This article might interest you:
Hi I donāt have a problem with the pink & fluffy when its for charity work when the whole amount raised is given to the charity.Iām not so keen on the merchandise though when a shop gives a small amount to charity for every item sold,I know some will say that the small amount soon mounts up for the charity but the shops are making a lot of money out of it .I was in a garden centre last year and they were selling little pink bird feeders for Ā£7.99 and Ā£1.00 of that was going to cancer charity,then on the next shelf they had the same little bird feeder but in green for Ā£5.99 which they must of been making a profit on so why couldnāt they sell the pink one for Ā£5.99 and still give Ā£1.00?
I remember that post from JaneRA.
I often wonder what her thoughts would be towards some of the recent post on the forum X
Melxx
I detest the pink and fluffy thing. Why, because the cancer is in my breast and not my rectum or pancreas, must I been infantalised with idiotic pink teddies?
The end does not always justify the means when it comes to fundraising.
Mel - I wonder too.
I would hope that everyone who has had the support of this site would respect that we all have views and itās likely that these views would differ but we are all tolerant of each others views and that we ālistenā to what others say - we can all agree to disagree in a supportive way.
My view is that it doesnāt matter what ācolourā is associated with the promotion and awarenessā¦ what matters is that it is marketed and if the marketing people feel pink and fluffy works then so be it.
x
I can just about tolerate the pink and fluffy even though it actually abhors me. Only because of the funding and publicity.It is a means to an end.
One of the worst moments I have ever had was being set up on by a load of pink revellers in ābunny earsā, short pink skirts etc. Ok so they were only trying to fundraise. I just happened to have no change. I do give regularly and my husband has done fundraising, I just had no change!!
I had recently been given secondary diagnosis and was coming to terms with how to tell my family.I was made to feel as if i lacked empathy, as I would not join in with the fluffiness.
As they shouted, āCāmon ā¦itās for a good causeā¦one day it may happen to you or a family memberā.
What they wanted was for me to laugh, probably wear bunny ears ā¦
Yes I watched my mum go blind and lose her life from bc age 30, I was 12. What I saw was not pink or fluffy, it was devastating and cruel. It ripped a family apart.
It still happened to me. I do not know how long I have left.
I tolerate the pink for my daughter. It is more socially acceptable to talk about bc now and I am glad about that.
What always springs to mind is my loathing of ātickled pinkā and the way it was expressed by lovely debsincornwall talking on the bbc.
She said only months before she diedā¦āI am not tickled pink to be telling my friends and family that I am dyingā.
ā¦and you know what, neither am I and I never will be. Ok so we can talk about it now but in some ways only as it is trivialised as the ātrendyā cancer or the āone to getā.
Ok so different treatments maybe appearing thick and fast but it is far from pink and pleasant. Children are still left motherless. People still are dying horrendously, ripping their families apart long before their time.
Maybe when a cure is found people will be tickled pink. Until then many will be like meā¦gritting their teeth but contributing and being thankful for any funding to research and treat this black, insidious and life taking disease.
Juliet i think your last post was great. Your concrete examples really reflected and explained my gut feelings on this and, even though the content was so sad, i still sort of āenjoyedā reading it.
I have been interested in reading all the posts in fact and am pleased we havent torn each other to pieces yet!
Vickie
Well said juliet-I totally agree with you.
āTickled Pinkā is an offensive and totally inappropriate slogan to front a bc fundraising campaign.Some publicity person probably thought,'Hmmm āpinkā now what goes with pinkā¦errrrā¦pink elephants?nooooooā¦pink ginā¦āin the pinkāoh no that means healthyā¦cant have that.What aboutā¦ātickled pinkāā¦yes thatāll do.ā
I despair.
I too am finding this thread interesting and itās reassuring that itās not me being bitter and twisted about the pink thing but actually a justified feeling.
I agree that the money coming in is desperately needed but object to Breast Cancer being hijacked by others to promote their own image, such as Katie Price who has already been mentioned. I hold this view about all charity benefactors who trumpet their good work for all to see, regardless of the cause they represent.
Charity is now a business in itself and so needs to promote itself as a business, hence the pink stuff. But the thing that really irks me is the whole girliness of it all. Womenās Lib was in the 70s yet I canāt even have breast cancer without having to conform to the āGirlā thing.
I am āgirlie-girlā if you like (heels, make-up, hair usually)but i donāt see why breast cancer needs to be dressed up in a boa and cowboy hat. is it your friendly-neighbourhood cancer that wafts around you smelling of Dior whilst it nibbles delicately at your insides or is it the same nasty, insiduous, all-encompassing, vile killer as say lung cancer?
iām repeating myself now but i think the public are continually belittled and treated as fools, as if they are children who canāt cope with the truth. Think about it, āOh dear, BC isnāt fluffy at all! It actually kills people! Well they can forget getting any money from me if thatās the case!ā
Hello CzechMate, thanks for the link. You have put me in rather a difficult position, because the person who wrote the article has passed away, and this makes it rather difficult to comment; since she has no right of reply. However, I think Jane and i would have enjoyed debating with each other, so I will just have to say what I believe (Iām sure her chums will step forward to offer another perspective).
