Female academics suggest low risk prostate cancer should not be called cancer, because men are too stupid to cope.

BJ_Blitzvix · 2024-11-04T00:13:26+00:00

Cancer is cancer.

rabel111 · 2024-11-03T23:56:51+00:00

Low risk prostate cancer should be reclassified as "not cancer", because men are incapable of coping or being involved in their own care. Female oncology specialists and prostate cancer groups (strangely all CEOed by women) are all for infantising men. Apparently, calling prostate cancer, "cancer", and giving men control of their health options, is considered a poor outcome. OMG.

papertiger22 · 2024-11-04T00:41:46+00:00

pulling a feminist classic: rename harms suffered mainly by men so the stats look worse for women. these men will have prostate cancer whether they change the name or not, but these "researchers" and "doctors" can pat themselves on the back when they read through the stats that say more women have breast cancer than men have prostate cancer, and use it to lobby for more money directed to women.

Front-Hovercraft-721 · 2024-11-04T00:59:28+00:00

It seems like the last thing they want to see is money being “wasted” on mens health research. Let’s not call a man’s cancer real cancer.

As a man who has dealt with his prostate cancer very successfully on his own for over a decade, that statement can only be described as a product of a bull’s ass. Absolutely zero legitimacy.

Aggressive_Cherry_81 · 2024-11-04T00:00:52+00:00

And then you realise she isn’t even the worst offender.

Enough-Staff-2976 · 2024-11-04T00:24:20+00:00

The modus operandi is minimize all male pain.

SarcasticallyCandour · 2024-11-04T00:32:24+00:00

Good to see women in mens health orgs looking out for mens wellbeing and being true to mens health awareness.

We can see like movember partnering with HeForShe, its feminists infiltrating mens orgs to restructure into their antimale bile.

szopongebob · 2024-11-04T00:48:37+00:00

Femcels

Magical-Hummus · 2024-11-04T00:54:36+00:00

You would think a cancer like herself would be good at defining cancer.

MadameKamaysLandlord · 2024-11-04T01:18:58+00:00

According to canceraustralia.gov, breast cancer is the 2nd most commonly diagnosed and 5th most common cancer death. Do you think they’ll do the same? I doubt it.

Rionat · 2024-11-04T01:17:29+00:00

Cancer is literally a biological process gone haywire. Doesn’t matter what they “feel” impacts more

ChemistryFan29 · 2024-11-04T02:26:15+00:00

oh god immagine a man say this about cervical cancer or breast cancer, that person would be crucified so badly that realy no word can describe it. really that person's life would be over,

Cancer is not something people screw around with, just like HIV, those two things are so serious anybody screws around with like this should get crucified regardless of gender.

RealStarkey · 2024-11-04T04:31:43+00:00

What do you expect from the femosphere, the feminist dominated news media

bigskycaniac · 2024-11-04T03:02:30+00:00

from everything I've gathered about Australia and how it treats men, I'm not surprised.

CawlinAlcarz · 2024-11-04T00:47:51+00:00

This is only to take emphasis away from male cancer so that funding continues to be majority focused on female cancers...

Current_Finding_4066 · 2024-11-04T10:05:59+00:00

Normal aspects of ageing. Same as men whos testosterone naturally decline and they are left high and dry by the medical community. Then behold the normal menopause, all of the sudden intervention is required.

walterwallcarpet · 2024-11-04T07:39:58+00:00

That photo which accompanies the article! Implying that we all go to the doctor with our wives to act as mommy and stand behind us reassuringly to explain the big words which the doctor is saying.

By the way, isn't the phrase 'female academics' an oxymoron?

In fact, skip the oxy.

saurabh291080 · 2024-11-04T01:11:45+00:00

Is same applies with breast cancer too?

thewindburner · 2024-11-04T11:21:26+00:00

non paywall version

https://archive.ph/20241103184211/https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/what-s-in-a-name-the-push-to-rebrand-the-most-common-type-of-cancer-20241101-p5kn3v.html

Shavemydicwhole · 2024-11-04T11:43:24+00:00

So they list how widespread it is, list how damaging it is to the quality of life at best, then downplay everything. Their argument is that the damages of testing (oh no, not blood samples and MRI! ALSO listed in the article) isn't to be bothered with for these old guys who are gonna die soon anyways, who cares about quality of life. You've given your usefulness to society/matriarchy, time to die.

