Chris_Sleeps Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Also, why did you pick testicular cancer as your example? Cancer is not and should not be a gender issue, it is a human issue. Then donate. You're the one calling the event sexist. It is possible to have segregation within a good cause, aslong as it isn't rooted in ideology. If 'Race For Life' is marketted at women then let them run and stop grumbling. If you wanted to do a 'Male Race For Life' and Cancer Research rejected your idea, then you'd have a point. Up to now all you've done is attack people for raising money for charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomholio Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 This will be the last reply because the back and forth is not really going anywhere it seems. Segregation is not the same as exclusion, if they had both male and female events (and Run for Moore is a joke of a token effort) then I would not have an issue, this isn't segregation, it is exclusion. Even exclusion I could deal with if it somehow helped the cause since it is obviously a good and worthwhile one, but in reality halving the amount of people that can raise sponsorship in an event is not helping the cause. (As a side note, many people would argue based on past behaviour including other female marketed campaigns, and disproportionate funding for female only cancers when compared to male only, that this in fact IS rooted in ideology) Considering I and many people have signed petitions and put this forwards to them year on year and this has been rejected (with Cancer Research showing it on their website as a frequently asked question) you have just agreed that I and all others that have brought this up do in fact have a point, so thank you for recognising that. Lastly you say I have attacked people 'fro raising money for charity' well that is a misleading statement that is phrased in a way as to make your argument look more valid. That is a pretty immature technique for any argument/debate. (Not that I am saying you are immature, I don't know you, just that you used an immature technique to superficially strengthen your point of view). Clearly I am not attacking people for raising money for charity. I have said nothing about the people that join in this event, I am not attacking them. I am not even attacking the charity, I aimed to state an opinion that is obviously shared by many others so our collective voices can hopefully change things and make this event more inclusive. Considering this could potentially earn more money for the charity, I fail to see how this is an attack. I just disagree with their policy, disagreeing with something is not necessarily a negative, nor is it moaning, grumbling, attacking or any of those. If you see something that can be improved, why not true to improve it? Also I could donate, and obviously if I am bothered enough by this subject to spend time talking about it, it is isn't such a stretch to imagine I may well be bothered enough by it to reach into my wallet. But that is besides the point. The last thing I want to say is, it doesn't matter if I or others can contribute a different way, I of course do that as I'm sure the vast majority that have issue with this do (though many may pick a different cancer charity because of this). What matters is simple, a charity should always seek to waste as little money as possible (I'm sure everyone can agree with that) and to make the money they use as effective as possible. They could raise much more money from this event for relatively little extra cost (no extra ad campaign cost per year for example) than they do currently. As a charity they have a duty to this, otherwise they are wasting money that people have donated in good faith that as much as possible will go help the cause represented. That is pretty much the whole of my argument. Feel free to respond obviously, I will likely read it, but I have said all I have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Segregation is not the same as exclusion, if they had both male and female events (and Run for Moore is a joke of a token effort) No no no. You can't say "if they had both male and female events" and dismiss the fact that they do have male and female events. You can even run in other events that aren't exclusive if you wish (Great North Run, Half Marathons) and give the money raised to Cancer Research if you wish. You have plenty of opportunities to involve yourself. I didn't even know about Run For Moore, my knowledge of this topic comes from my Mum doing Race For Life with her workmates - but you can't dismiss things as you wish. Cancer Research do have an event marketted at men. So this isn't exclusion as an ideology at all. What matters is simple, a charity should always seek to waste as little money as possible [...] and to make the money they use as effective as possible. They could raise much more money from this event for relatively little extra cost (no extra ad campaign cost per year for example) than they do currently. How does 'Race For Life' waste money? It is an event for raising money, so thus it is an income for them. You can claim they are missing the opportunity to involve lots more people by letting men run, but then we are back to the point above that men can and do run in other events. That doesn't make it a waste. If you claimed that the event would raise more if they allowed men to run than that would be supposition, because you'd have no way of predicting that. I still say that people complaining and putting effort into criticising charity money making events are not doing a good thing. There are all sorts of exclusive charity events. Homeless people sell the Big Issue and exclude other people from selling it - is that wrong? No, it is a cause which effects them and it is a fund-raiser which helps them. Through the same logic women can run in women only events to raise money for a cancer which affects them. It isn't a bad thing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainbow2411 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 A lady called Jenny Dodd ran the race in memory of a dear friend of mine Sue Brooks who died last year, I was pleased and proud to give my donation, RIP Susie http://www.raceforlifesponsorme.org/jenn-dodd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riche Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 About 15% of breast cancer cases are in men. It can affect anybody with breast tissue. I though that entrants to the Race For Life were people who had had breast cancer, in which case, they really should consider allowing men in. -- JGH Very valid point. My uncle had a lump removed 10 years ago and the divs at his work thought it fun to joke about his man boobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.