What about saving the women?
This is not going to be a fun post. I'm going to soapbox on another issue that's worthy of an entire blog unto itself: rape culture.
What exactly is rape culture? And yes, before you might protest, it does exist. (Trigger warning for that last link for examples in media) What makes rape culture possible is the cultural norm of objectifying women and turning sex into a punchline.
Yes, men get breast cancer too, but it's still rare compared to the number of women who get it. Why is the NFL merchandising pink ribbons? (Tune in tomorrow for that fiasco)
Breast cancer is the only disease that affects a publicly acceptable part of a woman's sexual presentation. They're called cutesy names, there's an entire restaurant chain devoted to them (I'm looking at you, Hooters) and the point of it all is to objectify women.
I've heard breast cancer self-exams being joked about as 'groping'. I've heard of it being used as an excuse to grope. "Don't mind me, I'm just checking you for breast cancer!" Grope a tit, save a life. (Never mind the fact that self-exams don't actually save anyone's life; if you've been reading this blog this month, you've learned by now that one out of every three women who find theirs early go on to develop metastatic disease.)
"Save Second Base". Who thought that one up? It turns a deadly disease into a fun punchline. "Save the Tatas!" Why are we focused on them? What about saving the women? And what about the men who are afflicted with this disease? Their breasts are not considered second base, nor called tatas or coconuts or hooters or any other cutesy tee-hee names.
The reason behind all of this is rape culture. It makes it okay to turn women into sexual objects, which in turn makes breast cancer a fun game all about the tatas. Rape culture makes it okay to sexualize breast cancer.
It's the reason an image of a sexy young woman with presumably perky, whole breasts wearing black sexy lingerie made the rounds on Facebook trying to co-opt National Metastatic Breast Cancer Awareness Day (October 13) as No Bra Day. What does going without a bra have to do with breast cancer? Many women who've had mastectomies (as well as those who've undergone reconstruction) can no longer wear bras, at least not "normal" ones. Who does going without bras serve? The patriarchy, objectifying women.
Heterosexual males benefit from it. Not the women with breast cancer. While whole and perky women are jiggling free under their shirts, women who have had mastectomies, with scarred, lumpy, or completely missing breasts, are reminded that society values their breasts more than the person. Many of these women already have self-image issues stemming from the procedures. It is not a "free boob job". A mastectomy and reconstruction involves several surgeries, drains, and a lot of pain as well as a risk for infections and complications. And the reconstructed breasts are still scarred, easily causing pain if bumped or prodded, with little or no sensation that pleasurable to the women. But society expects women to have two bouncy tits or they're not a "real woman". Fortunately, more and more are choosing not to reconstruct, instead going Breast Free.
What a radical thought. But it doesn't have to be that way. Society ties so much of our identity as women to our breasts that the concept of opting out of additional painful surgeries seems groundbreaking and radical and brave. The patriarchy expects women to look like women, even if the reconstructed breast lacks the ability to cause pleasure. It's not about the women. It's about the men.
Yes, I'm aware that some women choose reconstruction for their own personal satisfaction. Had I undergone a mastectomy, I probably would have chosen reconstruction myself. It's not about women choosing to reconstruct, it's about how they're expected to, and going flat is seen as daring and brave. It's not, they're making a choice that's right for them, just as those who choose to reconstruct are making the choice that's right for them as well. Society expects us to have two perky tits, and that pressures a lot of women into undergoing the pain and stress of reconstruction when they might otherwise choose to go without it.
It's an ugly post on an ugly topic. Women are expected to be bright and happy For the Cure robots of Hope and if there's anything we don't like about it, we're expected to shut up and be thankful anyway. Sound familiar? Lay back and take it. Close your eyes and think of England. Catcalls on the street? Stop being so sensitive, it's a compliment, learn to take it like one. All this attention should be accepted with a smile.
This hurts women, and it hurts men too. This is why male-oriented cancers don't get enough attention. This is why other cancers and diseases don't get the same amount of coverage as breast cancer. They're not perky, bouncy, fun sex objects. They can't be marketed in a lighthearted manner. Not the way we do with breast cancer.
That's the end result of it. Breast cancer has become a punchline, the deaths of 40,000 Americans annually pinkwashed over with marketing campaigns which do nothing but line pockets. It's a big business, and sex sells.
I'm not proposing we find ways to sexualize testicular or prostate cancer, but instead, how about we stop using it to sell breast cancer? It's not a cute disease of tee-hee body parts to be called by nudge-wink nicknames. It's killing people. Men and women alike. And we are no closer to a cure than we were decades ago.
Forget about the damn tatas. Save the people instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment