Ok, following my last couple of posts, I'm going to move on for the time being to something somewhat less conceptual, 'victim-y' and more readily obvious - but also something I (bizarrely) hope to be able to sound a bit more positive about in my outlook: the Cancer issue.
As I'm sure you know, a large proportion of research funding for cancers in the UK is actually provided by research charities, not the NHS or government. Particularly at the moment, with spending cuts being what they are, the need for charitable donations and awareness campaigns is very high.
In amongst all the different types of cancer, there are certain ones that are (generally) gender-specific: breast cancer, gynaecological cancers, prostate cancer, and testicular & penile cancers.
Of these, breast cancer arguable has the best awareness campaign. In particular, Cancer Research UK runs some fantastic campaigns - I for one seem to see a donation tub in every other shop, cafe or pub. I see adverts all over the internet, and regularly on television, and in magazines and papers. I see shops which join in campaigns, perhaps by offering donations when you buy a particular product. Women will regularly write opinion columns on the subject. Women's events such as Race For Life generate a great deal of money and publicity for Cancer Research UK. I've seen women wearing ribbons, badges, t-shirts, all to help keep the issue in the public eye.
And that's no bad thing. In the UK alone, around 12,000 women a year die from breast cancer, from 45,500 diagnosed. This is a very serious problem, and the more money going towards it, the more lives can be saved.
Of the gynaecological cancers, the most widely and publicly talked about is cervical cancer, and there have been many loud discussions and campaigns to encourage more women - particularly young women - to get screenings. Perhaps it is strange to think that the 20% rise in screenings in 2009 was mostly due to Jade Goody, but that's still a good thing - it got the papers and morning programmes talking about it, it got people at work talking about it, it got women getting themselves checked out.
Of the other gynaecological cancers, I'm afraid to say I have heard little, outside of what I have found on cancer research and awareness websites.
*****
I imagine some of you are now expecting me to compare men's cancer awareness and blast a disproportionate campaign or something, but I'm not going to do that. There are, in fact, good resources and good campaigns already happening. True, we're not hearing about them as much (or certainly, I'm not), but at whose door do we lay that?
I know about prostate and testicular cancer. I know that prostate cancer kills about 10,000 men each year in the UK. I know another 2,000 will be diagnosed with testicular cancer. Penile cancer only effects very few men in the UK, but is quite more widespread in Africa and Asia.
But what have I done about it? Up to now, very little. What have the men I know done about it? Well, I don't know who may or may not donate, but how many men do you know who turned blue this year? How many ran in Keep Your Eye On The Ball? Or even just bought the t-shirt?
I know I didn't. And I can't think of anyone who did. Apologies if I know you and you did, but I just cannot bring it to mind.
And that is my fault. My responsibility. And also, if you are a man, yours.
I've seen quite a few MRAs complaining that men aren't allowed onto certain women-only fund-raising events. What I don't seem to see them doing, is organising events or campaigns of their own. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, perhaps someone can point me towards one, but it seems that many of them would rather complain about what they perceive us as not having, than trying to increase what we do. There's a lot of noise blown about to do with the fact that - in particular - breast cancer gets a lot more funding than prostate cancer, despite the similar risks and fatalities, but that is because women are getting organised and trying to do something about it is a way men just are NOT. If we want our funding to increase, perhaps we should get off our collective arse and do something about it.
Of course, when it comes to medical stuff, that's just something men aren't all that good at doing. I'm the same - I'll leave twinges, aches and what-have-you, in order to see if it'll just go away. I'm generally rather reluctant to go to the doctor, and don't know if I've ever gone just for an unprompted check-up. In the past, I've not examined myself as often as I should. I found a wonderful "how can women help" suggestion on a site I'm afraid I've misplaced, so cannot link to, which basically said 'nag him'. But that does hold a particular truth to it - how many men go to the doctor, not of their own will, but because their partner made them?
A couple of facts MRAs like to bring out repeatedly are men's shorter life-expectancies, and in the case of cancer, the much higher mortality rate men suffer. But, at some point, don't we have to stop playing victim about it all, stop shouting 'unfair', and maybe look to see if we can do something positive to help change that?
Certainly I know I can, should, and will do a lot more. And I would wholeheartedly encourage you, if you currently don't, do do the same.
Showing posts with label death. Show all posts
Showing posts with label death. Show all posts
27/08/2010
23/08/2010
Male Expendability Part 1 - films and television
Here's a little something to do next time you are watching a film or TV show which contains violence: have a look at who's dying. I'm not talking about main characters here, I'm talking about the 'collateral damage', the nameless nobody's in the background who are getting killed or hurt in order to show how dangerous the situation really is. You know, the bomb goes off, or the monster's rampaging around eating people, or random people are being caught in the cross-fire of a shoot-out. Chances are, most - if not all - of the people you see dying will be men.
Now, this is post may come across somewhat as mere whining, but it's a good introduction into a larger issue: the idea of male expendability. Being as it is quite a large issue, I've decided to break it into parts so as to not have one absolutely massive post.
Why start with films and television? Well, they seem to be a good way to start thinking about a cultural outlook that most people don't really notice. You can literally sit there and see it being played out in front of you again and again.
