Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fundraiser For "White Male" Illness Dropped

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the stop-the-penis-party dept.

Idle 241

gubachwa writes "The student association at Carleton University in Canada recently voted that Cystic Fibrosis was a charity unworthy of receiving money raised during orientation week fund-raising activities. The reason behind the decision, as given in the motion on which the student association voted, is that Cystic Fibrosis 'has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men.'" I'm speechless.

cancel ×

241 comments

Speechless? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910259)

If only you were keyboardless.

Update (5, Informative)

thox_rendar (1156897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910275)

This was a decision reached several days ago, and it has since been brought to the attention of the students that they were misinformed. They have already made a public apology for the negative press to the school and will repeal their decision at the next council meeting of the student association.

Re:Update (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910409)

Did they repeal their racist and sexist attitude or is that still okay?

Re:Update (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910461)

Perhaps the charity money should be used to send the people responsible for this decision to racial and sexual discrimination therapy. It would go a long way towards improving the world's situation.

Re:Update (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910803)

But you can't send the progressives, the real racists (excuse me "positive" racists, sorry again "positive discriminators") to anti-racism class. It would look bad you see. People might wonder who the real racists are, and once they start thinking for themselves it is all too clear who is racist and who's not. Can't have that when these universities are filled with extreme racists, the more "progressive" the more racist, can we ? The people might demand ... you know ... change ...

I'm going to violate Godwin's law. The "progressives", the semi-lefties (communists in denial, who "hate russia") were exactly the people who put you-know-who in power, who filled his ranks, who killed Jews for him. Positive discrimination, the term was used even then. The endlosung started out as nationwide healthcare. In the beginning (that would be 1935 or-so) that was even 100% correct. Of course, the "progressives" had other plans.

I like to say that the specific progress "progressives" are after is closing the hole between (obviously involuntary) abortion and (mostly obviously involuntary) euthanasia.

Re:Update (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911667)

I'll just nitpick, and say that it's impossible to violate Godwin's law, as it's not a law in the legal sense, but in the scientific sense.

All Godwin's law says is this: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Re:Update (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 5 years ago | (#25912181)

It's not a scientific law either. It cannot be falsified, since it would require an infinitely long thread which does not mention Nazis as a comparison.

Re:Update (1)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911745)

Well, you violated Godwin and you're wrong. Germans in the 1930s put Hilter in power, you really cant stereotype or generalise about things like that. The situation in Germany then is different to the situation in the USA now and I don't think you can really compare any of the political or social trends groups found in Germany then with the USA today.

Also, you've done the classic communism = Russia mistake. The Stalinists in Russia claimed they were socialist but then again, politicians in the USA claim they are free market capitalist. It serves politicians in capitalist democracies to paint a picture of Marxism leading inevitably to stalinism and other forms of totalitarianism but that argument just doesn't hold water. Stalinism was opposed within the USSR by people like Trotsky. He was persecuted for arguing that the party should just stick to classical marxism and not abandon democracy and was eventually assassinated after fleeing to Mexico. Any countries that had a revolution and then tried to introduce these "trotskyist" ideas were isolated leading to more assassinations and exclusion of their opposing ideas.

I'm saying Trotsky was a saint mind you, I'm just trying to show that communism is complicated with a history of real disagreement and also psychopaths just using revolutions to gain absolute power.

Still, I basically agree with you about progressives and racism. My view on it is that because these progressives have essentially made peace with Capitalism they can't come up with a sensible answer to these problems. Instead their only option is for the results of the game that is Capitalism to be changed after the fact in the form of "positive discrimination". Capitalism will never produce fair results, certain groups always rise to the top and exclude other groups for particular social and economic reasons. This is inevitable because the economy is controlled by small groups of private individuals who, like any human being in their position would, try to plan and manipulate the economy to their own advantage.

The only solution is for working people to organise together and try to find common ground. It requires a mass political movement amongst actual real people trying to solve our common problems, not this vacuous "Yes, we can!" rubbish that's just about some personality trying to get power in the current system so that they can be the man grinding the organ for us monkeys. That's the only solution I can see for racism.

Re:Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910823)

Would this therapy help when the majority is being discriminated against? Most discrimination programs focus on minorities.

