Support NeoGAF

[marrec]

So there was no default position of maternal custody held by the courts?

The law as it was written was:

The Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the Vice-Chancellor in England, or the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, respectively, might, upon hearing the petition of the mother of any infant, being in the sole custody and control of the father 160 thereof, or of any person by his authority, if he should see fit, make order for the access of the petitioner to such infant, and if such infant should be within the age of seven years, to make order that such infant should be delivered to and remain in the custody of the petitioner until attaining such age.

It allowed a mother to petition to authority for access (custody) to children until the age of seven but put the decision of custody in the hands of the authority being petitioned.

 

[tkscz]

I don't think it does either. But that's exactly what my problem is though: people tend to associate crazy nutjobs identifying as feminism with radical feminism. It really isn't radical feminism though, because I think that in the end radical feminism will not be aiming to subjugate men in any way.

What he did say though, namely that men got stricter prison sentences for being men, and that men could get put in prison at anytime if a woman simply mentioned that she was being abused without any trial whatsoever, is bullshit. It is not radical feminism. It's just bullshit.


But the problem is that there are women who think that is radical feminism. See SCUM Manifesto.

Basically, my entire argument is that something like SCUM Manifesto is fucking garbage, and should not be lumped into any form of feminism at all.

The issue here is that they ARE claiming to be feminist, and because their beliefs are so out there are crazy, they get the most attention. This leads people to think this is what feminism is, and it's sad. It's the same for black activist, just because the most famous one is racist against white people, doesn't mean they all are (I can't stand Al Sharpton).

 

[think]

Like it or not, naming the gender equality movement after women and the oppressive system they want to change after men, the immediate reaction and perception from any layperson, bystander or from someone's first contact with the ideology is that the ideology is pro-women and anti-men.

One thing I've never understood about the feminism movement is their reaction to how the keywords of their movement are gendered. 2nd wave Feminists fought for political correctness. I mean real political correctness, changing the language to be gender inclusive; mankind to humanity, policeman to police officer, fireman to firefighter ect. Not the "Oh someone is angry at me, here comes the PC police" bullshit.

They did so under the basis that gendering the words towards men biases people's perception of that role and prevents women from possibly seeing themselves in that role.

And they were right.

Gendering the feminism movement towards women and against men, like it or not, is a big part of the problem and the misconception. I mean yeah, anyone who does some research will understand the misconception. Anyone who did research on "policemen" and "mankind" would have realized those were misconceptions as well. The first female police officer in the United States was hired in 1910. That doesn't mean the terms weren't unnecessarily gendered and shouldn't have been changed.

This is an excellent post.

I think it adequately explains why even though I'm surrounded with intelligent and progressive friends, none of them really understand feminism. These are people that voted for marriage equality, and one of them spends his free time volunteering with the local Democrats to get more progressive voters registered.

I think that feminists have made a strategic error by trying to expand feminism to cover all social justice issues, rather than just those of gender. Even within the realm of gender issues they've erred (as Mort describes above) by gendering their terminology, but trying to coin the broader social justice movement as "feminism" is even more harmful.

Intersectionality is a sharply intelligent idea. The concept is immediately and intuitively understandable to anyone you describe it to. Though it's lineage lies squarely in the camp of feminism, it explicitly deals with all forms of oppression, and includes a new, genderless term for the system of oppression (kyriarchy). I think now is the time to abandon feminism as the catch-all movement for equality. Feminism itself can and should still live on, but it should narrow its focus back to women's issues specifically -- they will still need directed attention for some time to come.

Going forward, it is absolutely essential that the social justice movement obtain a gender-inclusive name. I agree with the other posters here that feminists who don't see the terminology as being a problem are living in a bubble. Feminism has millions of allies in waiting -- men who agree with the values of the movement, but haven't bothered to learn about it because it appears to be (and originally was) a movement by and for women.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

The law as it was written was:



It allowed a mother to petition to authority for access (custody) to children until the age of seven but put the decision of custody in the hands of the authority being petitioned.

No, look at the bolded.

The Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the Vice-Chancellor in England, or the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, respectively, might, upon hearing the petition of the mother of any infant, being in the sole custody and control of the father 160 thereof, or of any person by his authority, if he should see fit, make order for the access of the petitioner to such infant, and if such infant should be within the age of seven years, to make order that such infant should be delivered to and remain in the custody of the petitioner until attaining such age.

This establishes a presumption of maternal custody for children under the age of seven years. Access and custody are not the same. Access would be what we call visitation rights while custody defines the primary legal guardian.

 

[marrec]

No, look at the bolded.

This establishes a presumption of maternal custody for children under the age of seven years.

You didn't read the part where it said 'if he should see fit'?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

You didn't read the part where it said 'if he should see fit'?

How is that different from what we have today?

If a judge should see fit (and he/she usually does) then the mother has default custody. This is a privilege not extended to fathers. If fathers want custody either the mother has to agree or he must prove the mother unfit. This, to me, is a presumption of maternal custody.

 

[HarryHengst]

Its amazing how any discussion about feminism gets turned into "but what about the MEN?!". Its all "boohoo custody is unfair" (well shucks, maybe those men can finally understand a tiny bit how women have it in pretty much every other aspect of life) and "patriarchy is a word that hurts the feelings of tose poor MEN".

 

[NovemberMike]

You didn't read the part where it said 'if he should see fit'?

IIRC that's generally interpreted as "if there is no reason not to". There is an assumption that the person judging this is neither malicious nor capricious and therefore they would only deny the mother access to her child if she was unfit.

Its amazing how any discussion about feminism gets turned into "but what about the MEN?!". Its all "boohoo custody is unfair" (well shucks, maybe those men can finally understand a tiny bit how women have it in pretty much every other aspect of life) and "patriarchy is a word that hurts the feelings of tose poor MEN".

Actually, this is a discussion about men that's turned into "BUT WHAT ABOUT FEMINISM".

 

[Dead Man]

Out of curiosity, is there actually documented instances of feminist groups lobbying for, or introducing bills to equalize custody / remove alimony? Or assistance for boys who are lagging behind in school / college like was done to assist girls?

A good question, and one that would go a long way to convincing me that feminism is indeed all for (legitimate) mens issues as well as so many poeple seem to assert lately.

Nothing wrong with feminists not doing any of that, but if people want others to believe that feminism is now fighting for all, some concrete evidence of this would be good.

 

[think]

Its amazing how any discussion about feminism gets turned into "but what about the MEN?!". Its all "boohoo custody is unfair" (well shucks, maybe those men can finally understand a tiny bit how women have it in pretty much every other aspect of life) and "patriarchy is a word that hurts the feelings of tose poor MEN".

I realize that this is often what happens in many topics unrelated to men, but please be aware that you are posting in a thread specifically about the modern men's issues movement. The relationship between men and feminism is precisely the topic of discussion.

 

[marrec]

How is that different from what we have today?

If a judge should see fit (and he/she usually does) then the mother has default custody. This is a privilege not extended to fathers. If fathers want custody either the mother has to agree or he must prove the mother unfit.

How are they different?

In 1839 default custody was given to men, even after this law was passed. A woman had to petition for custody and would only get it if it was granted. There was no presumption of custody but for that of the man until a petition was put forth by the woman. Even with a petition (which, by the way, was financially prohibitive for most divorced women at the time) she was not presumed custody because in the end it was up to the authority to decide who received custody.

Today the laws are written much differently. Custody is not presumed by the men anymore, or by the women but instead the court is to take only the child's best interests at heart. That has led to a preponderance of women gaining custody over men because it's assumed that women are better caregivers because of traditional gender roles, not because a feminist in 1839 helped pass a law that allowed women to have a voice in court concerning custody.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

How are they different?

In 1839 default custody was given to men, even after this law was passed. A woman had to petition for custody and would only get it if it was granted. There was no presumption of custody but for that of the man until a petition was put forth by the woman. Even with a petition (which, by the way, was financially prohibitive for most divorced women at the time) she was not presumed custody because in the end it was up to the authority to decide who received custody.

Today the laws are written much differently. Custody is not presumed by the men anymore, or by the women but instead the court is to take only the child's best interests at heart. That has led to a preponderance of women gaining custody over men because it's assumed that women are better caregivers because of traditional gender roles, not because a feminist in 1839 helped pass a law that allowed women to have a voice in court concerning custody.

Pretty sure mothers have default custody and if fathers want custody they must petition (which can be very expensive) or the mother has to agree to give custody to the father.

You tell me, what happens in a divorce when custody is not contested?

Anyway, as others have asked for. Is there evidence of feminist groups fighting to fix the inequalities in the family courts?

 

[marrec]

Pretty sure mothers have default custody and if fathers want custody they must petition (which can be very expensive) or the mother has to agree to give custody to the father.

As the current laws are written, again, no.

You tell me, what happens in a divorce when custody is not contested?

If custody is not contested then it must mean that there's been an agreement reached beforehand by the mother and father. That is the nature of 'uncontested'.

 

[Karkador]

Vane sounds like he has a huge chip on his shoulder and only conjecture to back it up

 

[jorma]

Its amazing how any discussion about feminism gets turned into "but what about the MEN?!". Its all "boohoo custody is unfair" (well shucks, maybe those men can finally understand a tiny bit how women have it in pretty much every other aspect of life) and "patriarchy is a word that hurts the feelings of tose poor MEN".

See if someone has an issue that she wants to discuss and you scornfully dismiss it straight up without even listening to the argument presented, why would you later expect her to give two shits about your problems?

I just don't get that.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Its amazing how any discussion about feminism gets turned into "but what about the MEN?!". Its all "boohoo custody is unfair" (well shucks, maybe those men can finally understand a tiny bit how women have it in pretty much every other aspect of life) and "patriarchy is a word that hurts the feelings of tose poor MEN".

Did you forget what thread you were reading or just trolling?

 

[marrec]

Anyway, as others have asked for. Is there evidence of feminist groups fighting to fix the inequalities in the family courts?

I consider myself a feminist and love to fight for the equality of men in family courts by advocating that men take on the responsibility of primary caregiver.

I'm distressed every time I go to a grocery store with my son and someone comes up and says 'You must be a fantastic father.' with zero prompting just because I'm out in public, alone, with my son.

I want presumptions of gender roles to be changed so that when my SO graduates from college, gets a job, and I quit to be a stay at home father, I'm not an aberration. I don't want my peers to question me when I tell them I want to be home with my son.

 

[NovemberMike]

I consider myself a feminist and love to fight for the equality of men in family courts by advocating that men take on the responsibility of primary caregiver.

I'm distressed every time I go to a grocery store with my son and someone comes up and says 'You must be a fantastic father.' with zero prompting just because I'm out in public, alone, with my son.

I want presumptions of gender roles to be changed so that when my SO graduates from college, gets a job, and I quit to be a stay at home father, I'm not an aberration. I don't want my peers to question me when I tell them I want to be home with my son.

Ok, so you're not talking to any politicians or anything about it and you don't know of anybody that is?

 

[Platy]

Don't you people love how basicaly all MRA threads ends up "bashing Feminism" instead of "discussing MRA" ? =P

People are talking about USA only 19th century laws as something everyone in the WORLD should know as something totaly feminist.
In the 19th century feminism praticaly didn't existed since First Wave Feminism is from the 20th century

I think that feminists have made a strategic error by trying to expand feminism to cover all social justice issues, rather than just those of gender. Even within the realm of gender issues they've erred (as Mort describes above) by gendering their terminology, but trying to coin the broader social justice movement as "feminism" is even more harmful.

It still focus on gender issues ... I never saw a feminist movement doing protests for world hunger or something like that

Intersectionality is to understand that people suffer from pathriarquy in a diferent way ... simple as that.

Changing the name of feminism to fit people who have the prejudice against things feminine is way too ironic and we had a huge thread about it already =P

 

[marrec]

Ok, so you're not talking to any politicians or anything about it and you don't know of anybody that is?

Why would you assume that I'm not advocating to politicians?

I'm not part of any formal feminist group so I can't speak for anyone else, but as part of my rights as a citizen I contact lawmakers and vote for those who I feel align with my political views.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

As the current laws are written, again, no.



If custody is not contested then it must mean that there's been an agreement reached beforehand by the mother and father. That is the nature of 'uncontested'.

So are you saying that a child is in limbo until custody is determined by the courts? That there is no default guardian other than the state until custody is granted?

 

[marrec]

So are you saying that a child is in limbo until custody is determined by the courts? That there is no default guardian other than the state until custody is granted?

How on earth did you get that out of what I said?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I consider myself a feminist and love to fight for the equality of men in family courts by advocating that men take on the responsibility of primary caregiver.

I'm distressed every time I go to a grocery store with my son and someone comes up and says 'You must be a fantastic father.' with zero prompting just because I'm out in public, alone, with my son.

