new posts in all blogs
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: susan g. komen, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 2 of 2
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: susan g. komen in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
By: Lauren,
on 4/28/2011
Blog:
OUPblog
(
Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:
Health,
cancer,
breast,
Media,
activism,
pink,
bracelets,
sex sells,
breast cancer,
breasts,
Thought Leaders,
pink ribbon,
*Featured,
gayle sulik,
pink ribbon blues,
susan g. komen,
boobies,
peggy orenstein,
i <3 boobies,
i love boobies,
i love boobs,
Add a tag
By Gayle Sulik
A blogger who goes by the name of The Accidental Amazon recently asked: “When did breast cancer awareness become more focused on our breasts than on cancer? Is it because our culture is so obsessed with breasts that it slides right past the C word?”
The Amazon’s questions are important — but they are inconvenient; blasphemous to the pink consumption machine, disruptive to the strong societal focus on pink entertainment, and anti-climactic for the feel-good festivities that have swallowed up popularized versions of breast cancer awareness and advocacy. Her questions are sobering — but sobriety is the last thing that a society drunk on pink wants. We’ve been binging on boobies campaigns and pink M&Ms for too long, and we’ve grown accustomed to the buzz.
After a federal judge in Pennsylvania declared that the “I ♥ Boobies!” bracelets worn in schools represented free speech protected under the 1st Amendment, an interesting debate broke out about language as well as the legitimacy and usefulness of the boobies campaigns. The judicial system, focusing on the former, upheld the tradition that people are free to express themselves unless what they communicate is lewd or vulgar. To them, “boobies” did not fit this category because they were worn in the context of breast cancer “awareness.”
Much of the ongoing debate, and I use this term loosely, has been about discerning whether the Pennsylvania judgment was sound. Is “boobies” an offensive word when used on bracelets or t-shirts in schools? For the most part the discussion has been a polarized virtual shouting match about prudishness versus progressiveness. The commentary quickly “slid right past the C word” to focus on the B word. Boobies is far more titillating to the public than CANCER.
And why not? Sex sells. Playboy, Hooters, Pin-Up girls, pink-up girls. What’s the difference? Women’s sexiness is for sale to the highest bidder, or for $4.99. We’re not too fussy. It’s all about “the girls” getting attention from the boys. Of course, the undercurrent remains that all this nonsense really is about breast cancer. Boys wrote on facebook pages and in editorial posts that they “LOVE BOOBIES” and – in the spirit of breast exam – they’d love to “feel your boobies for you.” Some snickered at anyone who expressed concern about the accuracy of the campaigns, the fact that they diverted money from more useful endeavors such as research, or that they focused on women’s breasts to the exclusion of women’s lives. “Get a life,” one boy said. “Don’t be so angry,” chimed another. Women and men alike chided those who felt differently. After all, who are we to rain on the happy boobies parades?
Peggy Orenstein has tried to place the issue in a larger context, that these “ubiquitous rubber bracelets” are part of a new trend called “
0 Comments on Boobies, for fun & profit! as of 1/1/1900
By Gayle A. Sulik
In response to increased publicity surrounding Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s questionable trademark and marketing activities, the organization published an official statement on its website, titled: “Susan G. Komen for the Cure® Sees Trademark Protection as Responsible Stewardship of Donor Funds.”
According to the statement, Susan G. Komen for the Cure® has never sued other charities or put other non-profits out of business, and the organization does not have plans to do so in the future. Apparently knitters, sandwich makers, and kite fliers who want to raise money for breast cancer or other causes should breathe easier now! Of course, there are many ways to squeeze out organizations, large and small, and Komen’s high profile, clout, and overflowing coffers work in conjunction with legal teams, cease and desist orders, and polite suggestions to encourage a political and economic climate in which only the wealthiest survive.
When the National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations (NABCO) closed its doors after 18 years of operation, it was because the organization did not want to give priority to fundraising over program delivery. The network of almost 400 organizations, which included advocates, institutions, and healthcare providers, provided labor-intensive programs such as referral and case management that did not have the same allure as the publicity-driven fundraising campaigns that are so appealing to sponsors. Ironically, Komen founder Nancy Brinker was also a founding member of NABCO, along with journalist Rose Kushner who also helped to establish the National Women’s Health Network, Diane Blum of Cancer Care, and Ruth Spear who was a patient and author living in New York. When NABCO closed, Komen was one of 12 nonprofit cancer and health organizations to receive non-exclusive rights to NABCO’s educational materials at no cost.
This is not to suggest that Komen played a direct role in the closing of NABCO, or that NABCO should have acted differently. The point is that decision upon decision, action upon action, organizations shape the climate in which other organizations operate. NABCO refused to perpetuate itself by catering to fundraising interests at the same time that Komen was ramping up its cause-marketing and corporate partnerships. Three years later, Komen solidified its brand with a name change and new logo, and in the current year the organization has garnered more corporate partnerships than ever. The financial incentives have taken on a life of their own. If they hadn’t, we wouldn’t be quibbling over trademarks and pink buckets of fried chicken.
Komen’s reputation in some circles, especially among key stakeholders in business and medicine, appears to be beyond reproach. But reputations involve more than financial portfolios, and Komen’s domineering actions against other charities (whether they move forward to an official legal objection or not) demand a solid explanation.
The public didn’t get one. But Komen’s official statement did make some clarifications, such as the number of legal oppositions and objections filed against other entities since its founding, the total amount for legal expenses reported in the most recent financial statement, and the total funds invested in programs in the last fiscal year:
- Legal oppositions against other charities through the patent and trademark process: 16
- Objections filed against companies or for-profit groups: 31
- Total legal expenses last year: $515,405
- Program budget
