Again I agree Belinda, wholeheartedly.
I am not belittling being positive by any stretch of the imagination.
Determination, open mindedness and sheer human spirit are essential.
I have read all the stuff on 'fighting spirit' and think it is relevant. Even with a secondary diagnosis positivity is absolutely necessary. If I were not positive I would not drag myself out of bed in the morning, continue to work and care for my daughter (despite feeling like death and crying in my head). I know I am not alone.
What we are saying is that positivity is all well and good. So many women on here have remained upbeat and positive until a day when they could not. Jaynemh who used to post, carried on joking laughing and working until 2 weeks before she died. Was it lack of positivity that killed her ??
Here's a link to the ASDA website's discussion page relating to their use of "Tickled Pink" as a slogan to raise money for breast cancer. Have a read. And do remember lovely Debs in Cornwall's news video, when she spoke for a lot of us: "I wasn't Tickled Pink when I was told I had secondary/incurable/terminal breast cancer . . .". Nothing about living with breast cancer is pink & fluffy.
And well said, Belinda (and others too) about the myth of "positivity" helping us live longer.
Positivity can certainly help you get out of bed in the morning but it will not effect your outcome and that is the persistent myth that surrounds all cancers. If someone breaks a leg or has a heart attack they are not often told to remain positive. Some of us take our death sentence on board whilst remaining determined to live life to the full until we are no longer able to.
I question whether all the campaigning actually raises 'awareness' of breast cancer. Perhaps that's not the point and the most important objective is to get the cash in. Point taken but more so now than when I first started using these boards (in Jan 2004) there seems to be less awareness of the seriousness of this disease. That, I think, is due to the pink froth. How many times have I read, have you read here of well meaning relatives or friends commenting well you're all over that now, you had a free boob job, when do you get the all clear??..etc..etc.. How much awareness will it take for magazines, the Daily Mail to finally get the message there is no 5 year all clear from bc. A celebrity hasn't beaten cancer just after their mastectomy.
I'm a chipper person, I have had a relatively good life after my secondaries diagnosis and I bl**dy love life but I will die young from this disease. No amount of positivity on my part can alter this fact.
Well put Anxious, no one I've met has belittled my illness. No one has said oh you've got a fluffy disease. They all have expressed concern about what lies ahead. Tracey I also thing being positive is good. It doesn't mean if your positive you will beat bc, don't think anyone is naive to think that. But I do believe it canhelp you deal with the battle ahead. An onc of someone else I know said that inher professional life that the patient who have a positive attitude deal with the treatment better.
We all need to grab onto what ever works for us as individuals, with what we have to deal with.
Juliet66 & other like minded posters
Agree, and it might well be taken offensively for those women who HAVE got a death sentence and who WILL be leaving children AND parents behind and for whom there are NO positives. State of mind has no effect on prognosis or outcome. It MIGHT mean you cope with treatment differently but there is no clinical evidence to say that positivity or negativity affect outcome and I'm not even sure if it really, deeply affects your coping. Some might outwardly appear chirpy whilst in deep despair inside.
Anyway, that's veeering off topic ...
I've edited this now to remove "and co." and "pure drivel".
What i don't understand with this debate over pink and fluffy is why it causes so much contention.During my treatment for breast cancer i didn't feel my friends and loved ones took my diagnosis any less seriously than if i had been diagnosed with any other cancer.They weren't influenced by the campaigns to think any differently. These campaigns are an effective money raiser, they do not take away the seriousness and brutality of this disease.We are surely not giving the general public credit if we think that they are influenced by them to see breast cancer as a less serious disease.In my opinion the fundraising does not dumb down the disease.Breast cancer campaigns raise a lot of money and whilst i may only be a primary at this moment in time,i am well aware that this could change at anytime.I am also a mother of young children and i don't want to leave them prematurely,therefore anything that raises money to fund research to help eradicate this disease has my backing.
Surely all that matters is that the money is there to fund the research.What i really care about is that people continue to want to give in the current economic climate to give their money to help fight a disease that i have suffered from and from which i might suffer again.
Irene so sorry about your son.
Belinda I agree totally (as usual).
Tracy... re the attitude thing..pure cr...! sorry. As belinda says, I have also seen many strong, feisty, exuberant and positive women lose their life. One of them being my 30 year Mother who was desperate to try anything and live..