So, is that it? Men tend to be the ones getting killed in films? Well, yes, but also no. Let's have a look at how these deaths occur: they are often very graphic, violent, and incredibly casual. They have no emotional resonance whatsoever - the killing of all these men is occasionally to make a point, but often just for entertainment value.
Think about when a woman is killed in a film - is it ever casual? I cannot think of one single example where it is. Women's deaths are either primary plot points, or used as proof that the villain has gone 'beyond the moral event horizon' - ok, so they'd done some bad things (possibly involving the deaths of piles of men), but now they've killed a woman which makes them really evil.
In comparison, men's deaths on screen barely go noticed. How many times have you seen an action sequence where something blew up, and you didn't even think about the fact that - hang on - that's just killed those 10 men you saw a minute ago? How many times do policemen, security guards, or just people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time get shot and the action just moves on and, oh look, we've forgotten about it? How many times do truckloads of soldiers get mown down without a seconds thought? How many times have men's deaths been used as a joke? Think about that one: how many people would have laughed at the Joker's pencil trick if the victim had been a woman? I'm guessing not many.
We're just far more casual about killing men than women. In manwomanmyth's video 'Men are Disposable - 1/4', he mentions women complaining about being treated as sex objects on screen, and follows up by saying men are treated as nothing more than death objects. The medley of violence that follows is incredibly nasty - it starts at about 5:30 if you want to see it.
He also does go into another point in the comparison of male vs. female deaths on screen: the female discretion shot. This is where a woman's death occurs out of shot or off-screen (think about all those times you've seen a gun pointed at a woman, and then it cuts to a shot of the window from outside and you see a flash and hear a bang). It's quite remarkable when you start noticing quite how graphic a film or show will be with shooting, blowing up, burning, mutilating or otherwise destroying multiple men, and then there's a female discretion shot.
Now, here's the thing - I'm not saying "I want to see more women graphically killed on screen". What I am saying is that I find it remarkable that films that are graphically violent towards men have these female discretion shots in them.
Of course, I understand why they do it, and this is where things start to move on from me whining about films to real-world outlooks. It comes down to the fact that males are seen to be more expendable than females. From a Darwinian perspective, this makes perfect sense, but it still exists as a general principle in society today - ableit one that isn't said out loud and many people don't see. Not only that, but men have an innate drive to protect women - often by putting themselves in harm's way. It's expected. Violence against women is, and has always been, far less acceptable than violence against men. Men's deaths are simply not as tragic in society's eyes (I will be going into this in more detail in an upcoming post). This, coupled with the now almost inevitable feminist backlash if women are treated badly on film, leads to this discrepancy.
At this point I'm going to mention slasher films, because I'm sure someone's thinking "hang on, almost all the victims in those films are girls". But that's the point - you're supposed to know how terrible the killer is, how much of a psychopath. These films are supposed to unnerve and frighten you. The deaths of the girls in them, however graphic or seemingly throwaway, are the central plot of the film. They are the point of its existing in the first place. They may be casual in the sense of quick and not overblown, but the death is always the centrepiece of the scene - you're never in a position where the death is really just decoration.
I already mentioned men protecting women to their own detriment, and I want to have a quick look at how this is portrayed on film. Let's take the 2005 remake of King Kong. Anne Darrow gets kidnapped by Kong, and all the men go off to rescue her. In the process, dozens die, horrifically (particularly those who are unfortunate enough to get eaten by the giant tube-worms). At one point, some decide to head back to the ship, and they are branded cowards and not real men for wanting to protect their own lives from a reckless mission that is almost certainly doomed to at best fail, and at worst kill them. They are only redeemed by putting themselves back in harms way. Several of the men's deaths are treated as jokes in the dialogue (the whole 'donate the proceeds to his wife and kids' bit).
Once they do rescue Darrow, is she grateful? No, she's far more concerned about the big gorilla. Now, of course, they don't treat Kong nicely, but is it ever acknowledged that dozens of men died at the hands of this creature in an effort to save this one woman? No. Do they get any sort of service or memorial? No. Are they ever thought of again? No.
The final act is a huge lament to how terrible Kong's fortune is (whilst he kills yet more men - this time the fighter pilots), and his death is quite ridiculous in its overblown tragedy. One giant gorilla is worth your tears. Dozens of men aren't even worth thinking about.
*****
What has been the point of this post? On the surface, it really does just look like a whinge. Do I want all male deaths on screen to be replaced by female ones? No. Then what's the point?
The point is, this is a very good way of demonstrating a cultural expectation we have that most people simply do not notice: male disposability. It's a good example of the different ways we look upon and treat male vs. female death - something which is quite profoundly skewed in modern society, which affects the way we create laws and charitable foundations, how we distribute funding, how we run awareness campaigns, and I am anticipating having to do two or three more posts just to roughly cover the basics. So really, this post in an introduction to a concept which I find to be very alarming, and wish to explore in depth.
To be continued...
Now, this is post may come across somewhat as mere whining, but it's a good introduction into a larger issue: the idea of male expendability. Being as it is quite a large issue, I've decided to break it into parts so as to not have one absolutely massive post.