Re:Update (-1, Troll)

Rary (566291) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910545)

It isn't a racist and sexist attitude. It's not that they don't like white men, it's that they wanted orientation week's fund raising to benefit an organization that represents the entire student body, not just a certain segment of it. Therefore, if it were true that CF only affected white men, it would be absolutely logical to choose a different recipient. The same would be the case if CF only affected black women.

Re:Update (5, Insightful)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910581)

Cystic fibrosis only affects people who have cystic fibrosis, which is a tiny minority of the population (a much smaller minority than white men). So if they must choose a charity that represents the entire student body, it's clearly not suitable, since most of the students do not have CF and never will.

If that is their criterion, the only choice open to them is just to give the money back to the students. Any other use would be favouring one minority or another.

Re:Update (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910607)

How about herpes then?

Re:Update (1, Insightful)

Rary (566291) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910687)

The point isn't to benefit the students directly. The point is to benefit the communities to which they belong.

An example: Slashdot decides to have a fund raising event. They want to benefit the nerd community, so they decide to give to research into Asperger's Syndrome -- not because every Slashdotter has Asperger's, but because it's quite common in the nerd community.

This is sort of what they were aiming for.

Re:Update (5, Insightful)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910811)

The point isn't to benefit either the students OR their communities. Otherwise it would be called "investment", not "charity". "Charity" means helping people AGAINST your own intrest.

If they're mere investment bankers, a sort of insurance salesmen, then they should call themselves such.

Re:Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25911211)

The point isn't to benefit the students directly. The point is to benefit the communities to which they belong.

And the point of objecting to this is that it is implicitly making the political statement that individual communities should be considered totally separate things.

It is saying that (for example) white men and black women have nothing in common.

I thought that kind of viewpoint died out in the 1960s. When did segregationalism become acceptable again?

(And how the fuck do I make idle divide my text into paragraphs? I've tried "p" tags, I've tried multiple "br" tags, nothing works. I thought all the "idleispants" comments were annoying, but that was before I tried posting anything here...)

Re:Update (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911329)

nah, its still alive and well when its white males who are being segregated. Really thats the only form of discrimination that is still around in anything more than pockets of extremists. Unfortunately, its also pretty much the only one that isnt recognized by the state.

Re:Update (2, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911871)

I have to wonder, if we applied the same logic to government funding, would it then be ok to deny aids research funding because it primarily effects blacks and queers? Breast cancer seems to mostely effect women, is it still bad to not want to support research in that?

I follow the logic you put forth in their defense, I'm just wondering why it wasn't universally applied. In 2007, the students held their annual charity ball to support Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind / Hopewell Eating Disorders Centre. In 2008, the students held their annual charity ball to support the Rideau Valley Wildlife Sanctuary / Rideau Street Youth Enterprises

Blind people and people with eating disorders can't represent the entire school or community. A youth organization or wild life preserve in one tiny area can't either and yet we are fed this story in hopes that no one notices the racists tones. No, we can't help the evil white man- can we.

And your comparison about Asperger's Syndrome is way off the mark. It's would be closer to having the charity drive for Asperger's Syndrome and then canceling it because it only effected black people or gays while not holding enough common sense between the lot of them to figure out that was a flat out lie. It isn't that they didn't want to support the disease, they already decided they did until someone convinced them that race and gender mattered and they couldn't think critically enough to question them or the information presented to them. Seriously, are we all the same under the skin if a disease or illness is selective enough to only effect one gender of one race? It goes country to the entire "they no different then you" argument passed down to get people to think twice about racial biases because of visible differences. This is where logic left the table and raq racist emotion came in. You can accept their excuses, it doesn't matter much, but don't fault someone for not falling for it..

Re:Update (1)

kandela (835710) | more than 5 years ago | (#25912301)

That's probably true. However many people will be offended by that notion. White men are amongst the groups most likely to give to charities that don't directly affect them. For instance, in Australia we regularly see male celebrities wearing pink in support of the breast cancer foundation. A large portion of the population (including men) have been encouraged to give as a result of this campaign.

The dominant idea surrounding charity is that you give to ease someone else's burden or pain. Here there is a Child Flight charity that runs with the slogan "It might not be your child they save, but it will be somebody's." Charity is about empathy for the sick/disadvantaged. By trying to choose a charity that is more likely to affect the student body, it looks more like self interest. It looks like they are just trying to put money into curing something that they might get, there is no empathy in that and so it looks uncharitable.

Re:Update (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910717)

They could give the money to a charity which helps people with the Common Cold. ;)

Re:Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910751)

Is there a dumbass fund? I think that would work.

Re:Update (2, Insightful)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911363)

CF also affects the family/friends/loved ones/caregivers of those with CF.

Re:Update (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911773)

No man is an ilsnad, entire of itself...

Re:Update (1)

kandela (835710) | more than 5 years ago | (#25912229)

For some reason this post makes me think of celebrities. You know the ones I mean. The ones who get a disease and then become champions of raising awareness about that disease. This doesn't strike me as charity so much as self interest.

I do wonder though, if there are a whole slew of charities desperately hoping that a prominent enough celebrity gets the disease they are campaigning for a cure for.

Re:Update (3, Informative)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910585)

I don't see the logic at all. Regardless of whether CF only effects white men or not, CF only effects people with CF. I.e., they're alienating the entire student population which doesn't have CF (which I'm guessing would be quite a lot).

If they were truly looking for "diversity", they would only fund research into disease which every student has. But they're not interested in "diversity". They're interesting in "diversity" only with respect to race and sex. I.e., they're racists and sexists.

Re:Update (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910863)

Have you noticed how tolerant "diversity" advocates are of different viewpoints ? They're about as interested in helping others as the muslim terrorists. They merely want power, to push their view on society. Their cause is long dead.

America beats Europe by ten miles when it comes to being less racist. And compared to muslims, well they're still massacring blacks for being black in Sudan, and massacring their own for not having the correct "religious" (political in reality, there is not a single religious thought in the cesspool that goes by the name of "islam") inclination.

But diversity advocates have moved on. Instead of diversity they seek to create "thought crime". The very thing they accuse republicans of doing, but when looking at actual laws they always have distinctly lefty signatures beneath them. And you find nearly all totalitarian lefties in a single party.

Re:Update (1)

Czarf (730417) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911927)

They should only fund a disease that the Carleton student association members have. I'm sure the world could use a cure for ignorance and stupidity. Obviously the university isn't doing that job.

Re:Update (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910629)

Cystic Fibrosis affects women, it's just that women tend to die faster than men who have it. Thus, more men appear to have it.

Someone must have looked up a bunch of statistics, and drew their own conclusions without actually putting them into context.

Yay for critical thinking.

Re:Update (2, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911841)

It's the same thing with breast cancer. Most people think breast cancer is the #1 killer of women, but in fact, its' heart disease - 6x worse. The real war should be on ignorance, but this is Carlton U we're talking about here ...

Re:Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25911943)

I think it's worth pointing out to our American/International friends that Carelton is a pit of mediocrity, suitable for nothing more than churning out future bureaucrats. This isn't surprising at all.

Re:Update (1)

Pandora's Vox (231969) | more than 5 years ago | (#25912235)

It's appropriate and entertaining that in calling Carleton a pit of mediocrity, you misspelled the name of the institution :)

Re:Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25912467)

It isn't a racist and sexist attitude. It's not that they don't like white men, it's that they wanted orientation week's fund raising to benefit an organization that represents the entire student body, not just a certain segment of it. Therefore, if it were true that CF only affected white men, it would be absolutely logical to choose a different recipient. The same would be the case if CF only affected black women.

Where do the mods get their seemingly infinite supply of logic-blocking crack again?

Re:Update (0, Troll)

dexmachina (1341273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910871)

OK, let's be fair. What they did was incredibly stupid, and I'm glad that the student body rightfully opposed it, but it wasn't racist. They weren't discriminating against white men, they were being extremist everything-must-be-inclusive-of-everybody PC. It wasn't they were being racist, they were trying to do the opposite. The problem of course is that we fight diseases to cure PEOPLE regardless of who they are. Trying to choose some "representative disease" that affects everyone to avoid being "discriminatory" is just ridiculous, which is why what they did was stupid.

Re:Update (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910951)

Translation: They were being unintentional racists.

