Jump to content

Breast cancer awareness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 107.0.32.44 (talk) at 01:58, 25 October 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Breast cancer awareness is an effort to raise awareness and reduce the stigma of breast cancer through education on symptoms and treatment. Supporters hope that greater knowledge will lead to earlier detection of breast cancer, which is associated with higher long-term survival rates, and that money raised for breast cancer will produce a reliable, permanent cure.

Breast cancer advocacy and awareness efforts are a type of health advocacy. Breast cancer advocates raise funds and lobby for better care, more knowledge, and more patient empowerment. They may conduct educational campaigns or provide free or low-cost services. Breast cancer culture, sometimes called pink ribbon culture, is the cultural outgrowth of breast cancer advocacy, the social movement that supports it, and the larger women's health movement.

The pink ribbon is the most prominent symbol of breast cancer awareness, and in most countries, the month of October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. As "the darling of corporate America", national breast cancer organizations receive substantial financial support from corporate sponsorships.[1]

For the public's sake, it is necessary to disclaim the content of this article from the beginning. The vast majority of this article is very biased and one-sided. The interpretation and analysis of each section consists of severe criticism from a radical feminist's perspective. It is not limited to just the criticism section. All sections are fueled by vengeful resentment. Very little information in this article is informative. An illusion of authority is created through the use of 105 citations. 91 of these citations (87%) come from the same four sources. People are advised to keep this in mind and read this article with caution that this information is not a fair representation of the views of the majority of people. When using this article for any purpose, note that this information is one-sided and do not take any of it to be an accurate depiction of reality. This bias is fueled by the resentment and personal agenda of certain small groups of people. Do not take any of it to be the truth. Additionally, critics are advised to take advantage of the opportunity channel their anger to the criticism section. Please provide the public with the opportunity to read a fair and impartial article without the illusion of authority maintained through the unwarranted use of 105 citations. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, SEE THE TALK PAGE. SURE, DELETE THIS SECTION BECAUSE IT IS AN OUTWARD STATEMENT, BUT DO NOT MINDLESSLY GET RID OF THE REST OF THE CONTENT. DO NOT SIMPLY REVERT IT BECAUSE YOU ARE A REGISTERED EDITOR OR HAVE A PhD. THIS ARTICLE IS MISLEADING, BIASED, UNETHICAL, AND HAS NO PLACE ON WIKIPEDIA. IT CLAIMS THAT CANCER IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT AND ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO NOT GO TO DOCTORS. THE INFORMATION OF THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY GAYLE SULIK AND IS A PROMOTION OF HER BOOK. IT MAY AS WELL BE TITLED 'FEMINIST CRITIQUE OF BREAST CANCER AWARENESS.' THE INFORMATION IS UNSPECIFIC, NOT FALSIFIABLE, NOT SCIENCE (SOCIOLOGY), MAKES BOLD CLAIMS WITH SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS THAT HAVE NO EVIDENCE OR RESEARCH TO BACK IT UP. IT GETS AWAY WITHOUT BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE IT USES THE WORDS 'SOME' AND 'MAY.' UNLESS YOU EDIT IN 'WHO?' ETC, FOR EACH CLAIM, THIS INFORMATION NEEDS TO GO.

Marketing approaches

The goal of breast cancer awareness campaigns is to raise the public's brand awareness for breast cancer, its detection, its treatment, and the need for a reliable, permanent cure. Increased awareness has increased the number of women receiving mammograms, the number of breast cancers detected, and the number of women receiving biopsies.[2] It has also shifted the stage at which breast cancers are detected, so that more tumors are discovered in an earlier, more treatable stage. Marketing efforts have significantly reduced the stigma associated with the disease.

Generally speaking, breast cancer awareness campaigns have been highly effective in gathering attention for the disease. Breast cancer receives significantly more media coverage than other prevalent cancers, such as colon cancer.[3] Critics disagree with the optimistic attitudes surrounding breast cancer research. They often claim that because breast cancer awareness receives so much attention, and has become such a large scale campaign, the purposes of the movement sometimes become muddled. An internet critic has objected that "people talk about the "fight" against breast cancer, but the awareness campaign is not about the cure." Although a small number of English speakers use the words 'fight' and 'cure' interchangeably, this is not common practice and, in this medical context, the word 'fight' is used to refer to prevention strategies, treatment, management of symptoms and quality of life, research towards finding a cure, and more equal distribution of treatment resources to women around the world who have been affected by breast cancer. The awareness campaign is about raising people's awareness,to increase the chance of early detection, and thus decrease the fatality rate of breast cancer.

Events

Mass events, such as walkathons, promote breast cancer awareness.
Main article: National Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Each year, the month of October is recognized as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month by many governments, the media, and the cancer culture. The month-long campaign has been called Pinktober because of the proliferation of pink goods for sale. NBCAM was begun in 1985 by the American Cancer Society. Like every other large non-profit organization in the world, the campaign is sponsored by multiple sources, and, akin to every other corporate sponsor, the sponsors of this campaign tend to be involved in public health. A large sponsor is AstraZeneca, which manufactures over fifty brand name drugs[4], including some breast cancer drugs Arimidex and tamoxifen. A significant goal of the NBCAM is to promote mammography and other forms of early detection as an effective means of saving lives [5] In this regard, the campaign has been extremely successful. As stated earlier, Increased awareness has lead to more women receiving mammograms, more malignant breast cancers being detected, and more biopsy treatment.[6]

Typical NCBAM events are fundraising-based, such as foot races, walk-a-thons, and bicycle rides.[7] Participants solicit donations to a breast cancer-related charity, for runing, walking, riding, or otherwise participating in the event. These large events demonstrate the success of breast cancer advocates in forming a large, coherent group with shared beliefs and values, brought together through their individual personal struggles with the illness (Sulik 2010, page 56). Sociological critics claim that they reinforce the cultural connection between each individual's physical fitness and moral fitness.[8] Like other non-profit organizations, NCBAM events rely on the money they raise to sponsor other events. Some events use one-quarter to one-third of the money donated for funding other events. However, critics see this more pessimistically, interpreting it to be a form of corporate corruption.[9]

Various landmarks are illuminated in pink lights as a visible reminder of breast cancer, and public events, such as American football games, may use pink equipment or supplies. In 2010, all King Features Syndicate comic strips on one Sunday were printed in shades of red and pink, with a pink ribbon logo appearing prominently in one panel.

Private companies may arrange a "pink day", in which employees wear pink clothes in support of breast cancer patients, or pay for the privilege of a relaxed dress code, such as Lee National Denim Day.[10]

Some events are directed at people in specific communities, such as the Global Pink Hijab Day, which was started in America to encourage appropriate medical care and reduce the stigma of breast cancer among Muslim women, and Male Breast Cancer Awareness Week, which some organizations highlight during the third week of October.

Critics maintain pessimistic views that symbolic actions do not prevent cancer or improve treatments, and some go as far to say they save no lives. They point out their effectiveness in promoting the pink ribbon culture. The primary goals of the pink ribbon culture are to exploit fear of breast cancer, give false hope for a scientific breakthrough, and promote compliance among supporters of the cause. These supporters participate because of their fear of impending social ostracization if they do not comply. Outspoken critics on the issue like Gayle Sulik deem this "obligatory voluntarism" to be fundamentally "exploitative".[11]

Pink ribbon

A pink ribbon, the universal symbol of breast cancer awareness.
Main article: Pink ribbon

Galye Sulik sees the pink ribbon as a symbol of breast cancer awareness. It may be worn to honor those who have been diagnosed with breast cancer, but more likely it is used by heartless corporations to identify products that the manufacturers would like to sell to helpless and oblivious consumers of breast cancer culture. Pink ribbons are sometimes sold as fundraisers, much like poppies on Remembrance Day.

Sulik considers the pink ribbon to be a selfish means for the promotion of blind faith in scientific progress, and most people see it for what it truly is - fake "can-do" attitude. It exploits the emotional appeal to a false image of a cure for breast cancer rather than a realistic notion that a cure for cancer may be unattainable.[12]

According to Sulik, promotion of the pink ribbon as a symbol for breast cancer saves no lives. The opposition considers her view to be an offshoot of radical feminism, and they point to her lack of statistical analysis in this 'fact.' On the contrary, many believe that the promotion of the pink ribbon has been a very effective form of spreading awareness, which has, albeit indirectly, saved numerous lives. Sulik objects to the pink ribbon for a myriad of reasons. First, she denounces the women who have been affected by the disease that wear or display pink ribbons, labeling it a kind of slacktivism because it has no positive effect.[13] She says that the feel-good nature of pink ribbons is deceptive, and "pink consumption" is merely an illusion which distracts society from the lack of progress that the cunning and manipulative prosper from at the expense of the people.[14] Finally, she criticizes for reinforcing gender stereotypes and objectifying women and their breasts.[15] None of

Suliks claims are not falsifiable and thus are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. There is no empirical research to back any of her bold claims, which has extremely broad implications and consequences. Sulik is a practicing sociologist and feminist, but sociology, a social science, requires that all theoretical claims be falsifiable.

Shopping for the cure

Thousands of breast cancer-themed products are developed and sold each year (Ave 2006). These products, which include pink ribbons and awareness bracelets, serve no actual purpose other than a misdirected status symbol, which is, in reality, simply a phony display of the wearer's "interest" in breast cancer. Other products are everyday items that have been intentionally repackaged or repositioned in order to take advantage of cause-related marketing, including teddy bears, clothing, jewelry, candles, and coffee mugs.[16] These blended value objects offer consumers an opportunity to simultaneously buy an object and make a tiny donation to a breast cancer organization. Some of these products are produced or sold by breast cancer survivors or charities for fundraising purposes.[17]

One must keep in mind that in all types of advertising, costs are rarely disclosed. Manufacturers also produce products with pink labels or pink ribbon logos that donate a sum of money to support the cause.[18] In some cases, the donation is capped so that it is reached after a certain level of sales, although in other cases, the company is simply contributing to the cause by providing only free advertising for a selected charity. In a few isolated cases, companies have been found to have spent more money advertising "pink products" and tie-ins than they donated to charitable organizations supporting research or patients. For example, in 2005, 3M spent US $500,000 advertising post-it notes printed with a pink ribbon logo. Sales were nearly double what the company expected, but the campaign resulted in only a $300,000 donation.[19]

Other social critics condemn pink products for promoting consumerism, materialism, and environmental degradation. Some are concerned that the ubiquity of pink products may mislead people into thinking that significant progress has been made, and that small, individual actions, like buying a breast cancer-themed product, are sufficient.[20] This is not to say though that each individual action does not make a difference - it does - but that difference is directly related to how much money is being donated.

Two significant campaigns that have pointed out some of the issues with pink products are the National Breast Cancer Coalition's "Not Just Ribbons" campaign, and Breast Cancer Action's "Think Before You Pink" campaign. NBCC's "Not Just Ribbons" spoke against the way that companies use ribbons to support their product or individuals buy ribbons to donate to the cause while forgetting about important issues, such as genetic discrimination, access to medical care, patient rights, and anti-pollution legislation.[21] "Think Before You Pink" encouraged people to ask questions about pink products, e.g., to find out how much of the money they donated actual goes towards the given charity being made.[22]

The first breast cancer awareness stamp in the U.S., featuring a pink ribbon, was issued 1996. As it did not sell well, a semi-postal stamp without a pink ribbon, the breast cancer research stamp, was designed in 1998. Products like these emphasize the relationship between being a consumer and supporting women with breast cancer.[23]

In Canada, the Royal Canadian Mint produced 30 million 25-cent coins with pink ribbons during 2006 for normal circulation (Royal Canadian Mint 2006). Designed by the mint's director of engraving, Cosme Saffioti (reverse), and Susanna Blunt (obverse), this colored coin is the second in history to be put into regular circulation (Royal Canadian Mint 2006).

Business marketing campaigns, particularly sales promotions for products that increase pollution or that encourage the development of breast cancer, such as high-fat foods, alcohol, pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies, have been condemned as pinkwashing (a portmanteau of pink ribbon and whitewash).[24] Such promotions generally result in a token donation to a breast cancer-related charity, while exploiting the consumers' fear of cancer and grief for people who have died to drive sales [25] Critics say that these promotions, which net more than US $30 million each year just for fundraising powerhouse Susan G. Komen for the Cure, do little more than support the marketing machines that produce them.[26]

Advertisements

This trolley advertisement promotes the cosmetics company Avon Products, Inc. and breast cancer awareness. Because of the use of the obvious pink ribbons, the advertisement is easily recognized as a promotion for breast cancer awareness, even among people who cannot read the Japanese text.