The_Equalitarian · 2024-11-04T03:01:19+00:00

ok, I dont have time to read this tonight(I'll update this comment when I get done reading) but let m just say this sound really stupid and dumb. Cancer is cancer

myleswstone · 2024-11-04T21:16:30+00:00

Alrighty guys, medical anthropologist working in an oncology lab and non-extreme men's rights activist here. This is misinformation. While based in truth, this article is extreme. Low-grade prostate cancer clinically acts like precancer, not cancer. This is why it's not being considered by some to be a cancer. While I don't necessarily agree with it being considered a non-cancer, because it is technically cancer, it acts similarly to precancer.

https://ascopubs.org/doi/pdf/10.1200/JCO.22.00123
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK487255/
https://aacrjournals.org/cancerpreventionresearch/article/9/8/648/50543/Premalignancy-in-Prostate-Cancer-Rethinking-What
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/115/11/1364/7191778#google_vignette

I cannot find any information that says this author is a credited scientist who can speak on this topic. She is a journalist covering health and politics at The Age, a Melbourne-based tabloid company that is focused on investigative journalism. It seems to me that their writings are exagerrated and have a very large left-leaning bias. I highly advise everyone to do their own research.

Please notice I'm not saying that it shouldn't be considered a cancer. I do think it should because of the fact that, from my understanding, low-grade prostate cancer is still cancer. But, once more, due to precancer-like symptoms and diagnostics, some consider it to be a precancer (normally called 'precancerous'). Calling low-grade prostate cancer precancer can lead to improper treatments, potentially causing the cancer to become significantly worse, making a very treatable cancer turn into a fatal one. One more thing-- please note that this secondary source cites zero sources.

LateDream · 2024-11-04T10:30:23+00:00

They're schizos

Humanityhasfallen · 2024-11-04T14:30:16+00:00

I'm at a loss for words.

Leather_Tax1095 · 2024-11-04T19:29:42+00:00

The vast majority of female opinions don’t really matter

Quit giving children the respect of adults

63daddy · 2024-11-04T21:10:46+00:00

Most cancers have a higher risk with aging. That’s not unique to prostate cancer. What’s unique about prostrate cancer is it only impacts men and is therefore downplayed.

Milk--and--honey · 2024-11-06T09:38:57+00:00

This is worded very very stupidly/offensively, but we actually learned this in nursing school. Basically most prostate cancers happen to very old men, and since it's very slow growing. So people opt out of treatment simply because they'll be dead long before the cancer gets big enough to cause problems

But I still think it's stupid to stop calling it cancer

secret_tiger101 · 2024-11-04T18:00:22+00:00

Anyone got a link to the academic article?

Valiantay · 2024-11-04T03:19:12+00:00

lesions in other organs with no capacity to cause symptoms or threaten life

It seems pretty reasonable actually. I don't think you know anyone with low grade prostate cancer. It's extremely distressing to them, even if they are asymptomatic.

It's not the gendered thing you're making it out to be as they're talking about all diagnosis that pose ZERO risk in any way to the patient.

MuchAndMore · 2024-11-04T00:33:07+00:00

I read the whole article which I don't think many of you did. While I do agree with some points I disagree fully with the title.

It does say it's not just for prostate cancer but all lower levels of cancer at higher age groups.

Before bringing out the pitchforks I'd like to know what these other ones are and the levels of wariness they are proposing.

Apparently this isn't just for older men, but talks about other cancers and old age in general. Which seem to imply the others are not specific to men or women, but in general say that using the word cancer causes people across the board to freak out. Not just men, but people in general which is understandable. The issue is it's usually in older people who in the article are said to have invasive procedures, not needed procedures and some requiring heavy surgery which at higher age is a greater risk to life and morbidity than letting a small note of cancer survive.

Simply because there is much greater things to worry about at 80 years old than low grade cancer killing you at 115 when the chances of you living to that is so ridiculously low. The surgery and procedures sometimes are more deadly at that age than the cancer itself.

I'm all about health equality but this seems a bit sensational.

I'm a massive MRA but I don't see a lot of correlation to OPs comment and claims here when reading the full article.

I do agree with men being disposable is a common thing in society and this being a possibility, but I am not seeing the heavy claims being substantiated fully here.

LoneWolfpack777 · 2024-11-04T19:04:39+00:00

Cunts gonna cunt.

oggyb · 2024-11-04T12:06:49+00:00

Good article, unnecessarily cynical post title.

Deft_one · 2024-11-04T00:53:38+00:00

Source?

This just says not to worry people over normal-aging with too-heavy a word, but instead to wait until things get bad to worry.

Also, there is nothing about "female academics," you just made that part up flat-out.

Yes, it focuses on prostate cancer, but it explicitly says this is a generalized thing.

Misogynist title-making isn't "men's rights"

And it's obvious that many people here commented without actually reading the article. It's sad.

Title	Female academics suggest low risk prostate cancer should not be called cancer, because men are too stupid to cope.
Author	rabel111
Upvotes	768
Comments	76
Date	November 3, 2024 11:54 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1gj10ej/female_academics_suggest_low_risk_prostate_cancer/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/female-academics-suggest-low-risk-prostate-cancer.1534561 https://theredarchive.com/post/1534561

Comments