Re:Update (2, Insightful)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911929)

No, they were being intentional racists; ones that thought their 'higher' moral position justified it. They were also stunningly hypocritical in making a stand against perceived racism in medical funding my making a racist decision of their own.

Those of us in the US should expect at least 4 years of this sort of doublespeak.

Re:Update (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911245)

So if I claim it's wrong to fund sickle cell research because it only affects black people that's OK? Somehow it sounds like I could get tarred and feathered if I actually said that!

Definition of Racism (4, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911543)

...but it wasn't racist. They weren't discriminating against white men, they were being extremist everything-must-be-inclusive-of-everybody PC.

This is racism. They are making their decision based on race. What they were trying to do, who they were discriminating for or against matters not. Their decision was based on no other criteria than race and that is the textbook definition of racism.

Re:Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25911015)

Thats still ok.

Re:Update (5, Insightful)

Lulfas (1140109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911455)

Didn't you know? Racist and sexist opinions against white males are encouraged. Feeling different is considered racist and sexist.

Re:Update (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911647)

I'm going to guess that most (if not all) of these idiots are white themselves. This is why I'm against political correctness, just another way to confuse the ignorant and stupid away from what actually matters.

Re:Update (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911783)

just another way to confuse the ignorant and stupid away from what actually matters.

Which is what, exactly? It's supposed to be here, along with news for nerds, but I've nver seen it.

Re:Update (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910431)

Which is the least they can do. Seriously though -- they were "misinformed" that the disease that only affects white males but that doesn't excuse the fact that a disease is still a disease and they were being racist douchebags by locking it out in the first place.

Re:Update (0, Troll)

Rary (566291) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910599)

They weren't locking anything out, and they don't have any problem with funds being raised for CF, even if it were true that it only affected white men.

The point of the decision was simply this: they wanted their orientation week fund raising to benefit the various communities to which their students belong. If CF were, in fact, a white man's disease, and given that their students are not all white men, it follows that funds donated to CF are not benefiting the various communities to which the students belong, but rather only a subset, therefore CF is not a good candidate for this particular fund raising event.

Re:Update (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910651)

and given that their students are not all white men

Well duh. What's wrong with supporting CF and Sickle Cell Anemia?

The rank idiocy in academia makes me glad I'm long graduated college...

Re:Update (4, Insightful)

delong (125205) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910685)

I'm sorry, but do the students not belong to the community called "Canada", to which CF sufferers also belong?

But this isn't about "communities" is it? No, it is "race" and "sex" counting. It is the most obscene consequence of multi-culti racism and sexism. Dividing the citizenry into camps defined by their race and sex, whose merit is contingent upon race and sex. It is racism and sexism, by definition.

Re:Update (1)

Erioll (229536) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910747)

Exactly. The true definition of eliminating racism is when we can't really tell that there are any races. Not through having everybody inter-racial in heritage (which will likely happen anyways), but through people not caring beyond how we see hair color today (blonde jokes aside).

Re:Update (3, Insightful)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910885)

That would make things like headscarves for women racist. Actually since they're meant as a mark of separation, a mark that they want nothing to do with infidel men, they kinda are, aren't they ?

Re:Update (0, Flamebait)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911145)

Bullshit. they were being racists assholes and you are being an appologist asshole.

Re:Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910469)

So, have the students who made the decision been brought before the human rights tribunal on charges of racism?

No?

Oh well.

Re:Update (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910485)

What the students did is disgusting but NO ONE should be brought before some sort of sham court like the one you describe. Even if they had did this they didn't hurt anything, they just refused help based on bigoted criteria.

Re:Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910917)

What the students did is disgusting but NO ONE should be brought before some sort of sham court like the one you describe.

Tell it to Canada since they have exactly that sort of sham court, a.k.a. Canadian Human Rights Commission. It is only intended for prosecution of anti-progressive persons though.

Re:Update (4, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910473)

Maybe they were misinformed, but so what? The fact that they would vote based on that criteria, affecting only "white men", is just as disgusting as voting against a fundraiser for sickle-cell anemia because a great proportion of those suffering from it are black.

