It is really adorable when my commenters try to bait me, waving some tender morsel of race or gender discrimination in front of me, as though I were some venomous creature who can not control her urge to strike.
I think many of you secretly enjoy watching me completely lose my junk all over the intertubes, and I can tell that you have been neglected because your taunting in my comments section has increased.
So, as not to neglect the neediest of my little muffins, allow me to now lose my junk for your viewing pleasure...
I think that being a world-famous and incredibly hot science blogger is leaving me a little jaded. You see, as I read the daily news or check the buzz feed, it actually takes quite a bit more wackaloonery to raise my ire than it used it. I mean, if I blogged everytime I saw some piece of hot misogyny, I would never have time to clean my house, take care of my kids, or cook dinner for my husband. And then what kind of woman would I be?
However, some things I noticed while surfing recently have disturbed me and I thought this might be a good place to discuss them. It began on Friday night with this YouTube video:
Video 1: An advertisement for Boobyball, an event to promote breast cancer awareness.
This video left me feeling squeemy, but it alone wasn't enough to raise my blog ire. Then this morning, in between ironing my husband's shirts and baking a pie, I came across this image on the Super Punch blog:
Figure 2: Image created by Twin Cities artist Adam Turman. His artwork of some of the old Minneapolis mills and skyline is actually quite inspired.
I thought to myself, "Wow! Two in a row? It's almost as though our Lord is trying to send me material in convenient titty form! Surely this is proof that Jesus loves me!"
I wrote before in response to another blogger about having breast surgery. In retrospect, I feel fortunate to only be left with a mildly visible scar that is several inches long, little sensation in my left nipple, and a breast that is all but useless for nursing. Still, I remember the panic and fear when I took the bandages off and saw jagged, criss-crossing blue sutures that marked where my surgeon had explored. I remember feeling embarrassed to show my husband.
I ended up at this surgeon because I started seeing blood-tinged fluid emerge from my breast and then found a hard lump. He removed a piece of tissue about a marble in diameter and found several intraductal papillomas ("a small, noncancerous tumor that grows in a milk duct of the breast"). While I feel fortunate to not have had cancer and to not have needed a mastectomy, I remember our conversation post-surgically where he told me of an increased risk of cancer in women who develop papillomas early or who have several.
The idea of a mastectomy someday terrifies me. Absolute, paralyzing fear. I won't lie and tell you that I am not a vain woman or that I don't appreciate that breasts largely determine our attractiveness as women. Perhaps that's why these types of "awareness" advertisements anger me so much. As a woman I should be worried about breast cancer because it could cause me to not see my children grow up, not because it will decrease my ability to be a hot sex object, desired by awkward men and envied by flat-chested bitches everywhere.
Has anyone ever suggested that we should be aware of testicular cancer because the loss of a testicle could make a man less virile and attractive to women? I think, if anything, loss of a testicle makes it more probable that one will win the Tour de France.
Figure 3: Perhaps the message here is that the loss of a testicle makes one more aerodynamic? Out of curiosity, do men have testicular reconstruction?
These advertisements are rooted in the deepest, darkest, most vile parts of patriarchy our society has to offer. I hate that the message these send is that women have a responsibility to be aware of breast cancer so that men don't lose their source of enjoyment and, if they end up with cancer, society will no longer find them desirable. I get angry at myself for my own vanity, but I get more angry at these sorts of advertisements because I know that they reinforce to young women the idea that our breasts determine our worth. These notions are where my own fears come from and it frightens me to think that, possibly, maybe these are counterproductive. That, maybe, women might turn to avoidance as a way to cope with the fear of disfigurement. From that standpoint, I have found this series of honestly graphic pictures and stories more helpful.
But, Dr. Isis is all about equality. So, thinking about all of this, and lamenting the tactics used in these breast cancer awareness ads, made me wonder how other diseases might market awareness using the same sort of tactics....
Figure 4: Sex-based awareness marketing for diabetes. No?
However, some things I noticed while surfing recently have disturbed me and I thought this might be a good place to discuss them. It began on Friday night with this YouTube video:
Video 1: An advertisement for Boobyball, an event to promote breast cancer awareness.
This video left me feeling squeemy, but it alone wasn't enough to raise my blog ire. Then this morning, in between ironing my husband's shirts and baking a pie, I came across this image on the Super Punch blog:
Figure 2: Image created by Twin Cities artist Adam Turman. His artwork of some of the old Minneapolis mills and skyline is actually quite inspired.
I thought to myself, "Wow! Two in a row? It's almost as though our Lord is trying to send me material in convenient titty form! Surely this is proof that Jesus loves me!"
I wrote before in response to another blogger about having breast surgery. In retrospect, I feel fortunate to only be left with a mildly visible scar that is several inches long, little sensation in my left nipple, and a breast that is all but useless for nursing. Still, I remember the panic and fear when I took the bandages off and saw jagged, criss-crossing blue sutures that marked where my surgeon had explored. I remember feeling embarrassed to show my husband.
I ended up at this surgeon because I started seeing blood-tinged fluid emerge from my breast and then found a hard lump. He removed a piece of tissue about a marble in diameter and found several intraductal papillomas ("a small, noncancerous tumor that grows in a milk duct of the breast"). While I feel fortunate to not have had cancer and to not have needed a mastectomy, I remember our conversation post-surgically where he told me of an increased risk of cancer in women who develop papillomas early or who have several.
The idea of a mastectomy someday terrifies me. Absolute, paralyzing fear. I won't lie and tell you that I am not a vain woman or that I don't appreciate that breasts largely determine our attractiveness as women. Perhaps that's why these types of "awareness" advertisements anger me so much. As a woman I should be worried about breast cancer because it could cause me to not see my children grow up, not because it will decrease my ability to be a hot sex object, desired by awkward men and envied by flat-chested bitches everywhere.
Has anyone ever suggested that we should be aware of testicular cancer because the loss of a testicle could make a man less virile and attractive to women? I think, if anything, loss of a testicle makes it more probable that one will win the Tour de France.
These advertisements are rooted in the deepest, darkest, most vile parts of patriarchy our society has to offer. I hate that the message these send is that women have a responsibility to be aware of breast cancer so that men don't lose their source of enjoyment and, if they end up with cancer, society will no longer find them desirable. I get angry at myself for my own vanity, but I get more angry at these sorts of advertisements because I know that they reinforce to young women the idea that our breasts determine our worth. These notions are where my own fears come from and it frightens me to think that, possibly, maybe these are counterproductive. That, maybe, women might turn to avoidance as a way to cope with the fear of disfigurement. From that standpoint, I have found this series of honestly graphic pictures and stories more helpful.
But, Dr. Isis is all about equality. So, thinking about all of this, and lamenting the tactics used in these breast cancer awareness ads, made me wonder how other diseases might market awareness using the same sort of tactics....
Figure 4: Sex-based awareness marketing for diabetes. No?
Medicine & Health
Life Science
Comments
I guess both the movie and the add are both made by guys seeing that breasts are a selection criteria (how else would there be so much fatty tissue there while it is not needed).
Posted by: Who Cares | September 21, 2009 1:17 AM
"I won't lie and tell you that I am not a vain woman or that I don't appreciate that breasts largely determine our attractiveness as women."
Excuse me?? As an A-cup, I'd like to refute the last part of that statement. I know a number of men and women who prefer the aesthetics of small breasts, and I think that facial features and overall body type/fitness level figure into physical attractiveness to a much greater degree than simple breast size. I know that having a big rack probably skews your perception, as those tend to attract attention, but I completely disagree that breasts actually "determine our attractiveness as women." Untrue.
Posted by: Linds | September 21, 2009 1:30 AM
c'mon dude, it's the weight, not the aero when it comes to ol' Juan Pelota...
Posted by: bikemonkey | September 21, 2009 1:54 AM
I don't know if you have been linked to IBTP yet, but this post came immediately to mind:
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2009/09/02/just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe/
Posted by: nails | September 21, 2009 2:36 AM
The seemingly neverending and utterly shameless marketing of breast cancer by every second company, regardless of the lack of any connection with breast cancer or even healthcare in the useless shit they are flogging, has most certainly made me lose my junk. And then there's the B grade celebrities who help these bastards...
Seriously, has anybody in the western world not heard of breast cancer yet? Awareness has been acheived already, you marketing hacks. I can only agree with Isis that it's a thinly and poorly veiled attempt to get their product associated with breasts. Cause you know 'cause it sells well and shit...
.... and breath...
Posted by: antipodean | September 21, 2009 2:38 AM
Linds, I think just possibly Dr. Isis was exaggerating for effect. (See also "what kind of woman would I be".)
Posted by: ginger | September 21, 2009 2:56 AM
The content of the ad and the subliminal message is disgusting and revolting and I completely agree with
"I hate that the message these send is that women have a responsibility to be aware of breast cancer so that men don't lose their source of enjoyment and, if they end up with cancer, society will no longer find them desirable."
BUT I still think these ads are a good thing. Why?
Unf, men are in positions of power. That includes awareness and distributing science funding, and if they realize that one of their favorite things are danger (boobies), awareness increases, science funding will increase and the cure may very well be found.
Unf, this is the world we live in
Posted by: b | September 21, 2009 3:07 AM
I've been debating about whether or not to get a shirt from http://www.save2ndbase.com/ for a while. When I first saw the shirts last October, I thought they were clever and the only reason I didn't get one immediately was because I couldn't find one in pink. (Any other color just seems wrong.) Then I became concerned about some of the same issues you brought up. Those feelings were mollified when I found out that the phrase had been coined by a woman dying of breast cancer and that the website was set up by her sister and her friend, who have raised tens of thousands of dollars for breast cancer non-profits. However, I'm certainly aware that "A woman did it so it can't be sexist!" isn't a valid argument.
Posted by: Roi des Foux | September 21, 2009 3:55 AM
There are testicular implants, and lots of guys do have problems with losing a testicle. After all, a breast (once you finish child rearing) really is just aesthetic. Testicles produce the stuff that actually defines a man as a man. Think about all the sayings like "He's got big brass ones." Losing a testicle can be something you never actually talk about:
http://www.polytechsilimed.info/cms/front_content.php?idcat=37&changelang=3
Posted by: Steve | September 21, 2009 4:32 AM
Thank you isis for articulating why these adverts make me feel uncomfortable.
Posted by: caro | September 21, 2009 5:16 AM
I admit first to not following any of the links in the post or comments.
Secondly, I admit to knowing no one personally who has suffered from breast cancer. I have, however, known several women my age and younger who were undergoing radiation treatment for breast cancer while I was undergoing radiation for a benign brain tumor. There's no way in hell I'd trade places with them. A few of those women were not shy and were willing to show what surgery, chemo, and radiation had done to their bodies.
And I was worried about hair loss?
I am familiar with cancer and I hate it. My beloved step-mother died of lung cancer after it spread to her brain. My husband will die of cancer someday, I think. So far, he's been diagnosed with colon, prostate, and bladder cancer. While a Marine in the 60s and 70s he was exposed to Agent Orange and above-ground nuclear tests...
Three primary cancers, each one more difficult to treat than the previous?
I do not know whether to find it odd or meaningful that so many of the cancers women suffer are those of reproductive organs... including breasts.
Men also suffer greatly from prostate cancer, which is in essence a reproductive tract cancer, since it is associated with testosterone.
Estrogen given as supplement to women who no longer produce their own isn't suggested as health promoting thing as it was a decade or so ago.
Is it possible that sex hormones... while promoting a genetic/Darwinian good, also at extended ages (or extraneous production) are a not conducive to a long life.
Then we must also ask whether a long life is necessarily conducive to to propagation of genes...
I don't like some of the questions this line of reasoning brings up and I really don't like some of the answers.
It would please me to know that my grandmother lived to be 96 years old because she followed a vegetarian diet and exercised properly rather than because genetics influenced her life span.
