Now, I’m a heterosexual man. And as such, I will freely confess that I like breasts. They’re definitely in my top five body parts human beings have, even though only about 50 percent of human beings have them.1
That said, the thing about breasts that I generally like the most is that they’re usually attached to living, breathing women, and I like women, because, you know, they’re people. Many of them are people I like, and consider friends. All of them are worth far more than the breasts attached to them; that should go without saying.
Because women have breasts, they can get breast cancer. That’s a bad thing. Happily, there are a number of organizations out there working to combat this disease, and that’s great, because finding treatments for breast cancer will keep women alive. And since I have a number of women who are friends and family of mine who I’d like to stay alive for as long as possible, I’m foursquare in favor of doing things to improve their health.
That concern, I should note, is completely distinct from whether I want there to be lots of cancer-free breasts for me to stare at. Because, you know, if breast cancer was a disease that simply deflated breasts and had no other effects whatsoever, I’d say it was a pretty meaningless thing to cure. Indeed, given that one of the more common cures for breast cancer is a radical mastectomy, current breast cancer treatments are properly focused on protecting women at the expense of their breasts. And I’m all for that, because the loss of a breast or two is infinitely less tragic than the loss of a human.
Evidently, though, I’m crazy to think this way. Really, the important thing is the breasts. Canada’s ReThink Breast Cancer says so, and who am I to argue?
Now, the dumbest thing about this ad — other than that it mysteriously features a group of stereotypically Soviet submariners from bad movies of yore — is that the focus of the ad is squarely on saving “boobs.” Because, you know, men (and women, I guess, but mostly men) like “boobs.”
Well, sorry, but I’m not so worried about that. Yes, if by happy accident breast cancer treatments manage to reduce the number of mastectomies, that’s great — but it’s great because mastectomies are painful, difficult surgeries that put women through a great deal of pain and suffering.
I don’t care about breasts.2 Oh, I like them fine, but I’m not that worried about them. The women they’re attached to are what concern me, them and their friends and their families. Unlike the insinuation of the ad, I actually care about women beyond whether they’re attractive enough for me to ogle. And I daresay that this does not differentiate me from the vast majority of men in the world.
Believe it or not, but men are capable of empathy. We are capable of feelings other than lust and rage. And we are capable of realizing that the reason breast cancer research needs funding is because it will keep more women alive longer. And that is unquestionably a good thing.
I’m insulted by this ad. Because I don’t need to “rethink” my attitude toward breast cancer. Just as we don’t need an ad urging that we must save the penises by researching prostate cancer, we don’t need an ad telling us that curing breast cancer will save breasts. If it saves women, that’s quite enough, thanks.
(Via Judy Berman)
I’m not able to see videos on this computer, so this comment is about breast cancer treatment in general, not the video or even the RBC program particularly. However. Yes, some breast cancers can be treated with smaller operations than a modified radical mastectomy.
However, that doesn’t mean that lumpectomy or excisional resection is right for everyone or risk free. If you have small breasts the cosmetic result may be unacceptable (that is, if half the breast has to be taken you’ll probably need reconstructive surgery anyway.) More significantly, lumpectomy has to be followed by radiation for it to be as effective as surgery. Radiation can have significant side effects, including induction of further cancers and heart disease*.
Lymph node dissection is a simpler problem: everyone should have a sentinel node biopsy and avoid full lymph node dissection if it is negative. Makes the recovery much simpler and avoids a couple of nasty potential complications including an extremely rare secondary cancer. But doesn’t save the breast.
*Not to scare anyone off of radiation therapy if they need it: it is extremely helpful in many cases and lasting side effects are rare. But can be serious and it’s nothing to take lightly.
“Using the word “boobs” makes you sound like an 11-year-old.”
I think that’s kind of the point. It’s probably just a cyclic thing – as a whole, we’ve been fighting breast cancer for decades, and there’s a certain amount of fatigue inherent in that kind of thing. Even survivors get sick of hearing about Death Death Death Death Death Death Death Death Death (and the corresponding Lifetime TV tearful triumphs). Eventually they’re going to start doing cute, whimsical, wacky ads.
It’s objectifying and childish, of course – but “save the boobs” is the most obvious place to start when it comes to lightening the tone of breast cancer ads.
Eventually they’ll get sick of “save the boobs” and either start getting Serious About Death again… or find some other gag if they decide that “save the boobs” wackiness is a good approach.
/lost my mom to breast cancer – obviously, was not to interested in her boobs from an aesthetic point of view
I agree with the points you’ve made in this post, and found the commercial creepy and weird. In seriousness, breast cancer is bad because it harms women, not just body-parts some people like to sexually objectify.
This being said, I’ve heard the “Save the Boobs! Boobs are awesome!” meme as a reason we should stop breast cancer before. As Silenced is Foo points out, wacky and lighthearted discussion of serious illness can sometimes be more attention-grabbing than the Serious Medical Issue angle. I think it’s appropriate and attention-getting when casually discussing health issues and stuff with a bunch of my college-student peers. But people tell jokes to their friends that can’t and shouldn’t be large-scale campaigns, and I think this is one of them.
