Here’s the short answer that came to my head as I was reading this:

I think it is because generally women have major self-image issues.

Magazines show those we wish we looked like living the lives we wish we were living.

Our breasts are very much a part of our identity as women. If our breasts are taken from us, it is immediately noticeable. If your prostate, part of your lung, etc., is taken from you, nobody is going to be able to look at you and immediately know it.

And nobody is going to think less of you.

It’s sad but true…women have been brought up to believe that appearance is worth. And I believe that’s the root of both of your questions.

1. Dunno. But, did you hear that Marie Osmond fainted on Dancing with the Stars?

2. All I know is that lung cancer deosn’t attract the same attention since it is widely perceived as “their own fault”.

That sucks.

Ginger –

There’s something to that, I think.

What to make of things like this?

http://www.save2ndbase.com/

Busy Mom –

Yes! But I only know that because I saw it on the Drudge Report. My knowledge of celebrity matters is limited to what he sticks on there. Otherwise, I have no idea who these people are.

Dang Roger. You aint scared.

The first part of this post reminds me of my wife trying to hide the People magazine because she is so embarrassed to be reading it, and me making fun of her.

What to make of things like this?
http://www.save2ndbase.com/

I think it’s tacky. (But that’s just my personal opinion.)

Which begs the question why seemingly intelligent men would read the Drudge report…

Now Mack, you wrote a while back that Egalia is a “thinker.” Stones and glass houses, my friend.

Besides, Hillary’s folks love the DR!

As for the celebrity bit, I really don’t have an opinion because I could careless about the celebutante du jour….

Regarding cancer, I tend to agree with Ginger; however, there is a much higher survival rate with breast cancer than say lung cancer. That being said, my mother has IIIB lung cancer and has never been a smoker. Her survival rate after a lower left lobectomy, chemo and radiation was originally diagnosed at two years. We are 18 months into that. More funding goes to breast cancer than almost any other cancer. Lung cancer tends to get the lower end of the deal and is considered one of the deadliest forms.

I am not on my soap box only because of my mother. I have plenty of friends who have suffered breast cancer. I am not belittling their disease. All cancer is horrific and more funding should be given to learn to combat them all.

I guess I will hop off said soap box now….

Drudge merely just links to news stories from major media. Nobody really “reads” the Drudge Report. They click on a link and read something else.

Well, I’ve wondered the same thing (OK, only the second one. I don’t understand why anyone gives a damn about who/what Brangelina or whoever is doing). We know and lova all too many people who have had cancer. My wife’s a survivor (colon), my godsons’ mom is too (breast), I work with several others who are survivors (breast and kidney) and we have relatives who didn’t make it (lung and colon) (as an aside, one of the lung cancer deaths, my grandmother, was a non-smoker).

I think that Ginger has probably hit on the answer (resists making a blonde joke), at least with the cancer side of it. Society makes good looks critical for women (and there’s nothing like cleavage to get a man aroused and interested) so the loss if a breast can seem important. To me, as nice as cleavage can be, the person’s more important. If it goes bad, whack that sucker off in a heartbeat and don’t look back.

I can’t answer #1, because I have no idea. It’s not my cup of tea.
As for #2, I can’t help but to note the buy pink industry that has sprung up around breast cancer, wherein people are encouraged to spend money on pinkified products and a small fraction of the profits go to breast cancer. It allows people to feel like they’ve done something, and breast cancer is a feel-good topic perfect for that kind of campaign. Who doesn’t love their mother? Well, then, better buy pink if you love your mother. Lung cancer, colon cancer, etc., not nearly so huggable, topic-wise.

That said, a lot of women are seemingly still underinformed about the disease, with many believing genetic risk/family history accounts for a majority of cases, which is not true. Still, more women do die of heart disease.

1. You got me there, though perhaps Ginger is onto something. Oh wait, I have another idea. In general [as long as we’re generalizing] women tend not to fill their heads with useless baseball and football statistics that have no bearing on their personal lives. So perhaps a certain amount of mental fluff is required per person, per day. Men tend to go the sports route, women in another direction. ?????
2. This too befuddles me. Why aren’t women all over heart disease, since as Rachel notes, it kills a lot more of us? The whole buy pink thing just really annoys me.

I should add, I’m certainly not trying to trivialize breast cancer. I know several folks who’ve had it and it’s always devastating and it’s a blow to your psyche — it almost always affects your personal appearance, who you think you are, how you think of yourself.

It’s the marketing of the disease to which I object.

Ginger –

Yeah, that’s kind of what I think, too. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it just seems like it trivializes the whole thing.

Rachel –

Yeah…you’re tapping into what’s bugging me…there’s now this weird bandwagon thing going on, helped along by companies and so forth, where people are being led to believe they’re doing something and they’re really not.

Another things that’s bugging me generally (the save second base thing is an example)…the message seems to be getting weird…it’s almost like–as a male–I’m supposed to care about breast cancer because it involves the female breast. Isn’t is little strange to eroticize cancer like that? And isn’t that a weird impulse to feed–the idea that it’s the breasts–rather than the women with the breasts–that is of utmost importance. Seems like if our goal is not to objectify women’s bodies, that this isn’t the way to do it.

lcreekmo –

The sports thing is a great point. It’s the closest analogy I can think of. But I will say this: sports is (usually) about some kind of achievement. It’s (mostly) a meritocracy. There are successes and failures and they’re all done on the field. That’s what the men in question are interested in. And these men do not give two flips what these people do in their private lives, or what they’re wearing, or whatever. Conversely, the women I speak of really do care about these sorts of things. And I just don’t get it.

My recollection, which may be incorrect, is that a generation ago, when the push to publicize information about breast cancer got started, breast cancer was the biggest killer of women in the U.S. And there was a perception, which was, I think, correct at that time, that it got less attention than other cancers because normative humans (i.e. men) weren’t affected by it. The fact that both public awareness has changed and mortality has decreased (because more research has been done on the disease) is a direct result of women making a lot of noise about it. Now there is a well-oiled machinery at work, which keeps attention out there.

As for your first question, I think the premise is faulty. It’s not clear to me that women are more interested in celebrities than men. Celebrity news is simply marketed differently to men and women.

1. why not?
2. because everyone loves boobs!

nm –

1. Fair point. It will be interest to see if the Doctrine of Diminishing Returns comes into play.

2. How and where is celebrity news really marketed to men? I’m not being snarky, I just can’t think of any examples.

NM, true enough. I will always want to know what Janel Moloney is up to, especially now that I’ve seen her naked (Brotherhood) and asking to be um, serviced from behind.

I mean, thats DONNA from the West Wing! Naked! Only Josh has seen that, until now…

My sister in law was diagnosed with breast cancer this year, and even though she is a Director of one of the country’s best Nursing Schools, she will tell you that she didn’t get herself checked often enough. I get what rachel was saying about “profitizing” the issue, but there is still a great deal of awareness that needs to take place. I think too many women are actually uncomfortable checking themselves out thoroughly, believe it or not. And that is sad beyond measure.

Mack –

Definitely agree that we should promote more and more screening, but I think that message is getting lost. Having some football announcer sport a pink ribbon on his lapel during halftime ain’t doing jack to promote that. At least, I don’t think he is.

Here’s a viewpoint from the left, if anyone’s interested:

http://www.alternet.org/story/14014/

egh…this thread has reminded me that I’m 6 months late on getting my mammogram…

See? You’ve just provided a very valuable service.

Roger,
I think what you’re saying there about sports vs. celebrity news simply hits on a common theme about differences between men and women. Until I had a girl and a boy, I was convinced that all this about pink and dolls and girls, and balls and trucks and boys, was a stereotype.

I’ve been running my own personal experiment for 8+ years now, and while it’s simply anecdotal, my daughter rejected all the toy cars I offered her, and my son is only happy with a ball in his hand.

Again, as a generalization, women tend to score higher in emotional intelligence — relating to other people — and men tend to score higher in rational reasoning. So in general, people would be more important to women, and achievements to men. You can’t really use such generalizations to talk about any person in particular, but I think there’s a bit of truth at the bottom of them.

Roger, about the marketing: my husband works at home, and he has the TV going in the background in another room for much of the day. So I guess he just hears it as background noise. He doesn’t watch Oprah, or Ellen, or The View, or any of the other shows aimed at women. He has the TV on MSNBC and CNN. Yet somehow, he knows much more celebrity gossip than I do. My understanding is that it’s presented as news, in the form “everybody is talking about this celebrity story; you, of course, as a watcher of CNN and MSNBC, couldn’t be less interested in gossip, but it’s our obligation to keep you informed of what people are going on about” and then they give you several minutes on it.

The diminishing returns thing? Probably, once some other group makes enough noise to bring another disease into sharper focus.

Mack, Janel Maloney has a new series? How did I miss this?

NM –

Fair enough, but I’m not sure that’s really marketed to men specifically. Women watch those channels, too. That’s usually stuff that’s gone beyond the Us Magazines of the world and has become more or less mainstreamed.

By the way, I appreciate that no one has jumped down my throat about this. Every one in a ahile, the Internet restores my faith in humanity. Usually it’s the other way around.

Every one in a ahile, the Internet restores my faith in humanity

hahahaha…just give it a few minutes, your faith in humanity will plunge to the depths of hell again…

With the exception of nm, most of have missed the point of breast cancer awareness. In 1987, when my mom was diagnosed with breast cancer, one in nine women were diagnosed with the disease, but only a few million was allocated for research (I remember writing my senators). When I found a lump in my breast in 1989, I had to wait three months to get a mammogram. There were few resources — even with health insurance. People were dying of breast cancer; the increase was staggering. What you’re seeing is the result of grassroots efforts that began ten and fifteen years ago. The pink ribbon started in the late 1980s. Now, companies are on board because it’s tax deductible and the political strength of these formerly-small grassroot companies is incredible. But still, there are areas of this country where a woman CAN’T get a mammogram because there are so few treatment centers. Last Tuesday, I found out I DON’T have breast cancer after an abnormal reading. In the “critical area” of the Breast Center were ten women who didn’t have such a lucky day. Two wore scarfs. Ask them the same question.

I think Heather hit the truth dead solid perfect!!

Is that wrong?

“By the way, I appreciate that no one has jumped down my throat about this.”

Will, in that case, get out of my uterus you misogynistic rethuglican.

As you were.

Lori –

Good points. Thanks.

I will, howver, make one point of my own: I’d suggest that where things are now with this “movement” are completely missing the “prevention” side of breast cancer awareness. So much of it seems to be all about the “cure” (the “Race for the Cure” is a case in point). Well, if you can;t cure something, you next best bet is to preventing it from happening (as much as you can). Seems to me that that should be the main message, and I think it’s getting lost in soemthing else.

Uncle –

Thanks. I needed that.

On the topic of screenings, an important message from The Office:

Michael Scott: Hey Pam? All that stuff with Kevin…pretty scary. I’m thinking that, uh, next time you’re in the shower, you should check yourself out, you know, give yourself an exam. Those things are like ticking timebags.

Roger, the only way to “prevent” breast cancer to cut off both healthy breasts. Now. Both women AND men. You first. (wink.)

No, you go. I don’t like hospitals.

Roger, I’m glad you asked those questions because, even though I’m a woman, I’ve wondered the same thing. The answers have been enlightening.

And lcreekmo–I always preferred cars to dolls and I’ve disappointed my mother by not having grandchildren for her, so you probably have something to be happy about there.

There is so much breast cancer. Everytime I turn around, I’m hearing of somebody else with it. Just last week, my doctor’s 33 year old wife died of it.

I hope that eventually, it will get to where they can come up with a blood test like the PSA for Prostate cancer(of which killed my father before they had the PSA test)where those tumors that don’t show up on mammograms or self exams can be detected very early.

Still, they most certainly do market BC. Look at all the pink hairdryers, flat irons, even Tic Tacs are pink…I’m a little suspicious of that stuff.

Why do women care so much about celebrity “news”?

I don’t agree that we do; I don’t care about it, personally, and none of my friends do. So I’m going to question your hypothesis for starters.

Unfortunately, you didn’t ask “do women care about celebrity news” but instead “why do women care about celebrity news,” so you already have made up your mind on this point. SO. To answer that question, which I do not agree is even valid, here is my answer:

Women care about celebrity news because we can, and we can because we are multi-taskers. We can pay attention to Britney Spears and the presidential election and picking up the kids from day care and fixing dinner,” etc. etc. etc.

what’s so special about breast cancer?

Some of you young kids out there won’t remember this but for years women’s health issues in general but especially those concerning our “naughty bits” like the breast were not talked about openly. Little scientific research was done, little was known about what causes it (birth control pills? HRT? Diet? Heredity?), insurance didn’t pay for regular screenings, we didn’t know to examine ourselves, etc. If we did get breast cancer, our treatment options were very limited. A sad state of affairs for a relatively common disease among women. I hate to get all radical feminist on you but there was a time when we knew more about prostate cancer than we did about breast cancer.

Raising “awareness” ensured that 1) the stigma of the disease was removed; 2) money for research into prevention and treatment was available; and 3) there was support from the healthcare industry for prevention and treatment, and 4) women were educated on the importance of regular breast examinations and mammograms. Breast cancer used to be a death sentence but thanks to a better understanding of the disease and better education, it no longer is.

Several high-profile women did a lot to further this awareness, including Nancy Reagan, actress Jill Eikenberry, and journalist Linda Ellerbee.

Anyone remember the old SNL skit, “First, He Cries”?

Trust me, if “penis cancer” were a threat to tens of thousands of men every year, those pink ribbons would be completely overshadowed.

Hurray! As a man who blogs about celebrities and entertainment, I actually have a small amount of authority on a subject.

I do all the normal SEO and generalised promotion; I do not do any targeted marketing at all. I’ve actually reached a page view sample size where I can tell you a few demographic tidbits about who my readers are based on comments and emails (certainly not scientific, it’s a self selecting group).

About 80% of my commenters are female, most under the age of 25. Many are obviously teenagers.

About 15% are gay men. (self reported).

About 5% are straight men.

Now, you have to temper this with a couple of facts:

1) My blog is primarily about a TV show that skews demographically heavily toward young women. (It’s also been called “The gayest show on TV”). My site is not a “celebrity” site per se, but I do a lot of celebrity reporting. (my latest post is a who’s dating who post).

My writing style there is slightly different than at Shoot The Moose; yet, I do not write in “teen female” - Lord knows, I couldn’t if I tried. So, it’s not my writing that draws them.

I wish more straight men did the whole celebrity and entertainment thing. But, based on my own experiences trying to draw them in, they aren’t interested.

So, I would turn the question around: why aren’t men interested in celebrities besides Peyton Manning?

The breast cancer thing is one of my pet peeves. Big time.

It’s all a marketing gimmick. And we’re at the stage where the marketing is getting even tackier. (Save 2nd Base; Jingle Jugs 4 Life; etc.)

I was wondering when 44D was going to comment.

[…] Just for Roger, I feel led to post another celebrity oriented topic. (wink-wink) […]

44D was in bed until now…

With a backache.

If are bedridden with a cold, it would only be right for you to get some Vick’s 44D.

I’m posting my answers to the questions w/o having first read the other comments, so I may be redundant.

Q#1: I think it depends on who you ask. I’m a woman who is not really interested in the lives of celebrities. When I’m standing in line at Kroger waiting to check out, I read the magazine covers and just shake my head in dismay. Why do other people care so much? I don’t read Perez Hilton and I don’t subscribe to any entertainment mags. I enjoy the occasional awards show and watch some interviews but I don’t go out of my way to view them. So, I guess I’m really no help in that question other than to say, it’s not ALL women!

Q#2: I think one reason (I’m sure there are others like someone is making a hell of a lot of money off of all things pink) breast cancer is “such a big deal” is because of how well it can be treated when detected early. Sure, everyone knows about cancer and pretty much all cancers are bad with varying degrees but most of the other cancers can’t be so easily detected early on. And while I’ve been hearing since I was in H.S. about the importance of breast exams and yearly doctor visits, an entire generation has been born since then and there will always be a need to educate women. And men, for that matter. Check your balls guys!!

My wife loves celebrity news, and I’m starting to understand the appeal. Watching celebrity news is like having drunk, slutty friends you can gossip about without feeling any guilt whatsoever.

Celebrity news makes me sad, both because the people involved seem to live such tragically trivial lives and because acknowledging them seems to trivialize my own.

That said, Jessica Simpson was at Cosmetics Market last week and I had to pretend not to notice. Three times.

Regarding BC, I’d guess it has something to do with how many of us know someone who was affected by it. I did a 3-day walk last year, and I was amazed that every person I asked to contribute had a personal story about their mother, daughter, aunt, sister, whatever who had had breast cancer. There were also a lot of really trashy team names at the walk- 2nd Base, tatas, boobies, you name it, they had their own team. I’m not really offended by those, though, because I think it helps to desensitize an issue that otherwise might be equally taboo. I don’t see folks coming up with creative team names for their Prostate Cancer Walk, after all.

Well, I knew it only had to be a matter of time before the bloggers who put politics before anything else had to chime in.

Let me get to those first:

Southern Beale –

I’ve said this befoe to you, but for crying out loud, get over yourself. It does not surprise me that neither you nor whatever fiends you may have who choose to hang out with you are not interested in celebrity news. You don;t strike me as the type, and the types of people I can see you hanging out with don’t strike me as the type. Thanks you: you’ve established that your cultural superiority for everyone.

Most people reading this whop are capable of looking at the world without the assistance of ideological lenses understood the question “why do women…” to mean “why do women is muchg greater proportion to men…” I’m sorry if you don’t think that’s true, but it is. And I’m just asking why.

Frank –

“Tens of thousands” huh?

219,000 American men are expected to be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year. Roughly 30,000 men will die from it this year.

Your move.

http://www.urologytimes.com/urologytimes/Enews/Prostate-cancer-deaths-down-number-of-cases-up/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/401230

Anyway, I question your general premise anyway–men aren’t exactly known for their proactive approach to health care. We hardly talk about it at all, to our discredit. I mean, really, do you think if there were such a thing as “penis cancer” that men would be trtting around with “Stop C*ck Cancer Now!” T-shirts on? (Although, i guess I could see some “Keep It Up!” T-shirts made….)

Anyway, to the others…

Kat –

That’s right. I remember that now.

Slarti –

What show is this? I have to know.

Malia/Catherine –

Thanks. Those were helpful.

Ugh, I hit submit before editing myself. Terrible typing. Forgive me.

I assumed by “penis cancer,” was referring to some cancer the treatment of which might involve removing the penis (as is sometimes done in breast cancer cases).

To my knowledge, prostate cancer is never treated by removing the penis, so it’s not the same thing. Probably the closest thing would be testicular cancer.

There’s no relationship between prostate cancer and erectile dsyfunction? That must be why Viagra was such a failure.

I’ve been staying out of the meta discussion on the other thread, and maybe I should not get into it here. But Roger, what did SB say that I didn’t? I wrote “I think the premise is faulty” and SB wrote “So I’m going to question your hypothesis for starters.” Yet you managed to have a completely civil discussion with me, and we both made a couple of comments that didn’t (so far as I could see) diss anyone. What on earth prompted that response to SB?

I’ve been staying out of the meta discussion on the other thread,

What other thread?

I guess I got that SAT question wrong “apple is to orange, as breast is to penis.”

NM –

Yours:

“As for your first question, I think the premise is faulty. It’s not clear to me that women are more interested in celebrities than men. Celebrity news is simply marketed differently to men and women.”

Hers:

“Why do women care so much about celebrity “news”?

I don’t agree that we do; I don’t care about it, personally, and none of my friends do. So I’m going to question your hypothesis for starters.

Unfortunately, you didn’t ask “do women care about celebrity news” but instead “why do women care about celebrity news,” so you already have made up your mind on this point. SO. To answer that question, which I do not agree is even valid, here is my answer:

Women care about celebrity news because we can, and we can because we are multi-taskers. We can pay attention to Britney Spears and the presidential election and picking up the kids from day care and fixing dinner,” etc. etc. etc.”

There’s a difference.

There’s no relationship between prostate cancer and erectile dsyfunction?

Well, I guess I can only speak for myself, but when it comes to me and my penis, erectile dysfunction and the actual removal of the penis are worlds apart.

Chill out, I wasn’t attacking you or your idea. Just noting a major difference between breast cancer and prostate cancer. Don’t be so quick to get defensive.

I can only speak for myself, but when it comes to me and my penis, erectile dysfunction and the actual removal of the penis are worlds apart.

From where I sit (ha!) if a penis can’t get erect it’s of little use to me.

*SNORK*

Not defensive. Just pointing out that you were being a tad cavalier there.

When it comes to me and my penis, erectile dysfunction sort of defeats the purpose of the penis, at least, the purpose I (and, I suspect, most men)find more interesting. Not being able to get it up is, well, kind of a downer.

Not that I’d know! Ha ha! Just, um, you know…I’ve heard from, um, other guys.

Or something like that.

ED is generally temporary (or intermittent at worst) though, and there are numerous corrective therapies (from little blue pills to implants) that can restore that particular functionality. Not so if the penis is gone.

Even if I were somehow afflicted with permanent ED with no hope of recovery, I reckon I’d still like to have my penis. I’m kinda of attached to the fella.

Well see, there’s the rub (so-to-speak). You’re kinda attached to your penis. We ladies are kinda attached to our breasts. But if y’all get prostate or testicular cancer, chances are you’ll get to keep your penis. The ladies aren’t as lucky.

Perhaps that’s part of the reason for the urgency of the issue…well, and not dying of it, of course.

Ginger –

OK, well, fair enough. It’s certainly not as drastic.

But it’s nothing to sneeze at either.

Unless someone’s into that for some reason, of course. But that would just be weird.

Roger:

I blog about Ugly Betty.

http://www.uglybettynews.com

I’m always hesitant to link over there after discussing my readers, because many have no idea it’s a paid gig and then get all upset when I discuss the “business” side of things and assume my kinship with them isn’t genuine.

Which leads to a whole other conversation about the different ways males and females handle interpersonal relationships. But I’m not going there.

and there are numerous corrective therapies (from little blue pills to implants) that can restore that particular functionality. Not so if the penis is gone.

Oh my gosh. I remember going to a party at my parents’ church and being cornered by this man who has been a pillar of the community/friend of the family for all of my life.

And he’s OLD.

But people for some reason love to discuss their diseases with me as though I’m a doctor.

I don’t generally mind.

But when this guy–who is sort of a cross between Grandpa Walton and Daddy Warbucks in my hometown–started describing his prostate cancer therapy AND his implant treatment for his ED, I about died.

How do you keep a straight face when some 78 year old friend of your parents is describing his ED implant?

How? I ask because I must know.

“…and there are numerous corrective therapies (from little blue pills to implants) that can restore that particular functionality. Not so if the penis is gone.”

Well, there is such a thing as breast reconstruction surgery, too. There’s even a whole federal law dedicated to that very thing:

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/whcra.html

But this is all beside the point, which, to me, is the notion that breast cancer seems to have attained some special status not attributable to other forms of cancer (that federal law, it seems to me, is a bit of a case in point in that regard). And a lot of you have given me some good viewpoints on that. There does seem to be some exploitation of the issue, though, not that that’s too surprising.

Of course, marketing for one’s cause is a survival of the fittest affair and breast cancer cure advocates have successfully marketed this disease. And it’s hard to fault them for that, even if some companies may be feigning concern for the issue.

But there are various examples of a cause being swept up in the marketing or the positive feeling associated with doing something about the cause (which is one objective of any marketing). And, as is often the case, a cynical consideration (yes, that’s you Roger) of the issue helps provide context.

“I question your general premise anyway–men aren’t exactly known for their proactive approach to health care. We hardly talk about it at all, to our discredit. I mean, really, do you think if there were such a thing as “penis cancer” that men would be trtting around with “Stop C*ck Cancer Now!” T-shirts on? (Although, i guess I could see some “Keep It Up!” T-shirts made….)”

Yes, Roger. That was my point.

Thanks you: you’ve established that your cultural superiority for everyone.

Feelin’ the love, Roger. Feelin’ the love.

I care about celebrity news because I have no life. Seriously. No dates. I’m a couple of years from “crazy lonely cat lady” land. For now, I’ll laugh at Britney.

As a nurse who gives chemo (and teaches terrified patients all about it), I believe all cancers are equally horrible and important to discuss. You’re probably sick of hearing about breast because this is breast cancer awareness month, and we’re in our 23rd fabulous day! Next month is colon.

Oh, and there is such a thing as penile cancer. Scary stuff.

Still running around the internet taking nasty little jabs at me, eh Roger? Some people call it gossip and have observed that you do it a lot.

And still talking about women’s breasts, I see. It’s a joke, Roger. Get over yourself.

You’re kinda attached to your penis. We ladies are kinda attached to our breasts. But if y’all get prostate or testicular cancer, chances are you’ll get to keep your penis.

Yeah, that’s my point.

Well, there is such a thing as breast reconstruction surgery, too.

There’s also penis reconstruction (and even construction for FTM transsexuals). There’s a world of difference in appearance, sensation, and function of reconstructed body parts versus their natural counterparts. I don’t think a reconstructed breast is analogous with a natural penis.

But this is all beside the point, which, to me, is the notion that breast cancer seems to have attained some special status not attributable to other forms of cancer

Well that’s true. I think there’s alot of reasons for that most of which have been covered.

From where I sit (ha!) if a penis can’t get erect it’s of little use to me.

Katherine Coble is the wisest woman I’ve ever met.

I know it was a joke(ish), but I think it goes to a deeper point (heh heh heh). It’s ok to talk about breasts, to make mildly crude references to them, to crack jokes, in a way that doesn’t apply to genitalia of the male variety. I think one could argue that the special status of breast cancer is paternalistic and sexist in a lot of ways (although I’m not sure if I’m personally making that argument). If we give more attention to breast cancer because 1.our society is already pretty comfortable talking about breasts and 2.women feel pretty strongly about their breasts&their identities, doesn’t it sort of promote the idea that breasts are something that should be attended to in ways that other parts of our bodies should not?

On the other hand, do we really want to have a walk for penis cancer? Is there something special about cancer research industry that makes us have to choose which cancers we want to raise money to fight? Being naturally suspicious of the pharmaceutical industry, I wonder if there isn’t just some more profitability in marketing breast cancer in a way that we’ve all bought into and if it doesn’t just come down to the cash at the end of the day.

Rock on, Roger Abramson. I hope that you always have the cojones to ask questions like this out loud.

Thanks, Catherine. Though its probably good that I only post once in a blue moon.

Hey! I was thinking that if penis cancer ever does get to be a big thing, we shoudl start getting the wacky team names ready. I’ll start it off:

Winning Wieners
Cockles
Shaft! (right on)
Ball Carriers
Pole Vaulters
Joysticks
Enzyte Addicts
Erector Sets
Penic Wars
Flappers (uncircumsized only)

Hmm. I should probably get back to work now.

Is there something special about cancer research industry that makes us have to choose which cancers we want to raise money to fight?

I think if “penis cancer” were nearly as prevalent as breast cancer we wouldn’t NEED a walk, the scientific community would have not only found a cure by this point, but a vaccine would be mandatory in schools.

Roger doesn’t seem to like it when some of us women get uppity but there traditionally has been a double standard where these things are concerned.

I dunno about a traditional double standard, SB. Is spending on prostate cancer (or testicular or penile cancer) disproportionately high?

And assuming that it is “straight” white males who are perched atop it all (JP, run with that) is spending on AIDS research disproportionately low?

And assuming that it is “straight” white males who are perched atop it all (JP, run with that) is spending on AIDS research disproportionately low?

Why would it matter? AIDS is NOT a “gay disease.”

I know, but that perception has driven the disproportionate (in comparison to other illnesses) spending on finding a cure.

And it would matter (or it would be relevant as to SB’s assertion), to demonstrate how many resources are devoted to research on it based on self-interest of “the powerful.”

I know, but that perception has driven the disproportionate (in comparison to other illnesses) spending on finding a cure.

Except that it was that perception that led it to be more or less ignored when it came time for funding. It wasn’t until and increasing number of straight people began turning up with the disease that the money started coming in.

Even now most of the funds regarding HIV/AIDS are related to the African AIDS epidemic with is by and large straight.

I’m not sure I agree. Like the breast cancer marketing machine, it I would submit that it was marketing, as opposed to Magic Johnson contracting the AIDS virus, that made the difference. As with the perception (regardless of the reality–as several commenters have demonstrated) that lung cancer is behavior-related, sympathy is a factor in convincing the public to devote funds to research and treatment, right?

I would submit that it was marketing, as opposed to Magic Johnson contracting the AIDS virus, that made the difference.

I’d be very inclined to agree with this. AIDS funding began to achieve critical mass when it was marketed well.

Most historians of the disease (myself included) will point to the fact that GRID was renamed AIDS in 1982. In 1983 it was shown to be prevalent in women and children who were non drug users. [1].

Despite being a disease with a relatively small impact epidemiologically speaking, the history of marketing has enabled AIDS to be extraordinarily well-funded.

If you gals would get to work on a giant quilt shaped like a tit, you could start raking in that level of “awareness”.

I would submit that it was marketing, as opposed to Magic Johnson contracting the AIDS virus, that made the difference.

Wasn’t Magic Johnson part of the marketing, though?

Ugh. If there is one thing I hate it is those damned pink ribbons that people wear on their lapels to promote breast cancer awareness as a substitute for true chest love.

My attitude is that I’m less concerned about what you’re wearing on your lapel than what’s under your blouse.

I probably haven’t worn a breast cancer ribbon in a very long time. After a while I noticed people wearing a lapel ribbon and not acting very feminine.

Is spending on prostate cancer (or testicular or penile cancer) disproportionately high?

I don’t know about today but I think until recently, men’s health in general has received more funding and more attention. Women’s bodies are complicated; there are child-bearing ramifications that don’t apply in the same way to men. A lot of companies just don’t bother. A lot of common medications haven’t been tested on women at all, or they weren’t tested for use by pregnant women — Rogaine, the hair loss treatment, is one example, despite the fact that female hair loss is a big problem, especially as the population ages.

Remember when everyone was shocked to learn that heart disease is the leading cause of death in women after menopause? Some of you may be too young to remember but I remember it was well after I got out of college that people started talking about how heart attacks manifest differently in women than men, the symptoms are different, and that women really need to be attuned to things like cholesterol and blood pressure just as men do. That was completely unheard of before.

Here’s an interesting article I found:

Evolution of information on women and heart disease 1957-2000: A review of archival records and secular literature

Christine L. Miller RN, PhD and Cynthia R. Kollauf RN, MS
From the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, School of Nursing, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Available online 14 August 2002.

Abstract
This project explores the evolution of public information on cardiac disease in women, focusing on warning signs and symptoms. Historical documents available from the American Heart Association of Wisconsin and selected professional and secular literature were reviewed. Analysis revealed little information specific to women’s symptoms until the 1980s. During the 1960s, articles and programs focused on how women could take care of their husbands’ hearts. The 1980s brought a dramatic surge in literature on women’s health, specifically on women’s risk for heart disease. The evolution of information about women has mirrored the evolution of women’s social roles. Despite the growing body of literature, more information and educational programs are needed to increase public awareness of cardiac warning signs and symptoms in women. (Heart Lung® 2002;31:253-61.)

SB,
I perceived that the marketing (read: social and political heat) pre-dated Magic Johnson. And I think it was undoubtedly marketing driven by the lavender lobby. I could be wrong.

I do believe that the breast cancer issue is different than AIDS for a variety of reasons. I think prostate cancer is probably more similar to breast cancer as far as political implications or public intransigence.

I just posted a really long comment about the whole men vs women thing on medical research. Maybe it was too long. I’ll try it again. BTW I was wondering if BO’s 2:16 post was the kind of thing that routinely got scrubbed over here?

Beale, I fished your comment out of akismet. And I can’t, for the life of me, figure out what the problem with the 2:16 comment is. Color me dumb, but I don’t see a problem with it.

I do write for 4 other blogs plus my personal blog, so things get missed. I don’t read every word of every comment. I do a lot of skimming. So me being able to get back to you 6 minutes after you posted your comment is not terrible, i don’t think.

“Barak Obama” saying “I’m less concerned about what you’re wearing on your lapel than what’s under your blouse.” ??

Oohhhhkaaaay….

the lavender lobby

::rolls eyes::

I’ll use a non-derogatory term in my response.

And I think it was undoubtedly marketing driven by [gay activists].

The entire reason gay HIV/AIDS activism groups such as ACT UP and others sprung up was BECAUSE funding was being denied. These groups brought awareness about HIV/AIDS to the mainstream public (including the fact that HIV/AIDS infects straight people), and only then did HIV/AIDS research get any funding to speak of.

I do believe that the breast cancer issue is different than AIDS for a variety of reasons.

I can guess why.

SB: until recently, men’s health in general has received more funding and more attention. Women’s bodies are complicated; there are child-bearing ramifications that don’t apply in the same way to men.

I think it’s more accurate to say that men’s and women’s bodies are complicated in different ways, but your first sentence there is completely true. As I said way, way upthread, a couple of decades ago medical teaching and practice took men’s bodies/health as the norm, and women’s bodies were either treated medically as if they were men’s (as SB notes) or treated as a problem because they ought to be like men’s but weren’t. I don’t think that the women screaming and raising a ruckus because there was no research being done into what used to be the #1 cause of death in women ought to be dismissed as “mere marketing” (which is the implication I’m starting to see here) when it was actually a demand that health care really needed to take 51% of the population into account.

Oohhhhkaaaay….

Sounds like parody to me?

Oohhhhkaaaay….

There’s a well reasoned and totally logical statement expressing umbrage towards a comment that one finds offensive.

If you are a fifteen year old girl, that is.

Sounds like parody to me?

Okie dokie. Just trying to figure out the parameters here. I’ve had my hands slapped a few times, and I’m really not understanding why. Roger told me to get over my arrogant self on this thread, and then we have the BO comment. Seems like if JP or democommie said those things they’d be scrubbed.

Anyway, I don’t want to change the subject here but just wondering if there’s any consistency when the scrub brush is meted out. Maybe it depends on who’s wielding the thing in the first place.

Back to the topic at hand:

The entire reason gay HIV/AIDS activism groups such as ACT UP and others sprung up was BECAUSE funding was being denied.

This is true, I remember this well. I remember it took people like Elizabeth Glazer and Ryan White to get people to understand that AIDs wasn’t a “gay” disease and that everyone was at risk.

Seems like if JP or democommie said those things they’d be scrubbed.

Anyway, I don’t want to change the subject here but just wondering if there’s any consistency when the scrub brush is meted out. Maybe it depends on who’s wielding the thing in the first place.

My teacher hates me.

Passive Aggressive Fifteen Year Old Girl on 24 October, 2007 at 2:55 pm #

Okay, now THAT was funny …

dolphin,
Please do guess how I mean that they’re different . . . I’ve already stated that there is a sympathy factor in any bid for funding, and it is more (in my opinion) than gayphobia that makes the general public less-inclined to see things from the gay perspective.

nm,
I see your point, and I don’t mean to say that the cause of increased funding for breast cancer research is unworthy simply because a marketing machine has sprung up around it. I say, it’s a free country and orgs can advocate away, and people can decide for themselves whether they think a given cause is worthy. At the same time, I do think it is worthwhile to critically consider these things in context. You’d probably agree the fact that a famous person gets a given disease and knows powerful people is not much of a basis for allocating research monies.

dolphin,
BTW I first wrote the term “homosexual activists” and substituted what I perceived to be the friendlier term “lavender lobby.” No offense intended.

the gay perspective.

Do tell Ned. What is “the gay perspective?”

This should be good.

I hope this doesn’t disappoint:

The perspective that “gays” have, and that non-gays can only have by sympathy (the act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings or interests of another).

BTW, dolphin, such condescension doesn’t make me want to invest large sums of money to combat AIDS.

BTW, dolphin, such condescension doesn’t make me want to invest large sums of money to combat AIDS.

Ned, I’m not campaigning for you to invest ANY money to combat AIDS, so I really don’t care. I support anybody’s efforts to help end pain and suffering caused by any disease, but I (personally) have no particular draw to one disease over another. If it came down to what was at stake for me, I’d suggest heart disease as it’s what’s killed most of the men on my mother’s side of the family and I already have a heart problem and have had one since my middle school days. Even still, I have no particular interest in asking you or anyone else to donate money to heart disease research unless it’s just what you want to do on your own.

Secondly, is it condescension to suggest that you, a (presumably) straight man with a particularly anti-gay world view might not have as good of a grasp on “the gay perspective” as I, a gay man, has?

You call it condescension. I call it common sense.

This is a common sense suggestion: “Gays” have a perspective that non-gays can only have by “sympathy” (Merriamwebster.com: the act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings or interests of another).

(JP, run with that)

Sure, I got nothin’ better to do that whack at strawmen you’ve built.
.

I feel compelled to point out that I just re-watched “Team America: World Police” last night, and this thread is reminding me of the “Everybody Has AIDS” song from the mock-musical “Lease.” That movie cracks me the hell up.

I saw a pod about this on Current TV yesterday and thought you boys might like to know about it: Apparently November is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month in Australia. One of their big “awareness” campaign is Grow A Mo’ For Prostate Cancer.

Looks like a clever idea. Anyone want to start a similar campaign here?

Sure, I got nothin’ better to do that whack at strawmen you’ve built.

JP, you sure see a lot of strawmen. I don’t recall anyone using that phrase as much as you do.

Kate O’ –

“…Come on everybody we’ve got quiltin’ to do!

AIDS AIDS AIDS!

AIDS AIDS AIDS!

AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS!

AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS…

AIDS!”

Although I think the best song by far is “Freedom Isn’t Free.”

JP, you sure see a lot of strawmen.

What else would you call it when someone calls one out by name in a thread where that person has not even been a participant? I call it a distraction, e.g., “strawman.”
.

JP –

I think he was just saying that you’re very predictable, which I find it hard to argue with. And, for the record, you do use the word “strawman” a lot. Because you’re predictable, I guess, though you might call it being consistent.

Clarification: By “he” in the first sentance I meant Ned Williams.

A new question: Why are boy bloggers so snarky to each other? Can’t you all just get along?

Although I think the best song by far is “Freedom Isn’t Free.”

Oh definitely.

“And if you don’t throw in your buck-o-five, who will?
Ooh, buck-o-five
Freedom costs a buck-o-fiiiiive…”

Oh, and “Pearl Harbor sucked
Just a little more than I miss you”

And, for the record, you do use the word “strawman” a lot.

The right tends to display here a lot of the shoddy strawmen they build, rather than asserting a point and backing it up with data… but you know that.

One such construction was calling me to comment on a thread where I had made NO comments, at all.

Or perhaps you can illuminate us with the rhetorical wisdom of how bringing my name into a discussion I wasn’t having brings to the very serious debating credentials of one Ned Williams.
.

[…] have a burning question for the menfolk out there. This is akin to what Roger did a few weeks ago when he asked the gals about the appeal of celebrity …. However, it’s not as heavy a […]