Breast cancer kills titties (women? what women?)
Because the only way to get people to care about women dying of breast cancer is to remind them that tits are stake.
Related: The Breast Cancer-Industrial Complex, More on breast cancer's most tragic victims..., Fun with Feminist Flickr (beating cancer/beating women edition), and more from Hoyden About Town.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Breast cancer kills titties (women? what women?).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16177
As ridiculous as this commercial is, I DO like one thing about it. Sure her boobs are big, but it's nice to note that they're not plasticly perky. She looks more like an average woman, and her boobs aren't the ONLY part of her that jiggles. So yes, they ARE focusing more on the breasts than the woman, but at least she's not a stick insect with comically huge breasts.
"stick insect" ?
So this is a bizarre PSA on many levels.
What's with the guys in the sailor costumes? Are they supposed to be gay? I'm confused... maybe if I just stare at the titties for long enough everything will be better...
I think they are supossed to be gay. I think the point they are trying to make is that "everyone" loves boobs. Even other women and gay men. It's a pretty disgusting add...feeds into a lot of stereotypes too.
You don't even want to know what their prostate cancer PSA is like.
thanks. the ad made me sooo angry, but your comment made me spit out my drink from laughing.
Yeah, I heard about that ad. They originally wanted to use a talking asshole but that's Sean Hannity's intellectual property.
It also seems to be promoting street harassment. All I could think about while watching this was how uncomfortable I feel when guys gawk at me like that when I'm walking around outside, and how uncomfortable she must feel with all those people just staring at her breasts.
She would be uncomfortable were this real life but in male fantasy land, hot women LOVE when men gawk at them and their breasts.
so I guess only large breasts are worth saving, according to this PSA?
So that was disgusting. What, people don't care enough that women die of breast cancer so the way they are supposed to "rethink" breast is "hey, if breast cancer afflict women, I won't have awesome boobies to gawk at anymore?"
Anyone who is looking for proof that we as a culture think that women are worthless unless they fit the criteria to be subject to the male gaze, look no further.
That should read "women die of breast CANCER."
DAMMIT. I corrected myself wrongly. Ok. "rethink breast CANCER is..." There. No more posting.
Heck, who cares if middle-aged or old women die who nobody in their right mind wants to f*** anyway!
I think this is nothing but a frontal assault on the dignity of breast cancer victims. Sexualizing the diseased organ is NOT going to help any of them.
I completely agree with the sentiments of everyone who has commented. Why I in no way want to detract from breast cancer victims and their families, I think it's interesting that more women die from lung cancer or heart disease in this country, yet in my mind, breast cancer gets way more PR, because obesity and smoking are major risk factors for the aforementioned, and it's your own damn fault if you die from lung cancer or a heart attack (even though you don't need to be a smoker or overweight to suffer from either, I am just making a point). I think it's great to draw attention to women's health issues, regardless of their nature. But I can't help wonder: if this particular form of cancer didn't involve breasts, would there be such an outpouring of public support, and 5K Breast Cancer Awareness runs, and "Save the ta-ta's" stickers on mini-vans and suburbans? Thoughts?
I think the fact that there are no "Save the cervix" bumper stickers pretty much answers that. And it's a shame.
Also, I hate those goddamn "Save the Ta-Tas" bumper stickers. Someone on my street has one, and I have to see it every day. It's bad enough that the ad campaigns act like breasts, not women, are the important thing, but do we have to use words like "ta-tas" and "boobies" on top of that? Are we five years old?
This is totally outrageous. I can't believe they'd use humor to publicize a PSA! Argh, the humanity, the humanity!!!
They're using sexism and objectification here. If you find that humorous, so be it. Some people don't.
I'm thinking of my aunt who died of breast cancer and I want to punch whoever made this ad.
It appears to me that all the men and all the women in this video are simply daft stereotypes.
The fact of the matter is that when people see sensible, serious cancer awareness ads, they zone out, switch off, or go and have a cigarette. An eyecatching and frivolous advert may not be what you expect, but if it means that someone thinks "wow, I thought cancer was something that just happened to old people" and decides to start self-checking or recommending that their female friends do, rather than going "yawn, cancer, sad... I'm going to put the kettle on" then surely that's a good thing?
To say that the advert implies that only large boobs/sexy women are worth saving is the sort of thing that gives feminists a bad name. It just doesn't say that. Furthermore, watching this advert will not encourage the viewer to take part in "street harrassment", in the same way that watching Saw does not encourage me to attach bear traps to former drug addicts' heads, or whatever. People do what they do because of what is socially acceptable around them, and what their conscience allows, not because they learnt it from some commercial.
Just as women are not just a set of boobs, men are not a bunch of pathetic letches - but that is exactly how they are portrayed in the video. Do you think that there's a men's group sat around going "Oh, I'm so disgusted by the way that they paint us as gross perverts who all yell at passers-by"? Of course not.
Can we please focus on something that actually matters, like domestic violence, pay inequality or female mutilation?
Oh... and check your boobs. It'll save your life.
Can we please focus on something that actually matters, like domestic violence, pay inequality or female mutilation?
Oh, I forgot, we feminists have little female brains and can only focus on a limited number of issues. And there's always something more important to complain about, so stop complaining about everything esle.
And there SHOULD be men who get pissed off being painted as gross perverts who yell at passers-by, damn fucking straight.
There are plenty of men pissed off about this, their movement just isn't so large and publicized yet.
http://www.nomas.org/
http://www.menstoppingviolence.org/
The first thing I would ask you is how do you think things become socially acceptable? If you don't think that advertisements play a role in that, then you're living in a world in which I would also like to live. I agree with your point about shock value. What comes to mind are the ads currently running in Germany right now using images of Hitler to raise HIV/AIDS awareness, and I think there is value in that - getting people to think outside the box, to use a cliche. But I don't think its done right here. I think your second to last sentence is exactly the point some of us (at least me) are talking about. The issues you raise; domestic violence, pay inequality and female mutilation all have roots in female objectification. In other words, many of the issues we as feminists take on are rooted in the fact that women are viewed as sub-human, and, therefore, less than and not worthy of the same things that men are, subsequently making things like beating your wife and paying a woman 20% less than a man acceptable. To me, this ad is just another example of how society allows and makes room for the objectification of women, even when it comes to something as serious as breast cancer. As Jessica points out, aren't there other ways to raise awareness about breast cancer without sexualizing women's bodies, as if the only reason worth getting riled up about this issue is because breasts are at stake? This may not seem like an important topic, but I think it is a perfect example of how women's issues, health or otherwise, are constantly being pigeon-holed into sub-categories of a sexual nature.
