Thanks to Dmitriy T.M. for sending this speech by Joss Whedon (responsible for Buffy the Vampire Slayer) at an Equality Now event. His comments begin at 2:00 (after an introduction by Meryl Streep):
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Teresa C. sent in a link to a benefit in Raleigh, NC, for a women’s center. The benefit was called Walk for Women and included a mile-long walk in high heels (though apparently the high heels are optional):
I get what they’re trying to do. Really, I do: an attention-getting way of raising money for what I’m sure is a worthy cause. And having worked or volunteered in many social-service jobs, I know fundraising can be hard (especially in an economic downturn) and you can end up doing some sort of weird stuff if you think it will bring in donations. (I once helped out at a dog blessing at an animal shelter. People brought in their dogs and had them blessed by an Episcopalian preacher [priest? I’m not sure of the terminology] and received a little medal with the image of some saint who apparently is the patron saint of animals, and who I am too lazy to look up right now, to hang on the dog’s collar. Also, there was wine, which in small-town Kansas was the source of some controversy.)
[NOTE: When I originally wrote this post, I had no idea that blessing animals is something some Episcopalians and Catholics do fairly often. I thought it was just something a sweet but kind of flaky volunteer thought up. I apologize if the comments about the animal blessing ceremony seemed disrespectful–I truly didn’t know that it’s a common religious ceremony. I decided to leave that section in but cross through it rather than delete it entirely, as it seemed dishonest to just erase it and pretend it hadn’t happened. I messed up, and I know it.]
So I know where people are coming from when they organize such things. But it still kind of bugs me that organizing walks in high heels has become a common fundraising technique for organizations that serve (primarily) women–women’s centers, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, and so on. And I can’t help but think that walking around in heels is, ultimately, an odd way to help women. At least in this case, participants are apparently raising money. But several times I’ve seen high-heeled walks that are simply to “raise awareness,” with no particular emphasis on donations. The ones I saw all had men wearing high heels. And the thing is, I can’t figure out what on earth the point is. What type of awareness is it raising? Is walking around in high heels supposed to increase a person’s understanding of some of the problems women face? What are bystanders supposed to get out of it?
The Raleigh Walk for Women organizers also had a Beauty Blitz at a local salon, where people could drop in, register for the walk, and get discounts on salon services from a person who was a contestant on “Biggest Loser.” And also have a cocktail. So the event is this strange mixture of helping women by using the trappings of femininity (high heels, beauty care). And I just find it kind of odd.
An extended version of this post also appeared at Ms.
I’ve been taking photographs of breast-cancer-research-and-prevention-branded products for a few months now. I was first driven to do so when I saw this at the Million Aire (private plane terminal) at the Burbank airport:
That’s right. You are looking at pink chocolate chips cooked into cookies to signify a commitment to reducing breast cancer-related morbidity and mortality.
Anti-breast cancer messages are, I think inarguably, the most widely product-linked disease-related message ever. I am constantly shocked by how many products have a breast cancer version. Here are some pictures I’ve taken over the last few months.
Cream cheese:
Padlock:
Cat food:
Gum:
Golf balls and tees:
Pots and pans:
Steve W. sent in this picture of a pink “ladies night out” breast cancer-themed limo (note the pink ribbon hanging from the rear view mirror):
NEW (May ’10)! Renée Y. sent along this photo of breast cancer-awareness-themed grape tomatoes. I repeat: grape tomatoes.
We’ve discussed the commodification of activism extensively (see here, here, here, here, and here) and so I’m going to skip this point. Instead, I’d like the ask the following:
What does it mean when awareness of and funding for disease is subject to marketing? Is this really the most efficient or rational way to set health care priorities? I did a bit of research.
According to the CDC (2005 seems to be the latest available data), cancer is not the leading cause of death. Heart disease is the leading cause of death. Granted, cancer is a close second. In 2005, 652,091 people died of heart disease and 559,312 died of cancer. But not breast cancer, all cancers. In 2005, 49,491 people died of breast cancer. More than 10 times as many people died of heart disease.
And, if you want to prioritize cancers, more people are diagnosed with prostate cancer than breast cancer (source) and more people die from lung cancer (159,292), colon, rectal, or anal cancer (53,252), and lymphoid/hematopoietic cancers (55,028) (source).
So why such an emphasis on breast cancer? I’m not sure why. Certainly there is a massive social movement organization behind this anti-breast cancer marketing and people in charge have made a decision to take this approach. I think, also, the body parts and the presumed cause of disease matter. Do we have less sympathy (and would, therefore, a similar marketing campaign be less effective) for lung cancer because we think that lung cancer patients are to blame for their own disease? Would we find colo-rectal-anal cancer-themed cream cheese somehow less appetizing? Or prostate cancer-themed gum? Do lymphoid and hematopoietic cancers affect parts of the body that are simply less iconic?
“Save the lymph nodes” just doesn’t have quite the same ring?
I’m not trying to suggest that raising awareness of and funding research for breast cancer isn’t important, but I am interested in the strategies by which being “against” breast cancer is (literally) sold to us. And I’m curious about how this affects treatment and research funding, if at all, and the rationality of our resource distribution given the application of a marketing approach to (some) diseases (and not others). (Also in breast cancer marketing, see here, here, here, here, and here.)
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Emily K. sent in a link to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s 2009 report on hate groups in the U.S. Here’s a map (larger, not-stretched-out version available as a pdf here):
The site also has an interactive map where you can select individual states and get more info on the hate groups that are active there, and another where “hate incidents” are marked.
Sorry for the sporadic posting lately–it’s the last week of the semester and I’m grading constantly.
