Lack of Feminism in Cancerland

In “Welcome to Cancerland,” Barbara Ehrenreich has many concerns over the “pink-ribbon marketplace” and the “cult of the breast cancer survivor,” some of which include a shift away from feminist concerns and the view that early detection of breast cancer is key in becoming a survivor.

Most of Ehrenreich’s complaints deal largely with the fact that the breast cancer movement has moved away from feminist concerns. She argues that today, one can find little feminism in the movement. Initially, in the 1970s and 80s, the movement sought more “user-friendly approaches to treatments,” that gave women more of a voice in how they wanted to fight breast cancer (FF 41, p 461). Feminists in the breast cancer world in the 1990s not only wanted a cure but also wanted to find the causes of the disease: studies have shown that environmental factors, rather than genetics or an unhealthy diet, are the root cause of breast cancer.

Since then though, Ehrenreich notes the movement has taken a sentimental and good cheer direction. There is little mention of environmental causes and barely any criticism of the existing treatments that are available to women. Ehrenreich believes this sentimentality has caused a somewhat positive attitude toward the life-threatening disease: many survivors now believe that breast cancer has made them stronger, more thoughtful and caring, and less concerned with material things and more focused on family and friends. Ehrenreich suggests that the good cheer now associated with the movement has transformed breast cancer into a rite of passage for women, just as menopause and greying hair are. She notes that “first there is the selection of the initiates… by mammogram or palpation here. Then comes the requisite ordeals… surgery and chemotherapy for the cancer patient. Finally the initiate emerges into a new and higher status… a ‘survivor’” (FF 41 p 463). All of these things diverge from the feminist aspects that were initially included in the movement.

Ehrenreich also takes issue with the prevailing view in our society that early detection is the key to fighting a battle with breast cancer. She notes that the entire breast cancer enterprise focuses much attention to early detection, when studies have shown that early detection has only had a “vanishingly small impact on overall breast-cancer mortality” (FF 41, p 464). She notes that first, there are no foolproof methods for early detection: that false positives happen all the time. Ehrenreich also says that even if there were a foolproof method, it only serves as a “portal to treatments that cause damage to the patient” (FF 41, p 465). She notes that not only does this force women to live a life revolving around a threat of death and debilitating treatments, but also promotes the obedience of women to medical procedures with limited efficacy, the suspension of their critical judgment, and acceptance of whatever measures doctors wish to use to fight the cancer. Once again, this shows how the breast cancer movement has diverges from its feminist roots and is not concerned much at all with women making their own decisions about what is the best way for them to cope with their diagnosis.

Although I am concerned about what the “pink- ribbon marketplace” and “cult of the breast cancer survivor” focuses on and promotes to women with breast cancer and society as a whole, I believe that a positive attitude is important when faced with a life-threatening disease. There are aspects of the movement that really are helpful to those who have been diagnosed with breast cancer and need the support of others that have gone through it. For example, I have participated in the Relay for Life several times and although the focus is on survivors of cancer and not much respect and tribute are given to those who have died from cancer, the event gathers together those who are in remission and those who are still receiving treatments for cancer, which I would think would important aspect of being able to get through treatments. I believe that keeping this aspect of the movement (the connection of breast-cancer patients with each other), as well as regaining the feminist aspects that were part of the movement initially, would be a great way to change the “pink-ribbon marketplace” and the “cult of the breast cancer survivor” into a movement that both supports women in their struggles with the disease and fights for the rights of women to make the critical decisions that come with having breast cancer.

Sports and Masculinity

In “Becoming 100% Straight,” Michael A. Messner takes a look at how gender and sexual identities are constructed in regards to sports. Messner describes how sports aided in proving his masculinity and also discusses Tom Waddell’s experience with masculinity in sports. Messner brings to light how sports can aid in the construction of both gender and sexual identities for men and women.

Tom Waddell, a gay athlete, used sports as his closet that kept him from coming out as a gay man. Waddell participated in football, gymnastics, and track and field, all of which helped him prove his masculinity by hiding the fact that he was gay. Waddell was “fully conscious of entering sports and constructing a masculine/heterosexual athletic identity precisely because he feared being revealed as gay” (FF 36, p. 403).

Messner, on the other hand, was a straight man who played basketball in high school. To prove his masculinity, Messner used aggression toward a teammate. He elbowed a fellow basketball player in order to show that he was masculine. Messner refers to this as his “moment of engagement with hegemonic masculinity” (FF 36, p. 402).

In both of these cases, sports were used to construct both gender and sexual identities. While Waddell’s construction was a very deliberate attempt to seem more manly and heterosexual, Messner’s was a more subconscious construction that he did not realize he was creating at the time. Men, most of the time without even realizing their doing it, use sports as a way to show or prove that they are men, and more specifically heterosexual men. As Messner describes this, “heterosexuality and masculinity were not something we ‘were,’ but something we were doing” (FF 36, p. 403).

Women who play sports are treated differently than men who play sports because society has deemed sports as masculine activities, especially in the culture of the United States. I think this might be because historically, men have participated in sports more than women, and even today men’s sports are seen more in the media. This idea that sports are masculine activities has made for differences in the way men and women who play sports are treated in regards to gender and sexual identities. When a man plays sports, he is almost always seen as a masculine, heterosexual man, but when a woman plays sports she is sometimes called butch or a lesbian. I think this is unfair to both men and women to be given specific gender and sexual identities based solely on their participation in a sport or activity.

Focus on the Wedding, Rather Than the Marriage

In “Bridal Wave,” Melissa Morrison claims that “the same way porn shows the act of lovemaking without reference to love, wedding porn fetishistically focuses on the ceremony without reference the profound sentiments—and contemporary problems—that it represents.” By looking at a popular wedding magazine, “Brides” magazine, we can see that Morrison might be on to something.

By looking at the October 2011 cover of “Brides,” I found that everything featured has only to do with the wedding and nothing about marriage. Titles such as “Flattering Dresses for every figure!,” “6 quick fixes for Big-Day Disasters,” “Creative Ideas for a backyard wedding,” and “Kids at the Wedding” lead me to believe that the wedding industry was like the porn industry, in that all of the focus was focused on one very small part of marriage: the wedding.

Looking further, inside the issue, I did find two articles that did not focus solely on the wedding. First, in the Marriage section of “Brides,” there is an article called “Year One: Dinner For 6 For $100.” This article talked about how to entertain guests for less money when you’re on a budget/don’t have very much money but still want to entertain guests. There was also a “First-Year Finance Quiz,” which helps you figure out yours and your partner’s spending habits so that you can plan for the big day and beyond. While both of these featured items didn’t focus attention only to the wedding, they also only dealt with the financial aspects of marriage. These were the only articles dealing with anything besides the wedding, so it’s clear that “Brides” ignores the problems involved in marriages that go beyond issues with money.

I was able to find a few pictures and blurbs from “Brides” Real Weddings section that featured gay and lesbian couples. I found the weddings of three lesbian couples and three gay couples out of a total of 699 weddings shown on the website. Although this is a very small percentage of the total pictures shown, just the fact that I was able to find homosexual individuals’ weddings featured on “Brides” magazine’s website gives me hope that the wedding industry is less hetero-normative than some people believe it to be.

After analyzing an issue of “Brides” magazine, I find it clear that the wedding industry does have some qualities of the porn industry. Most of the magazine was focused on the wedding, and when it wasn’t, the focus was only on the financial aspects of marriage. It ignored other issues affecting married couples, like learning how to live together, how to deal with fights and disagreements, and issues that come with raising a family.