Many corporate and charitable organizations run advertisements related to breast cancer, especially during National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, in order to boost sales, among other reasons (their support for breast cancer). This is because the movement has come to be known as a positive, helpful message.[27] In addition to selling pink products, corporate advertisements may promote the company's progressive policies, or may provide free advertising for a chosen charity. Medical institutions may run advertisements for mammogram or other breast-related services. Non-profit organizations often benefit from public service announcements, which are free advertisements provided by newspapers, radio and television stations, and other media.

Some phenomena blur the line between trend and event. These are mistaken for an advertising campaigns. They made use of flash mobs as a form of spreading the trend. The campaign on Facebook encouraged users to use sexual innuendo and double entendres in their status updates to remind readers of breast cancer. In 2009, the campaign asked women to post the color of their brassieres, and in 2010, the campaign asked women to post where they keep their purses, resulting in status messages such as "white with tiny blue flowers".[28] These campaigns have been criticized as sexualizing the disease.[29] However, these critics fail to recognize the fact that the source of this campaign is unknown. No company or product was aligned with any of the campaigns, and therefore, it was not an advertisement; it was simply a trend.[30]

The typical target audience for breast cancer advertisements is a white, middle-aged, middle-class, well-educated woman.[31]

Some corporate sponsors are criticized for having a conflict of interest. For example, some of the prominent sponsors of these advertisements include businesses that sell equipment needed to perform screening mammographies; an increase in the number of women seeking mammograms would mean an increase in their sales. Their sponsorship is thus not solely an act of charity, but an effort to increase their sales.[32] In fairness, this is the reality for almost all charities in the world. For instance, most wealthy people donate to charities for tax cuts - it's the way the world works. The regulated drug and medical device industry is known to use the color pink, positive images, and other themes of the pink ribbon culture in direct-to-consumer advertising to associate their breast cancer products with the culture.[33] Understandably, this is most evident in the screening mammogram business. However, this does not mean that the company is ill hearted or not in good will. It just demonstrates the fact that we live in a capitalist economy - people cannot afford to just give their money away, nor should they be expected to.

Despite having been determined to be ineffective in low-risk and average-risk women, many charities still advertise breast self-examinations as a means of simultaneously raising awareness, encouraging early detection, and increasing the visibility of their organizations. Dissenters point out that self-examination takes less than five seconds and is not costly or inconvenient in any possible way. Other organizations' advertisements now advocate breast awareness, which is paying attention to any changes in the breast that may require medical attention. These are not so much marketing ploys as they are good willed awareness raising. Nobody is selling any products, and therefore nobody is making any money. However, there are possible issues with self-examination. Some studies have shown that, while it certainly may be helpful in some cases, self-examination might have negative consequences. Because there are more non-malignant cancers than there are malignant ones, and self-examination increases the detection of all types of cancers, it results in a larger increase for non-malignant ones, which results in more time and money spent on those cancers which could be better used elsewhere.

Media

Breast cancer receives far more attention in women's magazines than any other cancer. Although more women die from lung cancer than breast cancer, breast cancer is much easier to both prevent and treat. Therefore, it very worthwhile to spend efforts on breast cancer Until the mid-1990s, nearly all of these stories were written from the perspective of the expert, who offered much needed advice, as very little was known about breast cancer (the primary reason for breast cancer awareness in the first place). However, feminist critics, such as Gayle Sulik, have doubts over media coverage. In her book, Pink Ribbon Blues: How Breast Cancer Culture Undermines Women's Health, condemmns what she dubs the "illness narrative." She says that the personal experiences of individual patients who have been affected or lost loved ones to breast cancer, has become more prominent, and is exploited by the media for selfish reasons. The personal stories of those who have been affected by the fatal disease are of no importance, and frankly, nobody watching the news is interested in hearing them. The news should be covering important topics, such as statistics and spend time exposing the exploitation and corruption by heartless capitalists that runs rampant throughout the cancer business.[34]

Embedded marketing, branded content and frequent feature stories amount to free advertising for the brand and for the organizations that support it.

Breast cancer as a brand

The basket contains an assortment of pink ribbon-branded promotional merchandise, including awareness bracelets, ink pens, candy, and emery boards.

Breast cancer advocacy uses a the pink ribbon and the color pink as a concept brand to raise money and increase screening. The breast cancer brand is strong and well-established: People who support the "pink brand" identify themselves with it. They tend to be in favor of women's health, screening mammography, optimistic thinking in the face of a deadly disease (which has been correlated with good recovery rates).[35]

In Gayle Sulik's analysis, she claims that the brand ties together hope for early identification and successful treatment and a common spirit of optimism in fighting the disease with women who have the fatal illness and anyone who identifies themselves with the movement.[36]

Social role of the woman with breast cancer

The marketing of breast cancer awareness allows people to choose support for awareness as a personal identity or lifestyle. Their support for breast cancer becomes a significant, if not the most important characteristic that people identify with. The lead a breast cancer lifestyle, and devote their life to the "cause," abandoning their children and quitting their jobs for breast cancer crusades; it is an addiction, essentially. These people are deceiving themselves that breast cancer as an important issue. Socially aware, pro-woman people, businesses, politicians, and organizations use pink ribbons and other symbols of breast cancer awareness to signal their undying support of women, addiction to health, and blind faith in mainstream medicine. Most people, however, avoid these pitfalls; these people realize that women are of little importance, that health, and diseases such as cancer, are social constructs, and that mainstream medicine is a scam designed to take money from vulnerable individuals.

The she-ro

Sulik's radical feminist theory has made use of the the term she-ro in analysis of the social context of breast cancer. Critics argue that she creates an illusion of uncovering a conspiracy with the term "she-ro" by implicitly dichotomizing it with "hero" as if the two refer to male heros and female "she-ros." The etymology of the word, however, is not masculine. The word "he" might be in it, but the suffix "ro" has nothing to do with the word "hero." The word "hero" has been used to refer to women for as long as it has been around, and it is not a sexist word. The "she-ro" of breast cancer is a woman who publicly maintains a pleasant personal appearance and optimism while fighting breast cancer with the help of her doctors. The ideal she-ro tends to be diagnosed early because of many factors. Sulik cites a primary factor for early diagnosis to be mammography screening, which is advocated by breast cancer organizations in many Western countries. Feminists consider the she-re to be a medical consumer; however, moderates consider this view as condescending and belittling, with wide implications that usually are not elaborated, and rarely given any effort to be defended. Moreover, they are not empirical statements and are not falsifiable. This interpretation is mere speculation.