Pink and fluffy...mmm. We seem to be going round in circles. Please re-read..
I have responded well to treatments too Belinda and my goodness I have tried plenty of them! I also love the help and support I have found on this site and all the lovely friends I have made on here. When I got diagnosed in 1989 there were no sites like this around. I think that the younger ladies are much more knowledgeable than I was in the early years of BC.
But you learn as you go along and my mottos have always been "one day at a time" and "listen to your body". In other words rest when you need to. I have had 12 years with bone mets and I think my Oncologist and GP are surprised I am still plodding on. I have got to the stage in life that I am amazed that I am still here. But I want to be around for a while yet! Love to all especially those who are struggling right now. Love Val
Agree Val, as an 8 years with mets girl I have received similar comments..yes it's all absolute twaddle. I'm just fortunate that, so far, I've had good responses to treatment.
well put val, alex xx
I too have lost many friends over the years who have tried to fight this terrible disease and wanted to live to see their children grow up. They didn't make it. Many were young, much younger than me.
People often tell me that it is my attitude that has kept me going. Absolute twaddle. You can have all the attitude, knowledge, information, do all the research you like, but that doesn't mean you are going to conquer BC. Just before I got diagnosed 22 years ago, I lost a friend who had 4 children under the age of 9 and her husband was a GP.
I still get upset with the pink and fluffy fund raising slogan and no matter how much I get told it raises money, I just do not like the idea and that is that! I do help to raise money for Breast Cancer, I have helped with the "Reach For Recovery" ladies who visit the wards and clinics at our fantastic hospital in Edinburgh. I have even worked in the Cancer Research Shop.....but the Pink and Fluffy Campaign still upsets me and I know I am not the only one who feel like this. Val
irene.my thoughts are with u.i am a mummy with little ones.unlucky to get bc.hope i will be around to see my babies grow.if it wasnt thrown in folks face would they care?most probably no.until it touches your life u dont know.pink,blue, red!! flipping whatever colour??
Irene, I'm so very sorry to hear you have lost your son to this wretched disease, much too young, much too soon. With Love..x
Agree, again, with Gingerbud, I'm not sure if I misinterpreted your message Tracey and I apologise if I have, but your post read to me that somehow our attitude will have an influence on our cancer, our tumours. All chemo eventually ceases to be effective whether we are positive or not has no effect on this. I have lost many brave, fiesty friends if only it were that simple they would still be here. 😞
Tracey I don't think your comments are fair and I'm sure I won't be the only secondary lady to take offence at your comments. The people who come out the other side Following a bc diagnosis are the lucky ones. Sadly I have not been so lucky (I'm also triple neg) + it's nothing to do with me 'not fighting it head on' or 'seeing it as a death sentence' (Sadly it was my onc who drew the latter conclusion). I've fought very hard + will continue to do so + it's naive to think that a positive, fighting atttude alone can beat cancer, I'm afraid.
My beautiful son aged 28 years of age is dead now because of this disgusting disease, their is nothing pink or fluffy about this, he will never be coming home,never know what it is like to be blessed with a child and I will never hold him in my arms and tell him how much I LOVE him and always will.
A devastated mum xxxxxxxxxx
Oh dear indeed.
Whilst I do not want to appear to be trying to cause an issue here I just want to say this oh dear oh dear oh dear!!!!
We all appear to have gone totally off track with this and I will only add that at no time certainly on my part or I feel on the part of other posters was there any suggestion that pink and fluffy is connected with sexualisation/pimping of children. CM just mentioned the programme and I just added to this as it is a very interesting programme to watch.
I would also add that if it takes pink and fluffy to raise money to help fund research into cancer and in particular Triple Negative cancer as I have then I applaud it. Sometimes one has to look outside the box and not go immediately to the negative. Yes this is a hideous disease, yes it does end the lives of some women far too young leaving young children behind, yes it causes emotional scars you are left with for life BUT it is your own personal choice to carry this rather than look at the positives, it is your choice to consider your diagnosis as a death sentence and it is your choice to fight it with all the strength you have and the advances in MEDICAL RESEARCH to prolong your life.
