Hot Chicks with Breast Cancer
I'm just coming up with all the snappy titles today. Someone stop me before I offend again!
My father is an OB/GYN. When I was a whelp, I would run files around his office (I was a file jockey), so I know what his day is generally like. Once, I was waiting for him to sign some patient records, his phone rang, and my father was at the receiving end of what was clearly an angry tirade by a patient. The patient was young, had recently had her first child, and now had advanced stage breast cancer. She was angry because my father had not recommended a mammogram before she got pregnant after she had specifically asked. At the time, the American Cancer Society did not recommend mammograms for women under 40. He had done his job, and he was upset for his patient. Pregnancy may accelerate the spreading of breast cancer. She had been handed the end of the stick that was most unpleasant.
With that life experience in mind, I bought a box of Cheerios the other day. (I don' need no stinking segues!) Two for the price of one, even. I was reading the back of the box this morning and there was a gaggle of breast cancer survivors on the back, all wrapped in a pink ribbon. Presumably the names that accompany these five women are actually the names of the five women:
Crystal is 31 (6-year survivor), Jackie is 47 (and a 7-year survivor), Molly is 45 (12 years), Irene is 37 (2 years), and Linsey is 26 (3 year).
These women are hardly representative of the population most at risk of breast cancer. All of these women were 40 or younger when they were diagnosed, but less than 5% of breast cancers occur in women under 40. WTF?
Nobody likes old people, right? And especially looking at their lizardy skin and imagining their tatas. One is never supposed to doubt the motives or tactics or people trying to raise awareness of breast cancer (holy fucking shit we get it--there's fucking breast cancer). At the same time, far more women die in accidents each year than die of breast cancer. I don't see people running around wearing black and blue ribbons raising sharp edge and slippery floor awareness, however.
I suspect that there is a convergence of a couple of cultural forces at work here. The first may be expressed in the phrase TITTIES!!!!! People pay attention to boobs. Actually, that's it (a convergence of boobs, titties and melons). Boobs are nice and look best on young women. There is something subtly disgusting about selecting only photogenic (well, young at least) cancer survivors to advertise your cause. (Save the boobies!)
So, Cheerios, pinktogether.com? Naughty. Shame on you for trying to sex up breast cancer. Your selective editing of the face of cancer is as repulsive as it is attractive.
HJ
Seed Newsvine
33 comments:
ok, as a young breast cancer survivor diagnosed at 31 I have a very different perspective on this.
Yes, we are a small percentage of the breast cancer population but we are still important. I must say that i don't know that organization you mentioned (maybe it focuses on young women with BC, we need all the support we can get to fund studies on us) but i do belong to www.youngsurvival.org.
What is important here is the fact that breast cancer in young women is different than breast cancer in older women. So, that means that studies on chemo and drugs needed to be stepped up for our young ones. The young survival coalition works on getting more science behind understanding young women with BC and what could help us survive. Some people are still unaware that they can (at a young age) get breast cancer.
It may only be 5% but that is about 12,500 women under 40 in the US being diagnosed each year.
So even though some advertisers can abuse the whole breast cancer pink ribbon thing..i would have to look into this organization more. It might be a good thing. I look at it this way..seeing those young women on the box might make another young woman think..maybe that could happen to me and i should do self breast exams. Even gyno's are clueless sometimes. i showed my gyno my lump and he still didn't send me for a mammo until eight months later.
oh and one more thing..i'm a hot breast cancer chick too..lol
one more comment.
the reason you might be seeing young women on bc ads is because we have a 'voice' now (we never did before 1999). We have decided to stand up and make ourselves heard because of our unique breast cancer issues and need for better treatment options.
I added my webpage at the bottom where I wrote an article for a breast cancer mag in case your interested in reading it.
YSC Mission Statement
Young Survival Coalition (YSC) is the premier international organization dedicated to the critical issues unique to young women and breast cancer. YSC works with survivors, caregivers and the medical, research, advocacy and legislative communities to increase the quality and quantity of life for women diagnosed with breast cancer ages 40 and under.
Christi,
Thanks very much for your insights, and I do hope you are doing well. I am not doubting the intentions of the groups involved (well, maybe General Mills a tiny bit) the editorial decision. I did not see anything singling out younger patients.
Also, hot cancer chick status confirmed. Yum.
HJ
Like Kristi, I am also a young breast cancer survivor. I was diagnosed at age 35, when my daughter was only 2.5 years old. I found my lump during a breast self exam; if I had waited until 40 for my first mammogram, I'd be dead now. When I told people that I had breast cancer, they unanimously said the same thing: "But you're too young!" Many women believe that breast cancer is an old woman's disease, and that they are immune because of their young age. For that reason, we DO need to promote awareness for younger women. There is a great deal of awareness about breast cancer in general, but not for young women specifically. I applaud this organization for bringing the young face of breast cancer to attention. Maybe a young woman will be eating her Cheerios tomorrow, read the back of the box, and think, "Maybe I should get that lump checked out." We may be in the minority, but young women get breast cancer, too, and it matters. Just ask my daughter: it matters to her that her Mama doesn't die.
You're missing the point entirely. It's not about "sexing up" breast cancer, and it's certainly not about the boobs. At least not for those of us young women who actually have BC. Do you realize how truly SHOCKED most people are when they meet a young woman with BC? Most people think it doesn't happen, and so a lot of women get ignored or misdiagnosed or undiagnosed until their disease has advanced. And while there's a lot of attention paid to BC, not much funding goes to studies in pre-menopausal women, whose BC is generally more aggressive, though they don't know why. In fact, there's a lot they don't know.
Also, comparing BC to accidents around the home doesn't make sense. We know why people have accidents - slippery floor, lazy dog stretched across threshold, etc. - they have NO CLUE why so many of us get BC, especially since most of us don't have a family history of BC.
Oh hell, my own post on my blog sums up my viewpoints: http://thethighmasterroutetokona.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-are-not-your-fucking-cure.html
But I will say this - it doesn't have a damn thing to do with looking sexy for the masses. It's about all the women still dying from BC, because there's no damn cure, and we need one, now.
Trust me. Breast cancer is not sexy.
I was 28-years-old when I was diagnosed. I had been married for 10 weeks. There is no cancer OF ANY KIND in my family at all. And still, there I was with a lump.
Breast cancer is not about boobies, titties, or what have you. I lost both of mine shortly after diagnosis and the majority of young women diagnosed with breast cancer find themselves saying goodbye to their breasts as well. That's the crappy thing about being young with breast cancer. By the time we find our lumps, it's bigger than we thought (no one thought we were getting it, so we weren't looking for it) and mastectomies are often not an option, but a necessity.
After chemo and radiation and 4 years of good health (knock on wood) my husband and I are moving on. We're in the midst of adopting a baby. That's the other thing about young women and breast cancer. Chemo kinda messes up your ovaries sometimes.
I applaud Cheerios for including us in their campaign. Breast cancer doesn't just effect your grandmother or your mother. We are young mothers, girlfriends, college students, newly married, and pregnant. And when we find ourselves with a lump...we get the same response that you had...that it's not common in young women, that the statistics are small, etc. And so we fight and advocate for ourselves to be heard. And for some women, the fighting is not enough. I've seen the loss of too many young women under the age of 40 to a disease that we never ever thought was possible at our age.
So, research around. Go to youngsurvival.org. See the true faces of it all. Cheerios has brought awareness to the complete representation of us breast cancer survivors. And if it helps a young woman think about getting a mammogram or think about doing a self exam, then I think it's fantastic.
Breast cancer is not sexy at all and definitely not about tits. And if Cheerios helps a young woman feel empowered or other people like yourself realize that it happens to us too, then maybe that does get us a little bit closer to better research, treatments, and awareness.
Seriously? Another hot chick with cancer here and I can tell you there is nothing sexy about it. I was diagnosed at 32, when my daughter was less than a year old. If you think being bald, losing your eyebrows and eyelashes, becoming boobless, losing your sex drive and being thrust into premature menopause is sexy, then I guess there is something for everyone. I'm three years out from my diagnosis at 32 and I wish I had seen young survivors then. No one would know I have cancer now, but there was no mistaking it then. While we are less likely to get the disease, we are far more likely to die from it. And it is not a pretty death my friend. So many of us have had delayed treatment because we were "too young for cancer". Guess what...we're not. I find it odd that you focus on the sexiness of boobs when most young survivors no longer have theirs.
While I respect your right to your own opinion, I can't help but feel sad that you believe young women having breast cancer is sexy.
I'm living with metastatic breast cancer. It's a recurrence for me. The first time, I was 31. This time, I was 35. I'm now 38 and although my disease is progressing slowly, the truth of the matter is that I'm still dying.
I can give you a list of 26 women, just from youngsurvival.org, who lost their lives to breast cancer this year, and it's only September. Most left behind young children.
If General Mills wants to bring awareness to breast cancer by using survivors on their boxes, why would you, or anyone, have an issue with it? I don't understand. Until we have a cure, I hope there are pink ribbons anywhere and everywhere - not only in October but year-round.
Oh, and just for the record, you should probably be aware that although it only occurs in 1% - 2% of the breast cancer population, MEN also receive the diagnosis, most often, with very deadly results.
But, you obviously enjoy getting a rise out of people, or you wouldn't write such controversial blogs.
Are you f'ing kidding me? Sexy? TITTIES? What percentage of those women on the Cheerios box do you think still even HAS titties? My guess is that percentage is very, very low. And, if General Mills was trying to sex it up for breast cancer, those women were all way overdressed.
I was 37 at the time of my diagnosis, I had had a cosmetic procedure and breast tissue was removed and vast amounts of cancer were found. All the imaging technology has available showed NO cancer, and yet there was so much cancer that mastectomy was my only option, and it had already spread to three nodes, my vascular, and lymphatic systems. My doctors all told me that it was a matter of weeks, not months, before it spread to my organs and became terminal. I would love for you to explain to my kids (8 and 13 at that time) how sexy breast cancer is. My treatment was brutal and resulted in permanent damage to my heart and thyroid. And, nobody is promising I'll even survive the sexy cancer.
Read further, little man, the average age for breast cancer is sprialing downward. When you were a whelp, women didn't get breast cancer when their "titties" were sexy. And still, older women tend to survive cancer at a much higher rate. Also, chemo tends to be much more tolerable for older women. (Not to mention the fact that younger women have to treat cancer and raise young children, work, deal with elderly parents, etc. at the same time, while older women usually don't.) Younger women get more aggressive cancers, and have a far higher rate of death from breast cancer than our older counterparts. Nobody knows why, or even has any good statistic to quantify how much more lethal it is for us. Doctors are still telling young women that they are too young, and that their lump "must be a cyst" or a "clogged milk duct." Today I met a woman whose best friend was nursing, and her doctor wouldn't palpate the lump because he (I swear to God this is true) "didn't want to get milk on him." Another doctor diagnosed her with stage IIIC cancer. Think that newborn gives a rat's ass how sexy her mother's titties are? No. She is unlikely to remember her mother, statistically speaking.
You are uneducated about young breast cancer in so many more ways than you can imagine. I honestly hope that you never have to witness firsthand how wrong you are about this, but when you do (not if, because it's coming, I promise. It will find you via some woman you love) I hope that you will make sure to do a long commentary on your blog about now NOT sexy young breast cancer is.
Having watched many, many women among my family and friends die of breast cancer before their fortieth birthday -- before they saw their kids grow up, before they even saw their kids go to kindergarten, before they even had kids, and in one case, before she even finished college -- I can assure you that there is ABSOLUTELY. NOTHING. SEXY. ABOUT BREAST CANCER. Get your head out of your ass.
I'm not saying that breast cancer is sexy. Sweet tap-dancing Christ, get a grip. If I had thought that it was sexy, I would have been saying, "Yay, Cheerios! Gimme more photos of cuties who are sick." Right? Or is there some part of logic that totally eludes me?
I appreciate this is a personal issue, and I strongly suspect that this has been been reposted or referred to somewhere that I don't have access to. (Could someone point me there?)
PLEASE READ PAST THE HEADLINE.
HJ
I for one read past the headline - and I still have an issue with your point that you think advertisers are using young women to "sex up" BC - rather than how those of us WITH breast cancer see it - i.e. that we've made enough noise that there's finally some recognition that hey, young women DO get BC! Imagine that!
Though it's kind of funny or ironic - a lot of us (myself included) have a problem with companies slapping the big old pink ribbon on everything to sell it - and I think you're making in part the same point, that for *some* advertisers, it's about the money. (not saying that about this particular ad, which i know nothing about) Can't argue with that. It was just the other stuff you threw in there, dismissing the use of young women in BC ads because there are so few of us, that we really shouldn't be the main focus. Well, why the hell not? Our death rate is pretty damn high, we want a fucking cure already, or some answers, or, well, SOMETHING. If you're using the younger face of BC in your ads, then you should damn well be spending some of that money you get on research for YOUNGER WOMEN. We're dying out here.....
I read the whole blog entry. Every word, and yes, I caught where you said that General Mills was "naughty" for using young women with breast cancer to sex up their ads and sell Cheerios. But it wasn't a sexy ad. They were all fully clothed, no innuendo, no sexual tension, no tongue. YOU read sexy into the ad. Because young + breasts = sexy, right? Wrong. And by the way, why shouldn't a statistically disproportionate age range appear in ads? We die in statistically disproportionate droves.
If any researcher might be inspired, over his morning Cheerios, to figure out WHY my cancer is more lethal than a 67 year old's, then please get out of his way. This is not about a juvenile sense of sexuality, not everyone thinks every under 40 breast is a toy, even sick ones.
You have hit a nerve. Because young women watch each other die, and support each other all the while.
You might wonder how, if you were paying attention to the statistical realities you claim to be familiar with...could it be that there is a support group on Internet? Perhaps even one who has lost 29 members this year, all who were diagnosed with breast cancer younger than 40. Two last weekend alone. One who was 31 years old and very, very sexy, until the twenty solid weeks of vomiting and agony that led to the brutal end of her life.
Shame on Cheerios? They didn't use the words "titties" or "melons" in their ad at all. That was you. (And BTW, you weren't particularly kind to the "lizardy" old people with unimaginable tatas, either.) I know you think your offensiveness is amusing, but it might be time to think that sometimes it's just offensive.
Accidents. And in blue type? Come on. Have an opinion, but have an informed one if you're going to use your blog to speak about it. Try to guess, statistically speaking, which I'll more likely die from, given the facts: diagnosed with breast cancerat the age of 37, (forget the heart damage, I'll spot you that)vs. dying in an accident. (Hint: it's not the accident.)
Tasha, I know from your commentary that you had read past the title. When I went to the American Cancer Society website to look up cancer rates, I noticed that the mammogram recommendations have been broadened to include younger women in the last decade since my father's patient was diagnosed. This, I think, is positive proof that younger women are having an impact on how the disease is treated and diagnosed.
I wonder, and I know that I am opening up my own personal can of whoop-ass here, why does breast cancer get more media attention over other more widespread killers of women, including heart disease and stroke? What is it that makes people say, "Hey, breast cancer is more important than these killers." I mean besides being personally affected. Does it have something to do with the perception that it is a "woman" disease (men get it too, but I don't see men getting wrapped up in pink ribbons, nor do I hear from this cohort demands for more man-o-grams)? There is something about the way that society perceives this disease as especially feminine, which, again, distorts reality (or is at least an incomplete picture).
I'm coming at this from a sympathetic position of an academic who studies culture and American iconography. I'm not talking here about how women with breast cancer see it, though I am more than happy to donate the electrons for you to share your perceptions of the topic here. But I am talking about how the disease is perceived and how images of the disease are created and propagated. I know that must seem piddling and irrelevant to someone who has been through the experience.
At the same time, when you ask, "Why not?" There's no reason why not. The chances of dipping into the breast cancer population AT RANDOM and pulling out 5 women under 40 is .05 * .05 * .05 * .05 * .05. (.0000003125, or 1 in 3.2 million). What we're seeing is not a random sample. I see nothing that suggests that this group is only a young woman's outreach.
It depends on your rhetorical goals, largely.
HJ
Bing, all I can say is you are an unaware pompous ass..
You tell the story of your father not ordering a mammogram for a lady who asked. Your father declined because the lady was under 40 and it was not recommend by AMA. Ever hear of the Hippocratic oath, do no harm. What harm would have come of a mammogram. Then you say she got the unpleasant end of the stick. I say to you , your father commixed malpractice and you, at best, are to ignorant to see it. You don’t get it do you? The is the very thing that is killing young ladies all over the US. Delay in diagnosis. DR, says you don’t need to have a mammogram, what are you worried about you are to young to have cancer.
To young to have Cancer, Let me tell you about my Hot daughter. She found the lump at age 19. Dr said it had to be a infection “your are to young to have cancer.” 90 days later, after 3 round of antibiotics, The lump is still there. A mammogram was ordered to exclude cancer so my daughter would quit worrying. She was diagnosed with breast cancer on September 15, 2005 shortly after her 20th birthday. She died September 15, 2008 at the age of 23, the cancer had spread to her bones. It is a horrible way to die.
This has nothing to do about boobs or your lust of them. This has to do with the lives of young ladies. Let us pray you never have a daughter, as I can only imagine the support she would receive from her father should she ever have to face this monster.
Bubb2, Courtney’s father.
Again, not lusting after cancer patients. Not glorying in the horrific nature of the disease. Not dismissing the suffering. I'm genuinely upset for you, anonymous. Really. And yet, that's not what I am talking about. I'm talking about how the disease is portrayed in the media. I'm very sorry for your family. If you did not receive the best care and advice given the odds of what that lump was, I hope you nail that doctor to the wall.
My father does not need me to defend him. He was practicing the best medicine available to him at the time. And sometimes the best medicine has bad, really bad outcomes. People do not understand that, which is a shame, because people would then realize that there is a lot less blame to go around than they assume. But the practice is changing, which is cold comfort to someone in your position.
What if we saw young women actually dying on TV? In the media? Do you think that that would drive home the message you want us to see, that young women are dying horrible deaths? I'm serious.
HJ
Well, the media attention is a double-edged sword. Because all that attention and wrapping things up in a nice pink bow has helped people overlook the fact that this disease is in fact a killer, with no cure, and that it's a leading killer of younger women ages 25-40 or 49 or something like that - sorry, I saw that stat when i was looking something else up, not sure of the exactness but it's close.
When I was first diagnosed, I of course first panicked and freaked out - then I felt a little....embarrassed, at making such a big fuss over it. I thought oh, they'll remove the lump and that'll be it, I"ll be done. And then I learned the truth. So yes, there's a lot of attention - BC has become the "popular" disease, maybe because it IS so ubiquitous that people feel they can rally around it - yet, again, we haven't made much progress, certainly not among the younger set.
So, I don't know, I'm just rambling. Yes, we're a small number, the women 40 and under, and yes, I tell people it's like having an orphan disease - but we count too. It really is a horrible way to die.
"What if we saw young women actually dying on TV? In the media? Do you think that that would drive home the message you want us to see, that young women are dying horrible deaths? I'm serious."
YES! To my mind, yes. I think that would help. It would be voyeuristic, sure, but if it would help spread REAL awareness on just how deadly BC is in younger women, then hey, I'm all for it.
This is why I have the following bumper sticker on my car: F*ck Awareness, Find a Cure. (with a pink ribbon instead of the U in F*ck) That was a slogan thought up by a young woman who is, sadly, dead now.
You are "coming at this from a sympathetic position of an academic who studies culture and American Iconography?" No, sorry. Too late to establish credibility as an academic. Had you discussed the issue with ANY more intelligence, maybe. But you didn't. You used "titties" and "melons" and "tatas" to describe breasts. Those are not academic words. Sorry.
Had you brought up the disproportionate amount of support for female vs. male breast cancer patients, I could have supported you, although one in eight women develops breast cancer while one in one hundred men do, so we're not talking about a comparable number of the population, but I could have given. (By the way, treatment for male breast cancer is exactly the same, so men benefit from research dollars generated by the pink ribbon campaign as much as women do, but they do not have the same societal support.) Had you approached the idea that the breast cancer machine generates a lot of money every year, when breast cancer is not highest on the list of womens' health concerns, I could have supported that, too. But you didn't. You went with accidents. Shot your credibility there. And you still don't know, statistically, how much more lethal breast cancer is in the under 40 female population than in over 40. I know this, because there are no reliable statistics that I know of that tell us this.
True, one could not randomly come up with five women all diagnosed under 40 from the breast cancer pool. But if one dipped their hand into the breast cancer pool, only reaching for women who would DIE from breast cancer, I suspect it's possible.
IMHO, it's time for you to admit that you were insensitive and stop trying to make your post ok. We're women. You won't get us to back down about this.
Your point is well taken, Cassie. I apologize for being insensitive. If I make an ass of myself, it is not my practice to remove posts. It stands for what it's worth.
HJ
"What if we saw young women actually dying on TV? In the media? Do you think that that would drive home the message you want us to see, that young women are dying horrible deaths? I'm serious."
I think that the reason we see pictures of smiling, healthy looking young women with pink ribbons is because the truth is too awful. The twenty pounds I gained from chemo, combined with Decadron's moon face and a lack of eyebrows or hair, didn't make me particularly photogenic. My reconstruction is not pretty, despite what I had hoped. When I had radiation, I had third degree infected burns, and green ooze seeped out of me. 10 surgeries, 16 chemo, 33 radiation, 42 Herceptin....the numbers aren't pretty. I just don't think that the public is ready for that. The pink ribbons don't say much to me...but I do believe they're making a difference, because women like me know to do breast self exams, because there is research being done.
I'm not personally mad at you, Bing, but as you can see, the young breast cancer community is pretty pissed off. This week, we lost two of our best, and "grief" doesn't even come close to how we feel. We need a voice - here, on a Cheerios box, anywhere we can get it.
I'm four years out from diagnosis. My daughter is six now, and I like to believe that if I die soon, she'll remember some things about me. I'm in the middle of scans again, and abnormalities have been found. I scare the hell out of people. I don't know if that's the message I want you to see. I just know that I want to live, and I don't want to see anyone else die.
Good. Thank you. Now we can intelligently discuss the fact that most of us (young survivors) hate the pink machine, while still needing it. We need the research dollars, but many of us do feel pimped by it. WHY do we see so many young faces selling "Breast Cancer Awareness" when so little money is funneled into finding the answers to young breast cancer? Why don't researchers seem to notice us when we're dying, but the media notices us in September, when they're casting for October's ads? We can't really fight against it, but we can't really get comfortable with it either. We're stuck. And for what? Everyone is so aware of breast cancer that we're all collectively about to throw up pink, but still, doctors tell young women that they can't get breast cancer, and women believe them! They're relieved! They walk out of that office thrilled, and then walk back in six months or a year later, dying. Women of all ages believe that it's mostly a familial disease (80% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history) and yet we're all AWARE! What is all this fucking awareness doing for us, the population of women most likely to die from it? Not much so far. I don't understand it. That's what people need to be talking about: the false awareness, which, in my opinion, is worse than no awareness.
I know a woman, who is an artist and who documented all of her surgeries, her hair loss, etc. through photography. She was asked to prepare and deliver a presentation at a breast cancer awareness luncheon last week, and at the last minute, was substituted out. The woman who delivered the "informative" part of the luncheon said the basic "do your mammograms, do your breast self exams, and eat right," showed and discussed the food pyramid from 1989 (I'm not even exaggerating) and that was that. At an awareness function! Later, my friend was told that they were afraid she would "scare" all the women with her presentation. (She wasn't going to show her photos. It was info only.) WTF?
So now, Bing, that we're friends, I have a favor to ask. And if you do this, I will speak highly of you and never, ever (again) think of you and a buzzsaw in the same context. (Even though I suspect we may be politically incompatible, I can overlook it because I am whoring my principles here.) I would LOVE it if you would do a blog entry tomorrow about how much you learned about young breast cancer tonight! You don't have to say you were wrong, you can just say you were ill-informed, and were educated (bitchslapped is NOT an appropriate word, silly) last night by several hot breast cancer chicks. And if you were to do that, I know a whole bunch of young survivors (from the website that tagged you in the first place) who would be very appreciative, and might consider it a service to our cause.
Plus, it's true about Courtney. She's real. She died just over a year ago. We really do need help. One friend died on Saturday, surrounded by friends and loved ones, with the help of hospice and lots of pain meds. Another friend died on Sunday, in agony, in a hospital far from home, confused and disoriented, after having been diagnosed with stage IV disease in May. We're not fighting for our tatas here. We're fighting for our lives, and losing much more often than we should.
Oh, shit. I've just read your site and discovered that, in fact, we are politically compatible. I have no leverage, I am whoring my principles out to someone I may have to actually like.
I will count on your actual heart (in combination with your actual sense of guilt) to bring you to post about tonight's lesson in humanity. (Also, I suspect you may have sisters, because as soon as I suggested that you play nicely based on the fact that we're women and you can't shut us up, you did. So, something may have clicked for you about your position on this in relation to a whole site full of women in some stage of anger about this issue.) I'll be reading...
If it's any consolation, as a young woman, I thought the post made an excellent point. Most of the commenters are reading it very differently than I did.
I have not had breast cancer myself, but I have had two young women in my family get cancer.* One died at under 30 years old. It was a shock – but that was years ago.
Today, almost every breast cancer campaign I see displays young women - women under 50, usually attractive women who look in their late 20s. The vast majority of breast cancer patients are older, so the ads are not representative. The question is, is that non-representativeness *bad*?
The post suggests it might, because it ignores a large population who also suffer from the disease. I think that is a valid criticism. (Of course, you could also argue that we need to catch up by focusing on young women, who got less attention in the past.)
So why are older survivors being ignored? Actually, it's not just older survivors. I never see any *obese* breast cancer survivors in these ads. Does that mean there aren't any obese women with breast cancer, or they're not worth our concern? I never see *non-photogenic* breast cancer survivors in the ads. Does that mean there aren't any ugly breast cancer patients? Ethnic diversity *is* usually shown in these ads, so clearly some ad exec is thinking about the "face" of breast cancer - young, pretty, and multiethnic, just like a television sitcom.
