Cancer Council Men's Cabarita Polarised Sunglasses - Gold/Tortoise Shell/Grey
https://shopping.scoopon.com.au/product/cancer-council-mens-…
Puma Shoes
Mens
https://shopping.scoopon.com.au/product/puma-mens-driver-2-s…
Womens
https://shopping.scoopon.com.au/product/puma-womens-driver-2…
prostate cancer is the number 1 killer
wouldn't it make sense to swing the bias to the number one killer in cancer, wouldn't that be the most efficient way to save lives?
What if you were not going to donate to any Charity but wanted the sunglasses and the upside is that some money goes to a charity that helps people, but only people you believe don't need help the most.
Is that ok?
i take it from my negative votes that my previous comment was utterly ridiculous
haha
I call bullshit:
https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/what-cancer/c…
Lung and Bowel cancer well out-perform - if you want to look at it like that… Breast cancer (for men and women - yes men can get it too!) is pretty well on-par with prostate and the incidence of prostate cancer tends to be in higher age groups potentially skewing the effect of treatment too.
Now go wipe your eyes and get yourself a nice new pair of sunnies…
nope, from your own source
Prostate 3,452
Breast 3,087
and the point i was making was in relation to grants given by cancer coucil at a rate of 4 to 1 relating to gender
For realsies? "pretty well on-par"… STILL puts it in third, a fair way down from "prostate cancer is the number 1 killer" - and again, breast cancer affects both men and women…
So your solution is not support the council at all? Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?
@nebakke:
you are right relating to my statement on prostate cancer being the number 1 killer though, that was very poorly phrased.. but at least i am consistent ha
that is ok but they look a bit shit imho.. they use to have really nice looking ones, i picked up a set of these almost chrome but really dark aviators, gorgeous
everything is ok, i've bought off them before, i was just making a simple statement relating to their bias in research, a public service announcement that they are far from perfect and could do a lot better for those affected by cancer by addressing their own bias
Glad to see you acknowledge that - as for breast cancer vs prostate cancer, the actual number of deaths from breast cancer in 2017 was 3,114 - the 3080 that you reported were women only. That's still 340 less than prostate cancer, but close… Now, has it occurred to you that there could be other factors impacting the funding focus? Such as when the types of cancers are most commonly seen, impacted age groups, treatment options etc?
Or maybe, for some reason, they want to start with cancers that don't exclusively impact one of the sexes ;)
the bias is actually well documented within the medical industry as well as research and government, etc, i think it might be more of a social thing rather than an effort to be pragmatic, if you squint you might even find hints of this within this very comment thread
The thing is, this: https://www.cancer.org.au/about-us/research/2016-research-fu… suggests that you're incorrect on the bias as well… For "Cancer Council Australia" there's ~$400,000 out of their $563,000 research funding for 2016, went to Lung Cancer or "All Cancers" - there's a post for $96,000 to Ovarian cancer, but that's hardly unreasonable is it? Bearing in mind that their funding target is also subject to who actually applies for it.
For Cancer Council NSW, there were 16 Funding posts for Breast and Ovarian Cancers and 5 for Prostate in the same year - all three well overshadowed by other research programmes - hardly points towards the heavy bias that you're suggesting exists.
I think you misunderstand the bias that they're being accused of… With what I have read at least - the concern with the Cancer Council, is that their funding is biased towards the more common cancer types, Breast, Ovarian, Lung, Prostate etc. as opposed to the less common ones. Not that it's subject to a gender bias.
if you have a look at their grants in their annual report for 2016 you'll see that 10 or the ~30? are directly related to breast and ovarian and there is only 1 related to prostate
so there is a clear bias there when you consider more people die each year from prostate cancer
annaul report: https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/…
@guberskank:
You do understand how grants work right?? They can only award grants to the people that apply - and neither of those specific types of cancer are the biggest recipients on the grants list…
Going on CC Australia alone, they have a grant for prostate cancer but none for Breast, for 2016 - are you telling me that CC Australia is actually biased against Breast Cancer but CC NSW is towards?
The four grants that were listed for prostate cancer by CC NSW in 2016 make up more than half the equivalent value of the 8 grants for Breast cancer by the same group in the same year, does that imply some sort of bias as well?
@nebakke: i am not sure where you are getting your information from, why not stick to their annual report for 2016 that i posted above? it makes much more sense to look at where the grants were awarded by the organisation within a financial year rather than to pick differences in states at certain times
perhaps you can address the 10 to 1 awards within the annual report that i highlight in my previous comment? page 28
You mean the page starting with this heading?
