Tireless #firstworldproblems finder SE Smith gripes about the ‘commodification’ of breast cancer awareness campaigns:
…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?
‘Stigmata’ is the plural of ‘stigma’. On this occasion the writer is correct.
Really? I’d have chosen a different word, then.
“Pinkification” – dontcha lurve these people’s way with English?
Of course, the feminists and activists only had pure motives:
They wanted to create a world where the words “breast cancer” weren’t stigmata.
Best I don’t comment.
“What does this even mean?”
What it always means…black people good, white people bad and the subject is irrelevant. As is Truth, apparently.
‘Cos no black people work in…or have set up… industries that put profit before a “preferred” social conscience, presumably.
It’s just one example of a paragraph full of accusation, assumption and lies that serves no real purpose except to try very hard to make white people feel bad and do what the writer wants.
Given it’s proliferate usage in today’s society I think there should be a word for that. I’m not sure “blackmail” or even “hyperbole” quite covers it anymore.
“…a paragraph full of accusation, assumption and lies…”
A typical CiF article then?
Breast cancer has a ‘stigma’ attached to it??
Who knew?
Well, all cancer once did – we can all remember our mothers and grandmothers mouthing the word silently in conversation, almost afraid to say it out loud. Or…is that just me?
Donating to cancer research is racist?
I’m sure she’s right but I’ve no idea why
Is there a similar blue ribbon campaign for prostate cancer?
DaveE.
If so, it won’t get any attention from this harridan!
I’ve gone on a diet of not letting CiF annoy me so much recently (although if you want to see some prime gibberish I recommend the panel thread on definitions of sexism v misogyny).
However, I haven’t stopped being a pedant. I agree with Julia on her criticism of the use of “stigmata”. It is quite correct that it is the plural of the Latin word “stigma” and so is correct to use when you are using the Latin word (ie in respect of either the wounds of the crucified Christ or the sexual organ of a plant). If you are using it in a metaphorical sense (eg a mark of shame) you are using the English word which needs to accord with the standard English formation of plurals to become “stigmas”.
OMG, I remember now that “stigma” is actually a Greek word. Massive, massive pedantry fail. Although my point still stands. Albeit weakened.