Breast Cancer Sells

emotionalize a non-issue: breast cancer vs. abuse.

The issue of selling under the banner of 'breast cancer' is a relevant issue. Focus on that issue and that of abuse have always waxed and waned, since both issues have actually become issues that ARE openly discussed. Sure, abuse should and will be highlighted (in this country it will be after some affluent white woman tells her story on Oprah). But to pick up and place these two issues in the ring to go at each other is more of a philosophical exercise for the author to sort out rather than be paraded as war spending vs. the S-CHIP program.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I disagree with the above post that these are two different issues. Both breast cancer and domestic violence strike at the image of what it means to be a woman. This assault upon the image can be seen not only in how media covers the two issues but also in how men who suffer from either of the diseases often are ridiculed for being girly.

Furthermore, placing the focus on how the media reports on the topics is important. I have observed in the past year how much the general public uses information provided by the media as their references and their examples. In other words, people will not talk about a story if the media does not inform them about it, then they will talk about the story in the language used by the media.

Then there is the personal believability of the two issues. Tell somebody you have breast cancer, or any cancer, and you are given sympathy and support. However, tell somebody you are being domestically abused, particularly if it is debilitating verbal abuse, and people will try to deny it because they know the man and he has never shown any violence towards them. (The features about domestic violence that I have seen tend to focus on homicides or on hotlines. Educating the public on the signs of domestic violence, whether the suspected victim is friend or stranger, is missing. I also have heard from sexual assault centers that sexual assault discussions are even more taboo than are talks about domestic violence. In contrast, breast self exams are widely promoted.)

Ultimately, it comes back to the roles of women in a society and/or a culture. Women with breasts are objects of adulation and objects to be possessed. Women within a relationship are expected to protect the public image of that domestic group, to show the man as a strong breadwinner, and to keep the children from being pitied or ridiculed. If we talk about cancer, we talk about a person. If we talk about domestic abuse, we start talking about society and that scares people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We do not want to deal with these issues of domestic violence and sexual assault included, because they are not discussed openly in society (as this article points out) but also because we still see it as domestic issue, that is that it should stay in the home. This is a part a our patriarchal culture, because the vast percentage of abusers are men, it is hard to think that many will want to really examine the issue of domestic violence, because after all they may themselves be abusers or have abused women in the past. We, men, find it easier to promote breast cancer awareness because its something we have no fault in. Of course women are a part of this patriarchal culture as well and so many do not view domestic violence as the kind of issue that needs public awareness and examination because the men in their lives, whether it was their father or their current or former partner, do not discuss the issue. We also still attribute the issue of domestic violence as a "bad guy" problem, those guys are just bad guys, thus further leaving the issue unexamined. Instead we need to look at the issue as something we all participate in. A system which allows and even encourages sexist attitudes, we promote and encourage violence in our culture, whether it is in movies or tv or in sports where violence is actually rewarded. We also still blame the victim, "well what did you do to piss him off?," instead of focusing our attention on caring and healing the victim we instead focus our attention on the abuser and often with violence.

Also many of us may have see bumper stickers or t-shirts with messages like "Save the Ta-Tas!," and we raise awareness of breast cancer so that we can continue to objectify womens bodies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many women are closer to other women, their mothers, sisters, and friends, for example, than they are to men. Women may have only one husband or none, but all women have mothers and most women have female friends.

What happens to your mom or sister is a big deal for most if not all women. And when it's a disease that can also affect you, you are tied in with the fear rope too.

I don't doubt at all that these pressure points are well considered and hammered on in the Pretty In Pink campaign.

Personally, I despise the infantilization of women through the constant pinkifying, the banal angel and teddy-bear pins, the grating cutesiness of it all. Sick-make me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This month Delta Airlines, in addition to 'suggesting' their female flight attendants wear tight pink t-shirts printed with the phrase 'Force of Global Change,' is offering to make a donation if you buy a Pink Martini. This makes Delta a double-headed Pink-Washer according to Breast Cancer Action, which has for years been fighting against this type of marketing with their website "Think Before You Pink" http://www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org/ Pink Washers are companies whose everyday activities increase the incidence of breast cancer-- air polluters and alcohol purveyors in this case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, that never gets old.