Congratulations. You just won anti-feminist Bingo.
So this ad doesn't paint staring at women to be "socially acceptable?" Cause I'm pretty sure when the media around men portrays gawking at women as socially acceptable, they soak it in and think of it as acceptable.
People think this makes us feminists look bad because they don't care. A lot of people also think feminists are crazy because we care so much about pay inequality. Those people use the same red herring technique that you just used.
You think we need YOU to tell us why we have a bad name or that we care what you think??? LOL
Do you think that there's a men's group sat around going "Oh, I'm so disgusted by the way that they paint us as gross perverts who all yell at passers-by"? Of course not.
This is because you men are SOOO superior, you know what should be taken seriously.
The MRA's only pretend to get upset when talking about how men are portrayed as pigs, Homer Simpson (a character created by a male with majority male script writers BTW), ect but completely overlook these types of things. Maybe thats because it revolves around misogyny and thats the MRA bread and butter?
"Can we please focus on something that actually matters, like domestic violence, pay inequality or female mutilation?"
You're serious?!
"Can we please focus on something that actually matters, like domestic violence, pay inequality or female mutilation?"
Actually, many of these issues are inter-related. Some of the previous campaigns for breast cancer awareness have used images and marketing strategies that minimize domestic violence...may even be links on this blog to those ads. Given that you prioritize DV, do you feel that those ads would be worth raising concerns about since it negatively impacts women who have survived abusive partners? If so, it’s the same thing here. Or is the goal only to get people’s attention no matter what or who you affect in the process?
Also, how about the ads that PETA is so famous for? They routinely use women’s bodies to sexualize vegetarianism and try to convince their male audience to not eat meat…is this a justified means to an end?
And of course men aren’t sitting around discussing how this ad negatively portrays them…that’s kind of the point. It is socially acceptable and in some ways beneficial for men to play up how they can’t control themselves and can’t help but stare and ogle women…by staying silent they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions or how it impacts women or male identity. Obviously there are many, many men who do not act or think this way and would speak out against such representations…I know these men, and more should be speaking out, but there is tremendous risk to doing so…they are giving up their privilege and resisting mainstream definitions of masculinity. But just because there aren’t as many men doing this, doesn’t mean it’s a good reason for women not to be speaking out when the representations of us are so offensive and often contribute to things like violence against women.
I'm guessing you took as long to make your comment as most other commenters took. So please, explain to me, why you are not obligated to spend your time on "something that matters," and are allowed to post on something that does not, while other posters here are silly for doing the same thing you did. I mean, in the time you took to chide people who commented here, you could've posted on domestic violence or female mutilation or something.
it is really frustrating that ads like this exist, and the people who create them think that they are "helping" women. it's bad enough when an ad like this is for burger king or carls jr. it's degrading to half of the human population, and as a small breasted woman, it really makes me think, wow if i get breast cancer the creaters of this ad don't think i would be worth saving, because i don't have the kind of breasts men and women alike take off their sun glasses to notice.
I find this ad pretty disturbing. Yet again, we are sexualizing women’s bodies and only seeing women as their various parts…parts that are deemed “valuable and worth saving” by this culture we live in. I wonder, if we didn’t live in an environment that was so sexually repressed and instead viewed sex, women’s and men’s bodies as just natural and normal, would this ad even make sense? It seems that any time we are not sexualizing breasts or women’s bodies, people just can’t handle it…because the norm and the acceptable standard is to objectify women’s breasts. Like when women breastfeed in public and are using their breasts in a purely natural, normal way, people freak out. “Oh no, her breasts are being exposed and not sexualized! Oh god! Stop her!” Likewise, cancer affecting women’s breasts is killing women but the only way our culture has come up with to make it relevant and important is to sexualize it. I think this says something about how screwed up our culture is.
I can't imagine how this might make a cancer survivor who lost her breasts (to cancer) feel. Her titties weren't saved, but look on the bright side... she's still alive.
I sent a message expressing my displeasure to the Rethink Breast Cancer group.
There's an article about this ad on Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/save-the-boobs-is-this-br_n_298349.html
Most of the commenters think this ad is just wonderful! Boobs are fantastic! Never mind that more women than just young hotties get breast cancer. Never mind that it totally gives the impression that it's all about the bOObs and not about saving women's lives.
I tried to add a comment there to give the other side of it, but could not get logged in.
Nice how most of the shots of women are chopped to hide their faces. That's all we are - breasts, legs and asses.
Anyone see the South Park where Wendy stands up to Cartman when he's mocking breast cancer? (Season 12, "Breast Cancer Show Ever")
I'm going to make the same (probably unpopular comment) that I've made on these kinds of posts in the past.
Just like when Jack Black says "titty saver" and we get up-in-arms about women being just their breasts, if he said "woman saver" we'd be up-in-arms about how he was making women only out to be their breasts all the same.
I don't think there's a way to win since breasts are such a sexualized part of the body. So, any exposure to the horrors of cancer is a good thing, imo.
Seriously? You can't think of a single way to do breast cancer awareness ads besides "If women lose their breasts, you won't want to fuck them anymore"?
They were doing breast cancer ads that no one complained about for years before this ad campaign, so clearly the world is capable of breast cancer ads that aren't offensive. They could go the lung cancer route and show diseased breasts. It'd be tough to sexualize those. They could focus on the cancer's effect on women, rather than the healthy breast's effect on the viewer. They could stop assuming that the only reason people would be interested in stopping a serious disease is because young, large, healthy, perky breasts are just sooooooooooooo nice to look at. You know - they could do breast cancer ads the same way they do any other kind of anti-cancer ads. Nice skin is also pleasant to look at, but I have yet to see an "If this young woman gets skin cancer, she won't be as purdy to look at" ads.
Hell, they could not use words like "boobies," "titties," and "ta-tas." I mean, what's next? "Save the Fun Bags"? Or, for a smack of "Carrie," "Save the Dirty Pillows"?
In short, until you can point to anyone who is angry at non-sexualized breast cancer ads, then all you're doing is knocking down a strawfeminist you set up.
Seriously what? Didn't say I couldn't come up with any, nor did I suggest it was not possible to do. What I said was that focusing on the woman OR focusing on the organs involved does the same thing, the sudden de-valuation of the woman and some sort of outrage about how the woman is either being classified by the disease or that the disease is classifying the woman's ability to be a "real" woman. As I said, I think it's a product of the sexualization of breasts.
Let's take a moment and reflect on what the cancer's affect on most women is:
-a loss of breast or significant breast tissue
How does this set up for a win situation? Lung cancers get in your ability to breathe. Other cancers can severely inhibit your ability to function and can have a debilitating affect on the body's ability to function normally. Breast cancer, if caught early and treated well, usually doesn't do this.
So, when bringing awareness, you have to focus on the effects it does have on the body -- those are mostly aesthetic (again, focusing on early treatment with self-exams and mammograms).
As I said, it sets up to be damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If the commercials were focused on bringing the education about exams and other things for people who may not have access to that, then sure you can escape it. But, these commercials don't have that demographic in mind. They're trying to remind body conscious women that they're boobs are at stake in breast cancer and feeding into body paranoia.
Also, just because you don't understand where I'm coming from does not mean you have to start with "seriously?" because I've proven myself here long enough to be able to explain myself and not be mocked like a troll. kthx.
You're right. I should not have started with "seriously?" I apologize for that.
You did say "I don't think there's a way to win since breasts are such a sexualized part of the body." That not only implies that there's no way to do an ad campaign that's not sexualized, it flat-out says it. As does this post I'm currently replying to. You keep saying that the only effect is aesthetic, that it simply isn't as serious as other cancers (if it's caught early, but that's true of most cancers). You are framing it as something that can only be sexualized, because you're framing it as something that only effects a woman's physical appearance. That's simply not true.
All cancer has effects apart from aesthetic ones, breast cancer included. I'm kind of surprised that you think its main effect is loss of a breast. Breast cancer hurts. It can cause fevers and chills. It can kill you. That's how you win - by focusing on the pain a woman will experience if it's not caught early. The fact that she might die. It's very simple to get out of the lose-lose situation - you don't assume that breast cancer is only a visual problem, and you don't assume that women won't care unless it effects their external beauty.
You technically have no proof that we would have been up in arms about "woman saver" or "save the women."
I think an awesome phrase is "stop cancer from killing people." Jack Black could have said "the cancer stopper." He could have said "if she needs a mastectomy, let her know you're behind her 100%." He did not. He said "I call it the boob saver." And this ad said "You know you like them." As opposed to, y'know, "Cancer sucks and she could die from it."
"I don't think there's a way to win since breasts are such a sexualized part of the body."
But why does the focus have to be so entirely on the breasts, anyhow? We know about pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, bladder cancer, skin cancer, colon cancer and so on. While we do use terms to discuss where the cancer originates and the impact tumors in those organs can have on our body, the primary focus is not on those body parts but on the fact that the person behind the parts may get very sick and/or die.
But you are right that we can't overlook the significant difference between those other organs and breasts in our culture. Breasts are fun! Breasts are sexy! Breasts are interesting! Maybe breast cancer research does get more attention because it's easier to detach it from the painful treatment and mortality. When we think of other cancers we think of hospital rooms, procedures, and funerals. When we think of breast cancer there is a lot more thoughts of cutesy pink teddy bears and pink yogurt and races for the cure with smiling survivors decked out in pink and pink, sparkly, adorable, cute, pink. In a lot of ways, I think these offensive ads are used as a bit of a crutch to avoid the shitty reality of illness and the effect it has on real people.
So this ad makes me think of someone dying from breast cancer, and she's lying in her coffin, and someone says, "Wow. Sad that she died, but at least she's got great cans."
Seriously - it's making boobs more important than lives.
No, it's just that humor can be an effective way to discuss a touchy subject, like British comedian Bob Monkhouse did when he was dying of prostate cancer:
YouTube
Interview
Okay, I liked that they used a woman who isn't all taut with plastic balloons, she's flesh and blood.
But, why just the boobies? Plenty of women don't care if they lose their breasts or hair, it's their lives that count.
But, it could persuade horn-dogs to put down the airbrushed girlie mags and actually help flesh-and-blood women save their health.
The ad is about breast cancer, so naturally it would focus on "boobies". Testicular cancer would focus on the "ghoulies".
What many comments in this thread reveal is a narrow view of what should or should not be in a PSA. Now most educated women know from school or from their doctors that breast exams and screening are necessary to catch any cancers before they get out of hand, just as educated men are told to get prostate exams. However, not everyone is educated. Some people don't know how important it is to catch cancers before they spread. They are either ill-informed, ignorant or just plain stupid.
Ads like this are for them. Some people simply don't get the point unless they are practically beaten over the head with it:
If you don't get screened on a regular basis, you have almost zero chance of surviving breast cancer!
I think cancer is more important than whether some women are offended by a bunch of dudes looking at a girl in a bikini and thinking "LOOK AT THOSE GAZONGAS!". If this ad convinces people to get screened for a fatal illness and saves lives, it was worth offending people who are hung up on the long-discredited Gaze Theory. I have the same opinion about fundies who get upset over the mention of condoms and sex ed: If it saves lives, then whether you take offense is irrelevant.
But why is the only way they can get the message out to show guys staring at a woman in a bikini thinking "LOOK AT THOSE GOZONGAS!"? Why can't they have educational ads without offending people?
Because the people they are trying to reach aren't very bright. Remember when the swine flu warnings came out? The government had to tell people to wash their hands because a large number of people are stupid and might not do it otherwise. The fact that you, me and probably most people reading this site are smart enough to know to wash their hands isn't the issue. The issue is getting dumb people to do something that might save their lives. One way to do it it is with fear: Do this or you may DIE!
However, there have been so many ads playing on pure fear (drugs, swine flu, AIDS, terrorism) that adding one more would be futile. The people who made this PSA went in the opposite direction: humor and sex appeal. Now I have a general dislike for any ad campaign that plays on base fears, insecurities and desires -especially if it's to sell something- but in matters of life and death I think it's warranted. If appealing to knuckle-dragging fratboys and the women who seek their company with a "HEY LOOK AT THESE TITTIES!" ad is what it takes to save the lives of some really stupid people, I think it's worth it.
Or would you prefer that they NOT be warned, then don't get screened, and then die of cancer because you object to a commercial where a starlet shows her boobs?
My two choices are 1. Objectify women or 2. Let women die of cancer?
First off, I doubt this ad is reaching women. As a straight woman, if I had seen this ad on television I would've assumed it was an ad for some crappy reality show, or for Axe body spray. I honestly would've changed the channel before realizing it was about breast cancer. I don't think I'm alone in this.
Second of all, these types of ad are really quite new. The old, non-sexualized ads were responsible for a huge jump in women getting screened for breast cancer. History has shown us that ads that don't look like they're out of Maxim work.
This ad and others like it are the result of input from younger viewers who tend to ignore the more traditional ads:
ABC News
The video you linked to did not say that. The woman who's behind them said that hopefully these ads will make young women pay attention. It said that young people said PSAs need to be more shocking, and then pointed to a hyper-violent one as an example. No one said young people asked for the ad linked to in the original post.
A distinction without a difference.
There is a big difference. You said that this ad was the result of input from young viewers. It's not. All the video says is that young people want PSAs to be shocking, which can include sex, violence, startling humor, etc. Anything shocking. Young people did not say they wanted THIS ad, with the sexism and the reduction of women to parts. The ad people could've listened to young people by making an ad that was super-gross, or had violence in it, or was sexy but not sexist, or had shocking humor like the men growing breasts ads.
I guess you missed this part:
"The spots are definitely not for everyone," she says. "Young people are picking up pamphlets with a 65-year-old woman on the cover and probably tossing them out. We're really about creating a bold way of communicating the message in a fun way that's going to stop them in their tracks. We're hoping that they get the take-away message that is to be breast aware."
I didn't miss that part. Young people are throwing out pamphlets with 65 year old women on the front. That's not the same as demanding this specific ad. I didn't say the ad people have to only make ads with 65 year old women on the front, I just said there are other ways to make shocking PSAs (which is all the young people want) without sexism.
You start from the assumption that the ad is sexist. Two questions:
1) What is sexist about this ad? Be specific.
2) How would you create an ad that gets the point across about breast exams AND does so without being "sexist"?
1. You've already acknowledged that it's sexist (frat boys thinking "LOOK AT THOSE GAZONGAS!!!") but said that it's necessary to save lives. I disagree that it's necessary. That is what this conversation is about. If you genuinely do not see the sexism, try reading the article you're responding to. There are handy links at the top to previous articles that go more in-depth.
2. Please don't bait me with this crap. I do not make ads for a living. I am not going to sit here and write you a tiny screenplay for my proposed ad. If you really want that, send me a check for the going rate of an advertising executive.
Nice attempt at changing the subject because you can't come up with a response to my actual argument, by the way. The sexism in the ad was mutually agreed upon until, you know, I called you on misrepresenting the video.
3. Are you saying that this is the only possible ad to reach young people? Are you saying that there is no other ad, in the entire world, that would encourage young women to get breast cancer screening?
3. Are you saying that this is the only possible ad to reach young people? Are you saying that there is no other ad, in the entire world, that would encourage young women to get breast cancer screening?
I don't know if it will work or not. Younger people (teens/early 20s) tend to ignore PSAs, and not just the ones about cancer, since so many young people think they're indestructible. Will this add, with its bouncing boobs make a difference or will it be ignored (or worse yet, the subject of ridicule like this ad) ? I have no idea, but I think it's worth a try.
I didn't misrepresent anything. You're just try to split hairs.
So you don't know if this ad will work or not. What happened to "You being offended by this ad and wanting it changed will kill women because this ad is the one thing that will get them to the doctor"?
It's not splitting hairs. I said they could make a different PSA that was shocking but not sexist. You said no, they can't, young people wanting this ad specifically. According to the video, I am correct - anything shocking will do. According to your claim about the video, young people were clamoring for this specific ad. How is that splitting hairs?
Wait, I hate to say this, since I know it's a bit of a 90-degree turn in conversation, but this question just dawned on me...
"Why do we want to save the stupid from themselves?" It seems a bit counterproductive to the progress of the human race.
Please note, I don't mean this question as to say that I somehow have the means to determine whether a person is stupid or not, nor do I mean that any determination could be made on the basis of race, gender, age, orientation, country of origin, or economic status. Nor do I intend this argument as any sort of attack or troll -- it's an honest, genuine question intended to seed a rational discussion.
Intelligent people who simply lack information or education usually take it with whole hands, open hearts, and rational minds (within a culture, that is -- so I'm excepting difficulty in imparting scientific knowledge across cultures to developing countries here). But why should anyone be wasting resources trying to convince idiots who don't want the information to begin with? Isn't there a higher chance of getting the message wrong on these supposed knuckle-draggers than there is of imparting useful knowledge?
Sexism... let's see. I’ll concentrate on the alleged sexism, and leave the cancer topic out of it (for the time being).
We'll call this "Defending female objectification: A man’s perspective".
What guides human behavior? If you already know the answer (“it’s all in our genes” or “the male-dominated society tells you how to behave”) then go ahead an claim a prize somewhere. I do not presume to have the answer, and therefore must look at what I know and then take it from there, as I’m still struggling to find an explanation. I certainly couldn’t make such grand statements.
In my opinion, vilifying the male gaze is not going to help.
Why not?
The female body possesses many, many more sexual characteristics than the male body. This is (pleasantly) obvious, but somehow this biological reality became a sensitive topic at some point. One could argue -in a “gotcha” sort of way- that different cultures sexualize different body parts, and some (such as breasts) are sometimes not sexualized at all. Well, some men sexualize women’s feet. Some women sexualize men’s hands. And perhaps we couldn’t make a comprehensive catalog of sexual preferences. We (and from now on I’ll be West-centric) have had several ideals of female beauty. Some early paintings of rather plump women come to mind, but today that doesn’t symbolize a higher social position anymore. We can readily observe that there’s a link between obesity in women and social class. But I digress.
There are female characteristics that reflect the body’s reproductive function, e.g. broader hips that accentuate the waist, and also have the effect of bringing the knees closer together, or the thousands of calories stored in the buttocks area, used to sustain a pregnancy. As far as breasts are concerned, it was believed in earlier times that the men’s interest in them was infantile (Freud, anyone?) as they were reminding them of their mother. Actually, most of the breast is fat, and young women get them around the time when they become sexually mature, suggesting that they may be a signal to the opposite sex. Otherwise, women would only develop breasts while feeding their young, as is the case with several primates. These sexual characteristics result in a body shape that’s very different from our male physique.
What this strongly suggests is that the female body, and specifically the female body with its sexual attractiveness, is not a social construct. There are physical qualities about us that women like, and while they may be distinctively male characteristics, they’re not necessarily sexual (although they may be sexualized by women; for example, our broader shoulders).
Research in Anthropology and Evolutionary Psychology (for example, the work of David Buss) suggests that sexual attraction runs deeper than cultural trends (fashionable ideals of beauty).
I don’t know whether anyone is in a position to make a grand, comprehensive statement about human behavior yet, but the idea that our actions are completely independent of our nature seems increasingly implausible to me. Blaming our behavior on media images seems to be a cop-out. Jean Kilbourne is right when she mentions how women are objectified in advertising, however she also recognizes that a physically attractive woman is wielding a lot of power. An oversimplification? Perhaps. A demonstrable reality? You bet.
Instead of censoring the male desire for the female form, we might encourage women to sexualize men more. Women have been oppressed by social norms for many centuries, and the idea of an educated, independent woman is relatively new. Men have had to follow codes of “acceptable behavior” as well, but women have been consistently more stigmatized when they deviated from “good” behavior. We haven’t seen many women -compared to men- expressing their sexual desires. The stereotypes about emotional dependency, love and commitment (read: marriage) are still the order of the day in many public discussions (sex education comes to mind).
Perhaps the long-term solution is for women to be more aggressive and more assertive about their sexuality, instead of vilifying the male desire (the objectifying male gaze, and so on). Sure, a sexually powerful woman might be seen as a threat by many, but there are also men (e.g. yours truly) who welcome a more aggressive sexual behavior. That might be the path to a more sexually balanced society.
Um, no offense, but how can you leave the cancer out of the critique of a breast cancer campaign?
Your premise seems based on the idea that all people want sex all the time. What do you suggest to women who aren't feeling sexual at a given moment? Behaving more aggressively doesn't help.
Thanks for that mansplanation. I was wondering when evolutionary psych would enter the picture.
No kidding. Every time someone tries to pull out evolutionary sociology or psychology in a debate over sexism (or racism or sexual orientation) I groan.
This is not a categorical truth. It is a commom male belief.
There was a scientific article recently published which showed that the female form has changed dramatically over the course of many, many millennia, while the male form has changed comparably far less so. The article suggested that this seems to indicate that men have been selecting for certain physical characteristics of females, while women have selected for other traits. (I can't find the link to the original research, but here's a news article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6727710.ece)
However, what the article left out was the fact that most birth control methods used by women have been around for less than a century, allowing little statistical "selection" at all from women given they way they've been effectively bought, sold, raped, and otherwise bred like animals so prevalently throughout human history. Obviously, this would happen to "ugly" ones less so, just like breeding "showdogs". And please don't forget that respectable men who "would never do such a thing" have remained the minority *because* of this lack of selection on the part of women. Throwing those tidbets of human history into the mix seems to point to a possibility that *men* have selected for male traits as well as for female traits!
It's really unfortunate that the worst tyrants and most prevalent rapists of human history have spawned the most children, but it wasn't any woman's choice, nor most men's choice for this to be so. (I'm a *traceable* n-th generation descendant of a bastard son of Henry VIII, and probably *untraceably* Alexander the Conquerer and Attila the Hun too... aren't you? Are you sure?)
Just thought you'd like that perspective to chew on...
The only other point I really want to respond to in your post is the assertion that pubescent growth of breasts, rather than maternal or pre-maternal growth of breasts is somehow different than with other species. It isn't. It's true that much breast matter may be fat, but fat alone doesn't make them the breasts you see; mammary glads grow during puberty, and on relatively thin women, the breast size is rather proportional to the mammary gland size: usually small. On women who carry more fat across their bodies, the mammary may still be small, though the breast appears bigger due to the overall larger fat percentage. Only during lactation do the breasts really swell up, and only when the need to nurse young arises does this lactative swelling actually happen -- exactly as in other mammals.
Uh huh... female bodies are inherently more sexual, or show more outward signs of sexuality than male ones? This comment just shows how the heterosexual male gaze has come to be thought of as the normal, objective, 'scientific' viewpoint. Maybe female bodies look more sexual TO YOU, but to me, nothing says 'sex' like broad shoulders, slim waist and, oh, a PENIS. But does that mean that I believe everyone with these physical characteristics is constantly sexually available to me, that they are put there for me, and that it is my inalienable right to gawp at them at the expense of their own feelings?
What we find attractive is subjective, and in case you hadn't noticed, it varies quite a lot from person to person. (Ever heard of gay men? Or are they just a anomalous blip on your ev-psych radar?)
The thing is, straight males have been running the show for so long that women's bodies (or rather, whatever type of women's bodies are currently in fashion) have become equated with sex, so that women are reduced to the sum of their sexual parts even in adverts that are meant to be raising awareness about a serious illness.
Feminists are not trying to 'censor male desire for the female form', we just want women to be acknowledged to be actual human beings JUST OCCASIONALLY. The fact that you can't see the difference displays some serious privilege.
That was in reply to Dead Cathedral, btw. And sorry for rambliness.
Don't apologize, commonrosie. You just saved me a lot of typing :)
Don't apologize, commonrosie. You just saved me a lot of typing. I was about to say exactly that, but less eloquently :)
Great reply!
Thanks, commonrosie. My rage has been quelled thanks to you.
The next time someone tells me a woman's body is "more" sexual than a man's body due to "science" or "evolution," I'm going to explain to them that I see breasts as ugly fat and all men as desirable, walking penises. (Not true, but just to try and drive the subjective objectification idea home.)
And for anyone who denies that the Male Gaze is tremendously pervasive in our Western media, I point to Japan and yaoi (slightly NSFW), which is drenched in the Female Gaze. Sometimes seeing a world were men are nothing but pretty, sexualized playthings to the voyeuristic female audience makes non-believers realize that our mainstream media has a DISTINCTIVE MALE HETEROSEXUAL SLANT, and that females are not the universal sign for "sex." Sigh.
