Kentucky Fried Chicken "Pink Bucket"-a Sex Discriminatory Campaign

A campaign by KFC is now underway to generate money to fund research to find a cure for women’s cancer. Why do we accept the battle against cancer, in any light, only against women’s cancer? Is this not a form of sex discrimination applying to a cure? Sure, women’s cancer is a terrible thing, but so is men’s (prostate) cancer. Why discriminate?

An equal effort to battle both should be a given. The sex discrimination is high-lighted by featuring the pink-colored bucket. Despite the grave numbers of male victims of prostate cancer, this sexist example is included amongst other discriminatory efforts, even by government agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service, in which case it failed to equally represent/support male cancer. Indeed, men’s health is not given nearly the concern to women’s health, and less effort is made to secure it.

Although male (prostate) cancer and female (breast) cancer have an equal mortality rate, equal financial support wasn’t even arranged by the federal government for males in a postal campaign for cancer treatment, amounting to a mere government sham for men.    Apparently to appear equal, “ . . . the U.S. post office issued a breast cancer and a prostate cancer stamp. The breast cancer stamp cost 40c with seven cents going to breast cancer research.” The first run of 200 million produced $14 million for breast cancer. “The prostate cancer stamp cost 33c with no proceeds earmarked for prostate cancer research” (Hise, The War Against Men, 2004, 92 & 93). This is the same criminal mindset that has allowed the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act. All these examples demonstrate efforts favoring one segment of people within society (women) over another (men).

This is the first time that any national/international chain franchise has blatantly endorsed an effort discriminating in helping find a cure for an illness applying to both sexes. Only if KFC were to represent men now, perhaps by blue-colored buckets in their posters, in an equal effort to fund research for a cure for prostate cancer would this campaign be equally balanced by the corporation. (Would its founder, Col. Sanders, have endorsed this?)

Due to the extreme effects of prostate cancer, equal consideration should be a given to finding a cure for that rather than a segregated effort, favoring a cure for one sex’s cancer over the other’s. Never before have we seen this discriminatory expression in our society, except when carried out illicitly against blacks and Jews. If this status is unacceptable for blacks within a country founded upon equal justice for all, then why wouldn’t the same be unacceptable when applied to men?

As Dr. Warren Farrell conveys in The Myth of Male Power, men are expendable, and often for women. This unequal male status (prejudice) pervades society into present day even under the façade of “equality” when discriminatory efforts, even laws are made to accommodate. A commonly accepted double-standard and sub-standard is that part of being “a man” is taking it and accepting less. This standard is not acceptable to a real man or to a person who believes in equal justice for all, but one based on a primitive, ages-old chivalry mentality and result of centuries of male servitude. Where would our country be if this were the case and mindset that first determined the foundation of our country, rather than based on the premise of equal justice for all?

Is our compassion therefore divided, just as it has been amongst some concerning race? Is the same lack of compassion not being expressed here as was evident amongst Nazis toward the Jews? Could this not be the same prelude to what eventually led to the holocaust? Must history repeat itself before people will wake up and take notice of the same effects taking place now that eventually, if taken to the next level, will cause millions more to suffer under the auspicious (excuse and acceptance) of an inferior sex just as it did via the excuse of an inferior race?

Men as parents (fathers) are granted this status, which is well demonstrated when it comes to child custody, and are made into villains, who as servants are only good for exhuming money, by depriving fathers their children and children their fathers and at the same time using their children as an excuse to extort money from fathers for the government and mothers.

A historical documentary projection of the future could easily illustrate where this is all heading. A comprehensive historical account would reveal where we are now and expose the cover-ups taking place. It would reveal the arrangement, to a degree, by the courts and political powers that now deem fathers deadbeats as it has reduced them (behind the scenes) to using their children to extort money for the government and mothers at the expense of their equal parental status and equal involvement in their children’s lives. But just as Jews were kept out of sight in concentration camps, this aspect of our present-day society is kept hidden and covered up by our government and the media, both granting excuses and justifications—-just as all prejudice does. Fathers are sentenced as criminals to their fate by the courts, politicians and the media. But as the progressive effect continues to grow, is this the beginning of something much more sinister to come?

If our ethical standards are not based on a sound premise, we can be easily led astray. Signs further leading us down this path are coming to light and this KFC campaign is one of them.

Although the discriminatory effort shouldn’t exist in the first place, I suggest that KFC be approached concerning an equal campaign effort for prostate cancer. If they refuse, then we should bring it to national attention and all boycott KFC.

By Alan Millard

Author of Equality: A Man’s Claim

Men and Fathers for Justice, President