You see... I can eat vegetables and exercise. Yet I cannot change the fact that I have four grandparents. And I can't change the fact that even my longest lived grandparent didn't exist on a vegetarian diet and proper exercise.
This was the woman who introduced me to chocolate gravy... need I say more? (Recipe and serving suggestions on request.)
I really do not want to undermine the horror of breast cancer or any other female cancer... but the fact is that most women can still function without all their reproductive organs, including breasts.
Men can't. Prostate cancer and its side effects make life a living hell for men. Sure, women suffer from incontinence but it is not quite same type of incontinence that men who have prostate cancer suffer.
For one thing, women have become acquainted with and used to wearing protection for 5 to 7 days of the month. It's a bit easier to stretch this to every day than it is for a man who has never experienced any "leakage" before.
Of course that is gross, but it is also true.
Perhaps one must be a female living with a male suffering from prostate cancer to understand how devastating it is. I can't find any reason to find "female" cancers more devastating than "male" cancers. But I admit that is is entirely due to my personal experience.
Posted by: Donna B. | September 21, 2009 5:18 AM
Breast cancer research does not attract as much funding as the disease "deserves". Proportionally, prostate cancer receives a larger cut. It's easy to speculate that this is because, by and large, it is primarily men in the US who make the funding decisions.
I don't like the advertisements, and I agree that overall, they send the wrong message. HOWEVER, if these are the sorts of advertisements that will grab the attention of men and make them realize what they have to lose when a woman loses her breast... then fine. I want the fucking funding committees to throw money at breast and ovarian cancer research the way they do at prostate cancer research. Questionable, yes, but very much a means to an end.
Posted by: Candid Engineer | September 21, 2009 8:08 AM
It really surprises me that breast cancer is underfunded compared to prostate cancer (at least relative to the number of people who suffer from it). Breast cancer seems to be so much more well known to the public that I would have assumed that research on it was proportionally well-funded.
Posted by: Paul S. | September 21, 2009 9:37 AM
I have small breasts. Not unnoticeable -- a small B? My attractiveness and confidence has never revolved around them, they're more part of the package. And it's a hot package (although nowhere near as hot as the goddess). Trust me, men still check the small teeters out!
These adverts are ridiculous as are the men and women that think they are a good idea. Just another example of the vacuousness of some peeps -- what fraction of society? I don't know. And I don't care if that group completely misses my hotness.
Posted by: gnuma | September 21, 2009 10:04 AM
These are the ramblings of an MD who cares for patients with chronic disease, some of whom have malignancies of various types. I'm in pediatrics so I don't see breast cancer, but I see plenty of kids with potentially terminal illnesses who approach them with humor (as well as anger and fear and sadness). I will have to see if I can find my "Dialysis Sucks" poster someday...
I had not seen either of these ads. I have purchased stuff from Save the Tatas, another humorous breast cancer awareness/research funding group. My husband actually told me about them because he saw a bumper sticker and thought it was clever. One recent campaign was "Save a Life - Grope your Wife" acknowledging that lumps are frequently found by a woman's partner.
I guess I have gotten a little tired of the Lifetime channel approach to disease... brave heroine supporting her family and two children in Africa who must battle cancer. When she dies, they all come together to honor her with a walk/run/designer scarf... etc. I far prefer the "Cancer Sucks" tees that I see around our Onc center.
Of course, the thing that really ticks me off is the attention that breast cancer gets within women's health. In the mainstream media you would never know that women are more likely to die of heart disease and diabetes (unless it's February and the Red Dress campaign is in full force).
By the way, a diabetic double amputee probably can't do it any-style, and likely has too much cardiovascular disease for Viagra etc. If using sex or lack thereof can get adolescents to take care of their disease, I'm all for it, taste be damned!
Posted by: Pascale | September 21, 2009 10:53 AM
I was under the impression that prostate cancer research receives less in each year than breast cancer. This is on a dollars per new-cases each year, but some sources also provide dollars per life lost. Either way, the detriment is in favor of the breast cancer, at least in government spending.