Hey look! Limiting women’s worth and men’s intelligence going hand-in-hand, as it so often does…
It’s terrible and all men should be insulted, as you are, with these ads. Furthermore, they don’t work. A man giggling and paying attention to this org simply bc it’s showing boobies(!!11!!!!) isn’t well likely going to reach into his wallet and pull out a $100 or $50 or $20 or $10 donation anyway. So why target him?
Compassionate men who are interested in donating to ReThink Breast Cancer, on the other hand, may actually be turned off enough by this ad – and the implications that they can only wrap their boy brains around boobies and not the women attached to them – that they donate to a different cancer research org.
Bad marketing all around.
Because, you know, if breast cancer was a disease that simply deflated breasts and had no other effects whatsoever, I’d say it was a pretty meaningless thing to cure.
I dunno. I think a lot of women derive considerable self-image from their breasts (among other body attributes) and would find deflating-bosom syndrome dispiriting, if nothing else.
That said, I admit to being a pragmatist on this issue; breast cancer runs in my family. If holding solemn scientific seminars gets funding and energy behind a cure, great. If a carwash where young lovelies flash their bosoms gets funding and energy behind a cure, great. If invoking the great god Ooolie Moolie on his bloodstained basalt altar gets funding and energy behind a cure, great.
This particular ad didn’t do much for me. I’m not really sure how much it would inspire people to donate money to breast cancer research; it could just has easily have been a beer ad, right up til the end. I’m also not quite sure what they mean by “rethink attitudes on breast cancer” because offhand, I can’t think of anyone who thinks that really, mastectomies or lumpectomies are no big deal.
That said, a very close colleague of mine underwent a double mastectomy earlier this year. She’s only in her early thirties (now certified cancer-free, thankfully) and I know damn well that she was terrified, and I know that feeling like she was about to mutilate her body was part of that fear. Breasts don’t make the woman, but they do have a lot of symbolic weight attached to them; and my co-worker, for example, breast-fed her young child. That particular commercial was kind of obviously targeting men, but I don’t think that all “save the boobs” messages do, or need to, and some of them can be effective.
Also, my colleague coped (and is coping) well in part because she could back off from that fear a bit by laughing, because being funny and whimsical is also part of who she is. I think that humour is often a necessary part of dealing with something overwhelming and frightening, and making jokes about “boobs” can have a part to play in that process if we’re talking about breast cancer (and it did). For those of us who haven’t survived breast cancer, but are in a position to donate to support research, I think being able to laugh at it a bit can make a cure seem more attainable (as opposed to trying to base the need for support on an insurmountable wall of tragedy), and that might actually inspire people to donate more. And honestly, I find exhortations like “Save a life, grope your wife” funny, and I think that it probably does serve as a reminder to both men and women that breast exams are an important part of detection. As somebody who might someday get breast cancer, I can live with a bit of funny verbal irreverence toward breasts if it reminds men and other women of the need to know ourselves and pay attention to our bodies; that commercial didn’t hit the mark, but it’s not because it focused on breasts.
Pingback: Who’s the Biggest Boob Here? « Kittywampus
um, and the porn shot at the end? Classy. I really hate this campaign, it’s like they’re trying to emulate PETA.
I get the comments here on humour, but there’s also the cashing in on the endless pornification messages that just turn me off.
Considering most women who get breast cancer – not all, I know, but most – would be considered by the drooling male demographic to be too old and to unattractive to show her “boobs” in public, this basically says: save to good looking objects (oops I mean women).
Only good thing: the woman was not white. I appreciated that.
There are two issues here:
1) Are ads like this effective?
2) If so, are they okay?
I don’t know the answer to the first question, although I would be somewhat surprised if many people, upon viewing this ad, actually get out their wallets and make a donation to breast cancer research. (I would agree with you that the other possible goal, awareness, has more or less been met. Everyone is aware of breast cancer, although perhaps they don’t think of it as something that can happen to hotties.)
However, I would argue that even if ads like this one *are* effective, that doesn’t make them okay. Improving women’s health by contributing to a culture that sees us as objects instead of people is the wrong approach. Women are people, and breast cancer is bad because it harms *people.* That should be enough for anybody.
(Full disclosure: I am currently being treated for breast cancer, so this isn’t exactly academic for me.)
Thank you. That’s — that’s pretty astonishing in its sheer idiocy, even before we get to its offensiveness.
One point of information, though, because I have reason to think that very few people realize this: Mastectomies performed today aren’t normally “painful, difficult surgeries that put women through a great deal of pain and suffering.” (The obsolete Halsted radical mastectomy certainly was, but that hasn’t been in use for decades.) In fact, under normal circumstances even a modified radical mastectomy is fairly low-discomfort and low-risk, as surgery goes. (Hey, it’s surgery — it’s never *n0* pain and risk.) Breasts, after all, sit on top of the ribcage — the surgeon doesn’t have to go through muscle or abdominal wall to get to the relevant tissue. You can have both breasts taken off at noon, and be signing yourself out of the hospital because you feel too well to be stuck there that very evening. And yes, I do speak from personal experience on that one.
Really, people shouldn’t be afraid of it the way they are. It’s not that bad, not at all.
Reconstruction, mind you, can be complicated, extremely painful, and involve significantly more surgical risk. But that’s not the same thing as mastectomy, even though people who care a great deal about breasts will often push women in the direction of starting reconstruction at the same time that the mastectomy is done, rather than suggest they face the horror (the horror!) of even temporary life with a flat chest.