Are feminists outraged that prostate cancer is as (or more) common than breast cancer -?
Posted on Jul 14, 2010 under breast cancer |- yet only receives a fraction of what breast cancer research gets, in government funding?
Google hits "breast cancer" = 40,300,000
Google hits "prostate cancer" = 11,000,000
http://www.prostatecancerpetition.org/
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/men.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/women.htm
Men who die from prostate cancer (per 100,000) =23.6
Women who die from breast cancer (per 100,000) =23.4
I see, so it’s all men’s fault… but then what isn’t, right?
Prostate cancer has a 100% survival rate (5 years), if found early.
Breast cancer has a 98% survival rate (5 years), if found early.
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Look at the mortality rates. Prostate cancer is easily detectable and easily treated if caught early enough. And treatment doesn’t entail disfigurement. Breast cancer is much deadlier, harder to detect, and surgical treatment can be quite emotionally and psychologically damaging.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Everything about cancer outrages me.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Correct me if I’m wrong but prostate cancer is kind of a newer topic than breast cancer. Over time it will get (should get) more funding.
EDIT: Guess I’m wrong, oops.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Prostate cancer is 100% curable if addressed early. That means a man has to go to a doctor if he has any signs of it. That has been well publicized. But you know men, especially the more ‘masculine’ or macho ones don’t like to go to the doctor.
Breast cancer is not.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
If this bothers you, start a foundation, like the Komen family did. Volunteer. Get the word out. The Komens had far more to do with upping recognition of breast cancer than feminists did.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Well, women face disfigurement whereas men merely risk losing all sexual function, so obviously THAT has less emotional impact.
EDIT
Some people missed the sarcasm.
It is DEFINITELY traumatic for a man to lose all sexual function. It is OUTRAGEOUS to suggest a woman is psychologically affected but a man is not.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
They should be.
I mean, I’m offended by Campbell’s soup company, the fast food KFC, and the Deal or No Deal gameshow because they’ve all promoted fights against breast cancer but have totally ignored prostate cancer. I may have not done anything to support the fight against prostate cancer, but I haven’t done anything to support the fight against breast cancer either.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
they aren’t
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Feminists simply don’t care about issues that effect men, and will do everything they can to hog any available funding for women only. It’s just another example of how very cold hearted feminists are.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
I would think so unless they were selfish imature people.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Why should we be outraged? A cure needs to be found for BOTH types of cancer. By the way, there are also men who get breast cancer.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
most men who live into very old age have prostate cancer and succumb to something else
it’s not a competition
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Yes, they’re outraged. Many women in Sweden are so outraged, they’ve staged a media circus in which they cut off their own tit$, just to make people aware of the UNFAIRNESS of the system.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Cancer is cancer. It’s not a competition to see who dies more from it or which one is more important. Breast cancer gets more funding because ANYONE can get breast cancer. I can’t get prostate cancer. You AND I can get breast cancer.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
EVERTHING male outrages feminists.