"Sometimes seeing a world were men are nothing but pretty, sexualized playthings to the voyeuristic female audience makes non-believers realize that our mainstream media has a DISTINCTIVE MALE HETEROSEXUAL SLANT[...]"
I am already advocating in my first post for women to sexualize men more, in order to have more balance in our society. Perhaps this was too ambiguous?
“Instead of censoring the male desire for the female form, we might encourage women to sexualize men more […] Perhaps the long-term solution is for women to be more aggressive and more assertive about their sexuality [...] a sexually powerful woman might be seen as a threat by many, but there are also men (e.g. yours truly) who welcome a more aggressive sexual behavior. That might be the path to a more sexually balanced society.”
“Instead of censoring the male desire for the female form, we might encourage women to sexualize men more […] Perhaps the long-term solution is for women to be more aggressive and more assertive about their sexuality [...] a sexually powerful woman might be seen as a threat by many, but there are also men (e.g. yours truly) who welcome a more aggressive sexual behavior. That might be the path to a more sexually balanced society.”
I'm not sure I agree with you, although I know where you're coming from - you want to level the "hypersexualized" playing field, right? The problem is, women further sexualizing the male form in media would mean women would need to have power in media. And they rarely do - especially those who play by feminist rules. Part of the reason women aren't in power positions is BECAUSE our media is constantly objectifying women, dehumanizing women, not taking them seriously, etc. So if we want women to start carving our their sexuality in mainstream media more, we first need to teach society that they're human beings who deserve rights, respect, and their own sexuality.
Also, keep in mind - I think most people on this forum aren't against women being shown as sexual creatures, even VERY sexual creatures, but there's a big difference between showing a woman with a face engaging in consensual intimacy with someone and a camera staying firmly focused on breasts and crotch. Reducing a woman to her parts is dehumanizing, and that was part of the problem with this PSA. ("Save the breasts, in case you don't care about the human beings they're attached to.")
So if the camera included her face in all the shots the ad would have been OK?
Faces display thoughts, emotions, communication... a BRAIN! Breasts and crotches do not. So yeah, that would have been a start, since you would have had some communication *from* the woman being gawked at.
I see where you're coming from, but isn't your description of Yaoi pretty problematic? Yes, it's intended readership is predominantly female, but there's strong indications that the seme is standing in for the female, which complicates issues of male/female gaze.
The argument might hold for the less explicit boy's love subgenre, but yaoi is too often following the "Angular, hyper-masculine (often rapist) figure giving it to hyper-feminized (according to stereotype) girly-boy character" for me to buy it as effective female gaze on male object.
I see where you're coming from, but isn't your description of Yaoi pretty problematic? Yes, it's intended readership is predominantly female, but there's strong indications that the uke is standing in for the female, which complicates issues of male/female gaze.
The argument might hold for the less explicit boy's love subgenre, but yaoi is too often following the "Angular, hyper-masculine (often rapist) figure giving it to hyper-feminized (according to stereotype) girly-boy character" for me to buy it as effective female gaze on male object.
“Maybe female bodies look more sexual TO YOU, but to me, nothing says 'sex' like broad shoulders […]”.
Please, do better than that (i.e. I need more than your opinion).
Those female characteristics that I mentioned (hips, buttocks, breasts) are related to the sexual and reproductive functions of the female body (give me scientific evidence that I’m wrong). Also, explain to me how shoulders are related to the male reproductive function (a smart aleck might make an off-color remark about sexual positions :)). As I wrote in my first post, different body parts can be sexualized even if they don’t have a sexual function (shoulders, feet, hands).
I’m analyzing the idea that the female sexual attractiveness is a social construct.
I wouldn't argue that female sexual attractiveness is a social construct - some people are going to be attracted to some women, duh. But I do take issue with the idea that its as simple as "Men like boobies because of the need to procreate". I think sexuality is more complex than that. It is not always just to do with procreation.
What I do believe is that there certainly are messages conveyed through the media and our long standing tradition of patriarchy that it is a man's right to look at/ have access to female bodies any time he wants, and be damned if it makes the woman uncomfortable. THAT is the part that is almost undeniably socially constructed. We cannot ignore that these messages from the media etc exist, and so to brush commercials like this off as natural and encoded in our DNA seems short sighted.
Moreover these arguments focussing on biology miss the point as to why things like this commercial upset people. It is this message that women are only, or primarily, valuable because of their pretty breasts that is getting peoples' backs up. I don't care if men, or anyone else like to look at breasts, but don't act like it's your right to stare overtly (I believe there is a difference between this and subtle looking, btw) or act like I'm meant to be flattered by this staring, and don't act like boobs are all I have to offer. I guess I took issue with your argument because, whether its true or not that liking boobs is genetically ingrained into men, it still doesn't justify treating women like objects, which is what this commercial does.
Er.. weren't YOU the one who brought up Ev Psych? Broad shoulders along with a strong jaw, and thick hair for example are testosterone indicators in men (you know- which makes the little cavewomen in us weak with sexual desire- clearly that man is "sexually mature", to re-use your "scientific" wording)
These are male sexual indicators but how often do we see men in the media reduced to the one part? It would seem ridiculous to see a male face cut off below the eyes, or at the neck. Because it IS ridiculous, and we should not have to accept women cut off at the neck or at the waist as normal! Especially in a CANCER PREVENTION PSA!
I differentiated in my first post between simply male characteristics, and characteristics that are linked to sexual and reproductive functions. Female hips, buttocks and breasts fit into the latter category.
The physical differences between males and females (e.g. men’s eyes tend to be better protected by more bone, or how fat is stored differently, etc.) are certainly interesting for a debate on evolution, however that was not my intention.
“I wouldn't argue that female sexual attractiveness is a social construct […]”
Sorry if I wasn’t clear about this: “I’m analyzing the idea that the female sexual attractiveness is a social construct.” Analyzing -as in “deconstructing”. So far, the (relatively scant) evidence suggests that the female sexual attractiveness is grounded deeper than society.
“But I do take issue with the idea that its as simple as "Men like boobies because of the need to procreate". I think sexuality is more complex than that. It is not always just to do with procreation.”