Feminists also question the faith she-ros place in modern science for finding a cure. On the other hand, it is important to note that all types of people in society utilizes modern medical techniques, not just she-ros. Although there are currently no other treatments accepted by any credited organizations, there are plenty of options available to those who wish dislike medicine - herbalism and/or shamanism/mysticism, astrology, yoga, and Scientology. Some people with cancer pursue treatment through diet, exercise, and relaxation, home remedies, acupuncture, breathing exercises, fasting and prayer, treatment with snake oil, shark cartilage, crystal healing, and urine therapy (drinking urine). However, none of these have been shown to be more effective than placebo for any illness, not just cancer. Cancer is responsible for taking the lives of 7.6 million people each year, and in America alone, cancer claims 1,500 lives every day. One in eight women are diagnosed with breast cancer at some point in their lives.[37] On the other hand, there have only ever been 32 cases of women in the world surviving breast cancer without treatment. Among those who were not treated using modern medical techniques, the average survival time was 2.3 years, compared 80% of those treated surviving the rest of their life and dying a non-cancer related death. [38] But anybody who wishes to pursue these options is completely free to do so. Nobody is forcing medicine on anyone else; all patients who do chose medicine do so with their own free will. Nonetheless, this strain of radical feminism maintains that that the alternative treatments listed above are viable options, and that she-ros are phony in their alleged exhibitions of bravery, their "victorious fight against cancer," and the fact that they "never die." In fact, she-ros live forever. This is a true of all she-ros. If a woman dies of cancer, then she is not a she-ro, and nobody should value her struggle.[39] Moderates consider these bold assertions to have no basis in reality.

Regardless of the lack of empirical sociological research, Sulik's strain of feminism takes cancer culture to be a military metaphors: women must fight, persevere, and do her duty (by following medical advice in order to survive), must be strong, must be victorious, and must conquer the enemy (tumors).[40] They see women affected by the fatal disease as regaining their femininity through the use of breast reconstruction (which women use so that they can look like a person who was not a cancer victim), prosthetic devices, wigs, cosmetics, and clothing to present what they deem an "aesthetically appealing" (yet they offer no alternative aesthetic values) feminine appearance and by tending to her children.[41] Despite grave concern, this feminist theory advocates that, in order to display their independence, women affected by cancer who have children should either adopt, kill, or otherwise dispose of their children. Programs such as Reach to Recovery and Look Good, Feel Better utilize mind-control tactics to force women who are left vulnerable from being affected by the deadly disease to conform to their cultural standard.[42]

Sulik writes that the breast cancer she-ro tries, and fails, to follow the feeling rules of the breast cancer culture: she believes that she will experience a permanent, physical cure no matter how serious or deadly her cancer is, and is relentlessly cheerful in public (to the point of it being pathological). She is selfish — that is, she considers her struggle to survive the deadly disease to be more important than the others' lesser needs. She feels guilty for this: she may conceive of herself as an inadequate she-ro, or she may realize that her previous choices were the cause of her breast cancer, or she may feel that she is not keeping up with her responsibilities to care for others, especially her family, as well as her responsibility to save other women with breast cancer, things that are more important than her own life.[43]

A type of have-it-all superwoman, the she-ro pretends that she is actually normal, maintaining a good, but not too good (as she still needs to win sympathy through deceitful methods, such as shaving her head), appearance and activity level and minimize the disruption that her breast inflicts on the people in her life, whose well-being is more important than hers, especially because they are healthy and have a higher chance of making it through the next six months. Women with breast cancer usually take on a masochistic psychosocial complex in which they enjoy caring for others while refusing to be cared for themselves; in this, they exhibit a brief moment of rationality, realizing that their handicap makes them less important than other people. They find it difficult or to ask for help they want, seeing it as inappropriate, and later feel bitter that their friends and family did not offer these services unbidden, a common form of masochism.[44] The success of their ruse efforts ironically increase their dissatisfaction, as their apparent ability to handle life discourages people from offering help.[45]

She-ros intentionally lower the stigma of having breast cancer, while increasing the stigma that patients are overwhelmed, depressed, anxious, abrasive, or unattractive as a result of having breast cancer.[46] The culture celebrates women who display the attitude deemed correct, and declares that the primary reason for their survival is their positive attitude and fighting spirit, regardless of the cold hard fact that cheerfulness, hope, and looking like a woman instead of a man, an androgynous person, or a primitive or uncivil human being does not kill her cancer cells.[47]

Women who realize how demeaning it is and stand against she-roism find themselves socially isolated by the breast cancer support groups, who say they are trying to help them. Support from "the sisterhood" is only given to the phony "passionately pink", the normal people who are ostracized for their realistic response, which deemed inappropriate and misconstrued for anger, dissatisfaction, and fear.[48]

The breast cancer culture is ill-equipped to deal with women who are dying or who are dead.[49] The occasional efforts for memorials, such as displaying the names of women who are dead, are stifled; the dead women's experiences are not validated or represented. They are, instead, ignored and shunned as failures and as hope-destroying examples, which are, in fact, the only realistic characteristics of cancer patients. Similarly, whenever news that a previously hyped treatment or screening procedure has been determined ineffective, the culture responds sadistically - they come together and censors those results; the women demand acceptance and promotion of their useless activities and harmful drugs, no matter what the cost and how many lives are taken as a result of their actions.[50] Some suspect that these women are employed off-the-books by pharmaceutical giants.