Some of the politics universities are associated with is downright disgusting. University students, I've seen, are often anti-freedom of speech (for political correctness) in the LEFT-WING direction because "people just shouldn't say that" and yes, rightly or wrongly there is a huge stigma against being conservative in any sense--I don't mean against gays or whatever, I mean small-government, fiscal conservatives, not the Republican "conservative". Throw in some of the weirdo racial ideas where "race is just a social construct it doesn't really exist we shouldn't judge based on race!" along with the "affirmative action is necessary to protect racial groups that I just said didn't really exist!" in the next breath and it's hard not to roll your eyes or become disgusted.

Then there was my black studies class I took to see if it was everything I thought it would be. Oh was it ever! The text book was written by ex-felon Maulana Karenga, Black Panther and inventor of Kwanzaa; the book was full of Afrocentrism, anti-capitalist bullshit, had whooping factual errors (even claimed that blacks were the first to the Americas leaving behind the Olmec statues!) and went so far as to capitalize "Black" and kept "white" lowercase. The premise of the class was really attacking everything that was "European-American" and exalting everything "African", of course everything "bad" like capitalism, competition, the patriarchy, empirical science was associated with the "European-American worldview" and everything "good" like "holism, caring and sharing, matrilineal descent, and intuition" were part of the "African worldview". Do note that the same type of distinction is made by loony feminists as well.

University racial politics are really disgusting and I think a lot of it stems from stupid, naive kids entering college without the ability to think critically; they mean well but are easily led.

Those are my observations, YMMV.

Re:Update (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25911119)

Very true, but made entirely more amusing by your user name.

Re:Update (5, Informative)

cvd6262 (180823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25912377)

As a faculty member, I must say that... ... I totally agree.

Some members of our faculty recently read a book on "white privilege" which cited documented falsehoods to justify the author's position.

What's worse is the rise (far more in the social sciences) of "critical" research methodologies. With these, the "researcher" doesn't control for their own bias, but admits to researching in support of their stated biases (usually the empowerment of the disenfranchised).

I told one colleague that when you begin research knowing the answers (rather than the questions), you're a lobbyist, not a researcher. That wasn't well received.

Re:Update (4, Informative)

gubachwa (716303) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911957)

Such an ignorantly worded motion should have never passed in the first place. It also took quite sometime for a real apology to be forthcoming, and it was not until after the Carleton president got involved. The initial reaction by CUSA to the backlash was that students and the rest of the country just "didn't get it". Brittany Smyth, the CUSA president, kept trying to explain away the decision as having nothing to do with the clause that said CF was a white male illness. You can hear her here [cfra.com] , on CFRA (Ottawa) radio. After a couple of days of public outrage, and a petition to have her impeached, Brittany did finally issue a somewhat mediocre apology [cusaonline.com] .

The real star of this debacle is Donnie Northrup, the 4th year science student who authored the original motion. He made some interesting comments [canada.com] to a reporter of the Ottawa Citizen. Essentially, he regrets that we misunderstood the intent of his motion, and that he should have worded the motion more carefully. He claimed that he slipped up because he had a lot of homework due at the time. And to make himself look like a bigger ass than he's already made himself out to be, he adds that "writing is not something he's focusing his degree on."

So yeah, the decision is being revisited, but the idiots who made it are still idiots, and bringing attention to this stupidity is still worthwhile.

Re:Update (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 5 years ago | (#25912227)

Not good enough.

Already reversing that decision (2, Informative)

TheBishop613 (454798) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910291)

They've already realized what a huge mess they've made and are working at rectifying the situation. Thanks for keeping up on the latest news on the issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/11/26/ot-081126-shinerama.html [www.cbc.ca]

Re:Already reversing that decision (4, Insightful)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910453)

The fact that the negative publicity has motivated them to back-peddle in no way excuses the original decision.

But thanks for the update.

Re:Already reversing that decision (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910577)

...has motivated them to back-peddle...

I don't think that word [merriam-webster.com] means what you think it means [merriam-webster.com] .

(Yet another mind-expanding edition of Slashdot's Funniest Home-Oh-Phone Screwups, brought to you by Zontar The Mindless [slashdot.org] , who doesn't feel like giving away his /. account to the owner of the botnet to which this public terminal running Windows XP is almost certain to belong.)