For instance - http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/governments-cancer-funding-gender-gap.html
And of course neither disease receives the funding it is worth. We, the United States, spent money on a laser weapon. We can melt tanks from miles and miles out with a laser, but we can't support greater funding for breast cancer and prostate cancer, (and skin cancer and brain cancer and cystic fibrosis and type I diabetes). I wish the debate was only over men needing to find value in a woman's life aside from her ta-tas. We need a large scale societal shift that centers saving life as more important than destroying other ones.
Posted by: Martin in A2 | September 21, 2009 11:20 AM
"Out of curiosity, do men have testicular reconstruction?"
Mary Roach has a whole chapter in Bonk on "The testicle pushers". Turns out there is a rich history of testicular transplants.
Silcone testicular implants like those used for breast augmentation are not approved by the FDA ('mainly because there aren't enough cases of testicular cancer to make FDA approval worthwhile').
Thus leading to the Sex and the City episode where Steve looks into them (he was born like Lance) and Miranda the lawyer freaks out and tells him not to think about it when she learns the experimental treatment/side effect details. One can apparently order Neuticles- designed for veterinary work- to get a non-approved implant in the US. Or, at least if Steve's link (comment 9) is accurate, use ones presumably designed for humans that are made in Germany ("in five sizes"!)
wow, i know way too much about this...
Posted by: becca | September 21, 2009 1:48 PM
@Martin in #16
That particular post uses a flawed methodology to add up funding across several RCDC categories reported to Congress. Basically, the categories are not mutually exclusive.
That said, it does appear that NIH directs more money to breast cancer research than prostate cancer research.
Maybe prostate cancers are just really boring.
Posted by: microfool | September 21, 2009 1:49 PM
Pascale, what do you mean "a diabetic double amputee probably can't do it any-style"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your intention, but that seems like a really ableist thing to say- acting as though his lack of shins and feet somehow prevents him from having a sex life. Without going into graphic detail, I can assure you that I've had sex with a man in which he didn't use his lower legs. Is there a reason this guy couldn't do woman-on-top? Or oral? Or lots of other things I can think of?
Posted by: JessSnark | September 21, 2009 1:51 PM
Dr. Isis, I'm sure you made all kinds of insightful and super-hot goddess statements in your post, but I don't remember them because that snake is still freaking me out. It's all pink and shiny! *shudder*
Posted by: JustaTech | September 21, 2009 2:24 PM
JessSnark, I think Pascale's point is not about the disability, per se, but that someone with diabetes advanced enough to require a double amputation probably has such profound peripheral vascular disease that maintaining an erection would be difficult, if not impossible.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | September 21, 2009 2:28 PM
As an ostensibly-feminist-but-actually-pretty-insensitive-and-sexist-guy who is also a biomedical researcher, I say whatever works. If the "second base" approach gets people to donate money for research, those objectification-tainted dollars are just as good for buying cell lines and centrifuges and post-doc lab hours as any other dollars, are they not?
Of course, I can understand why women would get tired of popular culture apparently being obsessed with the sexual/sensual function of their "titties". And no, colon cancer research could never be marketed this way (even to those who find the colon to be a sexy organ!), despite being very serious. The poor pancreas, alas, is straight out of luck in this department.
I think, if anything, loss of a testicle makes it more probable that one will win the Tour de France.
Don't make me mention the number of one-testicled men who HAVEN'T won the TdF.... I could lose fifty testicles and I'd still have zero chance of biking up even one of those hills at any speed.
Posted by: ABM | September 21, 2009 2:33 PM
"Out of curiosity, do men have testicular reconstruction?"
not sure about that but i do know that you can buy NEUTICLES for your dog so he is not embarassed in from of the bit.. er lady dogs at the dog run...
But you know those guys dogs can never keep their pants on...
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | September 21, 2009 3:24 PM
I may be wrong in this, but it seems to me that this sort of appeal goes a ways back in history. If memory serves me correctly (and at my age who the Hell knows?!) there was an ad which ran in the early 90s in Playboy magazine with the line "you've probably always been a breast man."
I must say that I'm a bit taken aback by the "save the breasts" (isn't that a bumper sticker?) approach to improving breast cancer awareness and research funding. It's a tawdry appeal at best.