"Grants awarded by Cancer Council NSW in 2016*
But sure - I'll address them from smallest to biggest, as provided by CC NSW in 2016:
New projects,
Melanoma: 351787
Breast Cancer: $353633
All Cancers: $357012
Brain Cancer: $359460
Myeloma: $360000
Leukaemia: $360000
Lung Cancer: $360000
Pancreatic Cancer: $360000
All Cancers: $360000
Lymphma: $360000
New Programs:
Combined Liver Cancer Programs: ~$1,243,000
All of the breast cancer programs combined: ~$1,440,000
All Cancers: $2,203,986
All Cancers: $2.234,525
Childhood Cancer: $2,245,746
Leukemia: $2,249,946
And that's after itemising non breast or liver -cancer programs individually, I don't see much point in going on… Breast Cancer is hardly the single, outstanding program that takes the vast majority of CC funding the way you imply… There's not a lot for prostate cancer, but I seriously doubt that that has anything to do with some sort of feministic bias within CC NSW…
@guberskank: dude, you should know better than to challenge anything that even remotely looks like going against the feminist status quo, and the greater Leftist movement in this country for that matter. So if you hold an adverse opinion to their ideologies expect to be shouted down, basically if it's something that adversely affects men, stfu. (yeh I'm gonna get negged ikr)
absolutely.. but it is funny how agro people get just by a simple statement… there is something very wrong with our society when such vitriol stems from merely pointing out simple truths
You're encouraging people to disregard a charity because it doesn't fit your own agenda. That is the problem people are having with you.
I agree with you. But I think nobody is making much money on these in either case, and it wouldn't bother me if Cancer Council made more profit than Scoopon on the deal.
Just to be clear, you're suggesting that we boycott a charity because, while they're giving money to two worthy causes, the ratio of money allocated to these two causes isn't exactly the same as the ratio of instances of the problems these two causes are attempting to address?
all i am suggesting is that they appear to have a gender bias and as a result they are not spending their resources efficienty
they could be doing a much better job, i did not say to boycott anyone
but i think its quite clear that your donation would be more effective for cancer patients if you sent it to an organisation without such a bais
It appears that you are cherry-picking statistics to support some political agenda. In general, across all cancer types that affect both men and women, men are significantly more likely to get cancer. Men are also more likely to die from these cancers as well. By ignoring general cancers and focussing on cancers that you claim only affect one or the other, you have neglected to realise that most funding goes to those cancers that affect both. (Note that around 200 men in Australia are diagnosed with breast cancer annually.)
Thus, you have overlooked a main issue underlying research funding: In funding research into cancers that affect men more than women, Cancer Council research disproportionately benefits men.
The most common cancer causing death in 2017 was lung cancer. Here are some stats:
Estimated number of new cases of lung cancer diagnosed in 2018
12,741 = Male icon PNG 7,212 males + Female icon PNG 5,529 females
Estimated % of all new cancer cases diagnosed in 2018: 9.2%
Estimated number of deaths from lung cancer in 2018
9,198 = Male icon PNG 5,229 males + Female icon PNG 3,969 females
Thus, for every $9198 of funding of lung cancer research, $5229 benefits males and only $3969 to females.
we are talking about the cancer council and how they allocate grants
for example in 2016FY they sanctioned 10x the amount of research grants for female specific cancers compared to male specific cancers even though more men die from those gender specific cancers each year
gender shouldn't even come into it, but sadly it does and as a result resources are not being efficiently used to serve all cancer patients, the cancer council is guilty of this bias which was my point
political agenda my ass, the truth hurts
As I directly stated and evidenced: Cancer Council research disproportionately benefits men.
again it's NOT about gender, its about who needs support
your analysis is utterly ridiculous with respect to treating cancer patients.. it's evident that all you care is about gender and not about victims of cancer.. unless of course they are female
disgraceful
@guberskank: Please don't attack me. I'm not disgraceful, nor is my message.
As I have pointed out, the research funding provided by the Cancer Council supports men more than women. I have not cherrypicked data nor am I spreading the political stench of the Men's Rights Activist on popular websites such as OzBargain.
it's evident that all you care is about gender and not about victims of cancer
From the guy who's obsessing about how much money is going towards gender-specific cancers…
@twocsies: Just curious, how does quoting some lung cancer specifics refute anything to do with what guberskank is talking about? The statistics you quote make no reference to what Cancer Council funds in relation to cancer. Further, it is quite logical in my mind that research which benefits both would be excluded from the discussion. And why choose the lower statistic based on number of deaths anyway? Why not the number of new cases? It is slightly more women in that one. Either way, I cannot see how it means anything without you providing proof of how much Cancer Council funds lung cancer research as opposed to any other cancers. Why not simply ask guberskank to prove what he is saying instead of simply providing a distraction?
Just curious, how does quoting some lung cancer specifics refute anything to do with what guberskank is talking about?
Guberskank has asserted that a small subset of the Cancer Council research benefits women over men. Nonetheless, cancer disproportionally affects men. Thus, taken as a whole, cancer research disproportionately benefits men.
