The cause is not, cannot, and should not be "save the women." Men get breast cancer, too. The rate of death is slightly higher for men than it is for women, as of 2010.
I'm just happy to see people fighting cancer. Of any stripe. In any person.
I agree that the "Save the Ta-tas" corporation is problematic, but they're by far not the worst offender when it comes to "total amount donated;" a variety of pink ribbon emblazoned merchandise donates little or nothing to the cause, since the ribbon isn't trademarked or registered. That's where true invisibility lies: people blinded by the symbol who purchase without checking where the cash goes.
In the end, I wish we could stop being concerned with what body part cancer affects, and just find ways to destroy it all.
The cause is not, cannot, and should not be "save the women." Men get breast cancer, too.
That is a good point, and one of the arguments I've seen against "Save the Ta-tas." Men die because they think, "I don't have breasts so I don't have to worry about breast cancer," and it's caught too late to treat. "Save the Ta-tas" does not get men to think about the dangers of male breast cancer.
As a feminist, I would most likely object to a "Save the Women" campaign as well. I just saw "Save the Women" as marginally more inclusive than "Save this one specific body part on only the women who still have it."
The rate of death is slightly higher for men than it is for women, as of 2010.
The rate of death is slightly higher for men, but the number of women who died was markedly higher. This affects everyone.
I'm just happy to see people fighting cancer. Of any stripe. In any person.So am I. The problem with fighting cancer is that it's not actually one disease. There are at least 15 different types of breast cancer alone. And
( ... )
Yeah, donating 5% is shameful, and borderline criminal. I had no idea the Save the Ta-Tas people were that profit focused, and I won't be giving them my money now. Thanks for the heads up.
I do want to comment on this, though:
But surely there's a way to do that without totally alienating feminist/womanist women in the process and more deeply entrenching the divide between the sexes...
I am a feminist. I also have no problem with the "Save the Ta-ta's" focus. As a woman, I am intimately connected to all of my feminine parts. True, if I lost a breast to cancer, I would still be a full woman; but it would be incredibly painful to me to lose that wholeness, more so than if I lost an arm or a leg. The breast is a more intimate part of me.
My sexuality is a central part of who I am, and my breasts are a large part of that (no pun intended). So I have no problem with drawing attention to the sexual aspects of myself.
My sexuality is a central part of who I am, and my breasts are a large part of that (no pun intended). So I have no problem with drawing attention to the sexual aspects of myself.Which is fine for you. You may have your own opinion on this. I do take exception to "Save the ta-tas" campaigns for several reasons, as a woman and as a sexual being
( ... )
I'm certainly sorry if I offended you; it wasn't my intent. I always thought of "Save the Ta-tas" as a lighthearted attempt to raise breast cancer awareness through humor (apparently they're also making stacks of cash while they're at it). Of course, humor is incredibly subjective. As such, whenever anyone tries to bring humor to such a grave condition, people are going to be offended. And I can certainly understand why you would take offense.
So why would they choose such an approach? Um...because it's made them a ton of money?
I'm certainly sorry if I offended you; it wasn't my intent.
You didn't offend me. I was just trying to clarify my position. I hope I didn't offend you either.
I always thought of "Save the Ta-tas" as a lighthearted attempt to raise breast cancer awareness through humor
Many do, which is why these campaigns are so popular; it's pretty much just breast cancer survivors who object. Humor is ok, but it should come from the people directly affected and not be at their expense. (There's a great t-shirt out there that says, "Of course these are fake. The real ones tried to kill me!")
Hm. It is possible that, because I have a (male) friend going through the process of mammograms right now for an odd breast lump, it's affecting me more than I thought. Sorry if my previous comment came off as offensive; it certainly wasn't meant to be.
That's one of the reasons I'm opposed to the (hetero)sexualization of breast cancer awareness. It disappears all human beings involved, including men who can get breast cancer.
I do hope your friend is ok, and the lump turns out to be harmless.
I'm just happy to see people fighting cancer. Of any stripe. In any person.
I agree that the "Save the Ta-tas" corporation is problematic, but they're by far not the worst offender when it comes to "total amount donated;" a variety of pink ribbon emblazoned merchandise donates little or nothing to the cause, since the ribbon isn't trademarked or registered. That's where true invisibility lies: people blinded by the symbol who purchase without checking where the cash goes.
In the end, I wish we could stop being concerned with what body part cancer affects, and just find ways to destroy it all.
Reply
That is a good point, and one of the arguments I've seen against "Save the Ta-tas." Men die because they think, "I don't have breasts so I don't have to worry about breast cancer," and it's caught too late to treat. "Save the Ta-tas" does not get men to think about the dangers of male breast cancer.
As a feminist, I would most likely object to a "Save the Women" campaign as well. I just saw "Save the Women" as marginally more inclusive than "Save this one specific body part on only the women who still have it."
The rate of death is slightly higher for men than it is for women, as of 2010.
The rate of death is slightly higher for men, but the number of women who died was markedly higher. This affects everyone.
I'm just happy to see people fighting cancer. Of any stripe. In any person.So am I. The problem with fighting cancer is that it's not actually one disease. There are at least 15 different types of breast cancer alone. And ( ... )
Reply
I do want to comment on this, though:
But surely there's a way to do that without totally alienating feminist/womanist women in the process and more deeply entrenching the divide between the sexes...
I am a feminist. I also have no problem with the "Save the Ta-ta's" focus. As a woman, I am intimately connected to all of my feminine parts. True, if I lost a breast to cancer, I would still be a full woman; but it would be incredibly painful to me to lose that wholeness, more so than if I lost an arm or a leg. The breast is a more intimate part of me.
My sexuality is a central part of who I am, and my breasts are a large part of that (no pun intended). So I have no problem with drawing attention to the sexual aspects of myself.
Only donating 5% though; that doesn't fly.
Reply
Reply
So why would they choose such an approach? Um...because it's made them a ton of money?
Reply
You didn't offend me. I was just trying to clarify my position. I hope I didn't offend you either.
I always thought of "Save the Ta-tas" as a lighthearted attempt to raise breast cancer awareness through humor
Many do, which is why these campaigns are so popular; it's pretty much just breast cancer survivors who object. Humor is ok, but it should come from the people directly affected and not be at their expense. (There's a great t-shirt out there that says, "Of course these are fake. The real ones tried to kill me!")
Reply
Reply
That's one of the reasons I'm opposed to the (hetero)sexualization of breast cancer awareness. It disappears all human beings involved, including men who can get breast cancer.
I do hope your friend is ok, and the lump turns out to be harmless.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment