Stop the Stigma, End Pinkwashing

In 2008, keep-a-breast.org released a bracelet line of chunky, pliable plastic bracelets inscribed with “i love boobies!” Keep a Breast’s homepage states “Our signature i love boobies! Bracelets opened the door for millions of young people to talk, blog, write and spread the message about breast cancer awareness and prevention for the first time.”

Their goal? To spotlight breast cancer, and spotlight it did. Millions bought these bracelets during the last ten years, stirring up controversy in and out of schools. Administrators asked whether or not it was appropriate, and the greater world debated the morality of placing the breast before the body of people with cancer.

It’s the awareness that’s the sticking point in the conversation surrounding breast cancer survival.

General awareness is not enough anymore. Everyone is aware of breast cancer as a concept, but because of the redirection from saving people to saving breast tissue, the corporatization of pink, and the lack of knowledge about the signs and symptoms of breast cancer, we still face this epidemic of cancer that, in its earliest stages, is treatable.

We need to be doing more to actually help people detect breast cancer, to help people under treatment face less stigma as they make life-saving choices like radiation treatments and mastectomies, and assist overall in re-shaping the way we think about breast cancer as a whole.

What is breast cancer anyway?

The cancer most often affects cisgender women over 50, with history of breast cancer in their family. Women who have mutated forms of the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are at a higher risk than anyone else for contracting both breast and ovarian cancers.

Breast cancer is detectable through breast exams, which Planned Parenthood suggests cisgender women in their 20s and 30s receive every two or three years, and mammograms, which cis women over 40 should receive once a year. Contrary to popular belief, Planned Parenthood does not do in-house screenings, but instead refers patients to other clinics who can.

Signs and symptoms of the cancer can include discharge or blood from the nipples, swelling or dimples in the breast, pain, and scaly skin, but occasionally, none of these symptoms show up, which is why it’s important to have a professional screening as often as Planned Parenthood suggests.

However, the controversy surrounding screening is noteworthy. Some physicians say that screening in younger populations increases the rate of false positives due to their denser breast tissue. Others say that the rate of screening doesn’t significantly decrease breast cancer death past age 40. The best choice is to talk to your physician about family history and risk factor before deciding on the rate of your screenings. The worst choice, however, is not getting screened at all.

Regardless, try and do a self-examination once a month. Some organizations have proposed more complicated, in-depth routines of examination, but most simply say that paying attention to your body and checking in once a month or so to see if anything is off is good enough. Start by examining your breasts visually, followed by feeling them for lumps or scaliness, and talk to a doctor about any concerns you may have. More often than not, it’s nothing to be worried about.

Breast cancer: More than saving breasts

The issue of breast cancer rhetoric being concerned with saving breasts themselves is that, more than often than not, we forget the people attached to the breasts. Breasts, already sexualized, become far more so when placed in this culture of saving breasts instead of people. It simultaneously degrades women, putting worth on their breasts, and forgets that people other than cis women have breast tissue, too.

A stigma exists around women who have undergone mastectomies as being less womanly or effeminate because of their lack of visible breasts. A particularly poignant example of this was when film star Angelina Jolie underwent a double mastectomy, People Magazine referred to her as “brave” on the cover of their May 2013 edition, effectively positioning Jolie as making a choice that would change her into something less desirable, but brave for making it anyway.

We don’t refer to people who get their inflamed appendixes removed as brave, or have potentially cancerous moles surgically sliced off as heroic. Breast tissue should be no different, but because the societal worth of women is wrapped up in their sexual desirability, the idea of a woman undergoing a surgery for her future health is seen as some heroic act.

There are people attached to these breasts, but by placing the argument in saving the breasts above anything else, we effectively do harm to people who have cancer. We reinforce the stigma against breastless women and potentially put cancer patients at a higher risk when we view mastectomies as a last-ditch effort instead of a viable option among a list of many others.

We can love all the boobies we want, but loving the people is of far more importance, 100 percent of the time. Using survivor-first language that addresses the body as a whole and desexualizing and ungendering the breast are both important steps in this discourse. People survive breast cancer, not breasts.

Paint the house in pink and profit

The trend of coloring everything pink from Oct. 1-31 does more harm than good. The Huffington Post published an article by Karuna Jaggar, the Executive Director of Breast Cancer Action, on Oct. 1, 2014, entitled “Think Before You Pink: Stop the Distraction,” which discusses the harm corporations do to the discussion of breast cancer as a whole.

Jaggar states, “By making the public think ‘awareness’ is the end goal, pink ribbon culture defuses anger about breast cancer and its devastating impact, and distracts us from the meaningful actions that will achieve health justice for us all,” further pointing out that the corporations that sell these trinkets profit off of this awareness campaign, spread misinformation about breast cancer treatment, and even sell products linked to breast cancer whilst rebranding themselves as helpful without commitment.

“Breast cancer,” Jaggar adds, “is only profitable when it’s palatable, and the pink ribbon covers up the devastating, harsh reality that so many women and their loved ones are dealing with.”

Ultimately, painting the world in pink for an entire month does more to line the pockets of corporations than help survivors of cancer. It glamorizes survivors and cancer patients and makes their struggles seem easier and less life-changing than they are in reality.

A better use of both corporate and citizen’s pocket money would be to donate directly to research foundations, or Planned Parenthood and other organizations that promote reproductive health care advocacy. No one’s saying don’t pick up a pink shirt at a rally to raise money for research, but be sure that the money you spend on pink is going to people who can help in tangible ways.

What you can do to help

Empty advocacy that raises awareness without the matching information (or, often, incorrect information) does nothing. Ideally, more money and manpower would go to assisting organizations like Breast Cancer Action, and the knowledge of how to do self-exams would be more widespread than it is currently.

If you can, donate, and if you can’t, volunteer. Share information with friends and family about how to help and how to check for cancer, and advocate for the social change needed to desexualize breasts and decouple gender from breast cancer. It starts, not with large companies pinkwashing their products, but at home, with the people you know.

And next time a breast cancer discussion happens, make sure to talk about the people, and not their breasts. We may love boobies, but we should love healthy humans more.