FWIW, I like this breast self-exam commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECupyUvnKAM
Posted by: TGAP Dad | September 21, 2009 3:31 PM
While I understand the desire to not objectify women, esp. in such a vulnerable state, these campaigns do serve a purpose. Sex is very important to most people (for highly obvious reasons) - tying cancer care as preserving something fun (i.e. how enjoyable it is for ME that my husband feels me up) rather than preventing something awful (finding a lump, scars, insensate nipples, chemo, rads, tissue expanders, reconstruction, etc, etc), I think is a step in the right direction.
Think about it - the whole point of the exam (from a clinical perspective) is to find BAD things and you (as a patient) don't believe that anything can be done about it, then why go? Versus if it were to be about preserving good things (thus highlighting what can be done)? How many more people would go? Using humor to defuse an otherwise highly emotional and tense situation (as the goddess has so aptly described) may not be for everyone, but it will make a certain subset of the population feel more comfortable with exams, biopsies, and subsequent treatment.
Hell, if it makes you feel any better, I've taught several wives to do testicle exams to incorporate into foreplay because their husbands were too uncomfortable to do it themselves.
Posted by: Dr.FabulousShoes | September 21, 2009 4:11 PM
I am shocked, shocked to find objectification of women in the breast cancer awareness movement. [/Renault]
Thanks for writing on this Dr.Isis. Twisty Faster has also written many great pieces on this topic, and has an entire tag called "crazy, sexy cancer" for such items. Here's one that stayed with me because of the downright misogyny it tapped into.
There was another post from Twisty that I tried to search for, but couldn't find. It was about a cancer awareness poster that showed a woman supposedly writhing from pain on the floor, but if you take away the caption, there is nothing about cancer in the image. It is just a pornified image of a naked woman on the floor. I should've saved a link to it because it was the post that stunned me into realizing the extent to which images of women are pornified in our culture.
Posted by: arvind | September 21, 2009 4:40 PM
JessSnark: I think Viagra is a big clue there. I highly doubt the problem has anything to do with the legs themselves.
Posted by: Naraoia | September 21, 2009 5:50 PM
Screw the pink. I know it isn't cancer, but maybe it's time to give the knockers a rest and support knockees for a while. There's no way to "sexy up" the white ribbon (domestic violence) campaign.
Posted by: Kate from Iowa | September 21, 2009 6:27 PM
I did not mean that one could not have a meaningful sexual experience without the use of legs. I was referring to the diffuse vascular disease in someone with a double amputation from diabetes; he would almost certainly have some degree of erectile dysfunction.
Even then he could still do some stuff for his partner, but his options would be more limited.
Posted by: Pascale | September 21, 2009 9:46 PM
as yet another woman who has a family history of cancer, who found a tumor in her early 20s, who had surgery to remove it, has a scar she would rather not see when she looks in the mirror, has female sibs who whom she cares for deeply and whom she would never want to go through the gut-wrenching experience...
[i had to qualify this somehow]
on one hand i say humor heals. while awaiting my long-delayed surgery after something like the third failed biopsy attempt and the second excruciating month of wondering whether i would have to take part of my body away and go through chemo, i'm not the least ashamed to admit that the "save the ta-tas" campaign got a laugh out of me.
on the other hand, the word needs to get out. my sibs, for instance, had never done a self exam until i told them what i had been through and how thankful i was that it wasn't a malignant tumor. (that's right, i didn't tell anyone but my spouse until it was over.) now, they take it seriously. how many other women like me have never even thought about checking for a lump?
i think a different way of getting the word out, that doesn't suggest that women are around just for the groping and the staring, is needed. something relevant to the 20somethings who should realize this applies to them, too.
however, i totally suck at marketing, so i couldn't think of a viable solution to this.
Posted by: leigh | September 21, 2009 11:53 PM
It worries me that several women here have trouble looking at their own bodies now that they are scarred. WTF?
My scars are badges of honor for my body: They show how tough that sucker is. Nearly every crisis it has survived is marked accordingly: hysterectomy, here; hemicolonectomy, here; hernia, here; somethingican'trememberthenameofwheniwasakid, here.
