WHY DID SEXIST CANCER RESEARCH IGNORE PROTESTS FROM MEN BUT ACCEPTS PROTESTS FROM WOMEN

The wonderful news that Cancer Research UK has changed its rules to allow boys 11 and under take part in its Race for Life is a real victory for Claire Parker and a big thank you for her campaigning in making it happen (Derbyshire Times, Civil Society , Look North and previous coverage - Derbyshire Times).

There are a number of points to make.

The most significant issue is that John Taylor has been campaigning to allow men take part in the Race for Life for a decade. This was in response to his daughter who sadly died from cancer. Complaints to the organisation, complaint to Advertising Standards Authority and others such as the Fundraising Standards Board have gone unheeded. Even the sexist Equalities and Human Rights Commission ensured the Equality Act was modified allow it.

So nothing changes and then Claire launches her complaint and succeeds. Great. But what it does say is that Cancer Research and others were comfortable about dismissing the protests of a man but when it comes to a woman complaining about men (and boys) being banned they give in. What it shows is that not only that Cancer Research have been found to be guilty of sexism in terms of banning men (and still are sexist for banning men and boys aged over 11) they have also been found guilty of sexism because they ignored John Taylor's protests based solely on the fact that he is a man. If Claire Parker was Clive Parker, Cancer Research would not have crumbled.

Other points are of course is there is still the ban on men (and boys over 11) from taking part and Claire has already said she wants that overturned.

The advertising of course, which is everywhere and helped by Tesco's sponsorship, does not mention that men are banned. No mention on the home page of the website. If Cancer Research are comfortable that men are banned why not say it openly - why try and hide it - is it because they do not want to be so obvious about their sexism?

The comments made by Cancer Research UK about why they originally said to Claire that her son could not run was because women felt uncomfortable with young boys running with them is beyond laughable - it is like women do not have sons, brothers, husbands/boyfriends and fathers. Race organisers had told Claire that Connor couldn’t take part in the female-only event as some women felt “uncomfortable” when boys were allowed to join in the race last year. At the time, Claire blasted the “disgusting and discriminatory” move. The fact that Cancer Research UK felt OK to say women found it uncomfortable shows how easy it is to make such misandric lies up and think you can get away with it.

The last point is really that you would expect lots of media coverage on this considering it is a national event. Where is the coverage in the Guardian - or even on Mumsnet?

All in all, well done to Claire and also to John Taylor for a partial victory but we need complete victory because all we want is equality.

Posted by Skimmington 

Comments

[JOHN TAYLOR]

Hypocrisy prevails - is Cancer Research UK to blame ???
See page 15 of Daily Mirror Monday, 23rd April, 2012. Photo of Nell 384 wearing shirt with Cancer Research UK etc on front...
... "A female participating with males" - against the background of "all males" not being allowed to participate in Cancer Research UK's " Race for Life "....

[mananon]

Every time I read stuff like this I'm torn. Yes, cancer is an issue that affects all of us directly or indirectly sometime in our lives, but when I read of CRUK's blatant sexism against men I am sorely tempted to ignore their appeals; to walk right past the person with the collecting tin. And when I phrase it like that I realise how petty that must sound "I'm not goint to donate to them because they don't allow men to run Race for Life"; but if they don't want me or other men running alongside their precious women why should they want my five pounds I was going to donate?

The more I think of it he more CRUK's stance angers me. "Women don't feel comfortable"? Nonsense. How comfortable will they feel when a husband is diagnosed with cancer? How comfortable will women feel knowing of the huge funding gap in favour of women only cancers as compared to male only? And what's more important? The life chances of people diagnosed with a serious illness and the benefits to men of taking part in a positive fund raising opportunity, or the discomfiture of a few ignorant women?

Sorry for the rant..

[JOHN TAYLOR]

No need to be sorry mananon...

I will never, ever support CRUK until they remove their blatant discrimination against all males...

[mananon]

I see CRUK runs the Race for Life admissions system very similarly to a typical battered women's shelter - no males above a certain age.

That makes sense - if you are a bitter old man-hater.

[Jenny]

I also refuse to support CRUK because of their blatant sexism.

It would be interesting to surreptitiously enter a 12 year old boy in the race. If there were any truth in their claim that women feel uncomfortable running alongside men, we should see a lot of very distressed runners.

[Groan]

Very good point Jenny. And there are other cancer charities so a boycott needn't mean charity loses out on your fiver.

[Jon]

I also will not support CRUK due to RfL.

I also make the point to anybody who asks me for sponsor money for RfL.

[John Kimble]

Good point Groan, there are hundreds of non-sexist charities out there raising money for noble causes, far too many for anyone to be able to support them all.

Boycott CRUK and all the other sexists (Oxfam for example) and give your money to others. There's nothing petty about that, it's surely part of our civic duty to discourage crappy charities and instead support the decent ones?

[JOHN TAYLOR]

Good points Groan & John...

I stress, I will never, ever, support CRUK -but will, possibly, go down fighting until the ultimate objective is achieved e.g men participating in every venue where Race for Life is held....

Please, everyone reading this, sign the petition:

http://www.petitiononline.co.uk/petition/race-for-life-say-yes-to-males-families-racing-together/4362

[ian]

Race for Life is a blatant sexist organisation run by Feminists, end of story. Everywhere you see a R4L poster deface it with the word "SEXIST", everywhere you see a chugger tell them, "I won't donate to sexist anti-male crap" it also makes women look pathetic.

I do.

[JOHN TAYLOR]

Some more news - please read right down to the end for the CRUK reaction...

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/1128191/Campaign-men-part-Race-Life-renewed/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH

[Jon]

Hi John, that is typical of the sort of evasion we have come to expect from CRUK in the past. So we are good enough to help out but not good enough to take part? Unacceptable of course. Do they EVER change the record?

[Dave]

What's most frustrating is that many times it is men at the top of these organisations who make and support these decisions. It would only need the chairman of tescos/oxfam etc. to snap their fingers....

And this is where men are weak - they simply don't support each other in general. Quite often it takes a woman to step in and stand up for men before things get done. This is a trick that men might have to catch onto. And fair play to Claire Parker for taking the stance she did. I wonder if she'd use her strength to go even further now that she has the media attention?

[JOHN TAYLOR]

Claire, is in the throes of creating a new event, in Chesterfield, with its own name brand and logo in which both sexes can participate.
Hopefully, this will be a success and be a shot across the bows of CRUK.
Anyone on Facebook should search for Race for Life 2 and, please, get involved.
Hope everyone reading this signs the petition - the link is five (5) comments above this....

[ian]

Make sure any new race donates its money to a different Cancer charity than CRUK, perhaps equally between two breast and prostate charities?

[Sarah Carolan]

Fascinating article about an issue that causes me so much frustration. There's some good points in the comments, particularly Dave's observation about how Tesco, headed by men, could easily overturn this; but I personally think Tesco (and previous partners) may well be the reason for CRUK dragging their heels & coming into the 21st century. Women traditionally hold the purse strings when it comes to grocery shopping so they're bound to pander to the ladies to get them to spend money. I think the people at the top of Tesco (men & women) know exactly what they're doing and that by backing this sexist event they're catering to the hideous, men hating, hen party loving sector of female society that I distance myself from at all times, but who notoriously spend a lot of money in their shops. I wish John and other campaigners the best of luck in ending this discrimination.
As for whether I donate to CRUK & RfL, I will sponsor friends and family who take part but I tell them of my feelings about the event, which usually shocks them as they hadn't realised men were excluded!

[JOHN TAYLOR]

Will be communicating with the CEO of Fund-Raising Standards Board, again..., after they ruled in support of Cancer Research UK The last time I complained...

Will pose the question : "What would the FRSB (male members" reaction be if their female relatives are ever afflicted, or die, from "any affliction ???

[Dave]

"...so they're bound to pander to the ladies to get them to spend money..."

Sarah - absolutely true; nail hit squarly on head!

But I still wonder why it's beyond these powerful corporations to find solutions that ,ok, fair enough, could still pander to women, but without inflicting hateful sexism on the other half of our population.

[JOHN TAYLOR]

This link should let you hear the comments of "little boys who wanted to participate in Race for Life" - then "Little Legs for Life" was launched...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP58y7rGCjA&featur

[JOHN TAYLOR]

http://www.maltonmercury.co.uk/news/calls-for-charity-to-open-up-race-to-men-1-4515413

A little more publicity...

[maviyan]

Thanks for sharing this valuable and wonderful information.A lot of hard work and research had been implemented in this article.
http://www.surveytool.com/research-solutions/

[paul parmenter]

One of the feeble excuses for banning men that was given to me by CRUK, was that there would actually be a drop in the amount of sponsorship if men were allowed to take part in RFL. This crazy piece of thinking was apparently inspired by the belief that as soon as men were allowed in, women would abandon the event in droves, and the sponsorship raised by the men would be far less than the amounts lost by the exiting women.

I hope I don't need to point out the stupidity of that kind of thinking, or the way it insults both men and women.

But I want to add something I discovered from the latest edition of Runner's World, a popular magazine for runners of all ages and abilities - and sexes. A little fact from the London Marathon (a non-sexist event)is that on average, male runners raise £24 more than female runners.

How about that, CRUK? It seems that when given the chance, men are not the losers you think they are. In fact they can raise more than women.

But they can't do it unless they are given the chance.

[Chip]

I raise thousands of pounds every year (alongside women) for Macmillan cancer
research along with many other charities. I will never donate a penny to Cancer research due to their inherent sexism against men. It is embarrassing enough for men with breast cancer never mind being alienated by CRUK. If there was a men only event i would cause uproar and rightly so. So how can this event even pretend to be right. TESCOS and CRUK should be ashamed if they had any shame