Women's charity campaign male humiliation

Women’s Cancer Campaign Features Male Humiliation

Why would a women’s anti-cancer campaign build a series of advertisements that features men in humiliating ways?

Because they can.

In Australia, a women’s anti-cancer fundraising event called “Girl’s Night In” is run every year.

As the title of the campaign suggests, it’s a women’s campaign that has chosen to promote and run itself within the community of women. That’s all well and good, but why do they feel that it’s acceptable to make a point of showing men in a humiliating way?

The campaign runs through September and October and this year (2009) it consists of at least four television advertisements that you can view directly from the campaign’s web site. We have included descriptions and screen captures below.

In the first advertisement, titled “Banished”, a man is seen taking out the garbage in the evening. After he has left the house and reached the kerb, the door to the house is heard to be shut and deliberately locked. The surprised and confused man looks around only to notice that the street is full of men who have been locked out of their houses holding the garbage too. The advertisement concludes with a banner “The girls are coming” with a web address at the bottom of the screen girlsnightin.com.au .

GirlsNightIn-Banished1 GirlsNightIn-Banished2 GirlsNightIn-Banished3 GirlsNightIn-Banished4

I have personally seen this advertisement more times than I can remember over the last couple of weeks. What a waste of money! It does nothing other than to advertise that more advertisements shall follow presumably with the ultimate objective to raise funds for a women’s cause.

I’ll say it again, what a disgraceful waste of money considering that the objective is to raise funds for a cause that apparently is lacking in funds.

As far as portraying men, the message is clear that they’re excluded and not welcome – the clearly audible locking of numerous doors with bewildered men standing on the street makes that clear. Nevertheless, it could be seen as just some mischievous fun. The real test is when you ask how would women feel if the roles were reversed.

This is the least of the offensive advertisements.

The second advertisement, titled “Cloakroom”, shows ‘the girls’ arriving at a house. The hostess takes one of the girls’ coats and opens a closet. We then see a man, tied and gagged, at the bottom of the closet. He appears wide-eyed and nervous. The woman then deliberately throws the coat over his head and closes the closet door.

GirlsNightIn-Cloakroom1 GirlsNightIn-Cloakroom2 GirlsNightIn-Cloakroom3 GirlsNightIn-Cloakroom4 GirlsNightIn-Cloakroom5 GirlsNightIn-Cloakroom6 GirlsNightIn-Cloakroom7 GirlsNightIn-Cloakroom8

Now that’s crossing the line. You could argue that “it’s all just fun”, but consider a men’s campaign that shows men arriving at a house for a party where a woman is kept bound and gagged in a closet, followed by having a coat thrown over her head and the door shut. Do you really think that would be acceptable?

If you find this advertisement objectionable then you should consider registering a complaint with the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau. You can register your complaint online here. Hopefully their anti-male bias has changed since earlier times (see our story on Voodoo advertisement). Nevertheless, it’s important to register your complaint because it will be counted on record. Also, the fundraising campaign is being run by the Cancer Council so you could let them know what you think of their campaign. I’ll be asking them how much money is being wasted on running so many television advertisements. The Cancer Council contact details are here.

The ‘Girls Night In’ campaign has two more television advertisements. I won’t go into describing them here but I’ve included some screen captures below. You can view these also at their website.

GirlsNightIn-Playstation1 GirlsNightIn-Playstation2 GirlsNightIn-Playstation4 GirlsNightIn-Playstation5

The final insult is when you consider that women’s health causes in Australia are very well supported, funded and attended by men (if allowed!). Of the numerous workplaces that I have worked in, I have donated many times to fund raising collections for women’s causes and most of the time it was a man taking the collection. I don’t recall seeing anyone  (except for when I took a collection as part of movember.com) going around any of those workplaces to raise funds for any of the men’s causes such as prostate cancer.

{ 21 comments }

OzzieMatt April 3, 2013 at 3:42 am

What I find objectionable is the amount of attention given to women’s health as opposed to men’s health does not reflect the true state of health of the sexes.
On all accounts, women’s health is already far superior to men’s.
The statistics provided by the Australian Government’s own website clearly show this. It really is beyond sinister.

Tiredofthemanbashing July 13, 2013 at 11:13 am

Amen! This is exactly why I refuse support female sponsored/attended cancer awareness programs. There are dozens of types of cancers affecting women, men and children. Why all the noise about women and cancer?

