…groups like Breast Cancer Action are having to fight cancer on two fronts: battling for patients, as well as fighting the rise of pinkification.
The group points out that many of the products tied to breast cancer awareness are themselves linked with cancer, or are produced by firms with a terrible record on environmental pollution and other activities known to contribute to high cancer rates.
Oh, horrors! I’m not sure just what products or firms would meet with her approval on this, but I suspect those that would are unlikely to make an awful lot of money to donate to the cause…
Of course, the feminists and activists only had pure motives:
They wanted to create a world where the words “breast cancer” weren’t stigmata.
Now, it’s possible that a CiF writer had a bit of a copyediting moment here, or that she is drawing some odd comparison that makes sense in her addled brain, but surely this should be ‘stigma’?
The path of the pink ribbon, and breast cancer awareness in general, reflects a larger problem experienced by social movements. It seems that every time they develop a tool of solidarity and something to use as they work in a coalition to address a specific social issue, that tool is handily repurposed for profits – and before anyone can move to take it back, it’s too late.
So long as the campaign gets the publicity and the research scientists get the dough, who cares if profits are made?
Adaptation is a tough skill, but it’s critical for social movements. It’s also not impossible. Look, for example, at the way the black community has shifted organising strategies and priorities in response to changing social circumstances, with flexible leadership and members interested in addressing shifting needs. Contrast that with the white-led mainstream breast cancer awareness movement and its determined ignorance on social issues that affect the people it claims to advocate for.
What does this even mean? Who knew it even had a racial aspect?