I guess from the way Jane wrote, that she was an academic ( I say this because I recognise the style). I donāt think there is anything wrong with being an academic, because an academic background can facilitate a more analytical approach, and reveal connections that would otherwise be missed. However, it can equally create fuzzy unrealistic thinking that is old fashioned, and confused.
Jane clearly objected to the pink fluffy campaign because of what she saw as the commercialisation and feminization of breast cancer. These are fine sentiments in an academic world, but in the third sector, corporate involvement is absolutely essential (since this provides vital funds, and raises public awareness). Yes of course businesses are making a packet from the sales of pink merchandise, but they are also donating vital funds, and reminding the public that Breast cancer is an issue. Similarly, I donāt see anything wrong in presenting BC in a girly way. Of course itās silly to dress up in pink, and wear a bra over a sweater, and no, you probably wouldnāt get a man to wear a pair of underpants on his head to publicise testicular cancer - but who cares as long as it raises funds and raises awareness of the disease ? The idea that if we do anything girly, is somehow anti-feminist is just old fashioned, and harps back to a time when it was considered non-pc to wear high heels, or give little girls a doll. In this day and age we recognise that we can be equal, and celebrate out femininity at the same time. While the breast cancer campaign rightly addresses issues of class and gender, one should not confuse the objective. The objective is to tackle breast cancer - not class and gender issues.
Well expressed, Juliet, and staycalm ā¦! Debs comes to my mind too. I so miss her, and JaneRA.
I find the bc fund and awareness raising such a sad contrast with that for HIV. You donāt see red feather dusters etc for that, but they still manage to raise awareness and money plus have enjoyable events. They have managed to be successful without resorting to unfortunate tactics.
Yes well said Julieā¦remembering Debs and Janeā¦x
Juliet
Well said, thank you.
I admired JaneRA greatly, and i realy miss her presence on the forums,i admired her because she was never afraid to āstand upā express her views and say it as she saw it, i didnt always agree with Jane on everything, but when jane debated all the different BC issues ,my god everyone would sit up and read her thoughts, she didnt take no nonsence and i liked her for that ,a very sadly missed member on here.
I often wonder also how Jane would have responded to some of the current posts and debates on here.
Great debate,thanks Lemongrove for starting it.
Linda x
Yes they are all greatly missed. It seems at times that there is almost a concerted effort to stifle debate and discussion on the forum these days.
It is a pity that so many people cannot tell the difference between criticism of an argument/opinion and criticism of an individual.
I locked horns with Jane on many occasions and thought that amongst her many pearls of wisdom was a fair dollop of twaddle but I had nothing but deep respect for her fearlessness and erudition. It really was terrific fun - couldnāt wait to flip on the PC and see what the latest comments were. Ah well ā¦
Itās interesting that so many of you are wondering what Jane would have said. I think Jane and I would have locked horns on this issue - because:
(1) There is nothing wrong with commercial involvement in fundraising. The wealthiest charity in the UK is the Wellcome Trust, and that gets practically all itās funds from investment in stocks and shares, and government funding. Business involvement also brings marketing expertise, and that generates funds and raises public awareness.
(2) There is nothing wrong with the feminization of the BC campaign. The days of women having to don dungarees, and Doc Martins, to prove equality are fortunately in the past. Women can now wear high heels and make-up and still be equal. Obviously, men also get BC, but would anyone in this day and age say men canāt wear pink?
(3) There is nothing wrong with campaigning in a fun way. Just because people have a party to raise funds, doesnāt mean they are trivialising the issue, or donāt understand the reality of BC. Comic Relief raise a huge amount of money by making fund raising a fun event, does anyone seriously believe they would raise the same amount if they donned sack cloth and ashes ?. There is not a single charity that really tell it like it is. If a charity like the NSPCC really went into detail, people would be so horrified they would simply switch off.
My feeling is that campaigners could give a little more of the reality, but the pink campaign is too valuable to drop.
Hi Lemongrov, i agree with you on the āPinkā issue and as i said earlier in the thread i have no probelems with Pink at all, its very well reconised for breast cancer and āPinkā makes more money than any other cancer cause in fundraising, theres certainly nothing wrong with being girly either,im girly ,i love girly things,i feel equal to any man or woman and im not afraid to stand up and be counted, i dont feel that Pink is trivialising the issue, i dont think any other colour would have made people feel any different, to keep the āpublicā interested fundraising has to be fun for them to take part,i dont think for one minute that that distracts the seriousness of breast cancer,most people who fundraise have or know someone who has been affected by BC and will know only too well the full bloody horrors of this vile desease.So i have no problem with it, infact PinK is my favorite colour!
msmolly,
I think it is sad that the forums have become āintolerantā of free debate, and that āmany people cannot tell the difference between criticism of an argument/opinion and criticism of an individualā like you, thats my feeling entirely. I feel fortunate (if that is the right word)that i joined the forums at a time when people wasnt afraid to stand up and express themselves ,and that all these breast cancer issues was talked about in a āHard Talkā and non judgemental way,
Like most ladies on here ive read stuff over the yrs that have made my blood boil , and ive also locked horns with a few people too ,but i would NEVER want to silence others right to express their opinions for fear of them possibly ruffleing my feathers, Who are we to surppress other peoples views?? Who are we to tarish other people with posts of ābeing unfriendlyā āunsupportiveā ānastyā ect?, Why?just because we dont agree and wont respect the right of others to disagree?
I wouldnt want to live in a world where āeveryoneā agrees and thank god this country fought for the right of freedom of speech, i may not want to hear everything i hear in life but i WILL respect peoples right to say it.
The horrors of Breast Cancer has no place for ārepressionā or āpolitical correctnessā we are all adults and if we cant express our true feelings and thoughts now & especialy on here on the forums where can we??
If others here disagree with me āthats OKā i can assure you i wont take it personaly , Respect is about allowing people the right to have a say , its not about biteing your lip , keeping quiet and turning a blind eye just to be accepted and liked.
I wecome ALL opinions and respect everyones right to express them , long may they continue, that to me was what made the āforumsā the great place it once was.
Linda
I agree Linda.
If you post an opinion on a public forum then you must accept that other people are perfectly entitled to disagree with you.
The notion that disagreement over anything pertaining to this disease is āunsupportiveā is unfathomable to me and really rather offensive. This forum was so valuable to me in the early days that I make a point of visiting it a few times a month and answering questions from the newly diagnosed so we can keep the ball rolling.
I was supported and I shall support others - in my opinion part of that support is to not stand idly by when quackery is being presented as fact.
I have long grumbled about the need for stricter moderation on some of the more fantastical āalternative healthā posts. BCC is a fabulous education resource that should not be undermined by this guff.
There is a ācultureā around this disease which I have never really liked and now detest since I have become a BC patient.
If people have no problem with the pink thing then great for them - it seems that they are in the majority. Personally I find 90% of it crass and repellent and in no way representative of me as a woman.
I wonder how many of the people behind the Tickled Pink nonsense have actually watched someone die of this disease.
Everyone is entitled to express their view, and as far as Iām aware, they do. I canāt say I have noticed anyone trying to suppress the views of others on this forum.
I posted this thread, because I had noticed some derogatory comments about the pink campaign, and thought by posting my own view, it would provide an opportunity for others to do likewise. Of course it would be nice to think the debate had caused some people to rethink, but itās no big deal if they donāt.
Have enjoyed this thread, and havenāt changed my mind about the pink stuff. I suppose itās down to whether you think the end always justifies the means, and I donāt think I can ever feel comfortable with the portrayal of BC as a fluffy disease when it daily takes the lives of women and men. I also donāt think that thinking about its portrayal in terms of objectifying women is old- fashioned or muddled at all. Of course women can wear what the hell they want including 6 inch stilletoes, but I think the current marketing of BC which almost fetishises girliness portrays a view of women with BC as helpless victims rather than individuals. In the pink world of BC marketing it also helps if you can call yourself a survivor.
I also donāt have a problem with big business selling products -of course we need their money, but I do have a problem when a very small percentage of their profits goes to the relevant charity. Another point to ponder is does buying a BC product simply reduce us to consumers rather than engage us in the real issues?
I hope my thoughts donāt make me sound like an old cynical miseryguts, -going to go back to real life now!
nicky
This thread has led me to think ādoes the end justify the meansā?, so lemongrove, yes, thought provoking. Have I changed my mind? NO. But I may be more tolerant of some campaigningā¦ though not, Iām afraid, token campaigns such as Asdas.
One thing that has interested me is how quickly some members have posted ānot to be intolerant and to listen to each otherā, when actually, those posting on this thread have done exactly that! You cannot have healthy debate without disagreement, surely there is no need to tell everyone to mind their manners, when everyone was, in any case?!!! I know other debates have got heated, but to be honest, I agree with the previous poster who pointed out that disagreeing with a viewpoint is a completely different thing to a personal attack!! We are all grown ups, surely? Enjoy the debate! Wake up the cobwebs!!!
Iām loving it.
On a final reply, lemongrove, about women no longer having to wear dungarees and dms, yes, I agree in principle. However, there is something extraordinarily brainless about the pink fluffiness, that is not endearing in any era. Except perhaps the 50ās. Whereās the retrospective now? <grin></grin>
Sophie xx