Re:Already reversing that decision (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910735)

I think you put far more effort [answers.com] in to that post [worldofstock.com] than the content of your message warranted [warrantweb.net] .

what's sadder here? (3, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910293)

That they did it, or that anyone cares?

Shouldn't we stop fund raising for prostate cancer because it only affects men!
Discrimination? Someone needs their head adjusted. Maybe raising funds for condition xxx isn't a good idea, but that's a ridiculous reason to stop.

Re:what's sadder here? (2, Interesting)

mbstone (457308) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910911)

What's sad is male-oriented products, e.g. razor blades, with packaging touting their contribution to womyn's diseases like breast cancer. When is Gillette going to give a piece of my razor-blade money to fighting prostate cancer?

Re:what's sadder here? (1)

MaineCoon (12585) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911037)

Many women use razor blades too. They have a hell of a lot more surface area to shave.

They get better quality/longer lasting blades, too :-(

Re:what's sadder here? (1)

LSD-OBS (183415) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911539)

They have a hell of a lot more surface area to shave

Speak for yourself. I have to shave ALL THE WAY up my legs, as well as my face.

Re:what's sadder here? (4, Interesting)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911603)

What's sad is male-oriented products, e.g. razor blades, with packaging touting their contribution to womyn's diseases like breast cancer.

My wife handles most of our shopping. They need to convince her which brand to buy, even if I'm the ultimate user.

Re:what's sadder here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25911057)

Huh? Discrimination?!

This is worse than discrimination, this is racism and sexism!...

This is rasxism!!

Re:what's sadder here? (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911375)

What would happen if people in mass started boycotting stuff for breast cancer? I personally avoid products proclaiming to be "pink" or boasting the pink ribbon. Not because I don't think it is a good cause, but rather I think it is a more of a marketing tool than a fund raiser. The same product that is pink and says that for every purchase 1 dollar is donated costs me more than one dollar more retail.

Re:what's sadder here? (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911545)

well if you want to look at it strictly from a capitalist point of view, it's costing them a small amount of money to mange their donations. They're also earning a miniscule amount off the interest on your buck until they donate it. There may also be tax writeoffs for them. And then there's the factor of a tiny improvement in market appeal.

In exchange for that assorted mess you get a very convenient way to donate a dollar of your money to a cause you support.

There's also a lot more numbers to crunch to determine who's making what out of that deal. How much is your inconvenience worth for example, or how much does it cost them in additional marketing. I think it's a fair assumption to say they get at least a slight boost from this, (or they wouldn't bother) but probably not a lot. Even factors like "in sales, all other things being equal, more volume is better" play into this. It probably all comes down to fractions of a cent.

Re:what's sadder here? (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911857)

I dont think its a tiny improvement in market value, I think its a rather large one. I once saw a lady going through checkout with her entire basket fully of pink items. Everything in it was marked with the pink ribbon, even the pens and printer paper. Easily $150 worth of office supplies and stationary.

One example I saw recently (same occasion as above) after having this exact discussion with my mom. I saw a stapler at the store for 15.99. It's a pretty nifty stapler (not red swingline) that uses compressed springs to staple 25 pages with a minimal force, ie you can use one finger. The same stapler, with a pink motif was around the corner in a display for breast cancer awareness month (seriously, is there anyone that ISNT aware of breast cancer?) for 18.99 and signs about a one dollar donation for every purchase.

Granted that it might take some overhead to work out, but its not 2 dollars worth. If you want to support a specific cause, then make a direct donation. Its the best way by far.

Re:what's sadder here? (4, Funny)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 5 years ago | (#25912189)

"

Shouldn't we stop fund raising for prostate cancer because it only affects men!

"

No. We should stop fund raising for it because it kills people. Let's, instead, start fundraising for its cure.

Never could figure out why people keep trying to raise money for cancer.

Idle, annoying and out of date (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910311)

UPDATED STORY [www.ctv.ca]

This decision is already being reviewed and will likely be tossed by the Carleton Student Council.

But hey lets bash for a while anyways as though we don't know that this is already out of date.

Re:Idle, annoying and out of date (2, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910411)

The fact that it happened in the first place should be very worthy of note.

Re:Idle, annoying and out of date (3, Insightful)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910565)

But hey lets bash for a while anyways as though we don't know that this is already out of date.

