginary jews in the imaginary jewish holocaust. It is used as a means to cover up the sufferings of White men.

Besides that, these women wouldn't be getting breast cancer if they would let more disease-free men like me fondle them (early detection!).

[This message has been edited by SATURNROCKETX (edited 10-27-2002).]

It's true that research must be done into specific types of cancer, but that doesn't have to do with the body part, it has to do with the type of growth.

If one cancer kills more people then another cancer, why shouldn't it get more money?

Breast Cancer NEEDS alot more money then, say, leukemia, since it kills 5 times as many people. An argument can be made that cancers can be cateogrized together for fundraisers, but then couldn't all diseases be categorized together?

If you start raising funds for cancer, Spirit will be saying "This is unfair to people who have spinal meningitis."

No I wont. I just dont understand why its trendy to want to protect women but not children. There are ribbons to protect queers and junkiees, but not kids with bad luck.

They wanna protect everyone, but the diseases that kill the most people get the most money.

If their was a cancer that killed as many men as breast cancer kills women, I'm sure we'd be hearing the same crap about it.

Prostate cancer comes close, it is the number one cancer killer for men. We hear about it alot, at least in Australia.

VeneFrigus that's what I was saying but don't forget my original point about motivations

Magic cure, nice.

Cancer is still cancer, and all types must have some common ground, or else they wouldn't all be called ___ cancer. Treatment varies but not very much.

If you want to fund something, fund a research of cancer in general. Death is still death. Wait until one of your family members dies of a 'minority cancer,' then we'll see how much statistics matter to you.

All cancers get as much money as they need. Breast Cancer charities raise enough money to reat everyone with breast cancer, while all other cancer charities raise enough to treat people with various other cancers.

Why should a cancer that kills millions of people get the same amount of research as one that kills thousands? And treatments are completely different varying on where the cancer's growing. Try treating cancer in the prostate the same way you treat it in the small intestine. You'll basicaly kill the majority of your patients more painfully then the cancer would.

It does not have to do with where it is, it has to do with what is is. And if we're ever to discover an effective cure it would most likely work against all.

Uncl, your points have nothing to do with the fact that there are ribbons people wear to save women with breast cancer, and to save homos and junkiees from a preventable disease, but not kids with leukemia. Is there no trend you oppose?