In fact, I'm exactly as shocked as I was the last three thousand times!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The media has completely failed to educate women about the strong link between eating dairy products and rates of breast cancer. Isn't it strange that the countries where consumption of dairy products is highest, those countries also have the highest rates of breast cancer and osteoporosis?

The dairy industry is so powerful that they make sure no one ever makes this connection. In fact they are the largest employer of dieticians in our country to ensure that their misinformation is ingrained in our culture. I studied dietetics in college and later learned that the dairy industry had funded many of the studies that my education was based on.

For anyone who is curious about the role diet plays in your health, check out The China Study by T. Colin Campbell -- (thechinastudy.com). This book is amazing and details the most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted which totally destroys the myths we are told about eating a lot of protein and that you need dairy products to build strong bones. Animal protein and especially dairy are the triggers for many cancers. Jane Plant's books are also excellent for info on the connection between diet and cancer -- check out janeplant.com for a list of her books.

There are many scientists and dieticians that believe the connection between dairy products and cancer is as strong as the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. There are definite parallels between the dairy industry and the tobacco industry. I think a couple decades from now, the dairy industry is going to be facing major lawsuits and the truth will finally start being known by the masses. But in the meantime, people are suffering while the dairy industry profits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You are correct about emphasizing prevention in breast cancer. I refer to "the three Cs of cancer= Cause, Cure and Care"

We will never cure all cancer- but the cancer cure "industry" will lie to you and say we can.

Also we cannot afford not to emphasize prevention.

When we can't cure, dignified care is very important.

Dr. Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your cause gets more attention than my cause. Boo Hoo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Penn and Teller were right! Marketing breast cancer on products is a good, sneaky way to talk about SEX and titties and all that good stuff right in the grocery store aisle! Exxxxcellent. But on the surface, all of the corporations whoring this stuff get to look compassionate and stuff!! Super keen. Good for sales too, right? Unilever cares about boobs, and therefore women - buy our stuff! Consumerism helps EVERYTHING!!!!
Where's my Support the Homeless Campbell's soup? I want a Support the Troops bottle of nailpolish! I want a Support Research for Anal Cancer lipstick! And since I am a woman, I want a Support "Victims" (sorry, hate that word) of Domestic Violence dish soap! Preferably Dawn or Joy, I don't go for el cheapo shizz.
Come on now, we all know they market this coz we get to say "breasts"...tee hee.
If you really give a flying...ahem...why don't you send your cash DIRECTLY to the researchers for funding? I am sure they're not gonna look down on cash donations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of the things that has puzzled me about things like this how the politicians love it as a photo op and a token thing that they can say they are doing for "gender issues". But it really rings hollow and exposes the fatuousness of the current political culture.

For example: businesses and politicians make a big deal about holding free breast cancer screening clinics. However, what happens once the woman is diagnosed with breast cancer? What about the lack of national health care to provide follow-up and treatment? Especially for these women who don't have health insurance and also don't happen to carry around $50,000 in their purses to pay for treatment?

It's like then: "sorry babe, your on your own"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My mother warned me about the Komen Foundation 2 years ago when they started these campaigns. She runs a regional coalion of the NBCC, the national breast cancer coalition, a group based in washington that also seeks advocacy on top of raising awareness and funding mammograms. The Komen Foundation has repeatedly threatened her organization, has spread gossip, has attempted to buy her out. They take a huge percentage of funds for "overhead costs" and recently, the director was appointed to the bush administration, who has cut funding to breast cancer research and medicaid and screwed up medicare - making breast cancer a bigger problem. The worst part about these groups is that they take attention away from grassroots efforts, and they take funds away from groups that are actually making a difference. Nowhere does the Komen Foundation talk about seeking legislation to improve research or funding for uninsured women. Komen and the ACS are glad to get future health-care system patients "in the door" with free mammograms, but once they are diagnosed, there is nothing there for them if they are one of the millions of uninsured women (or men) in this country. buying ice-cream in a pink carton is going to do so little to fight breast cancer in comparison to fighting for primary payer, or for more funding for research programs.. so before you get all embroiled in the hooplah, look where its coming from

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I really don't care what they do to find a cure or better treatments for breast cancer patients. I am a 1 year breast cancer survivor. I am the young white woman, age 41 that this author seems to think doesn't exist but graces the cover of the magazines. Trust me it does happen to younger women. This is not just your grandma's disease anymore! Take a look on the Komen message board, most of the breast cancer patients on there are in their 20-50's, with a huge portion of them around 30-45 years old!

As far as I'm concerned they can put photos of breasts on every single magazine cover, if it helps end this disease.

Women who are in domestic violence situations have a choice, albeit a difficult choice. But they can get out of the situation. You don't have that choice with breast cancer, it just might take your life no matter what you do. Honestly, I would rather have someone beat me than to go through one more round of chemo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Give some attention to prostate cancer as it kills more men than breast cancer kills women and is very treatable if caught early enough. But boobs trump all, I guess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Devoting an entire month to breast cancer means that more people will develop breast cancer. Every time that subject came up I trurned the channel. People normally do not associate with " do" "do not", "use this or that", or other stuff they tried to show on TV. People associate with one word only "Breast Cancer".

As far as domestic violence is concerned, we are a violent society. If the 'decider king' pushes violence against this that and another nation, it only follows that other would be kings think that they can solve things with violence.

We need a month dedicated to stop violence everywhere, which includes Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Israel, Syria and violence in all of our homes. If violence is accepted to solve problems overseas, then violence will be accepted at home.

I wonder how many people displaced by the California fires, or the Katrina victams worry about breast cancer or domestic violence?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with the article, and find the conflation of stupid breast cancer reporting and failure to say much of anything about domestic violence to be a useful snapshot of American journalism.

Some months back I visited the American Cancer Society web pages and looked for information about carcinogens. There was almost nothing there. They have little to no interest in chemicals in products which cause cancer, and certainly are not interested in testifying before Congress regarding the need to control carcinogens in consumer products or in industrial water and air discharges.

Why is that, exactly?

The ACS derives a great deal of its income from the industries which manufacture those products. It's led by executives with close ties to those industries. When they testify before Congress, it's about trends in cancer rates, cancer sob stories intended to wring more donations, and treatment developments.

But not just any treatment developments. Oh, no. The ACS is pretty much only interested in patentable drugs.

There are dozens of stories floating around the internet, anecdotal stories which claim that this or that treatment helps with cancer. None of them has been the subject of peer-reviewed double-blind studies. Everyone in the cancer industry guides money away from those, and towards patented drugs. I don't know if any of those "cures" are any good. But it sure would be nice if they had some genuine scientific attention.

The University of Alberta is currently struggling to fund clinical trials for a drug called DCA, which performed well in laboratory animals: it dramatically shrank tumors. DCA works by "waking up" dormant mitochondria in cancer cells. In order for a cell to become cancerous, its mitochondria have to be switched off, or the mutations will be noticed by the mitochondria and they will trigger apoptosis (cell death). Switching them on causes cancer cells to commit suicide and does not harm healthy cells.

DCA is usually well tolerated (though there can be side effects), and it's an old drug that's no longer under patent, so it's cheap. There are lots of questions about dose, delivery method, and efficacy in human cancer patients. Clinical trials were estimated to cost about $1.5 million Canadian. Something like this, with successful animal studies already done, ought to look mighty attractive to a genuine cancer charity doling out research dollars, right?

Wrong. The ACS has no interest.

Neither has the US Government, but they don't mind spending over $1 billion US on genetic sequencing for cancer cells.

This is an odd thing to do. Cancer cells all have this in common: they have lost the ability to repair damage to their DNA. Mutations in cancer cells are famously rapid and unpredicatable. Aside from the 120 or so specific mutations which are required for cells to become cancerous in the first place, all those other mutations - hundreds or thousands in some patients - are meaningless noise.

It's a boondoggle, a hand-out, that will not produce useful science.

I think we could be a lot further along in treating cancer than we are. Corrupt regulators and charities are blocking progress. As for journalism, it's not doing enough either - but since most journalistic outlets are owned by giant corporate media which are dependent on advertising revenues from industrial carcinogen producers, what are the chances?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"That's complete bullshit. Our moral pendulum has rather swung entirely the other way and now police officers lock up ANYONE once a call is made where ANY form of domestic violence is reported. In many cases, no abuse actually takes place but once the police are called, someone goes to jail and research shows that a disproportionate number of women are being arrested in this "if we get the call, someone gets hauled in" program."
Where did you get your information about false accusations?

My feeling is that this is something you've either heard from others, in which case i'd bet its an attempt to lessen the seriousness of the issue and to blame women for "being out to get men," its the same as the supposed false rape accusation argument (that many women cry rape). Or it is a case of the victim recanting, abuse may have taken place however the woman decided not to prosecute for some reason.

"The VAST majority of abusers may be men but women are making great strides towards being equal opportunity abusers."

True its not only men who are abusive, but as you said the vast majority of abusers are men. Female abusers are often the emotional or psychological abusers, whereas male abusers are those as well as the violent abusers. its a part of traditional gender roles, the man is the breadwinner and the woman stays at home, the woman is submissive to her husband, "the cult of true womanhood". But lets not switch attention away from the women on this issue and focus on just why men are the vast majority of abusers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a breast cancer survivor, I disagree with the author. We are not just talking about 'sick breasts'. This is a disease that can never be deemed as cured in anyone. Breast cancer can reoccur 10,15,20 years after the first diagnosis, and then it can be deadly. I would never want to trivialize domestic violence, but please, do not try to trivialize this disease that can strike anyone, from very young to the elderly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ok. so I would like to know which magazine it was that published that article, I found that to be highly offensive and really detrimental to helping find a cure. they're basically saying, 'you should get breast cancer, it's GREAT! you get all kinds of stuff'. Yeah, radiation, chemo, sickness. not something that should be advertised as a good thing. as I said that was really offensive to me, and needs to be addressed to the publisher of said magazine IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After reading the article by Lucinda Marshall, I clicked to an article about cosmetics and cancer on this site. Lo and behold, an advertisement for "breast cancer stuff" was located right next to the article. Good thing it wasn't located near this article, that would have been embarrassing. I am a breast cancer "thriver". I choose not to be sucked into marketing ploys that obviously exploit breast cancer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think the author is wrong. I think all this "pink" stuff is not about sex, but is actually a huge cover for dread and fear.

People react very strongly when you tell them you have breast cancer. It's visceral. It's not just about sex but about the integrity of the body. When you're faced with a mastectomy, the full, rich meaning of breasts and being a woman comes to you. It's much more profound and intimate than anything in this article would suggest.

Sure the pink thing is huge exploitation of "the cause". But this article is just as simplistic. For example, the author seems unaware that younger women tend to have more aggressive cancers and a higher death rate. Having breast cancer in your 20s or 30s or even early 40s is very, very bad for your health. And surely there is a difference between having cancer when you're 75 and when you're 35? After all, cancer is a disease of aging and there's a certain inevitability to it with age.

I agree with those who say there's no need to pit these things against each other: it's very irritating and unnecessary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think the author is wrong. I think all this "pink" stuff is not about sex, but is actually a huge cover for dread and fear.

People react very strongly when you tell them you have breast cancer. It's visceral. It's not just about sex but about the integrity of the body. When you're faced with a mastectomy, the full, rich meaning of breasts and being a woman comes to you. It's much more profound and intimate than anything in this article would suggest.

Sure the pink thing is huge exploitation of "the cause". But this article is just as simplistic. For example, the author seems unaware that younger women tend to have more aggressive cancers and a higher death rate. Having breast cancer in your 20s or 30s or even early 40s is very, very bad for your health. And surely there is a difference between having cancer when you're 75 and when you're 35? After all, cancer is a disease of aging and there's a certain inevitability to it with age.

I agree with those who say there's no need to pit these things against each other: it's very irritating and unnecessary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It only means that "Breast Cancer Awareness" is a money-making machine. As I told the checker in Safeway when he asked me if I wanted to donate money to the cause, if they can afford the advertising blitz, I think they're doing all right. He looked at me like I was from Mars.

As for domestic violence, I think we should address it, and hold everyone to the same standard, regardless of gender. That being said, though, I think it happens far less than the hype would have us believe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't believe the low quality journalism that is consistently displayed here. First Marshall states that life is unfair because Women's publications did not report National Violence Month with the same alacrity that they do Breast Cancer. Well do you think that one of the reasons is that society is finally getting the message that domestic violence is really a big con? For example studies show that women are just as violent as men, and women falsely accuse men of rape in anywhere from 40 to 60 percent of the time according to numerous studies--mostly be other women.
Furthermore that Domestic Violence has been a synonym for the " Kachinngg " of the cash register ringing for all those women in the "social arts," which derive a significant portion of their income from federal and state entitlement programs trying to "save" women from these "terrorist" type male miscreants. And of course let us not forget the RECIVIDISM rate of "battered" women that go back with their spouses or boy friends once things cool off and they bled out all these wonderful taxpayer given freebies--97 percent go back to these Bozos--in those cases were there is legitimate domestic violence--and of course the rest is just your standard " he said she said."
And, like Marshall, if a skirt does not have something to whine about, she either makes someting up, or makes her significant other miserable by telling him "he doesn't understand her" and that if her doesn't know what the problem is "she isn't going to bother telling him!!!!"
Marshall can't have it both ways. My feeling is that Ms. Marshall has way too much time on her hands. She either needs a real life or a real job--or preferably both.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think the massive media barrage during Oct. about Breast Cancer serves a couple at least of insidious covert ploys.
First: Corporate America & Political leaders, ESPECIALLY Republicans like BUSH, do everything possible to "lull" the American people into "pooh poohing" the Environmental & Human Health disaster, which man-made CHEMICALS & RADIOACTIVITY have become.

Gee, how harmful can Radioactivity or Chemicals BE, if they pump them into WOMEN's BREASTS to FIGHT CANCER, or even CURE Cancer!

I just watched PBS's NATURE show's "Silence of the Bees" documentary. They found 40 different TOXIC substances in the bees the scientists were studying, because the BEES ARE DISAPPEARING! Talk about "canaries in the mine".

During this entire MONTH of "Breast Cancer" awareness, was their any mention of ENVIRONMENTAL factors like these toxic chemicals, like Pesticides, like the DDT that is in ALL Baby Boomer women's Breasts?

Pres. Bush is especially hypocritical, acting like he cares about Cancer sufferers, when he has done everything he can to prevent progress toward a SMOKE - FREE future.

Pres. Reagan tried to shut up his Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, who instead continued to SPEAK UP about Smoking & it's Health effects, until he was "pushed out" of the Reagan admin. Bush makes sure he only appoints flunkies.

It's so IRONIC that we are pumping TOXIC CHEMICALS into Cancer Patients, when we should be taking these Toxins OUT of the Environment, cleaning up the mess!

It's so IRONIC that we are giving Cancer Patients RADIATION "Therapy" -- when we live every DAY with the THREAT of Radiation, should be have another THREE MILE ISLAND, or God Forbid, a CHERNOBYL; & the Repubs. are pushing to built MORE Nuclear Power Plants.

The funniest "celebrity" I ever saw do a PSA about Breast Cancer, was a Woman Golfer, who had for years played in the VIRGINIA SLIMS sponsored golf tournaments, which were responsible for countless young women starting to smoke.

November is "Great American Smoke-Out" Month -- watch & see just how FEEBLE the Media attention is to this public health awareness campaign!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]