I want presumptions of gender roles to be changed so that when my SO graduates from college, gets a job, and I quit to be a stay at home father, I'm not an aberration. I don't want my peers to question me when I tell them I want to be home with my son.

So....any evidence of feminist groups fighting for equality in the family courts?

How on earth did you get that out of what I said?

Who is the default legal guardian in the time between a breakup and custody hearing? Is it the state, is the child in limbo waiting for that ruling?

 

[NovemberMike]

Why would you assume that I'm not advocating to politicians?

I'm not part of any formal feminist group so I can't speak for anyone else, but as part of my rights as a citizen I contact lawmakers and vote for those who I feel align with my political views.

Oh, so you've written to politicians about how they're not getting your vote unless they do something about inequality in the family court system?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

So are you saying that a child is in limbo until custody is determined by the courts? That there is no default guardian other than the state until custody is granted?

It's usually decided in a hearing at the time of seperation if there is a disagreement on custody which parent is going to have temporary custody. Unfortunately once temp custody is established it is very hard to overturn so lots of judges try some kind of joint temp custody so that its fair, but then some don't and yeah, the whole process is full of BS like that.

 

[marrec]

So....any evidence of feminist groups fighting for equality in the family courts?

I'm not the arbiter of feminist group bylaws nor am I spokesperson for any. You should probably ask one of the groups directly.

Oh, so you've written to politicians about how they're not getting your vote unless they do something about inequality in the family court system?

Is that the only criteria you would accept? The narrowing field of political advocacy is a harsh mistress.

 

[zoukka]

Fuck men. Let's see us living in a hardcore matriarch society for a few millenia.

 

[GrandHarrier]

Changing the name of feminism to fit people who have the prejudice against things feminine is way too ironic and we had a huge thread about it already =P

Well, if things like Policeman, etc, were changed to be gender neutral, why is the term feminism excluded?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

It's usually decided in a hearing at the time of seperation if there is a disagreement on custody which parent is going to have temporary custody. Unfortunately once temp custody is established it is very hard to overturn so lots of judges try some kind of joint temp custody so that its fair, but then some don't and yeah, the whole process is full of BS like that.

I see. Temporary custody most often turns into permanent custody so as not to break up the childs life.

Well, if things like Policeman, etc, were changed to be gender neutral, why is the term feminism excluded?

Because it really is about equality FOR WOMEN. It's really not about gender equality.

I'm not the arbiter of feminist group bylaws nor am I spokesperson for any. You should probably ask one of the groups directly.

Well, the question has been asked on a public forum and there are many feminists participating....we'll see if we get that evidence.

See, some feminists claim that a Mens Rights Movement is not needed because feminism is already fighting the same battles. Well, evidence of those battles shouldn't be hard to find, right?

 

[Vagabundo]

Its amazing how any discussion about feminism gets turned into "but what about the MEN?!". Its all "boohoo custody is unfair" (well shucks, maybe those men can finally understand a tiny bit how women have it in pretty much every other aspect of life) and "patriarchy is a word that hurts the feelings of tose poor MEN".

lol.. perfect.

 

[GrandHarrier]

Its amazing how any discussion about feminism gets turned into "but what about the MEN?!". Its all "boohoo custody is unfair" (well shucks, maybe those men can finally understand a tiny bit how women have it in pretty much every other aspect of life) and "patriarchy is a word that hurts the feelings of tose poor MEN".

Revenge seems the wrong place to seek equality. And that is a very "Sins of the father" approach.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I could get behind the family court problem and the lack of attention to the problems of young boys, especially minority boys.

 

[marrec]

Well, the question has been asked on a public forum and there are many feminists participating....we'll see if we get that evidence.

See, some feminists claim that a Mens Rights Movement is not needed because feminism is already fighting the same battles. Well, evidence of those battles shouldn't be hard to find, right?

The language of this conversation is not encouraging for any feminist to come in here and have an honest discussion. The inquisitorial nature of yours and others replies to me is very telling of how any evidence of advocacy would go.

Furthermore, it's not on the onus of anyone to prove to you what they advocate for. If you are curious then asking here (in a genuine manner, not accusatory as you have done) is a start. If, however, you don't receive a response then you should not take that as evidence but instead you should widen your search.

 

[Vagabundo]

I could get behind the family court problem and the lack of attention to the problems of young boys, especially minority boys.

This is a problem in my country as well. Boys are falling behind girls in secondary school and college admissions, yet it actually triumphalist in the media. Short sighted in my opinion.

 

[Jburton]

Its amazing how any discussion about feminism gets turned into "but what about the MEN?!". Its all "boohoo custody is unfair" (well shucks, maybe those men can finally understand a tiny bit how women have it in pretty much every other aspect of life) and "patriarchy is a word that hurts the feelings of tose poor MEN".

Wow that will really help anyone see your point of view, your as daft as the people your talking about.


Feminism as equality for all is never really displayed, even in a small sense as even to pay lip service to the notion ...... I understand that women face more inequalities than men but it is very hard to be sold on a ideal for all when as I say not even lip service is payed to the notion.

 

[Earthstrike]

Pretty sure mothers have default custody and if fathers want custody they must petition (which can be very expensive) or the mother has to agree to give custody to the father.

You tell me, what happens in a divorce when custody is not contested?

Anyway, as others have asked for. Is there evidence of feminist groups fighting to fix the inequalities in the family courts?

The judge takes the child's best interests into mind when deciding to assign to the mother or father based on what she knows of both parents.

 

[diffusionx]

If men are concerned about the collapse of male-oriented middle-class careers and are concerned with workplace accidents that overwhelmingly affect men... they should stop voting for the politicians who work to accelerate this trend. White men overwhelmingly vote Republican, you reap what you sow.

It still focus on gender issues ... I never saw a feminist movement doing protests for world hunger or something like that

How would one protest world hunger? It takes more than placards to put food in the mouths of impoverished Africans or Asians.

[Edward Sullivan] writes “In my experience, the majority of women treat the majority of men like shit.”

I am sure he is just a peach to be around.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

The language of this conversation is not encouraging for any feminist to come in here and have an honest discussion. The inquisitorial nature of yours and others replies to me is very telling of how any evidence of advocacy would go.

Furthermore, it's not on the onus of anyone to prove to you what they advocate for. If you are curious then asking here (in a genuine manner, not accusatory as you have done) is a start. If, however, you don't receive a response then you should not take that as evidence but instead you should widen your search.

I would say there won't be any evidence shown because there isn't any to show. Feminism is about equality for WOMEN and they don't directly fight for equality for men. Also, I am not the only one asking for that evidence.

 

[Jburton]

I could get behind the family court problem and the lack of attention to the problems of young boys, especially minority boys.

Also the issue of men's health issues not getting equal treatment in comparison to women ........ such as in terms of the promotion, awareness, fundraising etc of Breast Cancer in comparison to Prostate Cancer ..... just as an example.

When I told someone that prostate cancer kills as many men as Breast cancer does women in the UK every year they did not believe me, where is the same level of promotion, funding for research etc?

 

[Vagabundo]

Also the issue of men's health issues not getting equal treatment in comparison to women ........ such as in terms of the promotion, awareness, fundraising etc of Breast Cancer in comparison to Prostate Cancer ..... just as an example.

When I told someone that prostate cancer kills as many men as Breast cancer does women in the UK every year they did not believe me, where is the same level of promotion, funding for research etc?

The issue with prostate cancer is that it is fully treatable with great recovery rates if caught early. Really we just need an information campaign and men to want more fingers shoved up their arses.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

The judge takes the child's best interests into mind when deciding to assign to the mother or father based on what she knows of both parents.

OK. Do you believe there is any truth in this statement?

Critics maintain that the father must prove the mother to be an unfit parent before he is awarded primary custody, while the mother need not prove the father unfit in order to win custody herself, and that this is contrary to the equal protection clause.

 

[marrec]

I would say there won't be any evidence shown because there isn't any to show. Feminism is about equality for WOMEN and they don't directly fight for equality for men. Also, I am not the only one asking for that evidence.

Again, you're not encouraging anyone to reply in an honest way. You stand up and scream and demand and otherwise encourage polemical fights instead of wanting a genuine discussion. You've clearly already answered your own question Vane, without need for anyone else to vindicate you.

 

[Jburton]

The issue with prostate cancer is that it is fully treatable with great recovery rates if caught early. Really we just need an information campaign and men to want more fingers shoved up their arses.

A study found that Breast cancer receives twice the amount of research funds in comparison to prostate cancer in the UK, a likely trend all over the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20875488


For a cancer that kills as many as Breast cancer?

There is an inequality based on gender that is killing people.


