Laurel Q said:
Think about three women in your life that mean a lot to you. A friend, girlfriend, spouse, mother, daughter, sister, whatever. 1 out of 3 women will be raped. Which of those 3 do you pick for that? 1 out of those 3 women will get breast/uterine/or ovarian cancer. Which of those 3 do you pick for that?
He was a very wise man. And also a huge linebacker in college!! So cute.
I work backwards sometimes so bare with me.
What is it exactly that ovarian/breast/uterine cancers have to do with feminism? So far as I know they're diseases of the body, which are treated regardless of sexual orientation, so I'm not quite sure why this is even considered to be a feminist issue. I would imagine the argument to be, "Well they need more attention/aren't getting enouch funding." Well while that may true, all forms of cancer should get more funding correct? Shouldn't we cure it on the whole, and not just for one sex? Uterine cancer (while more dominant in females) is also possible to be had by males, so why not focus on it for all sexes? Ovarian, ok, you got me there, if it needs more attention I'm sure there are ways to go about raising the money.
All in all, these are private issues made public by those who have opinions on them. What I mean by that ovarian cancer isn't something that the whole world needs to stop and look at because it's so devistating. I know that it effects many women every year, but like any other form of cancer, it's not like if you just toss more money at it, it's going to solve the problem. It still requires research, and the money is pretty much spent for that. So in reality, no amount of funding will solve the problem quicker, it would only allow for the problem to eventually be solved.
It sounds like a heartless thing to say, but lets face it, people die constantly for thousands of reasons. And though this one happens to effect a certain sex, I still don't see it as a reason for feminism. Simply because:
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
So the only way I could see breast cancer research as being anti-female, would be if there was an overwhelming amount of research given to prostate cancer over breast cancer. Then I would agree that it's sexist, and that the money should be split equally.
As to the rape comment... well, there's nothing I, or anyone else, can really do about it. Again, not a feminist argument, or issue which only occurs to women on an even playing ground. I know what you're thinking, "Hey idiot, women get raped all the time, how often does it happen to men?!?" Again, bare with me for a second.
I say even playing ground for a reason, that reason being that there needs to be a means of standard measurement. A good example of this would be the workforce. Office clerks for example. If a male secretary for an office was getting paid 20k, and a female getting paid 17k, and they both performed the same duties in the same amount of time, and got the same benifits, then I would agree that what is happening is a case of sexism for no apparent reason. But there is a mean, an average, at which I can make that basis. A constant, if you will.
With rape, it's completely unpredictable. It's literally a random occurance, and has no bearing on female rights aside from their personal space being violated, which can happen to anyone. Just look at the number of aggrivated assaults every year, that's an example of invasion private space.