1

Boobies Are Pink, Men Are Invisible

You don’t wear pink in October?  You hate women.

You don’t participate in a walk for a cure during October?  You hate women.

You don’t give as much money during October as feminists would like you to give to breast cancer?  You asshole.

Hey, did you know September was Prostate Cancer Awareness Month?  Apparently, the ribbons are blue.

PCan awareness month logo

Let me start off by saying that I fully support the fight against all forms of cancer, and I am sincerely sorry for any of you readers who are suffering from, or have loved ones who have dealt with cancer.

With that being said said, the last month of pink ribbons, ridiculous NFL uniforms, and 5k walks full of fat people getting their first exercise in a year is a perfect illustration of feminist propaganda.  Breast cancer gets far more publicity (therefore, awareness), and funding than any other form of cancer.  The National Cancer Institute, which is a federal agency and receives its funding from Congress, spent nearly $603 million last year in research for breast cancer.  That $603 million is more than double the amount of funding that prostate cancer received.  Here’s a chart showing where all the funding goes:

Cancer Type 2010 Spending
(in millions)
2011 Spending
(in millions)
2012 Spending
(in millions)
Lung $281.9 $296.8 $314.6
Prostate 300.5 288.3 265.1
Breast 631.2 625.1 602.7
Colorectal 270.4 265.1 256.3
Bladder 22.6 20.6 23.4
Melanoma 102.3 115.6 121.2
Non-Hodgkin
Lymphoma
122.4 126.4 119.5
Kidney 44.6 46.2 49.0
Thyroid 15.6 16.2 16.5
Endometrial
(Uterine)
14.2 15.9 19.1

So the question is, why does breast cancer get so much more funding than prostate cancer?  Is it because there more than double the amount of diagnosed breast cancer cases than prostate cancer cases?  Nope.  In 2013, the American Cancer Society predicted there would be 232,340 new cases of breast cancer, versus 238,590 new cases of prostate cancer.  Is it because the chances of developing breast cancer are more than double the chances of developing prostate cancer?  Nope.  Women have a 12.38% chance of developing breast cancer, while men have a 16.5% chance of developing prostate cancer.  You can see that chart here.

Why then, since the NCI is government-funded, is there so much more funding going towards the pink ribbons of titties versus the blue ribbons of prostates?  The government, the services it provides, and the laws it writes, cater to women.  From birth control to divorce laws to deadly diseases, the government has made it clear that they will be pinning the pink ribbons on their suits, not blue.  I didn’t even know Prostate Cancer Awareness Month existed until I began my research for this article.

Did you?

Now, to be fair, boobies are sexy.  Prostates, lungs, and kidneys are not.  There is certainly an amount of sex appeal that goes into why breast cancer funding and propaganda is vastly ahead of other forms of cancer.  Breasts are synonymous with femininity,  sex, and womanhood.  Prostates are a topic that men are going to avoid at all costs. I also have to readily admit that breast cancer is much more prevalent in younger women than older women, whereas men are much more likely to suffer from prostate cancer past the age of 65.

In addition, in economics there the equimarginal principle, which states how a consumer allocates resources between various goods so as to obtain maximum satisfaction.  Meaning, that though some forms of cancer may be far more vicious than others, there may be worthwhile medical and financial reasons not to pursue those specifics paths.  However, that is beyond the scope of this article.

I am willing to cede these arguments, but that that does not justify the way the current budgets are laid out.

So the question is, why does a government-funded center place so much more money into the health of women versus the health of men?

Say hello to feminism.  Again.  And again.

Once again, the government is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate feminists and white knights to secure their vote.  They have to, as the public backlash for cutting funding to breast cancer and raising the budget for men’s health would likely cause riots in the street with women threatening to cut their own nipples off in support of breast cancer.  Look at the previous article I linked, and how Jezebel rips the NFL into shreds for donating “only” $3 million for breast cancer research.

Since the program’s inception four years ago, the NFL has raised $3 million for breast cancer. In 2009, the League made $8.5 billion. Last year, they made $9.5 billion. Commissioner Roger Goodell has set a revenue goal of $25 billion per year by the year 2027. A million per year out of between $8.5 and $9.5 billion in revenues? Pardon me while I don’t slobber all over the NFL’s pink-drenched marketing campaign.

nfl breast cancer

Roger Goodell is too busy worrying about his players dying of brain injuries to be concerned what feminists think about his league’s budget, but our Congressmen (~82% of Congress are men) aren’t the same.  They are only concerned about securing the next round of votes so they can stay in office, wielding their sticks of power.

Considering the men in office dividing up the NCI funding are assholes (according to themselves), you’d think they’d be a little more concerned about the health of their personal asshole.

For now, prostate cancer will continue to be painted invisible, drowned out by shades of bright pink.  Feminism has painted it that way.

I’m glad the feminist idea of equality continues to ring loud and hypocritical.

Originally at Return Of Kings.

Read More: Biology Says People On Welfare Should Die

  • November 5, 2013
Click Here to Leave a Comment Below 1 comments