Well, we’re certainly entitled to opinions. The religious viewpoint is that the purpose of sex is procreation, and the urge was put there by a superior entity. I reject that, and apparently so do you. Then, there are the romanticized views about love, as something mysterious. As an analogy, at the time when the geocentric model was the accepted explanation for the movements of celestial bodies, a scientific explanation (Copernicus) that significantly reduced the Earth’s importance was not welcome. As science continues to accumulate knowledge of the human body, our behavior will gradually lose the mystique it once had as something that can’t be explained (to an extent, it already has. Several mental illnesses can be treated; this was not possible in the past). Think of what was medically possible in 1909; imagine what will be possible in 2109 (if you ever had a serious illness, you’ll be happy for your great-grandchildren). As we gain a deeper understanding of how the body works, even at a molecular level, there can be no other outcome but the unraveling of the body’s secrets, and life in general. As it is, we can already manufacture microorganisms (as Nikolai Ustinov could attest) although sometimes not necessarily for the betterment of mankind. At some point we’ll see more complex organisms (this brings the subject of morality, but that’s another topic). Increasingly, human behavior seems to be more about extrapolations of very basic living units, as perhaps we’re not the rational creatures we pride ourselves to be. Note that I’m not saying we are slaves to our basic urges of survival (obviously we’re not, since we’re capable of thoughts that are outside of any concrete existence) but that no one knows to which extent our behavior is dependent on our physiology, and there’s the distinct possibility that we may have idealized our human nature just a tad.
“What I do believe is that there certainly are messages conveyed through the media and our long standing tradition of patriarchy that it is a man's right to look at/ have access to female bodies any time he wants, and be damned if it makes the woman uncomfortable […] […] it is this message that women are only, or primarily, valuable because of their pretty breasts […]”
Here is our first point of agreement. As we don’t know exactly what constitutes a human being (personality, character attributes, concepts of spirituality) it is wrong to reduce a woman to her physical characteristics. Having said that, however…
“I guess I took issue with your argument because, whether its true or not that liking boobs is genetically ingrained into men, it still doesn't justify treating women like objects, which is what this commercial does.”
…a short commercial is perhaps not the best way to know a woman’s great personality. Let me tell you how I perceive this ad (again, concentrating on the objectification angle). I do not know this woman, and it is obvious that I have no idea what kind of person she is. She might be the next Stephen Hawking and that still wouldn’t come across in that commercial. Am I reducing her to an object by perceiving her sexual characteristics as such? Of course not. You seem to understand gazing almost as an act of aggression (correct me if I’m wrong), whereas I find myself admiring the physical attributes of this woman. This doesn’t take anything away from me taking her seriously as a person; I’m simply admiring her body, and I feel physically attracted to her.
Which makes sense :)
The purpose of sex is a basic question in several disciplines.
“I'm not sure I agree with you, although I know where you're coming from - you want to level the "hypersexualized" playing field, right?”
Yes.
“The problem is, women further sexualizing the male form in media would mean women would need to have power in media. And they rarely do […]”
That’s changing as we speak. Young women outnumber guys at many universities. We still have many Men’s Clubs, but think of the women making inroads, for example, in cinema. It’s still a long way, but how many women were directing (let alone directing high-profile movies) in the father-knows-best 1950s?
“[…] there's a big difference between showing a woman with a face engaging in consensual intimacy with someone and a camera staying firmly focused on breasts and crotch.”
Yes, there’s a difference. However, a look at a woman does not have to signify aggression or dehumanization. I enjoy the female form, and women enjoy the male form. As more women have a presence in the media, we can expect the female gaze to make its mark as well (this is already noticeable in European ads for the fashion industry, with men posing almost or completely naked). As I already indicated in my first post, we’re dealing with a rather new phenomenon here, that of independent and educated women with purchasing power. We can’t just erase centuries of oppression in the blink of an eye.
Were you just looking for an excuse to pontificate on male sexuality? Because what this ad, and apparently you, seem to be saying is that men cannot and will not care about breast cancer unless they are reminded that breasts give them boners. And even then, it's not the breast cancer or women dying they care about; creating and sustaining boners is all that matters. Am I correct? Even if that is the case (sadly, it may be...), I cannot imagine that a porny advert will inspire any man to open his wallet for the cause.
It’s not what I’m saying. I’m simply looking at the ad from the objectification angle, and the way it presents the female form.
"Increasingly, human behavior seems to be more about extrapolations of very basic living units, as perhaps we’re not the rational creatures we pride ourselves to be. Note that I’m not saying we are slaves to our basic urges of survival (obviously we’re not, since we’re capable of thoughts that are outside of any concrete existence) but that no one knows to which extent our behavior is dependent on our physiology, and there’s the distinct possibility that we may have idealized our human nature just a tad."
This is beautifully said - you have elevated the level of discussion around here. This is a very difficult thing for many of us to admit, especially for those of us attempting to change the behavior of men and women in our society. But - I suspect you are right about this.
"You seem to understand gazing almost as an act of aggression (correct me if I’m wrong), whereas I find myself admiring the physical attributes of this woman. This doesn’t take anything away from me taking her seriously as a person; I’m simply admiring her body, and I feel physically attracted to her."
I hear what you are saying - and I think women do this all the time as well. Why is it so hard for us women to admire the physical attributes of those we find attractive?
I think it's easy for people here to take offense to this because there are those in our culture, mainly men, who engage in this activity with obvious aggression (like the guy who screamed "give me that punani!" to me in the middle of the street). These are the guys we remember and would like to forget.
But I think the vast majority of men and women admire the attractive qualities of others the way you describe.
I'm sorry people here are treating you like a troll. Thanks for putting your eloquent thoughts out there, even if they run contrary to what most think on this site.
Typo alert! What I meant was:
"Why is it so hard for us women to admit that we admire the physical attributes of those we find attractive?"
“I think it's easy for people here to take offense to this because there are those in our culture, mainly men, who engage in this activity with obvious aggression (like the guy who screamed "give me that punani!" to me in the middle of the street). These are the guys we remember and would like to forget.”
There’s no excuse for that behavior, however we can observe a general increase of vulgarity around us. A more aggressive, assertive attitude (not only sexually) might put women on a more offensive position.
There is a long history of women being told to “know their place” and “behave properly”. Taking that into consideration, it’s no wonder that women have a problem expressing their desires (for example, publicly sexualizing men).
