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 they're all different from the various forms of leukemia, etc. There will never be a Cure for "cancer" any more than there will be a Cure for "disease." There are cures for many cancers, and there will be many more. To fight cancer, it is necessary to focus on specific cancers, which is why breast cancer, lung cancer, leukemia, etc. campaigns are necessary.
but they're by far not the worst offender when it comes to "total amount donated;"
They're pretty hard to beat; name one. Even most of the pink ribbon campaigns that breast cancer activists go after for greater profits than donations give three times as much as "Save the Tatas." Unless they're out and out con artists, most pink ribbon campaigns at least make it into double digit donation.
a variety of pink ribbon emblazoned merchandise donates little or nothing to the cause, since the ribbon isn't trademarked or registered.
Yes, this has been an ongoing problem. I think I've written about it here before. If you want more information about that, I'd suggest you check out this organization:
That's where true invisibility lies: people blinded by the symbol who purchase without checking where the cash goes.
No. True invisibility lies with breast cancer campaigns that render female breast cancer survivors invisible, such as "Save the Ta-tas," especially when said breast cancer survivors say that this makes them feel invisible and are told their feelings are not valid and they should just be grateful.
Frankly, if my only two choices are corporations trying to pink-wash their image by co-opting an inoffensive symbol and only donating 10-25% of the proceeds to breast cancer research and a corporation adopting a symbol known to be offensive and hurtful to a large number of breast cancer survivors and only donating 5% of the proceeds to breast cancer research, I'm going with option one. I'd still like better options.
But ultimately, my point was not about money donated. My point was that "Save the ta-tas" objectifies women and makes us invisible. Here is another post which might explain it in a different way:
Getting men involved in breast cancer fundraising is a good idea, not just because a lot of men will be the partners, fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, nephews, friends of women with breast cancer, but because men get breast cancer, too.
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 that leaves many women's health concerns (including research into the causes of breast cancer) woefully underfunded.
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:
-While I am a sexual being, that's not all I am. And my sexuality is not confined to my breasts. In a sexual relationship, I want a man to pay attention to me as a woman, not just atomized body parts. And frankly, if any man says to me, "You have ta-tas; I want your ta-tas," he's not getting into my bed.
-After getting a breast cancer diagnosis, many women are told, "We have to remove your breast or you'll die." "Save the ta-tas" implies "We don't care about women who don't have breasts; we'd rather you die than live without breasts (which we'll call ta-tas because we're too ashamed to say the word 'breast.')" It's saying "breasts are important; lives are not." That's a pretty horrible message for a campaign that's supposed to be about helping people with breast cancer. (And no, I don't think that's the deliberate goal of this campaign; it is how the message comes across to many breast cancer survivors.)
-While I have nothing against willing expressions of sexuality, cancer campaigns are a terrible time to sexually objectify women. We're fighting for our lives and for the lives of others. That's not hyperbole. Being told, "This is a cause near and dear to your heart; therefore, you need to be quiet while men talk about how ta-tas are hot," is offensive to me.
The equivalent would a panel of some sort, with one woman panelist. Each of the men speak, but when the moderator gets to the woman, he says, "You have great boobies. Let's hear it for the boobies!" and moves on to the next male panelist. Yes, breasts are a part of most women, but we are not just breasts. And let's say this woman is a confident, well-adjusted sexual being. Chances are that she would not be flattered; she would likely be offended that she had just been reduced to a sex toy. And at least she was acknowledged as an individual. "Save the ta-tas" doesn't even do that much.
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
And it is incredibly painful to many breast cancer survivors as well. That's why many of them are hurt by this campaign.
Here's my question: The stated purpose of "Save the ta-tas" is to help people diagnosed with breast cancer. Even if half the women out there are not offended, half of us are. So why do they need to market their campaign in such a way that half the people they want to help are hurt? Why not try to find an approach that doesn't alienate so many of those who are affected?
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.
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 they're all different from the various forms of leukemia, etc. There will never be a Cure for "cancer" any more than there will be a Cure for "disease." There are cures for many cancers, and there will be many more. To fight cancer, it is necessary to focus on specific cancers, which is why breast cancer, lung cancer, leukemia, etc. campaigns are necessary.
but they're by far not the worst offender when it comes to "total amount donated;"
They're pretty hard to beat; name one. Even most of the pink ribbon campaigns that breast cancer activists go after for greater profits than donations give three times as much as "Save the Tatas." Unless they're out and out con artists, most pink ribbon campaigns at least make it into double digit donation.
a variety of pink ribbon emblazoned merchandise donates little or nothing to the cause, since the ribbon isn't trademarked or registered.
Yes, this has been an ongoing problem. I think I've written about it here before. If you want more information about that, I'd suggest you check out this organization:
http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/
That's where true invisibility lies: people blinded by the symbol who purchase without checking where the cash goes.
No. True invisibility lies with breast cancer campaigns that render female breast cancer survivors invisible, such as "Save the Ta-tas," especially when said breast cancer survivors say that this makes them feel invisible and are told their feelings are not valid and they should just be grateful.
Frankly, if my only two choices are corporations trying to pink-wash their image by co-opting an inoffensive symbol and only donating 10-25% of the proceeds to breast cancer research and a corporation adopting a symbol known to be offensive and hurtful to a large number of breast cancer survivors and only donating 5% of the proceeds to breast cancer research, I'm going with option one. I'd still like better options.
But ultimately, my point was not about money donated. My point was that "Save the ta-tas" objectifies women and makes us invisible. Here is another post which might explain it in a different way:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/04/nope.html
Getting men involved in breast cancer fundraising is a good idea, not just because a lot of men will be the partners, fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, nephews, friends of women with breast cancer, but because men get breast cancer, too.
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 that leaves many women's health concerns (including research into the causes of breast cancer) woefully underfunded.
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
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:
-While I am a sexual being, that's not all I am. And my sexuality is not confined to my breasts. In a sexual relationship, I want a man to pay attention to me as a woman, not just atomized body parts. And frankly, if any man says to me, "You have ta-tas; I want your ta-tas," he's not getting into my bed.
-After getting a breast cancer diagnosis, many women are told, "We have to remove your breast or you'll die." "Save the ta-tas" implies "We don't care about women who don't have breasts; we'd rather you die than live without breasts (which we'll call ta-tas because we're too ashamed to say the word 'breast.')" It's saying "breasts are important; lives are not." That's a pretty horrible message for a campaign that's supposed to be about helping people with breast cancer. (And no, I don't think that's the deliberate goal of this campaign; it is how the message comes across to many breast cancer survivors.)
-While I have nothing against willing expressions of sexuality, cancer campaigns are a terrible time to sexually objectify women. We're fighting for our lives and for the lives of others. That's not hyperbole. Being told, "This is a cause near and dear to your heart; therefore, you need to be quiet while men talk about how ta-tas are hot," is offensive to me.
The equivalent would a panel of some sort, with one woman panelist. Each of the men speak, but when the moderator gets to the woman, he says, "You have great boobies. Let's hear it for the boobies!" and moves on to the next male panelist. Yes, breasts are a part of most women, but we are not just breasts. And let's say this woman is a confident, well-adjusted sexual being. Chances are that she would not be flattered; she would likely be offended that she had just been reduced to a sex toy. And at least she was acknowledged as an individual. "Save the ta-tas" doesn't even do that much.
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
And it is incredibly painful to many breast cancer survivors as well. That's why many of them are hurt by this campaign.
Here's my question: The stated purpose of "Save the ta-tas" is to help people diagnosed with breast cancer. Even if half the women out there are not offended, half of us are. So why do they need to market their campaign in such a way that half the people they want to help are hurt? Why not try to find an approach that doesn't alienate so many of those who are affected?
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