UPDATE: One of my best friends just informed me that when investigating the SPLC hate incidents map, he realized he knew one of the people listed as a perpetrator in an incident in a certain Southern state; I promised to give no more details than that. This led to a discussion of the weirdness of some of the folks we grew up with, including a guy I went to school with who washed his head in gasoline to try to kill lice and ended up setting his entire head on fire. And no, I don’t know why a person would decide to use gasoline to kill lice. I also don’t know how one of my uncles managed to shoot himself in the foot while elk hunting, why that didn’t deter another uncle from going, falling down a mountain slope, and cracking his ribs, or why my mom married an evangelical Christian who didn’t like women to wear pants eight weeks after she met him on the internet. These are some of the many mysteries of life.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Commenter OP Minded says,
Kind of outrageous that the SPLC has “Concerned Citizens and Friends of Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement” in Framingham, MA listed as a hate group. There is no doubt that they are in favor of enforcing immigration law (after all, it is the law) but they don’t fall anywhere near a “hate group”. Calls into question this entire list.
Another commenter says,
To follow up on opminded@2: It’s too bad the Southern Poverty Law Center also uses these trumped-up threats to pad its already-deep coffers. Less than 70 percent of its expenses go toward its programs; the rest is for administration and fundraising. Any human rights organization with almost $220 million in net assets isn’t doing its job.
The anonymous commenter suggests going to Charity Navigator to get more information.
I did not know about these criticisms (a problem in general about charities is not knowing for sure how the money is spent). My experience with the SPLC relates to their work with African American farmers in the South, a group that has experienced major land loss due to various factors largely involving racism and unscrupulous land developers. Their work on that particular issue was considered pretty solid. But of course there aren’t all that many organizations working on that problem, so any efforts were greatly appreciated.
Thanks for the additional info!
ANOTHER UPDATE: Commenter CLL says,
Over the years, SPLC has done terrific work helping people with little access to power receive the justice they deserve. Groups the SPLC has identified as “hate” groups have gone beyond simply disagreeing with policy (or lack of enforcement), and have instead encouraged their adherents to express discontent in more direct attacks on the object(s) of their scorn — thus qualifying as “hate” groups.
Spending 69.6% of income on programs remains a pretty normal ratio for not-for-profits that rely heavily on professional staff. Some organizations play fast and loose with their Fundraising allocations to cook the percentages down to numbers that look better on sites like Charity Navigator — but the proof of effectiveness is in accomplishment of mission.
In this ad, the National Organization for Marriage appears to be trying to capitalize on the idea that people of color do not support gay marriage. Wait till the end for the direct appeal:
Found at Feminocracy.
These screenshots of the anti-gay marriage, Californian “Yes on 8” website also appeal to a multicultural (if segregated) constituency. See also this post challenging the idea that Black people and gay people are always at odds or even, of course, categorically different groups.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Toban B. sent in a link to a set of photos from the 1970s gay rights movement. Given that since the anti-gay-marriage Prop 8 passed in California in November, many people have argued that a) the African American community is particularly homophobic and voted against the bill (so it’s Black people’s fault Prop 8 passed) or b) gay rights organizations have failed to reach out to the African American community and win their support (so it’s elitist gay people’s fault Prop 8 passed), both positions that imply that gay rights and African Americans are at odds, I found this photo from Philadelphia (in 1972) particularly striking as a reminder that African Americans often did and do support gay rights, and the gay rights movement has often actively included them…oh yeah, and also there are gay Black people:
Here’s an image of people picketing the White House in the 1960s in support of legislation to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in federal employment:
There are also quite a few vintage gay movement images mixed in to this set of photos. Thanks, Toban!
Cynthia Enloe draws attention to how mobilizing a nation at war requires drawing on not just the notion of the heroic masculine protector, but also the vulnerable women and children who must be protected. To draw attention to the way in which this binary (protector/protected) has functioned, she wrote “women and children” as “womenandchildren.” Speaking very generally, women and children, and perhaps especially womeandchildren, are sympathetic characters in society in a way that men simply are not. Likewise, women and children often seem more deserving of assistance and charity than men, who are expected to buck up and take care of themselves.
Stephen W. found himself confronted with this solicitation when making an internet purchase:
Stephen wondered why he would want to “wipe out heart disease in women,” as opposed to “wipe out heart disease”?
Why indeed?
Perhaps the appeal to save a group we often understand to be vulnerable and deserving of assistance makes (or is believed to make) this a more effective solicitation.
NEW (Jan ’10)! Anna K.-B. sent in another instance of this women-need-extra-care-and-protection thing. In this case, it’s a walk to end women’s cancers only:
The New York Times recently published an article on the evolving Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The DSM is the official source for psychologists who are diagnosing patients with mental disorders. The article points out that the number of disorders in the manual has more than doubled since the 1950s:
Hypothesis One: The DSM reflects an increasingly sophisticated and exhuastive compendium of all possible mental disorders.
Hypothesis Two: More psychological disorders = more people diagnosed with mental disorders = more money is siphoned off to hospitals, treatment centers, drug companies, mental health professionals, social workers, school counselors, etc. (Scientists who are currently working on the next version of the DSM have agreed to restrict their income from drug makes to $10,000 a year or less.)
Hypothesis Three: We are an increasingly rationalized society and all things are becoming increasingly listed, compiled, organized, and annotated.
Hypothesis Four: What is considered a “problem” depends on the social context. (“Homosexuality” used to be in the DSM, but it isn’t any longer.) Perhaps a shift in the last 50 years has created a social context that is less tolerant of difference, more insistent upon happiness, or requires a more compliant citizen.
Hypothesis Five: Grassroots activists get together and lobby scientists to include disorders in the DSM so that they can raise awareness and money for research.
What do you think?
Thanks to Francisco for pointing me to this article!
