There is really little more loathsome than the male feminist who throws his gender under the bus in order to win affections from the women around him."The kind who thinks that feigning disgust at their own gender in an attempt to placate female feminists with the mentalities of toddlers will win them some sort of affection."
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about all male feminists. I am talking about a certain type. You know the kind. The kind displayed in...
The trouble is, it works. A lot of the male feminists writing for journals are even more extreme that most of the women.
“…the whole thing is just a really well-disguised tantrum that guys are content to throw to make it seem like prostate cancer research is as important as research towards curing women’s cancers…”
I've done my best to screenshot this because Feminist journals are subject to Stalinist-style 'editing' of history, to view, click on the image then right click, view image and zoom in with "control +", or just save the image and view it in an editor". Blogger is clumsy at dealing with images, alas.
There's no good way of dealing with this sort of revisionism although there are attempts to partially counter it with systems like the wayback machine.
Either they are sociopaths happy to see their own kind slaughtered so long as they get to be last, or their self-loathing is reaching the sort of medieval extreme that led people to cut the circulation to body parts, letting them die and rot off, crying "see God! I hate myself as much as you, please spare me your wrath!"
"About 29,720 men will die of prostate cancer "
"About 39,620 women will die from breast cancer"
"About 410 men will die from breast cancer" (1.03%, despite the fact it is usually quoted as less than 1%)
There were 178.6 million females in the United States in 2009. The number of males was 151.4 million.
So the relative incidence of (prostate/breast )cancers in men and women are approx equal. (88.5%)
Now, the amount raised through charities for breast cancer is pretty difficult to assess but apart from Movember, there's nothing for men (and male breast cancer patients don't even get access to mammograms).
Breast cancer charities are a money spinner.
"For eight years, American Breast Cancer Foundation paid Joseph Wolf's telemarketing company to generate donations.His mother, Phyllis Wolf, had founded the Baltimore-based charity and was its president until she was forced to resign in 2010.
While she ran the charity, her son's company, Non Profit Promotions, collected $18 million in telemarketing fees."
How much does NCI spend each year on research for specific types of cancer?The following table shows NCI spending in FY 2010, 2011, and 2012 for the 10 most common types of cancer in the United States, based on 2012 incidence estimates (and excluding basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers).** The cancers are listed in decreasing order of incidence (i.e., from the highest number of new cases to the lowest).
**Source of spending data: NCI Office of Budget and Finance (OBF).
|Cancer Type||2010 Spending|
So there's a real gap here, where one charity out of the hundreds or even thousands can embezzle the equivalent of 6.8% of the total funding for prostate cancer and get away with it for years.
Manley's argument is that old white men deserve to die. He never offers this honestly, of course, and probably is going to be one himself (most US feminists are white).
Why? Because people outside the west die young. So spending charity on old men (the main victim of prostate cancer) is bad.
This is a stupid, ageist, sexist argument. Stupid, because the stuff that kills Chinese people, for example, is air pollution, and that exists for reasons that a US charity cannot solve.
Sexist, because he never suggests cutting charities for old women, and is keen on telling men suffering to "man up" (Feminism means escaping your gender roles, so long as you are female).
And ageist, because he's suggesting that the lives of old people .. just don't matter.
People under 20 years of age made up over a quarter of the U.S. population (27.3%), and people age 65 and over made up one-eighth (12.8%) in 2009. The national median age was 36.8 years.
Perhaps he should redirect the charities to dealing with the terrible scourge of these old white men he hates so much?
Is Alex Manley's future something square and crunchy?