Why start with films and television? Well, they seem to be a good way to start thinking about a cultural outlook that most people don't really notice. You can literally sit there and see it being played out in front of you again and again.
So, is that it? Men tend to be the ones getting killed in films? Well, yes, but also no. Let's have a look at how these deaths occur: they are often very graphic, violent, and incredibly casual. They have no emotional resonance whatsoever - the killing of all these men is occasionally to make a point, but often just for entertainment value.
Think about when a woman is killed in a film - is it ever casual? I cannot think of one single example where it is. Women's deaths are either primary plot points, or used as proof that the villain has gone 'beyond the moral event horizon' - ok, so they'd done some bad things (possibly involving the deaths of piles of men), but now they've killed a woman which makes them really evil.
In comparison, men's deaths on screen barely go noticed. How many times have you seen an action sequence where something blew up, and you didn't even think about the fact that - hang on - that's just killed those 10 men you saw a minute ago? How many times do policemen, security guards, or just people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time get shot and the action just moves on and, oh look, we've forgotten about it? How many times do truckloads of soldiers get mown down without a seconds thought? How many times have men's deaths been used as a joke? Think about that one: how many people would have laughed at the Joker's pencil trick if the victim had been a woman? I'm guessing not many.
We're just far more casual about killing men than women. In manwomanmyth's video 'Men are Disposable - 1/4', he mentions women complaining about being treated as sex objects on screen, and follows up by saying men are treated as nothing more than death objects. The medley of violence that follows is incredibly nasty - it starts at about 5:30 if you want to see it.
He also does go into another point in the comparison of male vs. female deaths on screen: the female discretion shot. This is where a woman's death occurs out of shot or off-screen (think about all those times you've seen a gun pointed at a woman, and then it cuts to a shot of the window from outside and you see a flash and hear a bang). It's quite remarkable when you start noticing quite how graphic a film or show will be with shooting, blowing up, burning, mutilating or otherwise destroying multiple men, and then there's a female discretion shot.
Now, here's the thing - I'm not saying "I want to see more women graphically killed on screen". What I am saying is that I find it remarkable that films that are graphically violent towards men have these female discretion shots in them.
Of course, I understand why they do it, and this is where things start to move on from me whining about films to real-world outlooks. It comes down to the fact that males are seen to be more expendable than females. From a Darwinian perspective, this makes perfect sense, but it still exists as a general principle in society today - ableit one that isn't said out loud and many people don't see. Not only that, but men have an innate drive to protect women - often by putting themselves in harm's way. It's expected. Violence against women is, and has always been, far less acceptable than violence against men. Men's deaths are simply not as tragic in society's eyes (I will be going into this in more detail in an upcoming post). This, coupled with the now almost inevitable feminist backlash if women are treated badly on film, leads to this discrepancy.
At this point I'm going to mention slasher films, because I'm sure someone's thinking "hang on, almost all the victims in those films are girls". But that's the point - you're supposed to know how terrible the killer is, how much of a psychopath. These films are supposed to unnerve and frighten you. The deaths of the girls in them, however graphic or seemingly throwaway, are the central plot of the film. They are the point of its existing in the first place. They may be casual in the sense of quick and not overblown, but the death is always the centrepiece of the scene - you're never in a position where the death is really just decoration.
I already mentioned men protecting women to their own detriment, and I want to have a quick look at how this is portrayed on film. Let's take the 2005 remake of King Kong. Anne Darrow gets kidnapped by Kong, and all the men go off to rescue her. In the process, dozens die, horrifically (particularly those who are unfortunate enough to get eaten by the giant tube-worms). At one point, some decide to head back to the ship, and they are branded cowards and not real men for wanting to protect their own lives from a reckless mission that is almost certainly doomed to at best fail, and at worst kill them. They are only redeemed by putting themselves back in harms way. Several of the men's deaths are treated as jokes in the dialogue (the whole 'donate the proceeds to his wife and kids' bit).
Once they do rescue Darrow, is she grateful? No, she's far more concerned about the big gorilla. Now, of course, they don't treat Kong nicely, but is it ever acknowledged that dozens of men died at the hands of this creature in an effort to save this one woman? No. Do they get any sort of service or memorial? No. Are they ever thought of again? No.
The final act is a huge lament to how terrible Kong's fortune is (whilst he kills yet more men - this time the fighter pilots), and his death is quite ridiculous in its overblown tragedy. One giant gorilla is worth your tears. Dozens of men aren't even worth thinking about.
*****
What has been the point of this post? On the surface, it really does just look like a whinge. Do I want all male deaths on screen to be replaced by female ones? No. Then what's the point?
The point is, this is a very good way of demonstrating a cultural expectation we have that most people simply do not notice: male disposability. It's a good example of the different ways we look upon and treat male vs. female death - something which is quite profoundly skewed in modern society, which affects the way we create laws and charitable foundations, how we distribute funding, how we run awareness campaigns, and I am anticipating having to do two or three more posts just to roughly cover the basics. So really, this post in an introduction to a concept which I find to be very alarming, and wish to explore in depth.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)