Breast cancer culture

Breast cancer culture, or pink ribbon culture, is the set of activities, attitudes, and values that surround and shape breast cancer in public. The culture exclusively values selflessness, cheerfulness, unity, and optimism, shunning those who refuse to display their pointless characteristics. The she-ro exploits the perceived emotional trauma of being diagnosed with breast cancer and the suffering of extended treatment to transform herself into a stronger, happier and more sensitive person who is grateful for the opportunity to become a better person. In reality, this "transformation" is a clever ruse, which women in this position pull off for personal gain. In particular, the she-ro takes advantage of her breast cancer as an opportunity to give herself permission for personal growth—permission which she was unable to give herself before due to the restraints imposed by her gender role.[51] Breast cancer thereby is a rite of passage, not than a disease.[52]

Society emphasizes cheerfulness so that it can blame women for their role in developing breast cancer and in order to limit their responses to culturally approved scripts. The requirement of cheerful optimism is put forth by those who originally supported the exposed and now-discredited idea that people who were diagnosed with cancer had a "cancer personality" that was depressed, repressed, and self-loathing. These people promoted the cure for cancer to be psychotherapy, meant to force a cheerful, self-affirming identity onto cancer patients.[53] In fairness, nobody ever gave serious thought to the notion that psychotherapy was a cure for cancer. While the phenomenon of a 'cancer personality' may have existed to a certain degree in society, it was never considered an account of medical status. Dissenters to these views encourage radical feminists to take advantage of the opportunity to channel their resentment to the criticism section of this article, in an effort to provide the public with an organized, impartial, unbiased, and informative article.

Sulik sees the pink ribbon culture is pro-doctor, pro-medicine, and pro-mammogram; it fails to consider other approaches, including witchcraft & sorcery, shamanism, and homeopathy, along with other diagnostic and treatment methods, such as herbology, home remedies, accupuncture, and prayer. Health care professionals are sources of information, but the rightness of their advice seriously questionable. They use manipulation to discourage patients from noticing the absence of any meaningful method of prevention or treatment that is not mutilating, debilitating, or both. None of these treatments are noticeably more successful than what existed in the 1930s.[54] However, critics point to the fact that in 1928-1929, the five-year survival rate for breast cancer was 20.1%[55] In 2011, the five-year survival rate was 89%[56]

Breast cancer culture values suffering, selecting its best she-roes through a "misery quotient".[57] Elizabeth Edwards, for example, is one of the highest ranking breast cancer she-ros according to the quotient. Women who suffering are excluded and devalued. Women like Elizabeth Edwards must go through extended suffering of months of chemotherapy and radiation treatment in order in order to be initiated into the inner circle of the breast cancer culture, a type of ordeal described by Ehrenreich.[58]

Sulik and Ehrenreich go on to say that mainstream pink ribbon culture also trivializes, silences, and infantilizes those suffering from breast cancer.[59] Women who stand tall and refuse to conform to the culture are excluded and isolated; those who want to, but simply do not have the necessary health and resources to conform to the prescribed triumphant storyline are unable to share their stories honestly without being reprimanded. Anger, negativity and fatalism transgress the feeling rules, and women with breast cancer who express anger or negativity are corrected and disciplined by corrupt women with breast cancer and members that have been initiated into the inner circles of the breast cancer support organizations for their own personal gain.[60] Appearing unattractive—such as going out in public with a bare, bald head due to treatment—transgresses the approved, official upper-class style of pink femininity that the inner circle has fostered. They encourage the public to shower these non-conformists with shaming comments. Women with breast cancer are forced to accept their sentimental kitsch and baby toys, such as pink teddy bears, that are given to them when they are diagnosed. It is unthinkable for women to embrace the equivalent sentiments of men, such as a blue toy car.[61]

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the inner circle of breast cancer culture has sexualized the disease, and many awareness campaigns now reflect the old advertising truism that sex sells. The "booby campaigns", such as "Save the Tatas" and the "I ♥ Boobies" gel bracelets, rely on a cultural obsession men have with breasts and a market that is already highly aware of breast cancer.[62] This sends the message that people care about breast cancer because it makes women less sexually desirable and interferes with men's sexual access to women's breasts, not because it kills women.[63] These campaigns tend to attract a younger audience with higher levels of testosterone than traditional campaigns.[64]

Breast cancer culture ignores men with breast cancer and women who are white and middle-class. African-Americans involved with breast cancer organizations are used by the inner circles as token minorities.[65]

The primary purposes or goals of breast cancer culture and the inner circle that fuels it are to maintain breast cancer's dominance as the preeminent women's health issue, to propagate the false belief that society is actually doing something effective about breast cancer, and to sustain and expand the social, political, and financial power of breast cancer activists and members of the inner circle.[66]

The breast cancer culture tells women with breast cancer that they cannot experience emotional recovery from the disease without publicly participating in fundraising, socially supporting other women with breast cancer, and appearing at public events. Some women believe that refusing to raise money for breast cancer organizations or refusing to become mentors (recruit) newly diagnosed women will, in the long run, make their own breast cancer worse.[67]

Feminism and the breast cancer wars

Advocates have said that breast cancer is special because society's response to it is an ongoing proof of the status of women and the existence of sexism.[68] Before the feminist movement, women with breast cancer were often treated as passive, dependent objects, incapable of making appropriate choices, whose role was to accept whatever treatment was decreed by the physicians, surgeons, or husbands, who held all of the power.[69] This interpretation is extremely black-and-white; it is silly to say that certain people hold ALL of the power; it's just not the reality; nobody holds ALL of the power, in any situation; the interpretation is misleading and is fueled by feminist over-compensation bias. Because of sexism in education, few women were trained to be surgeons, and until the 1990s, when Susan Love of the UCLA Breast Center published Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book, the physicians who provided breast cancer treatments were generally men. Love said that some male physicians tended to impose their own values on women, such as recommending mastectomy to older women because, being past the age of child bearing and breastfeeding, they no longer "needed" their breasts.[70] The women's health movement promoted mutual aid, self-help, networking, and an active, informed role in the patient's health care.[71] This interpretation should not be left one-sided. Leaving these interpretations one-sided (not a coincidence, the feminist's side) is biased and discourages discussion and intellectual growth. Medically, women who have reached menopause have no functional biological need for breasts ("needed" is taken out of context). One might argue a sexual need exists, but, in regards to biology (and by extension, medicine), they are non-fertile, so sexual appeal is not technically a factor. If removing a woman's breast would save their life, aesthetics are irrelevant. To value aesthetics over life is ridiculous. No doctor would remove tonsils or appendixes, never mind breasts, if it weren't absolutely necessary for human life. Also, just because the physicians were men does not mean they were automatically biased in such a regard. It is unlikely that women would have been significantly less 'biased' than men.

The breast cancer wars were a series of conflicts between advocates and others about the causes, treatments, and societal responses to breast cancer.[72] Women in the late 1980s and 1990s followed the successful approach used by ACT-UP and other AIDS awareness groups, of staging media-friendly protests to increase political pressure. Prominent women who made the "wrong" choice were publicly excoriated, as when Nancy Reagan chose mastectomy over lumpectomy followed by six weeks of radiation therapy. The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis was formulated when an early study showed a connection between voluntary abortions and the development of breast cancer in premenopausal women, which pitted breast cancer advocates against abortion rights advocates.[73]

Since the end of the breast cancer wars, radical feminists have objected to the breast cancer culture's treatment of women with breast cancer as little girls who need to be obedient to authority figures, cooperative, pleasant and pretty.[74] This claim is extremely unfounded; an example of the culture's treatment is required for this claim. A culture cannot treat a group of people in such a way that is specific enough to warrant the labels 'little girls,' 'obedient to authority,' or 'pretty.' This is ridiculous and very biased.

This section is extremely misleading and biased. An illusion is created that these claims are founded and have strong basis by citing 63-69 as references. All seven of these citations refer to the same two sources. There is also no opportunity to rate the article at the bottom of the page.

Achievements of the breast cancer movement

Breast cancer has been known to educated women and caregivers throughout history, but modesty and horror at the consequences of a largely untreatable disease made it a taboo subject. The breast cancer movement, which developed in the 1980s and 1990s out of 20th century feminist movements and the women's health movement, has mostly remove those taboos through its modern advocacy and awareness campaigns.[75]

Educated, empowered patients

At the beginning and middle of the 20th century, breast cancer was usually discussed in hushed tones, as if it were shameful.[76] Later, however, several celebrities publicly disclosed their own health challenges, and the resulting publicity reduced the stigma.[77] One of the first was Shirley Temple Black, the former child star, who announced her diagnosis in 1972. In October 1974, Betty Ford, the wife of the then-President of the United States, openly discussed her breast cancer diagnosis and mastectomy. Two weeks later, the wife of the then-Vice President also had a mastectomy for breast cancer. The next year, journalist Rose Kushner published her book, Breast Cancer: A Personal History and Investigative Report, which she had written while recovering from a modified radical mastectomy. The media reported these women's health and their treatment choices, and even invited some to appear on talk shows to discuss breast cancer frankly.[78]

The breast cancer movement has resulted in widespread acceptance of second opinions, the development of less invasive surgical procedures, the spread of support groups, and other advances in patient care.[79] The movement successfully separated diagnostic biopsy from mastectomy surgery; before about 1980, it was common to perform the biopsy and, if a quick review of tissues indicated a probable need, a mastectomy in the same surgery.[80] The one-step surgery prevented women from seeking different opinions about their treatment, and sent them into the surgery without knowing whether their breasts would be removed that day. In response to women's concerns over lymphedema after routine removal of lymph nodes during mastectomy, the more limited approach of sentinel node biopsy was developed. Advocacy efforts also led to the formal recommendation against the routine use of the Halsted radical mastectomy in favor of simple mastectomies and lumpectomies.[81]

The breast cancer movement has supported practical, educational, emotional, and financial care for women with breast cancer. Support groups, individual counseling opportunities, and other resources are made available to patients.

Increased resources for treatment and research

Supporting breast cancer was seen as a distinctively pro-woman stance for public officials to take, without any of the political risks associated with supporting other feminist goals, such as abortion rights or lesbian rights.[82] This has resulted in better access to care. For example, in much of the United States, low-income women with breast cancer may qualify for taxpayer-funded health care benefits, such as screening mammography, biopsies, or treatment, while women with the same income, but another form of cancer or a medical condition other than cancer, do not. For example, the State of Texas pays for breast cancer treatment in women whose income is 200% of the Federal Poverty Income Guideline,[83] but to be screened or treated for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or lung cancer, the income limit is 185% of FPIG.[84]

Breast cancer advocates have successfully increased the amount of public money being spent on cancer research and shifted the research focus away from other diseases and towards breast cancer. Most breast cancer research is funded by government agencies.[85] Breast cancer advocates also raise millions of dollars for research into cures each year, although most of the funds they raise is spent on screening programs, education and treatment. However, critics point out that criticisms belong in the criticism section, and advise radical feminists to channel their resentment to that section and leave an unbiased, uncensored, and impartial article for the public to read.

The high level of awareness and organized political lobbying has resulted in a disproportionate level of funding and resources given to breast cancer research and care. Favoring breast cancer with disproportionate research may have the unintended consequence of costing lives elsewhere.[86] In 2001 UK MP Ian Gibson said, "The treatment has been skewed by the lobbying, there is no doubt about that. Breast cancer sufferers get better treatment in terms of bed spaces, facilities and doctors and nurses".[87]

Risks of too much awareness

What women die from
5 / 100
50 / 100
Template:Caption

Because breast cancer is a highly visible disease, most women significantly overestimate their personal risk of dying from it. Misleading statistics, such as the claim that one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lives —-a claim that depends on the patently unrealistic assumption that no woman will die of any other disease before the age of 95--[88] obscure the reality, which is that about ten times as many women will die from heart disease or stroke than from breast cancer.[89]

Awareness has also led to increased anxiety for women. Early detection efforts result in overdiagnosis of precancerous and cancerous tumors that would never risk the woman's life (about one-third of breast cancers), and result in her being subjected to invasive and sometimes dangerous radiological and surgical procedures.[90]

The breast cancer culture has also promoted an expansive definition of breast cancer, which includes non-invasive, non-cancerous conditions like lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) and pre-cancerous or "stage 0" conditions like ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Despite the now-regretted decision to use the word carcinoma in these relatively common conditions (almost a quarter of "breast cancer" diagnoses in the USA), they are not life-threatening cancers.[91] Women with these conditions are promoted as breast cancer survivors due to the fear they experienced before they became educated about their condition, rather than in respect of any real threat to their lives. This effectively increases the market size for breast cancer organizations, medical establishments, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the makers of mammography equipment.[92]

An emphasis on educating women about lifestyle changes that may have a small impact on preventing breast cancer often makes women feel guilty if they do develop breast cancer. Some women decide that their own cancer resulted from poor diet, lack of exercise, or other modifiable lifestyle factor, even though most cases of breast cancer are due to non-controllable factors, like genetics or naturally occurring background radiation. Adopting such a belief may increase their sense of being in control of their fate. Increased awareness inadvertently increases victim blaming.[93] Women who resist screening mammography or breast self-exams are subjected to social pressure, scare tactics, guilt, and threats from some physicians to terminate the relationship with the patient.[94] Similarly, the emphasis on early detection results in women blaming themselves if their cancer is not detected at an early stage.

The promotion of research to make screening programs find ever more cancers is also criticized. One-third of diagnosed breast cancers might recede on their own.[95] Screening mammography efficiently finds non-life-threatening, asymptomatic breast cancers and pre-cancers, even while overlooking serious cancers. According to H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, research on screening mammography has taken the "brain-dead approach that says the best test is the one that finds the most cancers" rather than the one that finds dangerous cancers.[96]

Independence of breast cancer organizations

Some critics say that breast cancer awareness has transformed the disease into a market-driven industry of survivorship and corporate sales pitches (Ave 2006; King 2006). Corporate marketing machines promote early detection of breast cancer, while also opposing public health efforts, such as stricter environmental legislation, that might prevent the disease entirely. These critics believe that some of the breast cancer organizations, particularly the highly visible Susan G. Komen for the Cure, have become captive companies that support and provide social capital to the breast cancer industry, including big pharma, mammography equipment manufacturers, and pollution-causing industries, as well as large corporations, creating or exacerbating other problems.

For example, Ford Motor Company ran a "Warriors in Pink" promotion on their Ford Mustang sports car, which critics say was intended to sell cars and counter the bad publicity the company received by reducing its workforce by tens of thousands of people, causing many of them to lose their health insurance, rather than to prevent or cure breast cancer.[97]

However, the primary sponsors are part of the breast cancer industry, particularly cancer drug makers like AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Because the national breast cancer organizations are dependent on corporate sponsorships for survival, this situation may represent a conflict of interest that prevents these organizations from representing the needs of current and future people with breast cancer when those needs conflict with the profit-making motives of the corporate sponsors. To avoid offending sponsors or to woo new ones, breast cancer organizations may self-censor their message and oversell options like screening mammography and new chemotherapeutic agents.[98]

The structure of the breast cancer movement may allow large organizations to claim to be the voice of women with breast cancer, while simultaneously ignoring their desires.[99]

Some breast cancer organizations, such as Breast Cancer Action, refuse to accept funds from medical or other companies they disapprove of. However, this entire interpretation is misleading and unfounded. Feminists have no knowledge of the reasons that organizations have for choosing funds.

Environmental breast cancer movement

Most of the money raised by advocates is spent on advertising, increased awareness, cancer screening, and existing treatments.[100] Only a small fraction of the funds is spent on research, and most of that funding is spent on research to improve diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. To the dismay of advocates like Breast Cancer Action and women's health issues scholar Samantha King, relatively little money or attention is devoted to identifying the non-genetic causes of breast cancer or taking steps to prevent breast cancer from occurring.[101] The mainstream breast cancer culture is focused on a cure for existing breast cancer cases, rather than on preventing future cases.

As a result, screening mammography is promoted by the breast cancer industry as the sole possible approach to public health for breast cancer.[102] Alternatives, such as pollution prevention, are largely ignored.

As the majority of women with breast cancer have no risk factors other than sex and age, the environmental breast cancer movement suspects pollution as a significant cause, possibly from pesticides, plastics, or petroleum products.[103] The largest organizations, particularly Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the American Cancer Society, are not part of the environmental breast cancer movement (Ehrenreich 2001). These organizations benefit the most from corporate sponsorships that critics deride as pinkwashing, e.g., polluting industries trying to buy public goodwill by publishing advertisements emblazoned with pink ribbons, rather than stopping their pollution under the precautionary principle.[104]

Samantha King says that prevention research is minimized by the breast cancer industry because there is no way to make money off of cases of breast cancer that do not happen, whereas a mammography imaging system that finds more possible cancers, or a "magic bullet" that kills confirmed cancers, would be highly profitable (King 2006, page 38). This prejudice applies equally to breast cancer organizations, because a reliable form of prevention would deplete their future supply of dedicated volunteers.

Dissent through art

While the pink ribbon culture is dominant, cracks in the façade of unity show through. The environmental breast cancer movement is one type of dissent. Another is the rejection of compliant optimism, aesthetic normalization, and social pleasingness that the pink ribbon culture promotes.[105]

In 1998, the Art.Rage.Us art collective published a book that collected some of the art work from their traveling collection. This included art that was shocking, painful and realistic rather than beautiful, such as several self-portraits that showed mastectomy scars.[106]

Another art form has a wider range: the illness narrative has become a staple of breast cancer literature. This may take the form of a restitution or cure narrative (the protagonist seeks a physical or spiritual return to a pre-diagnosis life), a quest narrative (the protagonist must meet a goal before dying), or a chaos narrative (the situation inexorably goes from bad to worse). The cure and quest narratives fit neatly with the breast cancer culture. Chaos narratives, rarer with breast cancer, oppose it.[107]

History

Breast cancer has been known and feared since ancient times. With no reliable treatments, and with surgical outcomes often fatal, women tended to conceal the possibility of breast cancer as long as possible. With the dramatic improvement in survival rates at the end of the 19th century—the radical mastectomy promoted by William Stewart Halsted raised long-term survival rates from 10% to 50%—efforts to educate women about the importance of early detection and prompt action were begun.[108]

Early campaigns included the "Women's Field Army", run by the American Society for the Control of Cancer (the forerunner of the American Cancer Society) during the 1930s and 1940s. Explicitly using a military metaphor, they promoted early detection and prompt medical intervention as every woman's duty in the war on cancer. In 1952, the first peer-to-peer support group, called Reach to Recovery, was formed. Later taken over by the American Cancer Society, it provided post-mastectomy, in-hospital visits from women who had survived breast cancer, who shared their own experiences, practical advice, and emotional support, but never medical information. This was the first program designed to promote restoration of a feminine appearance, e.g., through providing breast prostheses, as a goal.[109]

Organizations

A wide variety of charitable organizations are involved in breast cancer awareness and support. These organizations do everything from providing practical support, to educating the public, to dispensing millions of dollars for research and treatment. Thousands of small breast cancer organizations exist. The most largest and prominent are:

  • Susan G. Komen for the Cure: Komen is the largest and best funded organization, with highly visible fundraisers. They represent the good, hopeful, happy, unified survivors who have embraced pink ribbon culture.
  • National Breast Cancer Coalition: This large umbrella organization played key roles in several prominent pieces of American legislation, such as the creation of the United States Department of Defense's Breast Cancer Research Program, genetic non-discrimination laws, and the patients' bill of rights. They are committed to evidence-based medicine.
  • Breast Cancer Action: Famous for its "Think Before You Pink" campaign against pinkwashing, BCA emphasizes the need for research into pollution as a cause of breast cancer. Like the National Women's Health Network, they refuse funding from any group that may have a conflict of interest, such as pharmaceutical companies, medical imaging companies, or pollution-causing industries.
  • National Breast Cancer Organization: Closed in 2004. A dissenter to the notion of mandatory public unity, it provided case management and other services.
  • New York State Breast Cancer Support and Education Network (US): An association of groups in New York that are not affiliated with Komen, they are committed to evidence-based medicine rather than conventional wisdom.
  • Breast Cancer Fund: Like Breast Cancer Action, they are a key player in the environmental breast cancer movement.

While the large organizations dominate the media, most of the practical, day-to-day support for women with breast cancer is provided by small, local groups. While providing the bulk of unglamorous, practical assistance, like driving women to and from medical appointments, these organizations typically struggle for funding in the shadow of the large groups.[110]

See also

References

  1. ^ (King 2006, page 2).
  2. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 157–210).
  3. ^ (Arnst 2007).
  4. ^ (http://www.astrazeneca.com/Medicines/Products-A-Z).
  5. ^ King 2006, page xxi).
  6. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 157–210).
  7. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001).
  8. ^ (King 2006, pages 46–49).
  9. ^ Ehrenreich 2001
  10. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001).
  11. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 250, 308).
  12. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 359–361).
  13. ^ (Landeman 2008).
  14. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 365–366).
  15. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 372–374).
  16. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001).
  17. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001).
  18. ^ (Levine 2005).
  19. ^ (Levine 2005).
  20. ^ (Stukin 2006).
  21. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 366–368).
  22. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 369–372).
  23. ^ (King 2006, pages 61–79).
  24. ^ (Mulholland 2010).
  25. ^ (Landeman 2008).
  26. ^ (Stukin 2006).
  27. ^ (King 2006).
  28. ^ (Kingston 2010).
  29. ^ (Kingston 2010).
  30. ^ (http://allfacebook.com/facebook-bra-color_b9596).
  31. ^ (King 2006, pages 110–111).
  32. ^ (King 2006, page 37).
  33. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 206–208).
  34. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 133).
  35. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 22).
  36. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 133–146).
  37. ^ (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.20138/full).
  38. ^ (http://www.breast-cancer.ca/staging/stages-progression-breast-cancer.htm).
  39. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 158, 243).
  40. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 78–89).
  41. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 42, 374).
  42. ^ (Olson 2002, page 120; Sulik 2010, pages 37–38).
  43. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 225–272, 277).
  44. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 279–301).
  45. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 283, 286).
  46. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 45).
  47. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 243–244).
  48. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 274–277).
  49. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 4).
  50. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001; Olson 2002, pages 204–205; Sulik 2010, pages 200–203).
  51. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 236).
  52. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001; Sulik 2010, page 3).
  53. ^ (Olson 2002, pages 460–469; Sulik 2010, page 342).
  54. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 365–366).
  55. ^ (Michael B. Shimkin, M.D. Matthew H. Griswold, M.D. Sidney J. Cutler, MA, Classics in Oncology).
  56. ^ (http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html#survival).
  57. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 319).
  58. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001).
  59. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 98).
  60. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001; Sulik 2010, page 240–242).
  61. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001).
  62. ^ (Kingston 2010).
  63. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 347).
  64. ^ (Kingston 2010).
  65. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 308–309).
  66. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 57).
  67. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 305–311).
  68. ^ (Olson 2002, pages 195–202; Soffa 1994, page 208).
  69. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001).
  70. ^ (Olson 2002, page 198).
  71. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001).
  72. ^ (Olson 2002, pages 192–220).
  73. ^ (Olson 2002, pages 192–220).
  74. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001).
  75. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 4).
  76. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 113).
  77. ^ (Olson 2002, pages 124–144).
  78. ^ (Olson 2002, pages 124–144).
  79. ^ (Olson 2002, pages 121, 171–220).
  80. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001; Olson 2002, pages 168–191).
  81. ^ (Olson 2002, pages 176, 185–186, 250).
  82. ^ (Olson 2002, page 202).
  83. ^ State of Texas
  84. ^ State of Texas
  85. ^ (Mulholland 2010).
  86. ^ (Browne 2001).
  87. ^ (Browne 2001).
  88. ^ (Olson 2002, pages 199–200)
  89. ^ (Ave 2006).
  90. ^ (Aschwanden 2009).
  91. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 165–171).
  92. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 170–171).
  93. ^ (Olson 2002, pages 240–242, Sulik 2010, page 74, 263).
  94. ^ (Welch 2010).
  95. ^ (Aschwanden 2009).
  96. ^ (Aschwanden 2009).
  97. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 130-135).
  98. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 209–210).
  99. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 376).
  100. ^ (Ave 2006).
  101. ^ (Ave 2006).
  102. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 204).
  103. ^ (Ehrenreich 2001).
  104. ^ (King 2006, pages 1–2).
  105. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 229–377).
  106. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 326–332).
  107. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 321–326).
  108. ^ (Olson 2002, page 1; King 2006, page xix).
  109. ^ (Sulik 2010, pages 37–38).
  110. ^ (Sulik 2010, page 53).

References

Further reading

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Breast cancer awareness.
  • Aronowitz, Robert A. (2007). Unnatural history: breast cancer and American society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-82249-1.
  • Kasper, Anne S.; Ferguson, Susan J. (2002). Breast cancer: society shapes an epidemic. Basingstoke: Palgrave. ISBN 0-312-29451-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Klawiter, Maren (2008). The biopolitics of breast cancer: changing cultures of disease and activism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-5108-6.
  • Leopold, Ellen (2000). A Darker Ribbon: A Twentieth-Century Story of Breast Cancer, Women, and Their Doctors. [Malaysia?]: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-6513-7.
  • Lerner, Barron H.; Barron H., Md Lerner (2001). The breast cancer wars: hope, fear, and the pursuit of a cure in twentieth-century America. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-516106-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&oldid=519680003"