Well, it's that time of year again where the UK population is faced with the annual relentless onslaught of material promoting Cancer Research's "Race for Life".
For anyone who's been in a coma for the last five years, the Race for Life (RFL) is a feminised five mile run, where participants adorned in pink clothing raise money for research into cancer. CRUK describe it as "unique opportunity for women to come together". Presumably all the other opportunities such as all our female only colleges, female only swimming sessions, female only hotels, female only gyms, female only taxis and female only libraries?
Obviously, such unnecessary segregation of the population by gender, or race nor any other arbitrary means is rather divisive, stupid and somewhat Talibanesque in nature, but it's not particularly sexist in itself if there's equal alternative participatory opportunities for all of the population.
However, that's clearly not the case at all here. Cancer Research (CRUK) is the biggest UK Cancer Charity, yet when they launched Race for Life they neglected to launched any corresponding opportunity for men to get involved whatsoever. Pressure by equality campaigners has reaped small dividends, such as the Run for Moore event, but it has been severely neglected by CRUK and is a half hearted effort at best. The event doesn't receive any significant promotion nor support and as a result isn't enjoying much success.
On the other hand, the Race for Life goes from strength to strength. Vast resources are put into supporting it - be it full page adverts on the front of local newspapers, glitzy TV ads, a barrage of radio spots, signs hanging from every conceivable location in your local branch of Tesco and even logos plastered on cereal packets exclaiming how "You're Invited! (as long as you don't' posses a penis that is).
CRUK state that RFL's ban on men is "due to the wishes of our participants". In other words, some people in the event are somewhat hostile towards males, but what if their hostility was say racial or perhaps religious? Would some equally misguided BNP supporters be allowed to have their own Racist for Life event where ethnic minorities were totally excluded in order to create "an opportunity" for Anglo Saxons "to come together…in a celebratory atmosphere?"
You may at this point be wondering why exactly Cancer Research's behaviour here is such a big deal and why this is such a key equality issue? Well, to answer such a question we need to consider the following key points:
1. There is a vast gulf in spending between male and female specific cancers. By far the biggest of any cancers in terms of victims are breast cancer and prostate cancer, yet the former gets more funding, around four times as much in all areas including research, and even support, both by the government and by cancer charities themselves. In fact the traditionally approach to prostate concur has been to hope the men would die of something else first!
2. Cancer is very much seen as a women's issue and the race for Life merely reinforces this false message. The publicity given to cancer such as breast cancer dwarfs everything else out there - Pink this, pink that you really can't escape it. Don't get me wrong, in some ways it's great so much effort goes into dealing with breast Cancer, but it's hardly fair when it's at the expense of everyone else. Such inequality ultimately means less awareness of men's cancers and thus yet more dead men. Women already enjoy significant privileges when it comes to access to health care and life expectancy and such an intense and exclusive focus on breast cancer only furthers such inequality. One could argue pink really does stink, though not for the reasons feminists suggest.
3. Men suffering even from non gender specific cancers have vastly worse outcomes compared to their female counterparts. Cancer Research are at least honest enough to openly admit this themselves. Thus if anything, portraying Cancer as a female phenomenon is a subversion to reality on the part of CRUK and cancer is if anything more of a mens issue that a women's! Of course, as with domestic violence any sane person cares about all cancer victims rather than one a marginally more afflicted subgroup, but it's still useful to know the full facts.
4. Given that 49% of the UK population is male (despite all the cancer deaths), wouldn't Cancer Research be better off involving the entire UK population in fundraising thus generating double the amount of revenue? Just think how many more lives could be saved and how much more research funded if CRUK suddenly doubled its income!
On top of the above there are smaller logistical issues to consider too. What exactly happens to young boys during the Race for Life? How exactly does one explain to a child that his mother and sister are going to raise money to help grandma, but he's barred from helping out because he's of the wrong gender. Presumably childcare has to be arranged for him too and paid for thus resulting in further lost revenue. Also participants in the event aren't just raising money and publicising CRUK. They're in an environment where they can talk about cancer, and learn and think about the issue. Again this means improved cancer awareness for such women, and ultimately better outcomes as a result. Why does CRUK insist on denying such an excellent opportunity to men also?
In all fairness CRUK have made a few tiny concessions over the years as a result of a years of pressure and campaigning from the likes of equality Charity Parity. For example, women can now run in the memory of a male relative, but progress is painfully slow and if anything they're going backwards these days. For example see how many references you can spot to men or male cancer victims in this years Race for Life TV ad . (Here's a clue - the answer is less than one)
I think Race for Life really says a lot about the position of men in our society and particularly how we treat the issue of men's health. CRUK are at least decent enough to allow a debate about their sexism on the forums so it's not a totally lost cause, but for now I'd urge people to give their money to other Cancer Charities, or at least only sponsor those competing in alternative CRUK events unrelated to Race for Life. Similarly try not to patronise RFL partners, which this year include Tesco, Nivea Go-Ahead (United Biscuits) and rather appropriately the equally sexist Diamond Car Insurance.
There appears to be an increasing amount of concern about RFL, some of the most eloquent is by the highly respected science author Brian Clegg. In his article "Just because it's for a good cause doesn't justify discrimination" he writes"
"I can't understand why, for example, anyone would want to be a member of a club or organization that excludes half the population...There is no justification for it, except to reinforce the old stereotypes that only women can be caring and supportive."
"The organizers of Race for Life should drop their appalling sexism, and if they don't voluntarily, they should be forced to do so."
Indeed, although I'd actually go slightly further than Mr Clegg and suggest that the fact that we're dealing with such an important and worthy cause here is even more of a reason why this discrimination is wrong. If some random company wants to be sexist or racist then that would be bad enough, but for the UK's biggest cancer charity to be doing such a thing is nothing short of a scandal.