The point is not that young patients don't deserve medical attention. It's that these campaigns conform to the same norms as sitcoms or beer ads. They aren't showing the full spectrum of breast cancer patients. If the purpose is to get maximum attention for the ad, that makes practical sense, although it’s a bit cynical.** But if the purpose is to sell products, it's not so cool. A lot depends on whether you think breast cancer awareness campaigns have become too commercialized - which is another debate.
The thing that bothers me is not the sexiness per se - breast cancer survivors have a right to be sexy. It's that this campaign, supposedly to empower women, abides by the same objectifying rules as any glamour-mag ad: we can motivate women by giving them *physically attractive* role models. Why aren't these women labeled as doctors, marathon runners, school teachers, or entrepreneurs? Clearly the most important thing here is that the women be young and pretty.
Criticizing the use of attractive women in this way isn't saying "breast cancer survivors shouldn't be attractive." Personally, I think campaigns built on young female beauty are kind of creepy when they're about a tragic disease with serious consequences to body image. Hopefully, a woman who has had a double mastectomy will see this ad and get the message that she can still be beautiful. That would be awesome. But I worry that the message of the ad is "these women get to be on our cereal box because they are pretty, young, and *not obviously affected* by breast cancer." I don't think that empowers women to accept themselves and their bodies as they are. I wish we didn't have to resort to the young sexy MILF stereotype to motivate action.
Yes, young, sexy women have survived cancer. I have a relative struggling with cancer right now who is a young, beautiful mother of a young child. Her courage is dazzling, and I desperately hope she succeeds. ut I don't think ad campaigns like this one reflect her unusual story, so much as they reflect typical Wall Street advertising practices.
*I note this because in debates on these kinds of topics, people always preface their comments by saying "I'm a survivor" or "I'm a woman in this demographic." While being a survivor is admirable and deserving of respect in and of itself, it does not necessarily mean that men and women who aren't survivors aren't qualified to have equally valid opinions about the topic - especially since these campaigns are presumably aimed not at survivors, but at women who have not had breast cancer, and maybe even men.
Bioephemera: You have perfectly stated several key components of the dilemma of breast cancer marketing. If Bing (my new BFF) had made the original post as you just stated, there would have been no controversy. (Which might not have been a good thing, either. This has been an interesting discussion.) You are exactly right in that being a survivor is not a prerequisite to this discussion, as well. We are ALL affected by breast cancer, whether we've survived it or not.
Personally, I have problems with the face of the ads, too. They never show the women who've gained the standard 30ish pounds from treatment. They wait until our eyebrows and eyelashes are back. They don't show us in bed crying, or in the bathroom vomiting. That's how I spent most of chemo. That's the reality of breast cancer. They don't show us in the scanner every few months. That's how I spend my recovery. They don't show my nightstand, with eleven different prescription medications that I take daily to control the damage done by chemo and radiation. I'm pretty enough. I could be in one of those ads, but they would make me up, and I have hair now, and I would make a decent Cheerios box. But it would NOT represent what my life is like. Breast cancer is not pretty. And yet, I need the campaigns. I need the research dollars. I have to hope that someday somebody will stumble across the answers to why young BC is so much more lethal.
And by the way, you've touched on another important issue: where are the obese women? All we hear is that obesity leads to cancer, and yet, none of the ads bear out THAT particular statistic, either. The answer to all of our questions is this: Statisticians, epidemiologists, and scientists do not choose the models for breast cancer ads. Advertising execs do. And they are not concerned with what is statistically correct. They are concerned with how their ad will look. And in fairness to them, that's their business. And they do tend to grind out a lot of money. It's working. Why should they engage in the debate of the fairness of their representation? It is not their concern.
I agree with every single word you said. Had the original post been framed as you have framed it, no issues.
This was a really good thread. I will be posting about it later. Grading currently...but soon.
HJ
Bing, I thought your original post was well-spoken, funny, and clearly made your point, which is not that breast cancer patients are sexy or breast cancer is sexy, but that breast cancer advertising is using sexier examples of women who've had breast cancer. Advertising agencies *are* using younger, sexier women to promote their client's causes, and that pisses me off. even though that's the way of advertising.
You're right that more women die of things other than breast cancer.
Moreover, I've talked to people who have other cancers and they're pretty sick and tired of all the attention breast cancer gets because their cancers are ignored. Or people think that all cancers can be treated so comparatively easily.