Alan Jervis February 21, 2012 at 1:48 am

“Also, the fundraising campaign is being run by the Cancer Council so you could let them know what you think of their campaign. I’ll be asking them how much money is being wasted on running so many television advertisements”…

That’s VERY interesting actually…
I have long suspected that the Cancer Council was a feminist run organization and this article confirms those suspicions at last!
Recently I heard a woman from the Australian Cancer Council speaking on a radio news broadcast (whose name escapes me, but she sounded like your typical feminazi). That is: middle aged, not qualified at anything, i.e. she wasn’t ‘Doctor [insert name]‘ but ‘Ms [whatever her name]‘ was.
She also spoke with that semi-masculine tone with a sort of underlying hysterical, slightly raised voice, whilst advocating that the age that defines a ‘child’ relating to smoking in vehicles carrying ‘children’ be increased from 15 or maybe it was 16 to 18 years old.
The same self-proclaimed expert on matters relating to (their favourite universal excuse for bringing in every other anti-male legislation): ‘child protection’, even told an outright LIE relating to cot-deaths of infants or S.I.D.S, stating that at least 5 SIDS cases in Australia in 2008 were directly related to the deceased infant’s exposure to passive smoke or second hand tobacco smoke, present in the air of their parent’s or carers homes.
If there was even one shred of truth in that remark, the WHO would have to totally ban smoking world-wide inmmediately. However, the radio presenter didn’t even question her about where that statistic or information could be verified.
This is typically the type of thing they seem to get away with – NOBODY dares question the validity of their claims: asks to see scientific references or statistics that substantiate their usually ridiculous ‘facts’ or statements they make publicly.
Anyway, you’re probably wondering what this anti-smoking policy has to do with Anti-feminism…?
Of course it is perfectly acceptable that an organization such as the Cancer Council try as hard as it can to convince everyone not to partake in unhelathy pastimes such as smoking.
I don’t have a problem with that at all (I do however have a problem with them being allowed to tell lies in order to push their agendas).
I question the motives of the Cancer Council for wanting to re-define the age of a ‘child’ in relation to smoking in cars carrying these now 18 year old ‘children’…
It’s all related to their insistence that the minimum age for consensual sex be raised to 18.
The feminists have for quite a few years now, been lobbying both state and federal governments to raise the age of consent to 18, or 21 or even 25; but 18 will satisfy them, for a start.
The reason they want to raise the age of consent and thus re-define the meanining of CHILD as being a person under 18 years old is so that they can identify, thence prosecute MORE MEN as ‘paedophiles’!
This paedophile witch-hunt is their most powerful weapon they have effectively ‘engineered’ through hysterical propaganda and by convincing heads of states and even the UN itself, that all children must be protected from ‘paedophiles’ or dangerous ‘perverts’ which they claim the world is riddled with in pandemic proportions.
This propaganda has successfully convinced most of the populace of western society that at every street corner, behind every closed door of every house: there lurks a sicko or paedo waiting to molest everyone’s children, thus the tough new laws recently introduced to identify, apprehend and punish them are justified and are good because they are all there to ‘protect our children’.
Absolute rubbish. The real radical feminazis at the top of the food chain are all staunch lesbians and the very notion of giving birth to child would make most of them sick. Their true agenda is to demonize and CRIMINALIZE all MEN.
They use children (and the ‘protection of them’) as their reason (smoke screen) to justify the passing of otherwise radical and draconian laws that collectively demonize and criminalize what was (and really still is): normal male sexuality. I.e it is sexually normative behaviour for a man to find a nubile 17 year old post-pubescent woman, sexaully attractive. Now however, such a man is a paedophile, because a ‘child’ now means a person under 18.
The feminist cows have over the years convinced governments to introduce new laws that could now define almost any man as a paedophile – the LOWEST form of human life on this planet!

They now define a child as someone under 17 in some states and they want this made ever older, so that any man caught having a sexual relationship with a ‘child’ under their PC manipulated new-age definition of the word, can instantly be apprehended and prosecuted as a paedophile and sent to prison, often for many years!
They have been doing this in the good ol’ US of A (the land of free speech and free thought – NOT!) for a number of years now, where these new-age (feminist defined) ‘paedophiles’ have been sent to prison for a minimum of 10 years and some for literally hundreds of years! Not for molesting or raping little girls, but for looking at pictures of them in the privacy of their own homes and have never laid a finger on a child or hurt anyone in their whole lives!