Your post has nothing to do with the above, the same can be stated about most cancers .... like breast cancer.

 

[Hari Seldon]

The issue with prostate cancer is that it is fully treatable with great recovery rates if caught early. Really we just need an information campaign and men to want more fingers shoved up their arses.

The issue is that we need more female doctors with small fingers. See mens rights and feminism can be allies.

 

[marrec]

The issue is that we need more female doctors with small fingers. See mens rights and feminism can be allies.

There is a real problem with men accepting that they need to get regular prostate examines or that prostate cancer is even worthy of concern.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Again, you're not encouraging anyone to reply in an honest way. You stand up and scream and demand and otherwise encourage polemical fights instead of wanting a genuine discussion. You've clearly already answered your own question Vane, without need for anyone else to vindicate you.

I am simply asking. I haven't screamed or demanded anything. Others have also asked this, in fact, others asked for it first. Are they also screaming and demanding too?

 

[Earthstrike]

OK. Do you believe there is any truth in this statement?

I do. It's a shame that patriarchial gender roles has caused this to be the case and it's good that there is a force fighting patriarchy.

 

[think]

It still focus on gender issues ... I never saw a feminist movement doing protests for world hunger or something like that

Intersectionality is to understand that people suffer from pathriarquy in a diferent way ... simple as that.

I don't think you're giving intersectionality enough credit -- it is a topic of far greater diversity than patriarchy and gender issues. On intersectionality:

The theory suggests—and seeks to examine how—various biological, social and cultural categories such as gender, race, class, ability, sexual orientation, and other axes of identity interact on multiple and often simultaneous levels, contributing to systematic social inequality. Intersectionality holds that the classical conceptualizations of oppression within society, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and religion- or belief-based bigotry, do not act independently of one another; instead, these forms of oppression interrelate, creating a system of oppression that reflects the "intersection" of multiple forms of discrimination.[2]

and on kyriarchy:

Kyriarchy ("rule by a lord"; from the Greek κύριος/kyrios "lord, master" and αρχή/arche "authority, leadership") is a social system or set of connecting social systems built around domination, oppression, and submission. The word itself is a neologism or new term coined by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza to describe interconnected, interacting, and self-extending systems of domination and submission, in which a single individual might be oppressed in some relationships and privileged in others.[1] It is an intersectional extension of the idea of patriarchy[1] beyond gender. Kyriarchy encompasses sexism, racism, economic injustice, and other forms of dominating hierarchy in which the subordination of one person or group to another is internalized and institutionalized.[2]

Also, I wanted to respond to this:

Changing the name of feminism to fit people who have the prejudice against things feminine is way too ironic and we had a huge thread about it already =P

The claim that those of us who advocate for a name change are "prejudice against things feminine" is an unfortunate ad-hominem, and not even substantiated. I am not your enemy. I am a feminist, an ally. I support the overthrow of patriarchal systems and an elimination of gendered expectations in society. You may dismiss my arguments as concern trolling (though you shouldn't -- that too is a fallacy), but you should not dismiss me or others on unfounded claims of prejudice.

 

[Earthstrike]

A study found that Breast cancer receives twice the amount of research funds in comparison to prostate cancer in the UK, a likely trend all over the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20875488


For a cancer that kills as many as Breast cancer?

There is an inequality based on gender that is killing people.


Your post has nothing to do with the above, the same can be stated about most cancers .... like breast cancer.

Isn't the purpose of research to solve a problem we currently don't understand? The prostate cancer problem is solved in the sense that all we need to deal with it is early detection. It would seem to me like it would be a huge waste of scientific resources to put money towards a problem that has a very high recovery rate if detected early.

 

[Vagabundo]

A study found that Breast cancer receives twice the amount of research funds in comparison to prostate cancer in the UK, a likely trend all over the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20875488


For a cancer that kills as many as Breast cancer?

There is an inequality based on gender that is killing people.


Your post has nothing to do with the above, the same can be stated about most cancers .... like breast cancer.

I'm agreeing with you. I'm just saying that it is more information and visibility that we need for prostrate cancer. It does annoy me when I see those pink breast cancer ribbons. Where are my brown prostate ones?

The issue is that we need more female doctors with small fingers. See mens rights and feminism can be allies.

The the docs might be overrun and the needy might be over looked.

I'm wondering would men be more comfortable with a male or female doctor? Definitely female for me for penis/ass issues.