I'm sorry you took such a beating from some people in these comments who appeared to misunderstand your point. Sometimes people are too close to an issue and can't see the forest for the trees, and some of those people seem to be extremely vocal.
I'd be interested in reading your further thoughts on this issue.
Portions of your blog post have been reproduced verbatim and without attribution on www.youngsurvival.org in the General forum. Are you all right with this?
HJ, i read past the title, cant add too much to the discussion except to say, i don't think you were lusting after breast cancer patients but i do think you made a comment a rather crass one without knowing the facts...with that you can go to www.youngsurvivalcoalition.org you can visit as a guest, if you like, or just sign up so you can post to threads. either way, take a look. especially on the general board where we list the names of those we lost this year. all were under 40 when they were diagnosed. some were lucky enough to make it to 40 or even beyond . im 38 , stage IV, been fighting since i was 35. its unlikely ill see my kids get to college, let alone high school (reference to you grading papers, assuming you are an educator) and i can assure you that regardless as the "stats" it feels very real , very terrifying and very imminent for me....if it was your wife or your sister, i bet you'd feel the same. i don't think showing women who are younger in white blouses on the back of a cereal box is sexing up a diagnosis.....i think it just lets people know we are out here, fighting....maybe then before their sisters and wives get diagnosed they know that there is young face of breast cancer too...pretty face or not. forgive my e.e. cummings style of writing or stream of consciousness style....i suspect it gets and F.
You are a seriously decent guy. I'm sorry if that hurts you, sometimes the truth is painful. Underneath the snark, behind the cynicism, and around the corner from the 7th grader, there is a sweet heart, and a fair mind. Thank you. I don't usually get into throw-downs with people I end up liking, although I ALWAYS hope for it to end up that way.
I'll be reading your blog. You'll be hearing from me.
Cassie
This is a duplicate of a post I made on the YSC board, I just wanted to make sure you see it:
Something hasn't been sitting right with me since Bing posted, and I've only just figured out what it is I would like to say. It's about the donations.
Do I want the donations? Yes. For YSC, for BCS, for Julia's Starving Artist project, yes. These are all worthy of monetary support, and certainly of recognition, and more publicity. And any donation to any pink-ribbon foundation might get us one step closer to finding the answers we need.
But, Bing, what I really, really want is this: Please ask your followers to find someone who needs kindness, and provide it. Maybe some of your readers have some young woman in their lives who are fighting the beast (as we call it) and just CANNOT get her garden weeded. Or can't quite catch up on laundry. Or might like some flowers. Or just needs an afternoon to herself, and needs someone to take her kids to the movies for a while.
If a reader of yours doesn't have a breast cancer survivor laying around, then they can find someone else who needs kindness. It's not that hard to find someone who needs a little pay-it-forward. That's what I'd really like. Donations are nice, too, and important, and I'm not minimizing that. I'm just saying that maybe you can encourage your readers to more actively provide support for someone who needs support. That would be a great kindness, too.
Thanks,
Cassie
This was a good discussion to read. The only thing I would like to add is a little bit more education.
An even smaller amount of women, part of those young 'premenopausal' women is women who are pregnant or had their babies within the year before diagnosis. I was diagnosed at 26 weeks pregnant and started chemo at 28 weeks pregnant. Try balancing a full time job, a newborn baby and chemo/surgery/radiation all at the same time. Not only fighting for our lives but praying every day just to make it to our children's first birthday, or to the point that they remember us. It's a crapshoot no matter what way you look at it breast cancer in younger women is more agressive and more deadly.
I sadly have come across a few women who had abortions because their ignorant doctors did not know about having chemo during pregnancy or in their ignorance did not send their patient to a oncologist more experienced in treating pregnant women.
I had read one Article about Male Breast Cancer, The fact i want to tell you that the Chances of Male breast cancer are 1.2% that of women. 500 men die each year in the US compared to 41000 women with breast cancer. According to he latest health news, this accounts for less than 1% of all cancer related deaths. When the body produced unneeded or abnormal cells the resulting masses or lumps are called tumours that can be benign or malignant. If malignant, tumours that are produced in the immunes systems lymph nodes, the cancer can spread to nearby tissues effecting other organs such as lungs and bones. It must be detected early in hospital and removed to avoid spreading. Male breast cancer is called adenocarcinomas for they are created in ducts and lobules. In situ cancers are located in a single place, if it spreads it is an invasive ductal or Lobular carcinoma.
Complete detail here at Fuelthemind
Post a Comment