Who cares if it has been changed? The mere fact that this sort of assinine stupidity happened in the first place is news enough. Stupidity is defeated on a daily basis - that doesn't make it less stupid or less worthy of discussion.

Re:Idle, annoying and out of date (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911531)

I think this is a rather good argument for removing any obligation to pay into these idiotic student societies.

Re:Idle, annoying and out of date (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911565)

This decision is already being reviewed and will likely be tossed by the Carleton Student Council.

True but from the article the reason it is being tossed is because CF affects men and women equally as well as some non-white populations. Unless I missed the apology for the racist and sexist attitudes on display?

Awwwwww... (5, Funny)

Syrente (990349) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910363)

When I first saw the news topic I thought that some smarmy prankster had started a fundraiser to cure the disease of 'being a white male.' I was going to laugh.
Now it's all serious, you jerks.

And thanks to the severity of my condition (whitus maleus) I'm going to die, soon. Way to ruin a dying man's fun.

Re:Awwwwww... (0, Troll)

nnet (20306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910385)

everyone's gotta die *shrug*

Re:Awwwwww... (1)

coren2000 (788204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911035)

this is a misconception... it has not yet been proven that everyone dies, as everyone is not yet dead.

Re:Awwwwww... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911461)

But, don't you see, _100%_ of white males die.

It's CUSA - business as usual (4, Informative)

CestusGW (814880) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910427)

DUHN-DUHN In the Carleton university academic system, there are three groups: the faculty, who try their best to better the school's reputation, the students, who are some kind of horrible hybrid of communist and stupid, and CUSA, whose mandate is to get Carleton into the mainstream press for being stupid at least once every two years. To be clear here - the staff (including the President) of the school don't like CUSA, the students don't like CUSA (the Marxists can't figure out that strikes might hurt the student body), and I'm pretty certain CUSA members must harbour some level of self-loathing over themselves and their bad decisions. So please, don't confound Carleton the school with CUSA the body of idiocy.

Re:It's CUSA - business as usual (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910467)

and CUSA, whose mandate is to get Carleton into the mainstream press for being stupid at least once every two years

I most venomously object to this underestimation of CUSA... the mandate is to be as stupid as possible as often as possible!

Re:It's CUSA - business as usual (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910499)

It sounds to me like CUSA is pretty spot-on if they're highlighting the stupidity of the Marxist student body.

Re:It's CUSA - business as usual (4, Insightful)

Straif (172656) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910755)

It's amazing how much money CUSA cost the university in Alumni giving every year. Every Carleton grad I know refuses to give based solely on CUSA; and the fact I can see the main campus from my office window I can tell you I know quite a few grads.

Re:It's CUSA - business as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25911909)

...and the fact I can see the main campus from my office window I can tell you I know quite a few grads.

Do you know Sarah Palin too, by any chance?

Reverse psychology ??? (1, Troll)

moose_hp (179683) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910439)

I have the weird feeling that this is a case of a well played advertisement campaing in order to _get_ funds...

1 - Start fundraiser
2 - Stop fundraiser with a controversial topic like white rascism
3 - Start sending apolligies to the mainstream media saying that they are stopping the fundraiser
4 - Watch the cash flow after getting tons of publicity

Do i need to put a (???) and (Proffit)?

Re:Reverse psychology ??? (4, Informative)

Straif (172656) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910791)

If only. This is just par for the course in the CUSA's attempt to PCifiy the campus.

Their last major controversy was a ban they put in place to prevent any pro-life groups (religous or otherwise) from receiving any of the standard student club funds or access to any meeting facilities on campus, regardless of the number of members or how long they existed on campus. And these weren't militant "storm abortion clinic" type groups, just simply groups that did not share the pro-abortion policies of the CUSA.

Some people just shouldn't be put in positions of power.

Niggers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25910463)

So, unless the disease affects niggers, it doesn't matter?

Re:Niggers (-1, Flamebait)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910513)

So, unless the disease affects niggers, it doesn't matter?

No, if a disease affects white men, it matters to white men already, so it doesn't need any more money.

Re:Niggers (4, Informative)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910645)

Cystic Fibrosis doesn't affect white men. It kills small children, usually before the age of 5.

