Chewing the Fat
Unseen Energies

And This Is Your Brain On Leftism

Prostate cancer is a first-world problem.

Alex Manley, writing in the campus newspaper of Concordia University, Montreal

Let me be clear — I don’t want anyone to get cancer. I don’t think a man getting cancer is less tragic than a woman getting cancer.


The [‘Movember’ prostate cancer awareness campaign] is just a really well-disguised tantrum that guys are content to throw to make it seem like prostate cancer research is as important as research towards curing women’s cancers.


Prostate cancer is a hallmark of privilege. Deal with it.

Because he cares, you see.

Via Ace



Prostate cancer is a hallmark of privilege. Deal with it.

I'll tell my brother. He'll be pleased to hear it.

Crazed Weevil

Well since he, like most lefty hipster types, doesn't have any balls I'm not surprised that he isn't concerned about prostate cancer.


Well Dad and Uncle John, now you know. You were privileged. The pain John was only in your mind. How could both of you have been so selfish.

Me and my three brothers will stop having check ups.

No resources should be devoted to the question.

We are all going to die anyway.


I’ll tell my brother. He’ll be pleased to hear it.

For those bedevilled by vindictiveness, it’s one of the benefits of ostentatious leftism. You can invoke some notional “privilege” to excuse thoughts and urges that would otherwise sound spiteful and obnoxious. It pretends to be piety, but it’s just malice in drag.


Excellent use of 'however'.

Watcher In The Dark

A variation on the usual lefty whine: "I absolutely love everybody but hate those who don't agree with me."


Well I'm convinced. From now on before I give to any charity I'll run it past a lefty student. They always know best.


So this November, let's not keep patting the Mo-Bros on the head and tolerating this childish self-involvement-fest disguised as selflessness and the propagation online and in the media of the inherent importance of North American men and their problems.

Lefties project.


One might almost feel sorry for those whose need to display their leftist credentials – and something close to misandry - results in the idea that a prostate cancer charity is an unnecessary indulgence (because said disease only affects around 1 in 7 men, many of whom are white), and that its activities therefore shouldn’t be tolerated.


The Voluntary Human Extinction movement is looking more and more sensible all the time:-(.

Patrick Brown

Wow. What a cunt.

Iowa Jim

Approximately 40,000 women die from breast cancer annually in the US. Approximately 28,000 men die from prostate cancer annually. If the funding for prostate cancer research were 70% of the funding for breast cancer research, I would have no problem, but the funding for prostate cancer research is far less than 10% of the funding for breast cancer research.

Privilege, indeed.

Jon Powers

I hope he gets prostate cancer.

Robert of Ottawa

I would have thought "whatever" would have been more appropriate.


The author has now 'apologised' for the article:

Not buying it in the comments.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

It also affects North American men way more than anywhere else in the world, largely due to living and eating habits. Men in Detroit get prostate cancer at about 100 times the rate of men in Hanoi. One hundred times. That’s not even close. Prostate cancer is a first-world problem.

Nothing like leftist armchair epidemiologists, it must be nice to be able to pontificate without actually having to know anything.

First, the incidence (new cases) is not highest in North America, it is actually Martinique. The US and A comes in at number 14 after Barbados, French Polynesia, and ever leftist's favorite model of a socialist paradise, Sweden.

The five year prevalence (existing cases) in the US and A is, in fact, 8 times, not 100, that of the WHO South East Region, but half that of the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region which includes various first world countries like Yemen and Somalia.

So much for the lifestyle and dietary theory.

One of the primary reasons the incidence (new cases) of prostate cancer in first world countries appears to be higher is because there is better screening which, obviously, leads to increased early detection which, in turn, leads to decreased mortality rates as smaller tumors are, oddly enough, easier to treat. At the same time, if you are doing a better job of screening, by detecting more cases the prevalence will also increase if the detected cases are living longer (e.g., "...Asian and African men may be diagnosed later, with advanced stage, incurable disease,"), therefore the more developed world will have a higher prevalence. Thus it appears that if you are going to develop a prostate cancer, and any male (or these days female with a prostate, I'm looking at you Bruce) who lives long enough is likely to, it is better it be in Detroit than Hanoi..

Meanwhile, speaking of privilege, if you recall a couple of weeks ago there was the tale of the female NYC fireman (or fireperson) who had flunked her assessments but was nonetheless assigned to an engine company even though she had a cushy job moving paper from one side of the desk to another.

At the time, being a cynical SOB, I predicted it was so she could get a minor injury and disability:

A firefighter who was allowed to graduate the Fire Academy despite failing physical tests has already gone out on medical leave — just 10 days into the job, The Post has learned...Getting off the truck, [during a training exercise] Doirin-Holder missed a step and landed on her left foot, suffering a fracture, sources said...Since she was injured on duty, she is eligible for a disability pension that would pay three-quarters of her annual salary, tax-free, if deemed unfit to return.
Farnsworth M Muldoon

Sorry - Link for the firefighter story.


The author has now ‘apologised’ for the article

I notice the overlong, self-dramatizing apology is littered with the word “privilege,” it occurs five times, as if it signalled virtue. It’s evidently still an ideological lens of choice. Mr Manley doesn’t seem to register how a fixation with identitarian “privilege” is precisely what led to the obnoxious mindset that he’s supposedly embarrassed by.

R. Sherman

Typical Progressive zero-sum thinking. Being concerned about "A" precludes or diminishes concern about "B." In this case, concern about prostate cancer diminishes the victim status of breast cancer sufferers, I guess.

R. Sherman

From his apology:

I’ve found there are certain issues that you can’t take a stance on without seeming callous in some way, issues where the wellbeing of one group is tied, in some way or other, to the suffering of another group.(Emphasis added.)

How, pray tell, is the well-being of Group A (prostate cancer sufferers) tied to Group B (breast cancer sufferers)? If he is suggesting that there is a limited pile of money such that donations going to Group A don't go to Group B, then why limit the discussion to two types of cancer research? Why not throw in food for starving children in Africa? My electric bill? Hookers and blow?

Presumably, he believes that some group of philosopher kings should determine which charities deserve support and which do not. Or, more precisely, he believes that charities should be abolished in favor of the state directing resources to support only those entities deemed sufficiently worthy.

Patrick Brown

Jonathan: "The author has now 'apologised' for the article:"

"Now" is perhaps a little misleading. The whole kerfuffle - article, apology - happened in 2011.

John West

I am one of those privileged men with prostate cancer ... it was a delight going through the part where they tell you, you have advanced prostate cancer. Then while thinking it's pretty much over, they surgically remove your prostate ending your life as a sexual being. Then there is the on-going incontinence which many of us suffer with that requires three or four piss pads per day so that pee doesn't just run down your leg. Never know when there will be an overflow and you must always know where the nearest toilet is at all times.

Ya .... it's a real privilege .... I can only hope that I have my heart attack before there is a return of spread of cancers. Most grateful .... yeah ...

Sort-of-Mad Max

If you Gorgle Alex, you'll find he now (Nov. 2015) works for a website named 'Askmen' as a copy editor; from his Twitter picture, I highly doubt 'he' even has a prostate.


Chew on this: men CAN get breast cancer. Women actually have something of a vestigial prostate, and can also develop cancer. Plenty of "privilege" to go around, I think.

Furthermore, black men are at higher risk for prostate cancer, so does the race card trump the testosterone card?


Women actually have something of a vestigial prostate,

I, for one, have learned something today.


Mr Manley has a brain 'cancer': terminal leftism.

Steve E

The apology sounds like femsplaining.


In such contrarian articles, it's merely a case of waiting for the 'but', and the attempt at an argument kicks in. In this case, it happens in the first sentence! No waiting for this young whippersnapper, he just boldly wades in and tells all men he hopes they get cancer and die. Except for, presumably, himself.


Whilst on the subject of disease, it appears that one Professor has now declared "Whiteness" as a disease...

Here is the link:

Pete of Perth

I used to think the Japs were crazy but the Yanks now win first prize.

Yesterday was privy to a discussion about the morality of execs earning sh*t loads of money vs single mums struggling to make ends meet. The participants mainly academics on the tax-payers dime. The location a $120,000,000 research vessel. Talk about the white-privilege philosopher kings.


Hey look, breast cancer is decidedly also a first world problem.

Does Alex have an opinion on this?


Cherly E. Matias is an interesting writer

For those interested

tl/dr from the abstract: White people's sense of love is inherently demented (it's sadomasochistic) and needs to be fixed by enlightened people like the author. To accomplish this whites need only denounce and abandon all white civilization (whiteness! HISS!) completely and then be educated in a "critical humanizing pedagogy of love" by enlightened scholars like Cherly.

A random passage:

"...whites emotionally labour on behalf of the white race to not produce not only tangible laws, policies, and systemic advantages but also an en-whitened structure of feeling"

An en-whitened structure of feeling?

Unless I'm mistaken (and I don't think I am) ostensibly white countries have become the most open and tolerant countries in the world (to a fault). Is this a consequence of en-whitened structures of feeling?

It's not hard to read between the lines - this author hates whites and white culture and wants to see the end of us. Why we tolerate this open attitude of hate and destruction in our higher institutions is beyond me.


"...whites emotionally labour on behalf of the white race to notproduce not only tangible laws, policies, and systemic advantages but also an en-whitened structure of feeling"

correction from the previous post

Spiny Norman

The Clown Quarter is rapidly approaching Peak Bedlam.

Spiny Norman

Pete of Perth,

I used to think the Japs were crazy but the Yanks now win first prize.

The Japanese have set the bar pretty high, but I don't think you're wrong.


Who could possibly have it better than some guy in Detroit with prostate cancer? Sounds pretty glamorous.


Manley and thousands like him are the First World problem. His 'apology' was just another enormous effort at self-projection.

When are we going to get an apology for the apology?

Sam Duncan

Farnsworth: But you looked that up! That's cheating!

Somewhat related:

It was my old friend Boston Irish who alerted me to this ticklish little trope, when he observed that no matter how absurd the statistic you proposed to a progressive, if that statistic seemed to call attention to whatever bugaboos xhe was excited about, xhe would respond with a gushing "I know, right?!"

He demonstrated this to me at a party by interrupting a couple of liberals talking, and announcing to them:

"You know, based on current statistics, in ten years, the entire state of California will be homeless."

"Right! I know!" came the response.

By the way, that is not schtick. That is not a joke written for this blogpost. I was really there, he really said that, that really happened.

After having secured the agreement to his obviously-crank "statistics," he turned to me with a slightly arched eyebrow and sipped his beer in quiet triumph.

Quint&Jessel, Sea of Azof, Bly, UK

Sam, Ace followed up on that--seems the half-wits at Salon thought he was deeply serious.

The comments to this entry are closed.