I meant to link to this ages ago when people were going on about "Race for Life".....

[curlew]

.........there's nothing stopping you, boys and men!

"Whilst events such as Race for Life have increased the awareness of possible cancer risks for women, there has been relatively little in the UK highlighting the corresponding dangers for men"

So if ths was the situation but it was about women, would it be acceptable? One 5 k run in Kent that raises hardly any money and has very little impact on the level of knowledge about cancers specific to men.
Compared to a national set of events, that raise millions each year, gets full publicity coverage nationally and locally.

All cancer treatment needs support not male or female, information should be available to all about any kind of cancer although some cancers seem to receive repeatedly more publicity than others. In some ways especially with the whole pinkness that goes with Race for Life, it feels like the same type of segregation that those campaigning for the end of pink and blue toys are on about. Why should we have fundraising along gendered lines unless it is to promote a particular view of women.

The first Race for Life only had 600 odd runners....

Leith, Movember has grown pretty quickly.

Two years ago i bought the Estee Lauder breast cancer ribbon brooch. They do a different design every October for Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
All the stones on it are pink apart from one stone which is blue which is because of the men who develop breast cancer.

My FIL was treated for breast cancer and was helped by all the research this charity has funded. He thinks Race for Life is a great idea.

Dark eyes I like the sound of the broach, especially as I am not saying either sex is more deserving of funding. My fear though is that it is being turned in to a battle for resources that has a part centred round the gender of the cancer suffer.

Movember is interesting as from the website it looks like they too divert funds to a male only cancer charity. I disagree with that also as in my view what is happening is the normalisation of special pleading. We should not have to have a situation where two charities chase the same money or worse seek to make those who have survived breast or prostrate cancer pay so that both they and others can continue to receive world class treatment. We all know that rationing takes place, what will be the response if one health board (We still have those in Scotland) turns round and says that the latest cervical cancer drug, the one that works best, the one that everyone wants, will not be available because the group advocating for the latest and best prostrate drug got the last remaining money? It will happen

But Leith there are lots of "single disease" charities, I'm sure there are lung cancer ones, for example. Different cancers need different treatments and it just so happens there are some cancers that affect only one sex.

I think this is one of those situations where you an't really complain about where people choose to donate their money.

I think children's charities are more important than national trust type things. But I can't say people should give money to my thing over their thing.

If more women are willing to get out there and put on stupid costumes and raise money for the women in their lives..well the other side is that more men should run. Not that more of the money raised by women in honor of their loved ones go to men.

I don't know if I agree there are cancers that only 'affect' one gender. I can understand people wanting to support. But also, breast cancer isn't like (say) cervical or prostate cancer - men can get it too.

I just don't follow why men don't put more effort in if they really want to do a run. That makes me quite sad and cross, that every now and again there's a huge fuss, then a sheepish 'oh, what, you mean we could do our own? Well ... but ... that sounds awfully like hard work ... can't we just do this one ...' ... and then silence.

Then men who are genuinely concerned don't seem bothered by any of this crap.

Just to confuse things further I have to say I agree with lots of what LRD just said. So whilst that shock settles in:

I agree that it is indeed crap that men in general seem to care less about these issues. Although for all manner of illnesses and diseases, like heart problems, stroke, parkinsons etc. The situation seems to change radically once the individual male is hit with one of these issues. I suspect though that some, perhaps a small minority of women are exactly the same. it is perhaps more noticeable in the young and the probable change comes from women having more education aimed at them for a whole load of risks some to do with real health concerns others to do with society and perceptions of normality. Even then I think it's quite a nuanced thing.

We are probably able to agree that the big over arching P is behind the fact that men dont care and women do, the result though is that women have got themselves organised, done a brilliant job of advocating for better well resourced ell women clinics, screenings etc. However it's still all very pink, it will all be fine unless and until men get themselves organised, then both sides, one pink and one blue will be competing for the same resources both from public money and from the charity sources.

In the meantime this is still a feminist isse in that women's family members who are male are much more likely to die from ignorance and lack of resources. BTW I am not saying this is an anti male plot, I think the whole focus of the pink driven cancer causes is designed and driven by marketing and pr folks who have gone for the easy option of identifying women and girls as a separate issue (More than likely for the very best of intentions) but have done women and men a disservice by creating a way for resources to be targeted in an unhelpful way.

Or men are scared, too. Which I think is understood to be a big problem.

However, I do not believe that more pink, more women's imput, is likely to help, and I certainly don't see why you think resources are being 'targeted in an unhelpful way'?

Race for Life is highly successful. It's great.

There need also to be other initiatives.

Women cannot do all the shitwork, 1) because why should they, they're kinda busy with the whole, you know, breast cancer thing, and 2) it would in any case very likely be counter-productive for the women who work so hard for Race for Life to throw their energies behind (say) prostate cancer, as we've already established men and women are conditioned to respond differently to illness.

I really seriously believe this. It is not helpful to feminize illness. Obviously it is exceptionally shit for women, but it is also shit for men.

I don't live too far from the Men's event and I hadn't heard anything about it! Seems a token gesture to me.

Can't see why the already well established Race for Life(s) in this locality can't share some of it's advertising power with the Mens event.

Also I think these events need a little nurturing time, not written off if they don't generate for a couple of years (Race for Moore). After all the RFL started off on a small scale.

But would that work?

Or would men come to feel that illness is somehow woman-dominated?

We do know men are less likely to go to a doctor, partly because they don't see it as 'masculine' to do so (obvously this is a generalization and many men aren't worried about restrictive ideas of masculinity, but we're worried about the people who are and who miss out on treatment).

I'm afraid I think the grousing about the Race for Life is simply that: grousing. It's not productive as the people who're making a fuss haven't thought how unhelpful it'd be to put their plans in place.

What grousing LRD? I have heard those that argue that Race for Life should be open to both genders, which in some ways would seem to be a solution to what I have said upthread. However I am not saying that women and men should not raise funds for specific charities, only that those charities should not set up a "them and us" situation.

Men will never get cervicle cancer, women will never get testes cancer, I do not want a battle about who's need is greater.

Another thought would be that those running specifically for breast cancer probably think they are helping specifically women, predominantly they are, but the research and even the differing treatment regimes are used in the treatment of men with the same condition.

From what my boys have been telling me there is very much an increase in reaching out to men about Prostate cancer through football. Leaflets and fundraising at grounds is starting to be used so guess they are doing something about raising awareness and money. Guess that is much more men focused.

leith - I already explained this?

Did we cross-post perhaps?

sausage - that sounds brilliant, very sensible. I would hope that that would make men feel it wasn't a sign of weakness to admit to needing to see the doctor (which sadly seems to be the worry lots of men and boys have).

I can't help noticing the irony that the two contact names for establishing and organising this event are female.

Of course they could just be two men with very feminine names. Because both men and women can have unusual names even though the majority of people participating in this event may not realise that.