Comments on: Awareness Branding and the Ethical Fix

By: Guest

Guest — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:27:00 +0000

Well, thanks to Komen’s decision to halt funding for Planned Parenthood, perhaps fewer mainstream groups will be supporting the pink ribbon campaign. I wonder what sort of impact its decision will have on the image and recognition of the pink ribbon campaign, of Breast Cancer Awareness Month 2012, and of access to breast cancer screenings.

By: undergrad RN

undergrad RN — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 04:15:53 +0000

Breast cancer hype makes me crazy because it both enforces the idea that a breastless woman is less than whole and then argues that they are whole despite being without breasts.

Whatever happened to every other awful kind of cancer? I can think of several offhand that are not nearly so glamorous as the kind that dare touch our favorite body part and are just as deadly.

By: md

md — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:42:22 +0000

I think the thing about the moustache is that most men can just choose to do (it comes from within). It is not something requiring consumption and corporations. In that way it is sort of empowering, I would think.

Also, most of the men I’ve seen sporting a “mo” make them sort of over-the-top so they stand out.

By: Think Before You Pink » A roundup of interesting news from this past week!

Think Before You Pink » A roundup of interesting news from this past week! — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:51:08 +0000

[…] Sociological Images: Awareness Branding and the Ethical Fix […]

By: Bel

Bel — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:16:05 +0000

So, what’s the woman who has cervical cancer supposed to wear? A bra that says, “Cancer trashed my twat, but at least I got my tits!”?

Barbara Ehrenreich’s book really nails this whole pink thing and how nauseating it all is. So take some Pepto because it’s pink and is probably a cure for breast cancer because of that reason.

But I’m embarrassed to admit I kind of like the shoe tape dispenser. But not in pink! I would prefer it in red, so it would match my stapler! :D

By: Che

Che — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 02:05:54 +0000

Maybe I’m cynical, but it just seems like all this cancer fundraising makes it sound simple. “FInd a cure for cancer!” These organizations (the legit ones at least, like Komen) *DO* fund research – our postdoc is applying for a Komen grant. But I think it does a disservice to the public to say we’re going to find A CURE for cancer. Because there’s not going to BE a single cure for cancer. Different cancers express different genes more heavily, so you need specific treatments. And once you treat one pathway, the cancer finds another way around that so it can keep growing with the treatment. Can you get rid of someone’s cancer? Yeah, but it’s a specific, multifaceted treatment for each cancer. YES, funding research is helpful (and also keeps me employed in a breast cancer research lab). But I feel like the message that this stuff gives – a cure for cancer! – makes things sound too simple, and I wonder how that affects people with cancer who aren’t really up-to-date on the science. Do they go into it understanding the complexities of treatment? I didn’t work in this lab when my mom had breast cancer, and I didn’t get how complicated it is. I think the popular fundraising message can be a disservice to people who deal with cancer in their own lives.

Also, a HIGH HEEL? PLEASEEEE. That bugs me in SO MANY WAYS, though it’s just an extreme example of the pinkness. Marketing femininity is problematic anyway, but more so when we’re talking cancers that make one question her own femininity (losing a breast, having scarring on the breast as my mom did from radiation; or, if we’re talking reproductive cancers, I know from non-cancer experience that having a nonfunctional reproductive tract can make one feel less woman).

By: Che

Che — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 01:53:54 +0000

Who the hell are you replying to? Where do you get “separatist lesbianism”?

I used to like this site a lot more before ridiculous bigots with nothing relevant to say starting commenting.

By: Sadie

Sadie — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 01:31:09 +0000

Oh, and yes, I apply the same line of logic to the “greenwashing” of products. Again, preposterous!

By: Sadie

Sadie — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 01:30:27 +0000

The pinking of consumer products is rediculous. It is such a transparent scam. When you look at the fact that a great deal of these products actually contain chemicals that have been shown to have strong links to causing cancer, or are produced in ways that violate fundamental human rights, I don’t know how you can reasonably justify buying them. The whole thing is just a big, icky, pink mess if you ask me.

I’m glad I hate pink.

Wanna do something good? Stop buying crap. Start DOING stuff.

By: Ames

Ames — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:18:44 +0000

Exactly. Well said.

By: giorgos

giorgos — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:10:42 +0000

As a way to supplement the critique offered by this post and Rob Walker's book, Slavoj Žižek's short lecture (accompanied by a brilliant animation) First as Tragedy, Then as Farce goes further to, in fact, suggest that a radical transformation of society might be the only meaningful way to collectively alleviate the problems currently addressed by individualistic consumer-driven charity.

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:10:36 +0000

What’s being done to prevent it?

By: R

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:09:30 +0000

I’m not sure which came first, but the Movember site says it was started in 2003 in Australia. Wikipedia states (with no citation) that other countries then adapted it to beards and called it No-Shave November. In my group of friends/acquaintances, it’s always been tied to LiveStrong so there has always been a men’s cancer part to it.

By: R

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:05:37 +0000

T, that’s what I was getting at (Gwen, I actually thought it might be a step up, rather than step down, from pink ribbons) – I wonder if the fact that it 1) requires a conversation 2) costs no money but 3) involves raising donations makes it more proactive and less of a consumption-oriented awareness campaign.

And since the money seems to go directly to support organizations (rather than a tiny, undisclosed percentage) it is likely more effective at actually combating the cancers it’s trying to fight.

Either way, it’s an interesting partner to the pink ribbon campaign.

By: Fiona

Fiona — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:03:22 +0000

It’s my (possibly incorrect) understanding of Movember* that participants actually recruit sponsors who agree to give them a small amount of money if they complete the whole month, which they then donate to a cancer organization.

If this is the widespread nature of the activity, and not just that of a small subset, it would seem a great deal more helpful than the pink ribbon campaign. ‘Awareness’ is raised in the individual and their entire social group, it starts a conversation and keeps it going for a whole month. Plus, at the end of it all, some actual coin goes directly to the groups that need it.

*The guys I knew who did it called it No-Shave-November, and grew beards instead of mustaches.