For anyone who's been in a coma for the last five years, the Race for Life (RFL) is a feminised five mile run, where participants adorned in pink clothing raise money for research into cancer. CRUK describe it as "unique opportunity for women to come together". Presumably all the other opportunities such as all our female only colleges, female only swimming sessions, female only hotels, female only gyms, female only taxis and female only libraries?
Obviously, such unnecessary segregation of the population by gender, or race nor any other arbitrary means is rather divisive, stupid and somewhat Talibanesque in nature, but it's not particularly sexist in itself if there's equal alternative participatory opportunities for all of the population.
However, that's clearly not the case at all here. Cancer Research (CRUK) is the biggest UK Cancer Charity, yet when they launched Race for Life they neglected to launched any corresponding opportunity for men to get involved whatsoever. Pressure by equality campaigners has reaped small dividends, such as the Run for Moore event, but it has been severely neglected by CRUK and is a half hearted effort at best. The event doesn't receive any significant promotion nor support and as a result isn't enjoying much success.
On the other hand, the Race for Life goes from strength to strength. Vast resources are put into supporting it - be it full page adverts on the front of local newspapers, glitzy TV ads, a barrage of radio spots, signs hanging from every conceivable location in your local branch of Tesco and even logos plastered on cereal packets exclaiming how "You're Invited! (as long as you don't' posses a penis that is).
CRUK state that RFL's ban on men is "due to the wishes of our participants". In other words, some people in the event are somewhat hostile towards males, but what if their hostility was say racial or perhaps religious? Would some equally misguided BNP supporters be allowed to have their own Racist for Life event where ethnic minorities were totally excluded in order to create "an opportunity" for Anglo Saxons "to come together…in a celebratory atmosphere?"
You may at this point be wondering why exactly Cancer Research's behaviour here is such a big deal and why this is such a key equality issue? Well, to answer such a question we need to consider the following key points:
1. There is a vast gulf in spending between male and female specific cancers. By far the biggest of any cancers in terms of victims are breast cancer and prostate cancer, yet the former gets more funding, around four times as much in all areas including research, and even support, both by the government and by cancer charities themselves. In fact the traditionally approach to prostate concur has been to hope the men would die of something else first!
2. Cancer is very much seen as a women's issue and the race for Life merely reinforces this false message. The publicity given to cancer such as breast cancer dwarfs everything else out there - Pink this, pink that you really can't escape it. Don't get me wrong, in some ways it's great so much effort goes into dealing with breast Cancer, but it's hardly fair when it's at the expense of everyone else. Such inequality ultimately means less awareness of men's cancers and thus yet more dead men. Women already enjoy significant privileges when it comes to access to health care and life expectancy and such an intense and exclusive focus on breast cancer only furthers such inequality. One could argue pink really does stink, though not for the reasons feminists suggest.
3. Men suffering even from non gender specific cancers have vastly worse outcomes compared to their female counterparts. Cancer Research are at least honest enough to openly admit this themselves. Thus if anything, portraying Cancer as a female phenomenon is a subversion to reality on the part of CRUK and cancer is if anything more of a mens issue that a women's! Of course, as with domestic violence any sane person cares about all cancer victims rather than one a marginally more afflicted subgroup, but it's still useful to know the full facts.
4. Given that 49% of the UK population is male (despite all the cancer deaths), wouldn't Cancer Research be better off involving the entire UK population in fundraising thus generating double the amount of revenue? Just think how many more lives could be saved and how much more research funded if CRUK suddenly doubled its income!
On top of the above there are smaller logistical issues to consider too. What exactly happens to young boys during the Race for Life? How exactly does one explain to a child that his mother and sister are going to raise money to help grandma, but he's barred from helping out because he's of the wrong gender. Presumably childcare has to be arranged for him too and paid for thus resulting in further lost revenue. Also participants in the event aren't just raising money and publicising CRUK. They're in an environment where they can talk about cancer, and learn and think about the issue. Again this means improved cancer awareness for such women, and ultimately better outcomes as a result. Why does CRUK insist on denying such an excellent opportunity to men also?
In all fairness CRUK have made a few tiny concessions over the years as a result of a years of pressure and campaigning from the likes of equality Charity Parity. For example, women can now run in the memory of a male relative, but progress is painfully slow and if anything they're going backwards these days. For example see how many references you can spot to men or male cancer victims in this years Race for Life TV ad . (Here's a clue - the answer is less than one)
I think Race for Life really says a lot about the position of men in our society and particularly how we treat the issue of men's health. CRUK are at least decent enough to allow a debate about their sexism on the forums so it's not a totally lost cause, but for now I'd urge people to give their money to other Cancer Charities, or at least only sponsor those competing in alternative CRUK events unrelated to Race for Life. Similarly try not to patronise RFL partners, which this year include Tesco, Nivea Go-Ahead (United Biscuits) and rather appropriately the equally sexist Diamond Car Insurance.
There appears to be an increasing amount of concern about RFL, some of the most eloquent is by the highly respected science author Brian Clegg. In his article "Just because it's for a good cause doesn't justify discrimination" he writes"
"I can't understand why, for example, anyone would want to be a member of a club or organization that excludes half the population...There is no justification for it, except to reinforce the old stereotypes that only women can be caring and supportive."
"The organizers of Race for Life should drop their appalling sexism, and if they don't voluntarily, they should be forced to do so."
Indeed, although I'd actually go slightly further than Mr Clegg and suggest that the fact that we're dealing with such an important and worthy cause here is even more of a reason why this discrimination is wrong. If some random company wants to be sexist or racist then that would be bad enough, but for the UK's biggest cancer charity to be doing such a thing is nothing short of a scandal.
Recent Comments