It's all good.
Posted by: Simply Sutton | September 22, 2009 12:55 PM
The first video was over the line, but I've thought some of the stuff from Save Second Base and Save the TaTas was amusing. Campy, and eye catching to a group that tends to tune out "the Lifetime Movie" type narrative.
As someone who has watched her mother undergo a lumpectomy and radiation twice, as someone who has waited out the results of the gentics tests, I'd say go with whatever works.
I'm willing to suck up a little objectification of women so no one else spends her sophomore year in college terrified she'll lose her mother, trying to figure out if she could keep her young sister and father who does not understand teenage girls from outright war long distance or if she'll have to leave school and move home to do it.
Posted by: katydid13 | September 22, 2009 3:01 PM
I agree with Linds #2, and strongly with Dr. FabShoes
and with those stating that the ads are really co-opting trashy stuff to serve a valuable purpose and to a good end. You can get all mad, but it makes more sense if you can step outside your bubble
Posted by: gabe | September 22, 2009 3:49 PM
BINGO!
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | September 22, 2009 4:20 PM
Just read these posts, then saw this in our Sydney morning paper - about prostate surgery and the male sex stuff. So check it out, in the interests of anti-sexism.
(And note the sub-editor has massaged the facts to create an eye-catching headline - if you read the whole article, it is not exactly the same story as the headline implies).
d.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/husband-sacrifices-sex-to-stay-alive-20090922-g0m5.html
Posted by: d. | September 22, 2009 6:27 PM
I've had a growing sense of unease the last couple of years that all the "breast cancer awareness!" omnipresence isn't so much a cheap marketing ploy for companies that want to make it seem like they Care About Women, as it is a way to make "cancer" spring to mind immediately whenever one thinks of the word "breast". To make breasts something only to be feared as body parts that exist only to kill you, to erase the positive thoughts that might otherwise come to mind. To deny that they serve as a source of enjoyment for the woman, or a source of enjoyment for her partner, and definitely to deny that they prove we are indeed mammals. If everyone just things breasts are cancer-ridden things that are scary and tragic, no one will want to see Janet Jackson's, right?
Defintely roll my eyes at the companies that say that they're giving money to promote awareness. Money for research, sure, I'll give them credit for that, but awareness? I think we're well past the point of diminishing returns on that one.
Posted by: Djinna | September 22, 2009 10:35 PM
For info on funding, here's a NYT blog on various cancer funding on a per-case and per-death basis:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does-it-add-up/
Breast cancer is by far funded the most on both a per-case and per-death basis. Lung cancer, the number one cancer, doesn't get nearly the same amount of money. On a per-death basis, lung cancer gets $1630, breast cancer gets $13452!
Personally I'm annoyed at how effective the breast cancer fundraisers are. They've snagged enormous amounts of research dollars through their relentless awareness campaigns. I agree with Isis that these sort of ads are incredibly degrading and sexist - but in the all-out-brawl that is research funding, being more sensitive might very well be costly.
So the trillion dollar question - would you swallow your feminist ideals in exchange for $1000 extra compared to prostate funding, *per case*? I know many people with rare diseases who would swallow pretty much anything to get more research funding.
Now, obviously it's not so black/white - they could probably keep up the same level of awareness without being so demeaning, but you have to wonder if part of their success is due to a low-brow appeal to the boorish sensibilities of our society.
Then the question becomes, are these commercials degrading women, or are breast cancer advocates essentially exploiting society's pathetic worship of all things bosoms? Does the ends justify the means? Ultimately, the only ones who can really make that call are the ones who suffer from this disease.
Posted by: FactElf | September 23, 2009 5:38 PM
I think whether campaigns like that are right or wrong come down in large part to one's personal feelings on the subject. Case in point: about a month ago I got a preview copy of a mindbogglingly offensive comedy cookbook called Eat Your Feelings by Heather Whaley. A good two-thirds of the humor in the book mocks mental illness, and as someone who has fought close to half of my life against chronic depression and ADHD...
I loved it. Screamingly funny book, and I gave it a five-star review.
When I wrote my review, I did point out that it's not a book for gift-giving; you can't really predict how someone is going to react to jokes like that. But for me, being able to laugh at things I can't quite control, especially if the jokes are offensive, is sometimes a luxury, assuming I'm seeking out the humor and not having it thrust upon me. With a t-shirt, obviously, it's something a little different, since the message of a t-shirt is rather more immediate than the contents of a book. But I do think humor like this, initiated by a victim for the purpose of raising awareness and inspiring others not ot give up, is not necessarily a bad thing.
Posted by: Brian X | September 23, 2009 6:49 PM
I find it a bit fascinating that the ad seems to have some stock homoerotic/gay stereotype imagery in it (e.g. the guys in the matching clothes with the sailor hats dancing by the pool---wtf?). It seems like an odd choice in an ad focused on "starting at boobies".
Posted by: MPL | September 23, 2009 8:11 PM
In all the kerfuffle, I forgot to say: that baby cobra is just adorable. Source?
Posted by: ginger | September 24, 2009 1:43 AM
I'm going to go check my blood sugar now... For my kidneys, my eyes, my legs, my wife, my daughter, etc....
Posted by: Brad | September 25, 2009 12:45 AM
"Whatever works to raise money"?
So we could, in theory, encourage healthy women to raise extra money for breast cancer research by turning tricks part-time, I suppose. Hey, as long as it works to raise money and awareness...
It seems to me that the whole focus on "save the boobs" would serve to upset breast cancer survivors even more, by implying that once the boobs haven't been saved, oh no the whole thing is useless and you're a failure, even though you're still alive, because it was the boobs that were important rather than the person. Have any of the breast cancer survivors posting here ever thought that way?
The whole thing infuriates me, because even though breast cancer research is a good thing, it's not good enough to justify contributing to the overall objectification of women (and PETA, I'm looking right at you, too).
Posted by: Carlie | September 25, 2009 9:45 AM
The idea to have approaches to promoting cancer awareness outside the whole "Lifetime Movie of the Week" thing is fair, but I think too that there is a false equivalence in likening the "Cancer Sucks" slogan to "Save the Tatas." Sure, both are supposed to be humorous, but the former is more gallows humor while the latter suggests that the reason we want to get rid of breast cancer is because it deprives men of the opportunity to stare at or play with certain body parts rather than because we want to save people's lives.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | September 25, 2009 11:29 AM
Hey JJ ... you're mind fucking it to death. Ya it's about saving the tatas but it's also about saving that wonderful woman I love to bits who has those beautiful tatas and just because I love her for so much much more than those gorgeous tatas Im not about to overlook them.
Posted by: Capt. RON | October 7, 2009 3:29 PM
That cobra is vaguely disturbing...
Posted by: Topher Cheslington Hong II | October 7, 2009 6:56 PM
Two points - first, I want to second Gabe.
Second, I gave one of the Save Second Base shirts to my mother who is both a UC Berkeley academic (with all the inherent implications therein) and a woman who has undergone a double mastectomy. She loves it and wears it on her daily power walks across campus.
Now please understand, my mother is in no way bowing before misogyny, hating her "newly redesigned high speed body" (as she describes it), defining herself by her breasts or lack thereof - she is merely finding a glimmer of humor in an otherwise crappy situation.
She and I also discussed the video and both found it amusing in the sense that it serves as a Rorschach's test and people pull from it what they will (don't flame me please). We both also thought it was kind of stupid.
Posted by: Somebody_New | October 8, 2009 10:23 AM
All this hype, advertising, and propaganda about cancer is just to make people think they need to pay more money for more drugs and more surgery to help protect them against cancer - but the truth is drugs and surgery are incredibly INEFFECTIVE. We already know how to prevent and reverse cancer with proper nutrition and Gerson Therapy.
http://healthandwellnessnewsnow.blogspot.com/2009/12/must-watch-beautiful-truth-about-gerson.html
Posted by: Tom Corson-Knowles | December 11, 2009 2:09 PM