We need to fight cancer and not discriminate in finding a cure based on which sex receives treatment. But what is this new thing about men needing to wear pink to lend support to finding a cure for women’s cancer? Why can’t a man stand for something and still retain his male dignity in the process? The sad thing is many people, men included, won’t equally support finding a cure for men’s (prostate) cancer, regardless of what they wear! Why is it somehow deemed necessary for men to give up a part of their masculine image to support any cause? A man, still bound by his male dignity, can support a cause, but that doesn’t mean he’s to denounce his equal worth as a male in the process. The fact this is a requirement for men to give support reveals that those who want the support are indignant and non-appreciative of those they want support from. It requires an insult to their male supporters for them to give their support.
One might say this would be like requiring women to wear blue to support a cause for men (a cure for prostate cancer). But no, wearing blue is not demeaning to women and their femininity as it is to require men to wear pink. However, women are really into their appearance, so let’s find a comparable counter entity, something that would equally demean the female image and femininity necessary for them to contribute their support. It would perhaps be like requiring women to wear no make-up, not shave their legs or armpits, and/or wear a gunny sack (one or two of these or a combination thereof) to support a cure for prostate cancer. That’s gratitude, right, the same as expecting men to wear pink to support a cure for women’s cancer?
It isn’t enough that they care, but that it be necessary for them to demean themselves in the process. Why? It’s a way to recruit men via compassion for women and turn them against their own self-image, other men, and masculine self-worth. The whole idea associated with applying the femininity at the expense of masculinity is generated in disrespect for the male gender (his masculinity).
Would men even want to demean women for supporting a male cause, an effort that most men would appreciate, and bite the hand that supports them? Indeed, something is wrong with this whole picture. It is merely another way to take men down in society, but in this case via compassion for women, in fact exploiting the female disease (breast cancer) to do so. I believe that men would respect those women who would equally support finding a cure for prostate cancer (a minority at that) so much that they would want to help boost their dignity as women rather than diminish it. (I would, and I lost my dad to prostate cancer.)
I have heard the typical feminist-guided response that men aren’t secure enough with their masculinity to wear pink. Well that makes “sense.†As is also typical, this is a contradictive statement. Part of being secure is liking the way we look, dress, and that we feel good about ourselves via what we wearâ€â€that which complements our sexuality. Otherwise, that means women who don’t feel comfortable wearing certain clothing, perhaps making them look fat or less feminine, therefore are not secure with their femininity.
And why, as has been recently depicted, would an American baseball league want to do this to themselves or to the sport? Pretty soon are we going to see football players in pink uniforms too? Demented!
We must all equally support finding a cure for both prostate cancer and breast cancer and do so not under the pretence of something else. It’s too serious of an issue for that. However, typical of the feminist way is to exploit women’s cancer and use it as an opportunity to diminish men. This is sick on all accounts and should not be a technique (scheme) worthy of anyone’s support.
Alan Millard
Author of Equality: A Man’s Claim
Men and Fathers for Justice, President