Further, it is quite logical in my mind that research which benefits both would be excluded from the discussion.
This is exactly why Men's Rights Activists use this type of cherry picked data. They seek to influence gullible people by selecting data that supports their position, regardless of whether their position is true when considering the whole.
Why not simply ask guberskank to prove what he is saying instead of simply providing a distraction?
Guberskank is not coming up with this argument. He's simply parroting lines from Men's Rights Activist. He cannot prove anything unless they come up with some better arguments. Nonetheless, for every dollar donated to the Cancer Council, assuming their research is of benefit in proportion to the money spent, those donations disproportionately benefit men over women (to a small extent).
I cannot see how it means anything without you providing proof of how much Cancer Council funds lung cancer research as opposed to any other cancers
Thanks for pointing this out. However, the Cancer Council's funding details are publicly available, with links and details presented above, so if you are really sceptical that cancer research benefits men more than women in dollar terms, that is an option that's available to you.
However, beyond some kind of specific dollar value (that you have already mentioned wouldn't even convince you), the bottom line is that men suffer cancer much more than women. Cancer research funding as a whole will thus benefit men more than women. Furthermore, there are many more male researchers than female researchers, so much more funding will go towards male researchers. Thus, my prima facie argument is that our donations to the Cancer Council will not disproportionately benefit men, though the NSW branch of the Cancer Council put more research funds towards breast cancer than prostate cancer in 2016.
Nonetheless, I would suggest that the small portion of money from the purchase of the sunglasses that goes to the Cancer Council will benefit both men and women.
@twocsies: You refuted guberskank without proving anything whatsoever about research funding. But you told him "the research funding provided by the Cancer Council supports men more than women". I don't know what "Men's Rights Activist" is but I must assume you are precisely the opposite of that.
If I was a woman with lung cancer, I would be grateful for the research made into lung cancer. I wouldn't be 43% grateful for the research, I would be 100% grateful. Same goes for men. I really do not think that has anything to do with men's rights activists at all. More to do with logic.
@Risto: Ok, thank you for claiming that I 'refuted something without proving anything'. Proving that things are false without proving anything is my speciality. As it appears that you are ignorant that cancer research funding is a Men's Rights Activist talking point, and want to somehow defend those talking points, I will bid you goodbye. I do not condone the methods or talking points of that fringe group.
In closing, please support the Cancer Council, which continues to serve both men and women, and in future, I do hope you keep your wits about you and continue to question the arguments of those who seek to divide society.
@twocsies: You're welcome. Though I wasn't giving you a compliment. I was hopeful you would have backed up your refutations with some meaningful statistics. Instead you just simply said you proved him wrong. We all yearn for a simpler life like this.
If men feel aggrieved about a disparity in funding, perhaps there is some smoke from a fire there. I don't know. I was hoping you would prove something in a meaningful way. I think all humans should have rights. If men are indeed human, then perhaps that "fringe" group has a right to be heard.
A quick search revealed this:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/men-die-earlier-but-…
Are these the terrible "man fringe" you are talking about?
In closing, my wits were yearning for you to provide a compelling argument instead of just saying "as I have pointed out" when you did nothing of the sort. Thanks for the underwhelming dialogue.
@Risto: That's rude of you then, for personal attacks against me. I was happier when I assumed you weren't in the company of MRA. You seek to fight a strawman. The Cancer Council research benefits both men and women.
@twocsies: Sorry my dear. You questioned my ability to use my wits appropriately. I merely questioned your ability to respond meaningfully. I'm in the company of human rights my dear. Men are human, you should talk to them more.
guberskank, While I agree with the sentiment, I wouldn't worry too much about money from these going to the cancer council, These retailed for $49.95, they are most likely discontinued and scoopon have picked them up cheap.
Has anyone bought these particular shoes before? Are they any good?
Anyway I think we’ve gone off topic a tad. How bout the sunnies? Not a bad deal for polarised. I got the risky business ones last time.Good quality lenses.
Good value for sunnies. I've got about 6 pairs from Cancer Council, good value.
I bought one from David jones last December similar price. Last week I can see the coating coming off from the lens. I don't use any case may that's the reason?
i would think twice before supporting the cancer council, they are heavily biased towards breast and ovarian cancers, ie they are gender biased at a rate of 4 to 1 which is quite disappointing considering the lack of awareness and support for prostate and testicular cancer even though they effect the same number of people
you would expect a charity to attempt to address these imbalances rather than promote them, then again maybe it's just an extension of where their funding comes from or a reflection of the value of men in society in general
come to think of it i don't think i've ever seen anyone asking for donations for prostate or testicular cancer, it always seems to be breast cancer, they again it's always women too, maybe men just don't give a (profanity) lol