"Our reactions to aggression depend on learning. In the normal course of growing up, girls learn to respond to their aggression not with a sense of being purified and calmed but with a sense of shame. Aggression feels good to men but not to women." (Campbell 1993, P. 8).
“By largely ignoring the subject of female aggression, television manages to reinforce the silence that surrounds it and effectively signals that the topic is so deviant that it cannot even be discussed. The invisibility of female aggression extends well beyond children’s television. History and politics are the stories of male power and violence. Women are distinctly absent from the main action and may instead be found sewing flags, knitting before the guillotine, or sending Christmas packages to the troops." (Campbell 1993, P. 37).
She wrote that 16 years ago, but it’s still food for thought.
-Campbell, Anne. Out of Control. Men, Women and Aggression. Harper Collins. London, 1993.
This is my experience:
In the media there are 3 kinds of cancer:
American: American Cancer Society.
Lung: Give up smoking.
Breast: Breast cancer.
You can add a few more if you like but these three are easily in the top 5.
We all know there are a million types of cancer. But these are some of the biggies.
The purpose of the ad campaign is to get people who normally don't think about it to think about it. It's sexist but it's working. It's got y'all talking about it.
I'll ask a question (or two) that I do not know the answer for:
Do more women die from breast cancer than other types of cancer?
Why is there a huge push for breast cancer fund raisers verses others? Did men start this? Or did women?
Why are there so many support groups for breast cancer compared to other kinds of cancer?
When is the last time you had someone collecting money for the testicular cancer run for charity. Yes, there are actual such runs.
Gary
http://GarySaid.com/
PS - I didn't particularly like the ad.
This ad has got us talking about the ad. The purpose of the ad is to get people to either donate money to breast cancer causes or to encourage women to get screened more often. We don't know if the ad is having either effect, all we know is that it's sexist.
(btw - I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, I just don't know the answers. I'd be interested to see what people say, though)
This ad made me very uncomfortable. Not only because I already have a complex about my small breasts, and this made me think "well, I guess no one would miss MY breasts if they were gone!" But it also sexualizes a serious illness. Cringe-worthy.
I swear if people start calling it "titty cancer," (which wouldn't surprise me) I think I'll scream.
It makes me wonder how guys would feel if prostate cancer became "cock cancer," and in the commercial for it, a man in a speedo walked around a pool while onlookers (men and women) oogled his package.. I feel like a lot of guys who would cringe at that would defend this ad..
LOL "Wear a pink ribbon to help prevent titty cancer today."
I'm sorry, but that made me laugh. =-)
What bothered me even more than this disgusting objectification of something so serious is that also had terrible stereotypes in it, such as the sailors...
The problem is that men would have no problem with such an ad and in fact many would encourage it. Men want to be objectified which is the reason it's so hard to make men understand these issues. Because they really honestly have no problem with being objectified (most at least) and (most) want to be objectified. You would never hear men complain about such an ad because they simply don't care about this stuff. That's what is infuriating. It's similar with sexual assault, rape, etc. Men think that they WANT to have these things happen to them, and thus they can't understand why women complain so much. It's a huge disconnect between the sexes that we still haven't figured out to bridge.
What's wrong with that? Doctors tell men to get screened for prostate cancer all the time on the grounds that not only is the cancer deadly, but there's also a good chance for impotence if it isn't fatal. Does that reduce men to their dicks?
Maybe they could do a similar ad with some guy wearing a nut-hugging speedo around the pool, followed by "SAVE THE BONERS!"
"SAVE THE BONERS!"
Heh, I wouldn’t have a problem with an ad like that. In fact, I’ve never had a problem when women have looked at my package. I wonder if we could ask the model in the ad how she felt during filming: “OMG I FELT, LIKE, TOTALLY USED AND HUMILIATED!!!”, but somehow I doubt it.
To paraphrase Jean Kilbourne, a physically attractive woman is wielding a lot of power. It doesn’t take long to figure that out.
What about unattractive women?
They wield less power, but that isn't the issue Dead is addressing.
He's pointing out that sexualization of an individual may empower, the same way name-branding empowers an otherwise fairly generic product.
It's an attention getter. Getting someone's attention is useful.
I don't think this is a valid argument because why does everyone have to be attractive? Not everyone is rich. Not everyone is smart. Not everyone is educated. Not eeveryone is white, etc. Everyone can't be everything, but why do they have to be? Different people have different talents and gifts, this should be celebrated, not changed into trying to make everyone the same.
There will always be imbalances in life from many different angles, it seems pointless to fight something that will never change.
“[…] why does everyone have to be attractive?”
Here’s the short version: There are very tangible advantages to being attractive. An example? Good-looking people get treated better at hospitals (if you don’t know what I’m talking about, I could find you the specific research). We could understand attractiveness as another survival strategy.
I'm sure you haven't felt humiliated when your package was gawked at... but does it happen to you everyday?
Do you think that there's a discussion about it behind closed doors after you go to a job interview?
Does the clerk at the grocery store gawk at your package?
Are strangers whistling at it as you walk by?
Do people refer to you as "Big Package"?
All in the same day?
Are you constantly finding ads with packages on the screen... much LARGER packages, inhumanly larger packages?
AFAIK, this kind of public presentation of men's parts is somehow considered "pornographic" or "obscence" in the western world, while the same presentation of women's parts is apparently dandy for everyone. I'm not advocating censorship, I'm just saying that the humiliation comes from a constant communication that these parts of a woman are her most important "assets" (yeah, you've heard that phrase), and the rest of her person is secondary.
To put it bluntly: would I care about those things? Nope. To the extent that those things have happened to me, I haven’t felt any discomfort. As for advertising: there can be some guy somewhere who has an inhumanly big package. So what? Good for him. I’m happy with mine :)
Why do you think that I’m advocating for females to be more assertive about their sexuality? So that I can feel victimized? Apart from obvious biological reasons, there are undeniable cultural reasons why females identify so strongly with their bodies. While there are males who are willing to go under the knife, I’m willing to bet that most of the plastic surgeon’s clients are female (breast implants, liposuction, etc.).
"[...] I'm just saying that the humiliation comes from a constant communication that these parts of a woman are her most important "assets" (yeah, you've heard that phrase), and the rest of her person is secondary."
True, but as I posted before, I do not agree with reducing someone (male or female) to his physical attributes.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=137235