The same rules will apply to another of their handy little male-traps: ‘child-pornography’. With the new definition of the term ‘child’ now being law, any man caught possessing a photo of lets say his 17 year old girlfriend would under these new laws be charged under the sex crimes act as a paedophile and sent to prison – life ruined!
They are constantly shifting the goal-posts or raising the bar as to what makes a (normal) man a sicko or pervert and the penalities for such offences are nothing short of PSYCHOTIC!
They have (at least in the US and UK) effectively confounded all child-sex offences to be the same: i.e, a man caught in possession of ‘child porn’ (which can even mean a picture of his 17 year old girlfriend in a bikini or even a picture of his own [naked] baby) often receives a LONGER term of imprisonment than an actual, REAL paedo, that raped or even murdered a real (under 12 year old) child!
This of course is very dangerous to children and counter-productive as it effectively trivializes REAL serious crimes aginst children such as abduction and real rape to the same level as poessessing child-porn, thus SERIOUS sex crimes against children are now ‘diluted’ to less serious offences such as flashing or looking at kiddie pictures. The courts now regard the three offences as being equally as serious.
This is insanity.

It is really a holocaust, not unlike the Jewish holocaust run by the German Nazi party that persecuted and murdered millions of Jews througout Europe during the 1940′s; except instead of Jews or other non-Ariyan races, the undesirable target race is now the MALE!
The only difference really is that they are not sending us to concentration camps to be put to death in gas chambers… YET.

If we allow these lunatic cows to continue with their relentless persecution and demonization of us, they will win and have total control of us and of the world.
They have managed to convince the world (and sadly most men have been convinced by the hyperbole too) that any man who exhibits certain sexual behaviour (that was and still is normal male sexuality) is a ‘pervert’, a ‘paedophile’ or ‘sicko’ and MUST be punished with the tougest, most unforgiving laws ever passed.

This could soon mean any man having a fully consensual sexual relationship with a 23 year old woman (as they would if they could: make the age of consent 30 years old) would be labelled a paedophile and punished very severely.
And for the men that don’t actually have sex: they will destroy with the (also constantly changing) ‘child-pornography’ laws, which are even worse (better from the feminazi’s perspectives) because those ‘crimes’ often demand even harsher penalties than actaul molestation!

What is unfolding right under our noses today in our once happy society, is nothing less than gender GENOCIDE and if we don’t fiight back we’re finished – they have won!

It is also the fault of the mangina puppets in governments and law enforcement areas that have allowed themselves to be fooled and manipulated by the low-life whores of the gynocracy.

However there is one man in our local Australian federal government who is not fooled by them and will not allow the bitches to have their way: Mr George Christesen, see him / read about him here:
http://antimisandry.com/articles/feminist-trojan-horse-family-law-australia-george-christensen-140.html#axzz1mz43fZAc

The world needs thousands more men in power with balls like George to help rid the world of this feminist filth!

Do you really want a future world where kids will be brought up by man- hating, man using (for sperm only) crazy space-cadet lesbians??

I believe that we are currently witnessing a true Inquisition and the witch or hereitic is now the human male…

el July 30, 2011 at 12:53 pm

that advertisement its right, thanks to such advertisement men can see how
it feels to be a woman, women are treated like that on regular basis, men abuse of women all the time, all over the world, discriminate them, beat them, rape them, abuse them through porn and economic cohertion and women are not even allow to make a simple similar joke to men?? NOW THATS A VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Only because men are usually and only physically stronger, taller and have a louder voice, their implied as well as directed physical treat to women force them to withdrawn and in the worse case produce fear in the depth of the female psique causing victimization (submission) as a result, now ITS GOOD MEN CAN SEE IN NATIONAL TELEVISION WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE GIRL AND HOW THREATENING IT CAN BE, if you dont like it them STOP USING YOUR SIZE TO DOMINATE WOMEN or else DONT COMPLAINT WHEN THEY HIT BACK AT YOU, CAUSE THEY WILL AND EVERYTIME STRONGER AND WITH THE POWER OF ALL WOMEN JOIN TOGETHER!!!

jd January 5, 2012 at 6:41 pm

get some counseling!

ian February 17, 2012 at 1:43 pm

Skank

Peter February 19, 2012 at 3:12 am

I thought so far, consulting this site, that I couldn’t came across such an anemic and immature cliché, but I was wrong. This make me feel quite depressed… How on earth can someone start his comment by telling this is RIGHT, and then even try to legitimate heinous ads under the freedom of speech banner? If you’d really know what it is to be a man, or if you just could spend one week in the skin of one, you’d bitterly repent from all you just said and never ever look at us this way again.

Woman against Feminism May 27, 2012 at 7:46 pm

@el –

You braindead bitch, you’re too stupid to realize how much of a hypocrite you are. How can you claim to stand against oppression when you advocate oppression against others? Doesn’t that make you just as bad?

Alexander May 30, 2012 at 3:17 pm

I agree with the above stated comments, however, foul comments are uncalled for, so I’ll be blunt but decent. Here goes nothing…
First, I want to address what you mean by how it feels to be a woman. I will not deny that domestic violence is one of the greatest atrocities to befall the human race. However, it’s a two way road. I have heard about and met a sizable number of men that have been victims of domestic violence from women. Young boys being beaten and raped by their mothers, Men being beaten and attacked by their girlfriend, fiancee or wife, the list goes on and on. Men abuse women, but men and boys are also victims of the same exact cruelty from women. Considering jokes, turn on your computer and click on Google. I’m serious, it’s really that simple. Go ahead and google “man jokes” and you’ll get over a million hits. You’ll find plenty of jokes to tell your other radical feminist friends about men.
What it feels like to be a woman is to feel pretty, treated with respect and maybe pampered even. That statement is not coming from me, but from women I know that treated exactly like that by their parents, husbands or boyfriends and even strangers.
Second, Freedom of Speech. If you’re not from the United States, it’s the very first amendment in our constitution. Ma’am or “el,” however you wish me to refer you as, read it. That’s really all I have to say, just read it. There is no reason why you can’t say something. That amendment is the very reason why you are able to say what you did in these comments. There is no excuse for bullshit or foolishness.
Third, men are stronger for a reason. As I mentioned before, if you graduated from high school with a diploma or GED, men have provided and protected their clans for thousands of years. There men in this world that do use their strength for the wrong reasons. That’s something worthy of the money used for ads that disgraces men.
From what I have learned, being a girl means that there are people that are willing to be there for you, and it’s too late for me to tell you to think otherwise.
I highly recommend you climb out of the fifty-foot-deep grave that you’ve dug yourself and walk around, talk to people and learn about every aspect of the world you live in before you become a part of an organization that vilifies, slanders and taunts the same gender that has, for tens of thousands of years-if not, hundreds of thousands-provided food, shelter, fought and died in wars and put up with women like you to protect, love and their relationship with their girlfriend/wife and children.
Ma’am, I highly encourage you to get an education, a job or a profession of some kind, because what you’re saying is just being relayed from women who don’t give back to society economically or socially. If you believe in equality, and given you first impression, I highly doubt it, then you would be a Humanist or an Equalist. But, since you’re uneducated, that would also explain it.
***Just a side note, for other viewers, my mom is single and my dad lives three cities away. My mom doesn’t like men, and has several problems. My dad tried to help, but gave up because he almost lost his dignity and integrity in the same week. He taught me, not my mom, to respect women and be a gentleman, however bitchy and nasty as they can be, even if they are truly cunts, (that a not a word I like to use) remain calm and be the better human being. I honestly think I should have grown up hating women for the horrible things I was put through. But, I don’t and I’m sorry that women like “el” and my mom are like this. That’s all really. And if you think or meet someone that thinks that all men are the same, then copy and and save this comment.

Alexander May 30, 2012 at 3:18 pm

Btw, I forgot to mention, I’m an 18 year old male individual

Woman against Feminism June 6, 2012 at 11:30 pm

Well put, Alexander. I could not have said it better. People like el, haven’t earned the title of “women.” The b- and c-words work just fine for them, and thankfully they’re rare.

Robert June 16, 2011 at 10:45 pm

I would not pay so much as a penny to that group and they should be they shamed in public for such a ridiculous misandrist advertising campaign…my god those are shocking….the scourge of feminism must somehow be brought down as its getting more and more ridiculous every day….and to think when I was young in the 70′s I was such a big supporter…but I never enivisioned back in those days that the anti male crowd would have so much influence in society….a sad state of affairs and I certainly hope the backlash will be coming soon.