Re:Niggers (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 5 years ago | (#25912395)

So? Did I say anything to the opposite?

As bad a decision as it gets (4, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910477)

Anyone who decides to cut off funding to a specific disease's research based on political correctness should have to explain to a 7 year old boy dying from that disease why it's okay for him to die because of his group demographic. Preferably in the presence of his parents, so they can be devastated for a second time.

Re:As bad a decision as it gets (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910923)

Preferably in the presence of his parents, so they can be devastated for a second time.

And beat the living shit out of that bastard too. Just claim he fell town a flight of stairs. Twice.

Re:As bad a decision as it gets (2, Insightful)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 5 years ago | (#25912277)

Ambrose Bierce said, "There are four kinds of Homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy."

I think dragging those idiots up and down the stairs a few times would qualify you for a Nobel Peace Prize, since it would improve the world so much, especially if they didn't survive.

After all, the generation that fought and WW II understood perfectly well that sometimes the best way to bring about peace is to kill the evildoers and make such an example of them that people are afraid to screw with you after that.

Sad and Stupid (4, Insightful)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910679)

Diseases that affect minorities tend to receive, not just less, but disproportionately less funding than better known, "white" diseases, just because they get crowded out of the awareness space that correlates directly to fundraising dollars. CUSA could have accomplished the same intent of switching to an under-fundraised disease without the absurd act of saying "we don't want to help white males". They could have said "we want to help fight this disease that's been overlooked until now because it's mainly minorities that suffer from it." Their heart was in the right place, from all the stories I've read. They were just shockingly tone-deaf in their do-goodism.

Re:Sad and Stupid (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911933)

Except so many people look for overlooked fundraisers that help minorities that they turn into over-emphasised fundraisers that help minorities. As a white guy on a low income, you get basically squat assistance. Nobody cares about you (see above...). A black guy on the same income has many many resources to help them out. Ever try and look for college scholarships for a normal, white male? Not much around. How about the same GPA and income on a hispanic kid?

Hey I went there (1)

Atrox666 (957601) | more than 5 years ago | (#25910943)

I went to Carleton. A.K.A. Hogs Back High( it's on the Hog's back river) A.K.A. Cartoon U. A.K.A. Last chance U. I dropped out in disgust with great marks. I wouldn't waste my money on these useless idiots. They really don't do very much right. Their computer science program is a sick joke as is their highly rated journalism school. If you want to start an interview off with a laugh then just tell someone you have a degree from Carleton. They probably have a little more prestige than a mail order school..but I wouldn't count on it.

As a white man (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25911113)

As a white mail I couldn't care if someone makes fun of me for anything whether it's race, sex, or whatever and on first read through I thought big deal.

But then it hit me, if they had chosen not to support a charity for sickle cell anaemia because it only affects black people then my god there'd be an uproar.

So I'm not sure what to think really, whether it's sad that they'd do this or whether it's sad that black people make such a fuss about something that has now also affected me but instead of making me angry, or violent has left me feeling simply apathetic.

Maybe there is some truth in what some have been saying about Obama becoming president- racism is only a deal if you let it be and some minorities simply have been dwelling on it too long and bringing their children up to let it be a problem too.

Re:As a white man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25911365)

Impostor! No self respecting white male would use such terrible grammar. Damn niggers figuring out how to post on slashdot.

Human rights complaint. (3, Insightful)

Hamster Lover (558288) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911269)

If I was a student at Carleton I would file a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, if for nothing but the delicious irony.

As much as I hate human rights commissions, this is a perfect opportunity to throw some of the same destructive invective back at those so eager to label any and all things as racist and sexist.

Say what? (1)

RenHoek (101570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911307)

Slavery only affected African-Americans... So if we follow the 'logic' of this student association, there was no need to abolish that at all...

Einstein said.. there are two things that are infinite: the universe and stupidity.. and I'm not too sure about the first...

Cholera (1)

notjim (879031) | more than 5 years ago | (#25911659)

Interesting and ironically in this context CF may be common in populations where cholera and typhoid was once common, it may offer carriers some protection from these diseases, as carrying sycle cell anemia does to malaria. That, for example, may be why it effects Irish people more.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...