Breast cancer research fundraising: gender politics for sale?

I was waiting in line at a Safeway grocery store. In front of me was a shriveled-up old man. At the counter was a poster beseeching customers to donate $3 of their change for breast cancer research. I found this a rather exorbitant amount; $1, OK. $3, not OK. Was Safeway competing with other stores to see who could raise the most money? When the old man reached the cashier, she asked him if he wanted to donate “just” $3 in a “There’s something seriously wrong with you if you don’t want to”—or a misogynist, or whatever I can say to make you feel as guilty as hell way. The old man, who barely spoke above a whisper, said that he had prostate cancer and he didn’t understand why some people thought that breast cancer was the only kind of cancer. The cashier, whose manner suggested to me she was the gender issues type, was taken aback, and searching for a response, seemed to recall that Safeway had a “Prostate Cancer” month, in May, maybe. She turned to another cashier and asked “Don’t we have Prostate Cancer month in May?”—the response to which was humming and hawing and a “I think so.” I’m not sure this convinced the old man to give up his change, but I got him off the hook by observing that I thought it odd that there would be a Prostate Cancer month in May, since Mother’s Day was in May, and why do we want to spoil the occasion with a reminder that men, like women, also suffer diseases specific to them, like testicular cancer. That really soured the atmosphere, and I was glad I didn’t have enough change left after my purchase to cover the $3.

But the old man had a point; breast cancer has been politicized to the detriment of other illnesses. In the early years of the Clinton administration, TIME magazine opined that “The demands of breast-cancer lobbyists are growing even though the disease receives more government funds than other forms of malignancy, including lung cancer, which kills more women each year. One justification is that while the causes of lung cancer (chiefly smoking) are well understood, the causes of breast cancer (diet, genetic makeup or exposure to pollutants?) are still mysterious. Even so, no one can guarantee that more money will bring a quicker cure. ‘People say that the money will save lives, but that's not necessarily true,’ says Ann Flood, a sociologist at Dartmouth Medical School. ‘It's not like we are close to brand-new information that would benefit from such funds.’" Heart disease, in fact, continues to be the number one killer of both men and women. According to CDC, seven percent of women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lifetimes. Out of these, there is a 90 to 95 percent “cure” rate if the cancer is detected early, and is typically a disease that afflicts those 65 or over. Since breast cancer is not always caught early, the actual “cure” rate is closer to 80 percent. The National Cancer Institute states that the risk of breast cancer is low. "A typical 50-year-old woman has a five-year breast cancer risk of about 3 percent. If her risk jumps by 30 percent, her individual risk is still only about 4 percent." Women have a 10 to 12 times greater chance of dying from heart disease than from breast cancer.

According to 2008 New York Times story, breast cancer research in 2006 received approximately $560 million in funding. Prostate cancer, which has slightly higher incident rate in raw numbers than breast cancer, saw research funding of $310 million. This was followed by lung cancer ($265 million), colon cancer ($252 million) and pancreatic cancer ($75 million, and whose recent victims included actor Patrick Swayze and Apple icon Steve Jobs). Funding for lung, colon and pancreatic cancer barely equals that for breast cancer alone, although it is worth noting that the two gender specific cancers receive an inordinate amount of attention.

At any rate, “events,” fundraisers and marketing campaigns targeting breast cancer research seem to be ubiquitous. Why is this? There is of course the cosmetic issue; a woman’s breasts have always been a measure of their attraction. But my impression is that this is the kind of gender specific issue that feminists and gender activists can claim as an example that women do not receive the health care attention they deserve (which is hogwash) and use it as a weapon batter insensitive men with; look at the NFL—players beat themselves to pulp every Sunday to entertain the masses, and yet they must show their “sensitive” side by wearing something pink.