John (admin) June 18, 2011 at 12:44 am

Robert, I think that feminists have gotten to where they are today due to skillful deception and through recruiting others into their victim mentality. In large part, this has been through public campaigns based on false information and coercing governments for support.

Until recently, there was no realistic manner for the average person to examine, discuss and respond to this. Feminists, on other hand, have had the time and resources for this. Actually, for many it’s even a career choice. Eg. consider the numerous womens-interest government departments, “women’s studies” (and related ) in education, etc. Usually sponsored with your taxes too. Literally, professional victims.

Fortunately, the internet has provided the general public a means of much more easily verifying what has been said and to respond and challenge publicly (as you have, and as my blog is doing). It is through such expanding dialogue that contemporary “feminism” will eventually become known in mainstream society as nothing short of a neurotic anti-male cult – and will be treated as such. It’s still early, but I see the changes happening already. The key is to not remain silent about it in real life. If you experience it in the course of your day, draw attention to it and expose it. It may well motivate others to do the same.

John (admin) April 27, 2011 at 4:39 pm

I also find it interesting that men gladly take on challenges to raise funds for women’s health – for example, anything from a celebrity male undertaking a 500 mile inter-city run, or even football teams dedicating a match in support of women’s health. However, I have never seen women take the same sort of initiative in support of men’s health.

Jerome Blondell, PhD, MPH April 27, 2011 at 9:02 am

There is some justification for increased spending on breast cancer compared to prostate cancer, but not totally uneven amounts that currently exist. Both men and women are diagnosed at roughly the same level for these two diseases and, if women weren’t totally selfish they would realize that soliciting donations should be for both diseases at the same time.
Jerome Blondell, Ph.D., M.P.H. retired epidemiologist who has published letters, hypotheses and research on female breast cancer.

Estimated new cases and deaths from breast cancer in the United States in 2009:
New cases: 192,370 (female) 1% more than male cases from prostate cancer.
Deaths: 40,170 (female) 47% more than male deaths from prostate cancer.
Age-adjusted death rate 2006 = 23.42 per 100,000.
Breast cancer accounted for 774,000 Person Years of Life Lost , nearly three times that for men with prostate cancer. [Statistic distorted by longer lifespan for females part of which may be due to societal causes]
5 year survival rate overall appears to be 90% (see fourth reference source below).

Estimated new cases and deaths from prostate cancer in the United States in 2009:
New cases: 192,280
Deaths: 27,360
Age-adjusted death rate 2006 = 23.57 per 100,000 (higher because there are far fewer older men than women).
Prostate cancer, which primarily affects older men, accounted for many fewer Person Years of Life Lost, approximately 263,000.
5 year survival rate overall appears to be 100% (see fourth reference source below).

References/Sources:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/breast
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/prostate
http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2009&chid=96&coid=929&mid=
http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2009&chid=95&coid=927&mid=

age-adjusted rate
An age-adjusted incidence or mortality rate is a weighted average of the age-specific incidence or mortality rates, where the weights are the proportions of persons in the corresponding age groups of a standard million population. The potential confounding effect of age is reduced when comparing age-adjusted rates computed using the same standard million population.

Person-Years of Life Lost (PYLL)
Death rates alone do not give a complete picture of the burden that deaths impose on the population. Another useful measure, which adds a different dimension, is person-years of life lost (PYLL)—the years of life lost due to early death from a particular cause or disease. PYLL due to cancer helps to describe the extent to which life is cut short by cancer. On average, each person who dies from cancer loses an estimated 15.5 years of life.

PYLL due to a particular disease or cause: The difference between the actual age of death due to the disease/cause and the expected age of death. Specifically, this measure is estimated by linking life table data to each death of a person of given age and sex. The life table permits a determination of the number of additional years an average person of that age, race, and sex would have been expected to live.

Cancer Survival
Advances in the ways that cancer is diagnosed and treated have increased the number of people who live disease-free for long periods of time. This report looks at trends in 5-year survival rates for cancer, the time period traditionally associated with good prognosis. However, some people will experience a recurrence of their cancer after 5 years.

In 2006, nearly 11.4 million Americans were alive after having ever been diagnosed with invasive cancer. Of these survivors, more than 2.5 million were living with a previous diagnosis of female breast cancer, more than 2.1 million with prostate cancer, and more than 1.1 million with colorectal cancer. Approximately 1.7 million (14.5 percent) of the 11.4 million Americans who had been diagnosed with invasive cancer were longer-term survivors who had been diagnosed at least 20 years earlier.

John (admin) December 7, 2010 at 9:09 pm

I just wanted to add re the youtube clip referenced by Rozax:

It occurred to me that perhaps a lot of women may not perceive the humor in the clip the same way that a lot (most?) men will, so here it is:

Eg. Renting a puppy: Presenter suggests that this is men manipulating women. Not so. Since the vast majority of women expect men to make the first move, a lot of men find that simply approaching a woman in the street will get an “uh oh, what does this guy want?” response and ultimately he is left feeling as though he has to justify his existence. Similar when approaching a woman in a bar (“You have 30 seconds to impress me or beat it loser!”). Things would be quite different if women took the initiative as often as men do. Basically, if you’re a man, you have to make the first move, and make it good, or you stay single.

Men therefore feel they need to be more creative in their approach (so they don’t automatically get shot down) and so this is just a parody on the lengths that some men feel they need to go to. Many times when I have simply smiled at a woman, I got an indignant roll of the eyes (as if “Geez, leave me alone!”). What she was actually thinking – I don’t know, but receiving the response has always been very unpleasant.

As far as the men wondering whether “they’re real or fake” (i.e. waitress’ breasts in the clip). Wow, I often find that women in a group will raise this type of question before the men in a group will – or the women will pick on what she’s wearing, her makeup, etc. I also think that women who choose to wear plunging necklines and push-up bras don’t mind having their breasts noticed; isn’t that why they expose them in such a provocative way? I think feminists would prefer to hold men responsible for women who present themselves in a sexual or suggestive way rather than attack one of the sisterhood.

John (admin) December 7, 2010 at 7:44 pm

Hmmm. Rozax, I watched the clip and while the message may seem to have merit, I think it is a case where she is (knowingly or unknowingly) manipulating the message herself. Almost as if “you poor men, being tricked into behaving as pigs. (i.e. It’s not your fault you’re pigs) We must now set you straight so that you don’t perpetuate partiarchy, etc, etc..” The bulk of this message occurs from 3:12 until the end.

i.e. She uses terms such as:
“cycle of sexist socialization”
“control mythology”
“creates an environment where women have no choice but to accept it”
“patriarchal norms are encouraged and promoted”
“we have to re-write the narrative and change the story to one where men can, do, and are changing.” (this statement is rather patronizing)

As far as manipulation and honesty in communication – it’s been my personal experience that men are more direct and less manipulative than women.

Rozax December 7, 2010 at 7:06 pm

Advertising thrives on sexist ideals. Beer ads are just as bad as those commercials described in this post. I don’t know how it convinces people to buy from them, or buy into their ideas, but it works.

This youtube video delves into how poorly men are portrayed in alcohol commercials http://bit.ly/a1Bk3n

Tony December 5, 2010 at 4:19 pm

Men die younger than women, yet millions is spent on “women’s cancer” (here in the US it’s mostly about breast cancer) that in itself is sexist.

KG November 11, 2010 at 6:36 pm

It is pretty degrading, leaving us in the closet… Everyone makes such a big fuss over female cancer and how it’s so bad and we should invest a lot of time and money into solving it, yet no one seems to give a damn about how many men die of prostate cancer, and when men do talk about it as a concern we’re just told we’re complaining and being a hypochondriac. Those ads putting us in the closet are suggesting that we men only exist when it’s beneficial to women, but when they don’t need us, want us or have use for us we’re discarded

Steve October 16, 2010 at 3:50 pm

I find it to be in horribly bad taste to act as if fighting cancer is for women only. I don’t care who it affects. ALL cancer awareness should include everyone. The NFL in the US supports breast cancer awareness…should they stop since women want to circle the wagons? Should the male Oncologists stop seeing female patients? Should the male researchers stop looking for a cure for cancer that affects women? Why exclude? It is nothing more than “justified” reason for sex discrimination. The problem with these ads are that they inevitably make it look like the men are to blame for women’s cancer, and by finally excluding them, something can get done. It is horrific, but intentional.

Previous post:

Next post: