CANCER RESEARCH UK STOOPS EVER LOWER IN ITS SEXISM AGAINST MEN

A great many people concerned with equality (not to mention cancer) have been deeply disturbed by the conduct of Cancer Research UK and their sexist Race for Life. I'm sure I don't' have to tell you that the race is a female only event where men are banned from taking part. We're not talking about mere segregation here with separate events for the two genders at the same time, it's a completely blatant exclusion of 49% of the population.

Until recently CRUK also ran a half hearted attempt at involving men called "Run for Moore" but quite frankly it was doomed from the start given the institutionalised sexism which runs throughout the organisation and the fact the event was clearly an afterthought rather than anything CRUK ever had any commitment to. This year the inevitable has happened and CRUK have abandoned any pretence of trying to involve men by giving up on Run for Moore completely.

If we had a more enlightened attitude to gender equality in this country then Race For Life would have long ago been declared illegal. Events in other countries aimed at appealing to women or focusing on mostly female cancers generally do not bother being so petty as to ban men. Regrettably one of Harriet Harman's last acts before finally getting kicked out of office was to sneak in explicit legalisation of Race for Life misandry in the "Equality" Bill, though such legislation is at least an acknowledgement that CRUK were previously on extremely shaky ground indeed with regards to their treatment of men over the last 15 years.

Not only is CRUK's sexist in it's fundraising activities of course, it also fails to fund research into male cancer sufficiently, instead spending far more money on female only conditions. There is now increasingly widespread awareness that our society's obsession with breast cancer is having a hugely detrimental effect on all other cancer suffers and it's now fair to say that men and pretty much anyone suffering from any less fashionable form of the disease is now effectively a second class citizen.

So many other people are doing so much great work in taking CRUK to task over their sexism and this has previously meant I've not bothered writing anything new about the organisation as quite frankly I didn't have much to add to my previous piece. Regrettably they have now stooped to a new low and spurred me into writing once again.

Incredibly CRUK have begun a campaign of objectifying men on their website as a way of promoting their sexist Race for Life events. Visitors to the website (mostly women of course) are invited to meet CRUK's "Race for Life hotties"  in the organisation's "E-male" app where they get to choose who they wish to perform for them. Women then gets to personalise the sex object of their choice with CRUK kindly inviting them to take ownership of him and "make him yours".  Visitors then finally get to see a video of "their" "hottie" stripping off his shirt and going topless (note I won't be linking to the content as I do not wish to promote sexism nor the charity concerned).

Now I want to make it clear I'm not some some prudish, anti-sex "Object" style fanatic here. I don't have any problem with sex or nudity and we live in a free society where men are woman are quite rightly able to parade around half naked and do whatever they wish with their bodies for whatever reason.  Sex sells and I accept that.

The CRUK campaign is certainly at the very worst end of the scale in terms of bad taste and the double standards of a lack of female "hotties" arguably makes things even worse. However the real reason such content is so objectionable is because it's a part of the wider campaign of genuinely harmful sexism and exclusion by a genuinely discriminatory organisation who really should be helping everyone. We're not talking about some random inconsequential top shelf magazine printing questionable content. CRUK is a hugely influential and powerful organisation, it's the UK's biggest cancer charity supposed to be responsible for finding cures for diseases that kill millions and helping countless cancer sufferers.

As we noted above CRUK has deliberately excluded men from it's biggest events for well over a decade now. It's then refuses to give sufficient funding to male cancers and ultimately fails to engage with men and get the interested in the issue of cancer, despite themselves admitting men are the biggest suffers of the disease and have the worst outcomes by some distance. CRUK now adds to its sexism by parading topless men all over it's website in something akin to a Nevada brothel style line up.

This isn't first such objectification of men by CRUK either, the organisation has history here as you can see from this breast cancer "awareness" video (warning it's even more tasteless than the Race for Life "hotties" videos ). Once again there is no corresponding video where a male figure of authority molests a semi nude female in the name of prostate cancer awareness.

These videos sum up the philosophy of CRUK and its Race for Life and shows just how sexist the charity has now become. Divisive environments only concerned with one gender or openly hostile the other no only alienate the other half the population, but can makes issues such as objectification more acceptable and therefore more likely. How on earth can men become concerned with cancer when all the messages about the subject in our society are delivered in bold pink writing accompanied blatantly sexist women-only rules and topless men presented as sex objects? Respected author Brian Clegg tells us that just because Race for Life is for a good cause, it doesn't' justify discrimination. Similarly, it doesn't justify tasteless objectification of those CRUK is already discriminating against in all their work either.

On a more positive note these videos do at least further prove all along what we've all suspected about CRUK. If it were in any doubt before, it's safe to say we're now clearly at a stage where the organisation is a lost cause. Please do not donate to such sexist organsiaitons instead support one of the many far better, charities and unfashionable causes out there who survive on tiny budgets without demeaning or discriminating against anyone.

by John Kimble

Comments

[JOHN TAYLOR]

Very good article. Below are my proposals to overcome the blatant exploitation of all those Race for Life participants, some of whom could be afflicted, or sadly die from The Big C - but does CRUK care?

My proposal to CRUK re Race for Life is is:

"Keep Race for Life (for females) - but, in all the 240 existing venues, launch an optional 5 or 10K "Men’s’ Race for Life"... to be held on the same day, in the same locations.

The events, as at present, should be strictly "non - competitive".

The men’s' event should be given the same publicity as Race for Life...

This format should continue in perpetuity - (to help spread the message & overcome the discrimination against males)...

CRUK should follow the example of e.g. The Great North Run & London Marathon...in which males and females participate together - with tremendous success"

The male events could start earlier, or later, than females…What is CRUK’s opinion?

I stress:

1) All the venue costs are / should be covered for Race for Life;

2) The application forms could be bi-sexual;

3) It protects the Race for Life brand;

4) It will allow males who want to participate in a 5 or 10K to do so - with males - not females;

5) It will overcome the long-standing blatant sex discrimination, throughout the UK, against males & indicate that CRUK cares...

6) It will provide the opportunity for males to participate in either a 5 or 1OK, event, throughout the UK;

7) Also, overcome the demise of the 5K Run for Moore - when some males indicated they wanted more challenging events than a 5K - not all males are fit enough for anything longer...

8) By now holding (40) 10K events for females - CRUK increases the discrimination against males...

Yessssssssss - they are now holding 10K events!!!
http://www.raceforlife.org/about-us/latest-news/new-10k-events.aspx

[JOHN TAYLOR]

I am very pleased to note that 15 surfers have liked this post @ 21.47 21st March...

I am wondering if all, or any, have had a look in Cancer Chat at the topic "Is Race for Life sexist" This is the link

http://cancerchat.cancerresearchuk.org/message/31826#31826

You will have to register, then search for "Is Race for Life Sexist"...

Hope to see some new comments in there registering your disgust...

Best wishes...

[John Kimble]

Yes many thanks for all the Facebook "likes" recently it really does help get the word out.

[JOHN TAYLOR]

Readers should be interested in my ten year campaign re Race for Life...

http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2011/03/still-no-equality-in-the-race-rfor-life.html

[paul parmenter]

I am far more interested in the moral argument against sexism in Race for Life than I am in the legal aspects, about which I can do little or nothing. Two-bit politicians are the people who pass laws, and they have regularly done so with no regard to morality or decency, or the damaging effects of those laws. CRUK are now able to hide behind such a law as you have ably demonstrated. I can try to vote such worthless politicians out of office, but they are just replaced by another batch of equally worthless posers, and the laws tend to stay the same.

CRUK may relish having these creatures on their side, but they can't hide behind any moral law; and that is why I am trying to flush them out by shaming them into seeing the damage they are causing by this shameful exclusion of so many other potential fund-raisers and life-savers.

Never mind trying to grab a fig leaf to cover up your immorality, CRUK; open your mind to the additional deaths and suffering you are causing by your sexist antics.

[JOHN TAYLOR]

I agree, wholeheartedly, with your sentiments, Paul Parmenter, and can only repeat: -

"I applaud all those female participants in Race for Life, that have helped raise millions for CRUK but, however, sadly, many can be afflicted and die from Cancer -

Surely, CRUK should "not" continue to discriminate and should allow male relatives of those females the opportunity to participate in optional 5 or 10K Men’s Race for Life events throughout the UK - if they want to? Many may not be fit enough to participate in anything longer than 5K…

Incidentally, have you seen Momo 1975's latest post in Cancer Chat?

319. 24-Mar-2011 18:23 in response to: chrlin1970
Re: Is Race For Life Sexist ??
Seems to have gone a bit quiet here of late. We need to keep the pressure up guys! I reckon what we need (if no-one else has suggested it already) is to draw up an open letter to send to The Times or a similar publication to get our message some public attention. Anyone else?

...........................................

I am in agreement with his suggestion - but to (more than The Times)... possibly, also The Press Association & TV channels... But co-ordinating that is a ???

Incidentally, have you noticed the 24 Likes at present to the main article?

I think I can claim some responsibility for those via Facebook...Not an insignificant number of females have supported my point of view when I have expressed it on Facebook Race for Life page; also, CRUK's

[John Kimble]

I suggest those contacting CRUK add on the latest instances of objectifying men onto the previous complaints of sexism.

They've basically stopped replying with regards to previous concerns, so to contact them with additional complaints which compound their previous sexism will put them in a very difficult position indeed.

[JOHN TAYLOR]

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/News/FundraisingBulletin/1065884/CRUK-income-tops-500m-first-time/675AFC97619F412BE4F8CADFCD9B1B9C/?DCMP=EMC-C

Interesting article - but should Cancer Research UK be commended? See comments below article...

[JOHN TAYLOR]

Urgent appeal...

Race for Life is short of partcipants.

http://www.facebook.com/jht18bwnod#!/video/video.php?v=10150568060190602&oid=22972653688&comments

They should invite males...

Apologies for repeating myself...

[John Kimble]

That's a really good find John. Thanks for sharing the news. To quote from the video: "Less women means less research, less lives saved in the future."

Good to see they're finally coming round to our way of thinking! The correct phrase is of course "less people means less research, less lives saved in future"

[Jenny]

How stupid can they be? They turn away half the potential participants then complain there aren't enough. Last year a member of my staff would have liked to participate together with a woman from another department but, as he wasn't allowed to take part, neither of them did.

[TheVoiceOf Reason]

What a pile of bilge.
I take it you are against Movember? Seeing as they only fund male issues?
Grow up boys.

[John Kimble]

Movemeber is simply a response to the incessant sexism of CRUK. If Race for Life was open to men and if there male cancer patients had the same resources spent on them as females then there would be no need for Movember would there?

Anyone against Race for Life in it's current form has indeed finally grown up and realised that sexism is wrong no matter who the victim is or how worthy the cause.

[JOHN TAYLOR]

Hi The Voice of Reason,

do you know any females with moustaches that have been denied the right to partcipate in Movember?If you do please let me know & I will lead the campaign to end the blatant sexism of Movember (that, simply, does not exist)...

This may be of interest - Cancer Research UK have cancelled Race for Life in Oldham...Hope one and all sign the petition

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/kepp-the-race-for-life-in-oldham.html?fb_ref=right_bottom&fb_source=other_oneline

Now, would it not be possible for males to partcipate - to help save the event in Oldham?

[Tomtheallrighty]

Hey, I have recently become more and more annoyed with this issue. I wasn't even aware it was women only until last year when my friends were signing up to run it, I thought I'd quite like to do it too. When they told me I couldn't I thought they were joking. To shamelessly plug myself... I wrote an article about it here: www.webbymcwebsite.com/index.php?id=3 (Warning this site uses foul language throughout.)

[tomtheallrighty]

sorry, I didn't link that, it should have been http://www.webbymcwebsite.com/index.php?id=3

[John Kimble]

Thanks for sharing your article Tom, some good points. Also I do like the artwork on your site.

If you're as angry at such inequality as you suggest and keen to run Race for Life then I say go for it and run regardless of the stupid rules.

Whether they manage to stop you or not you'd still have made a point either way.

[Ryan]

Jenny I'm sure if you would like to join movember next year then you are more than welcome ,most women i know don't actually want to grow a beard and moustache so there really isn't an argument I can make for or against that, as for you defending race for life how would you like to be discriminated against, oh wait women have been for years and how does it feel? Cancer is not discriminatory in any way, shape or form so why is a leading research organisation the fact is that you don't like the article because it is completely 100% true.

Also why is it ok to show half naked men on telly and not women E.g. The Peril adverts. Other adverts make men look like complete idiots, if that was the otherway around it would be unacceptable this is not equality in the least. Anyway I think that will do for now.

[Jenny]

Ryan, are your remarks addressed to me? If so, I think you're associating my name with "The Voice Of Reason's" comment immediately below mine.

My comment was above my name, and was critical of CRUK for turning away half the potential participants and then complaining they don't have enough.

[Pandora Jewelry sale]

Thanks, I'm going to have nightmares tonight.

[Pawnbroking]

I am wondering if all, or any, have had a look in Cancer Chat at the topic "Is Race for Life sexist.

[JOHN TAYLOR]

Hi Pawbroking - pleased to meet you.

You ask if any have had a look at Cancer Chat "Is Race for Life Sexist"... In my case the answer is "yes" for many years until they closed the topic - in my opinion because CRUK were losing the argument...

My latest comments can be read here...

http://bit.ly/QJVP44

I stress, it is a very long read... My next comments will, subject to time being available for Skimmington and his approval, be published shortly, Best wishes...