*Link to article: http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2009/10/02/sexy-breast-cancer-ads-provocative-or-patronizing.html
A woman walks across an ogling crowd. Decked in a white bikini, she floats across the rim of a pool, as stares follow her every motion. The camera zooms in on her chest, crudely illuminating her bouncing breasts. The screen changes, and the audience is told: “You know you like them…now it’s time…to save the boobs.”
These images portray just one example of the new (deemed “revolutionary”) form of advertising for breast cancer awareness month. Specifically, the above example describes an ad for the “Booby Ball,” a Canadian philanthropic event created to promote funding for breast cancer research (the link to the ad is provided below). This method of advertising was a viral success, with 350,000 hits on Youtube, and a feature on Best Week Ever and CNN.com. However, even though this ad is viewed as a marketing achievement, it is questionable whether it has been created with the best intentions for breast cancer patients. Many other philanthropic groups are taking advantage of our nation’s general attraction to breasts in order to capture the attention of the youth for breast-cancer awareness endorsement. In a recent Newsweek article, “Sexy Breast-Cancer Ads: Provocative or Patronizing?” Kate Dailey discusses numerous responses to these sexy ads, and she holds that instead of promoting breast-cancer awareness, these ads may be merely promoting breasts themselves.
As is reiterated in Douglas’s “Sex ‘R’ Us” chapter, perhaps one of the most unfortunate consequences of the achieved strides of sex-positive feminists is the over-exposure and the over-emphasis on female body parts that has become the norm in society today. Sex and the exposure of sexual organs have completely flooded our airwaves. The sexualization of women can even be seen at extremely young ages with the incidence of television shows such as “Toddlers & Tiaras.” Douglas demonstrates that open sexual publicity can also be seen in many other aspects of the media such as most magazines (i.e. Cosmo, Maxim, etc.), the music industry, film, and TV. As we have discussed in class, even the show Sex and the City, which has made some advances for women in that it presents very real women openly discussing their sexual habits (thus partially dissolving the existing double standard for women today), becomes highly sexualized with numerous explicit scenes of these women in compromising positions.
Overall, both men and women are transformed into sexual symbols within copious advertisements for differing products today. Thus, the use of breasts to promote a product (such as breast-cancer research) is the opposite of innovative, as is demonstrated by Douglas, Steinem, and Brumberg. However, many believe that this mode of advertising is important for disease awareness within our society. On one hand, using explicit ads coupled with slang or humor (i.e. with slogans such as, “Save Second Base,” or, “Save The Ta Tas”) is one way to make breast cancer conversations easier for our younger generations, thus encouraging youth support for this prevalent issue. Moreover, revealing Double Ds on-screen is definitely more effective than exhibiting a clip of radiation or chemotherapy in relation to gaining a younger cancer-research following. Thus, this “lighter” mode of advertising allows those who may be intimidated or afraid of serious disease to enter the playing field. In Dailey’s article, activist Matthew Zachary, the founder and CEO of “I’m Too Young for This” (an outreach organization for young people with cancer) states, “I’m happy to see women being objectified in a way that’s for the intention of public good, instead of exploitation for selling products and merchandise for things people don’t need.”
On the other hand, breast cancer IS an extremely serious disease, and though these ads may be clever or humorous, they do not address the realities or seriousness of cancer. As is stated by Kairol Rosenthal in Dailey’s article (author of Everything Changes: The Insider Guide to Cancer in Your 20s), “…it is such a mistake to think that we have to dress up cancer into something prettier than it really is to get people to think about it.” Overall, with the incidence of provocative ads for breast cancer, we are further sexualizing yet another social issue that is, in fact, a far cry away from sexy.
One problem with these sexy breast cancer ads is that the general emphasis of breasts as sex objects in society makes us feel uncomfortable discussing them or viewing them in any other context, whether it be their function (i.e. breast-feeding) or abnormalities within them (i.e. cancer). Thus, the way that people deal with breast cancer becomes another example of society’s uneasiness with the female body, as is discussed by Anne Fausto-Sterling in “Hormonal Hurricanes.” Women with breast cancer become unwanted because their main expression of femininity (or healthy breasts) is now deviant from the norm.
Another price of the general overflow of sex in breast cancer-related media is that it is highly offensive to women who are going through the disease itself. How are women who have just been diagnosed with the disease, or who have mastectomy scars, supposed to respond to a pair of large breasts that are shoved in their faces? Overall, these videos and ads that inject humor into breast cancer completely feign reality for cancer patients. These ads have absolutely nothing to do with real women or breasts. Instead, the ads turn the female body into a product, just like typical beer ads. Moreover, these ads solely highlight breasts as a body part to be saved when it comes to cancer; they forget that the women behind them need to be saved as well. Thus, the (perhaps) unintended effect of forcing younger generations to focus on breasts (for a good cause!) is that advertisers, yet again, only acknowledge a prominent female body part instead of the woman herself, further objectifying all women today.
In fact, cancer patients and survivors are not the only ones who suffer from sexy breast cancer ads and videos. As Douglas reiterates in her “Lean and Mean” chapter, the objectification of women in any form of advertising has been linked to unhealthy habits in many women. These ads teach young girls that the best way to obtain power in our society is to cater to what men want in a sexual manner. Thus, our media conveys the idea that only when girls become an object of desire can they obtain true happiness. While this mindset not only unsparingly subordinates women, it can also lead to depression, anxiety, and eating disorders in females.
Overall, breasts should not be seen as the ultimate form of power for women in society. Moreover, provocative breast cancer ads should not aid in creating these false ideals about the role of breasts in society. Most importantly, cancer patients should not be made to feel less feminine or more weak due to an irregularity in their breasts. It is crucial for all women to remember that they are not empowered through their bodies or through their body parts. Thus, we need to push the boundaries of inequality and subordination that exist in advertising today, in order to prevent feelings of objectification, self-loathing, and abnormality for the sake of cancer patients and for that of all women.
*Here is the viral video promoting the “Booby Ball” that sparked Dailey’s words in this article:
Works Cited
Brumberg, Joan. “Body Projects” from The Body Project.
Dailey, Kate. “Sexy Breast-Cancer Ads: Provocative or Patronizing?” Newsweek 02 Oct 2009: Web. 22 Feb 2011. < http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2009/10/02/sexy-breast-cancer-ads-provocative-or-patronizing.html>
Douglas, Susan. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work is Done. New York: Times Books, 2010. Print.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Hormonal Hurricanes.
Steinem, Gloria. Sex, Lies, & Advertising.
It is pretty remarkable how single-task-oriented our society trains us to be. Even in the context of fighting breast cancer, a serious women’s issue, the marketing department for this campaign is solely focused on eliciting the largest response possible. In doing so, they lose sight of the opportunity to promote public respect of women and do exactly the opposite. By fetishizing the breasts, these advertisements objectify the cause and eliminate the idea of the people being affected by this disease. Instead of marketing awareness of the dangers of breast cancer, these ads further publicize and glorify the very narrow range of what is “normal.” While this style of advertisement may be the most productive way to generate a response, it is surprising that no one would consider how this might make breast cancer patients feel even more ostracized and abnormal because their disease deviates from what they are perpetuating as the norm.
ReplyDeleteSince seeing ads like the one you cite here I have always had a weird reaction to them. I thought that it was a bit vulgar but had also thought that it is all for a good cause and if it gets more people (especially men) involved in a predominantly women's issue then maybe it was a good idea. But seeing how Dailey and you deconstruct these ads really gives it a different feel and I do not think I am a fan of them any longer. I really agree with your points about the way that the cancer patients might feel about the ads and the way that ads might take the focus off the real issues for these cancer patients. While the increased money raised by these ads may help these patients it must also be weighed by the consequences of making light of such a serious issue like breast cancer. Regardless, this is a representative issue I think of the way that media is used to manipulate the way that people feel about themselves, others, and issues.
ReplyDelete