Oh and consider this..........as a woman having faced this disease and all the emotions you go through you DO come out the other side a stronger person ready to face the rest of your life head on.
Everyone is entitled to their own view of course, but I still don't get how women or children being portrayed as pink and fluffy, is in anyway connected with the sexualisation/pimping of children. i mean a parent who dresses a little girl in a pink frock is just conforming to a harmless stereotype (blue for boy's, pink for girls), whereas a parent who dresses a little girl in a pink leopardskin print bra and thong with weird slogans, is conforming to something much more sinister.
I personally believe, that in order for women to be truly equal, feminine stereotypes even of the pink and fluffy kind must be regarded as equal. The idea that pink and fluffy is a symbol of inequality, just perpetuates the idea that anything female is unequal?
LG the pink campaign is not being associated with pimping children, the discussion has touched on this because of the broad cultural links between what's happening generally to femininity, and the notion of a pink campaign. I thought that was fairly clear (!) from the discussion. If you saw the programme, it was interesting how the sexualisation of children was denied by the big stores involved. The clothing in question was predominantly pink (because that makes it ok).
I'm not sure what the pimping of children has got to do with the pink Breast Cancer Campaign. Parents who buy sluttish clothes that sexualise young children are despicable in my personal opinion (because ignorance is not an excuse). However, I think it is insulting to parents who just buy pink dresses for little girls to lump them in with parents those who buy are happy to buy leopard print thongs.
It's very sad that the pink BC campaign is being associated with the sexualisation of children, because it will tarnish the campaign.
details for the programme mentioned by CM and Tracey, tonight C4
I notice quite a few people imply, or even express, that without the "pink pulp" (my own term) we would somehow not have the funds raised by said approach and that any means to the end is alright. I'm not saying it isn't but I think there should be some measure of censorship, for want of a better word. I like to think we would come up with more creative and, dare I say, mature ideas to raise funds in ways that emphasise the grim reality of BC rather than pinkify it.
Anyway, it's a really good thread and we're all giving each other food for thought.
P.S. Someone mentioned The History of the Breast, another good read is Bathsheba's Breast. It sadly reinforced that the surgical treatment of BC is often still barbaric.
Is pink and fluffy desexualised? I like pink. And fluffy. And I'm a business owner in a male-dominated industry when I'm not undergoing treatment for breast cancer. Pink is one of the most relaxing colours, and immensely feminine (in my own view).
For me, breast cancer has such power to strip away femininity - the loss of breast, hair, eyebrows, eyelashes, sex drive etc. Something that adds back "hey, I'm actually female and proud of it" works for me. Others may of course have very different perspectives, which is fine.
Thanks for the info Tracey, and I don't think you're old fashioned at all!
Horace and Gingerbud I agree with you absolutely about the trivialisation of bc. We've been trying to put this into some kind of context and to think why it happened, which is where the long discussion about stereotypes and pink and fluffy culture came from. It really is linked in my view. Very best wishes,
hear hear Horace and Gingerbud
I couldn't agree more Horace- there's nothing pink + fluffy about this deadly disease that tears families apart. I can't say I was tickled pink about being diagnosed terminally ill aged 32 😞 Dont think my family think the pink + fluffy thing is appropriate either, especially my little boy aged 23 months who faces a future without his mummy to look after him 😞
whilst I appreciate the funds these capaigns bring in, I think there is far too mch trivialisation of this deadly disease. Even though the majority survive, they are emtionally + physically scarred by the ordeal + often live in absolute fear of 'it' returning.
Just my opinion but one I feel strongly about...
What I am against is not the 'pink and fluffy' femininity which is often part of being a girl/woman but the implication that breast cancer-a disease which kills so many of those same women is, by association, also 'fluffy and pink' we are all 'tickled pink' by the frills and feathers....of course we are-some of us might even die laughing!
I have daughters and granddaughters-the youngsters love to wear pink and so on that's fine.Oh why cant some media folk see that the innocence of pink has no place in a festering,foul disease.
The programme you are talking about CM is The Sex Education Show and it is on Channel 4. This is about the third series I think of this and if you watch it is is most interesting. I agree with the "stop pimping our kids" approach to the clothing particularly underwear that is aimed at children as young as 6! I do not have a daughter but I think whilst I hated it as a young girl when my father would NOT let me have a heel on my shoes (oh dear it was loafers for me at all times), shortish skirts, make-up etc until I was 16 it stood me in very good stead and now as an adult I do not feel any need to conform to any stereotypical image of what society thinks a woman should look like (god help anyone who considers Jordan a role model!!). I do like nice clothes, high heels and girlie things but I do not dress like a s**t and never ever intend to do so (certainly not at my age anyway!!!).
Whilst I hate to open the dreaded "can of worms" on this I do believe that the young girls who have these little ones are still children themselves and when buying this c**p for their children it is because they have little or no concept of the implication it contains. I am, sorry to say it, probably considered old fashioned in my beliefs but I think children should be children and the grown up stuff should be introduced at a much later stage.
Be warned if you are easily embarrassed this programme should be watched whilst on your own and not in company as it pulls no punches!!!!
Hi LG and CM.
I agree with you to an extent LG whilst also agreeing with you CM(!)
I would hate to judge anyone and we're all bombarded with media images and peer pressure from a young age. I see what you mean LG about the criticism of the culture becoming a criticism of individuals/groups, and this is an enormously difficult area to navigate. That's pretty much what happened to feminism in the 1970s with the huge split between the radicals and the rest and it became very personal and generated a whole heap of misunderstandings that still persist.
I really hope I haven't given the impression that I'm against 'pink and fluffy' women - I'm not. I'm against the stereotype and the lack of choices of acceptable femininities 'allowed' by our culture. I think it does a disservice to girls and women and limits their development as people. There's also a danger of portraying the 'pink and fluffy' as victims of the culture, which causes further issues. It's a minefield and one that I feel the pink campaign would be better to avoid.
We're caught in a crazy cycle of sexualising then 'pink and fluffying' to de-sexualise/infantilise, and I wish we could stop it. It's not helping us.
I'll look out for the programme CM, sounds interesting.
I noticed an ad on the telly for a program with Anna Richardson called something like "stop pimping our kids", about the sexualisation of young girls. Not sure when it's on, but would be worth a look. There's LOTS of pink being rammed down our daughters' throats but not, in my opinion, as equal, strong or liberated.
Bubbletrouble, don't get me wrong, I think that there is a particular female stereotype, epitomised by the jordan/footballers wife style, that I find particularly horrible, because it objectifies women, and presents them as mindless and trivial (although I'm sure these women would say they are in fact fine examples of wealthy, liberated women). It's just for true equality to exist, female stereotypes, even of the pink, fluffy kind, have to be regarded as equal. All human beings are equal, and if we say that portraying them as pink and fluffy perpetuates inequality, we are in a sense adopting the argument. What we need to say in my view, is that yes, pink and fluffy is one female stereotype, but pink and fluffy females are as equal, strong and liberated as anybody else.
I'll just add here that I'm really enjoying this thread, and it's lovely to have a good discussion and argument with people who don't agree on everything. It's made me think a lot and question myself, which is surely the purpose of this kind of thread. Thanks everyone! xx
Sue, I think the blame thing comes from the power of big business (I said this somewhere already I think) - government has ties to (and gets money from) the people who sell alcohol (and unhealthy food etc), so the government won't acknowledge there's any responsibility on them to regulate the marketing of alcohol, or to ban eg transfats which are KNOWN to be lethal. This will result in reduced profits and we can't have that, our economy MUST keep growing. So the government blames individuals, thus absolving them and these giant businesses of responsibility.
LG I see your point, and really I wasn't trying to make this argument about that. There is a spectrum of femininity, and all of it is fine. It's the near enforcing of one small range of femininity and the lack of options and different role models available for girls and women that concern me deeply. This can't be separated from the pink campaign; as SCACO said it's the tip of the iceberg.
Sue you're final point is valid, but I see no reason why the pink campaign cannot be interspersed with serious information (like Comic Relief), which I referred to in earlier posts. While I support the pink campaign I feel it needs a more serious input.
What I find odd though is that those who criticise the pink campaign for trivialising BC, infantising women, and not telling it like it is, then object that telling it like it is, is too worrying to reveal.
But I don't want to make judgement on what others think, otherwise we will just lose the thread, and the debate will degenerate into personal unpleasantness.
I completely agree with SCACO's points and feel the same unease with the way society is promoting this over sexualised image for young women, and to risk sounding terribly old-fashioned here, there is a terrible confusion amongst young women today around the right to have sexual freedom, as many seem to have lost the sense of morality and self-protection that is needed to really enjoy this. I was an unmarried mother at 17, so am certainly not in a position to preach or get on a high horse over this, but the priority now too often seems to be sex rather than a loving relationship.
CM I see nothing has changed, I had exactly the same battles with my 3 girls all through their secondary school time 12-15yrs ago!
Anyway that is off the subject of pink and fluffy - actually one thing that has struck me, and I don't know if anyone else has thought about this - it has been bugging me at the back of my mind the last day or so- is that the point of pink and fluffy is supposed to be to assist with the marketing of breast cancer, to make it "acceptable" for fund raising. SO why, if this is accepted as the best way to go to get public interest, do we have to use scare tactics to get information across to BC sufferers on other threads? Isn't there something of a conflict here? Maybe we should be scaring the general public into getting involved more by getting those statistics out in the popular press instead of the regular announcements that it is all our fault for being a few pounds overweight or liking the odd glass of wine. Or maybe we need to think a little more about how "fluffying" or properly marketing information, might help with the message.
Sorry, don't usually get involved in these discussions - will go and put my head back in a bucket now!
In reply to scaco (and others with a similar view). I agree that there is lot of conditioning that goes on to conform to sexual stereotypes, and women are still portrayed in an objectified way (and it's appalling that this extends to children). It's also true that objectification of women arises from ideas in society about gender norms (and of course these norms are exploited by capitalism). However, I think we have to be careful that we don't perpetuate inequality by insisting that the female stereotype is in itself unequal.
For example, in the US, there came a point in the campaign for racial equality when many black people started saying lets stop describing black people as unequal and oppressed, because we don't want black skin associated with those ideas. They thought that to be truly equal, black skin must be regarded as intrinsically equal, and liberated (and people like Malcolm X, even said lets present black as superior to white). I think in some ways that's where the campaign for women's rights is at now. We have to stop portraying feminine as somehow unequal. In basic terms I don't think how women dress is part of the structures that perpetuate inequality, but to go into the structures that do, is not what this thread was about.
Bubbletrouble: In terms of what we can do about it - maybe we have to recognise that feminism is about real choice and that we have to speak up. As I mentioned earlier, I thought these arguments had been won once (in the 70s/80s) and stopped being active and vigilant.
Hello Stay Calm
As a much older women (can't believe it -70 next year) I have been following this thread with much interest and have found the differing view points stimulating.
I was really in sympathy with all that YOU wrote -and feel it is sobering that more choice/equality for women has had so many disappointing spin-offs. It is not surprising I guess, to hear that my own feelings at the early sexualisation of many small girls - for all the reasons that we know it happens- is not just something that I see and deplore - but obviously is also viewed in the same light by many younger women. It seems to confirm all one's worst prejudices and stereotypes about the kind of parenting that some children are having - as well as reflecting a view of our 'advanced' Western culture that I find rather depressing
Yes - girl power means the right of women to choose to be just what they want to be- but why are some girls' choices seemingly so limited? As it was when my own 40-year olds were young, it is still so much to do with how parents teach their children to value themselves and to encourage expectations that are not simply gender- related. I see it just as it always was, among the little friends of my grand-daughters.
As for the pink and fluffy'- I hate it!
I have been involved in many campaigning and fund-raising activities for a number of charities over many years (none of them health-related) .....and have occasionally dressed up! I also have friends and family who have taken part in 'pink events' .....but I'm afraid it's not for me. Pink and fluffy -BC ain't!
Everyone to their own I guess - look how differently we all react to the conduct of funerals, grave decorations etc etc - I think it's just a personal taste issue.
I have lost at least a dozen 12 friends and family to various malignant diseases over the years but I don't fundraise myself for cancer charities - I think there's probably enough folk doing it already. One of my daughters and I both have BC but I think there are so many other equally deserving causes that get very little publicity, pink or otherwise........
Good points SCACO and bubbletrouble, it's so complex. A friend and I were only talking about the binge drink fashion of today, she said we all drank to much when we were young, to which I agreed but we didn't drink to the limit they do now, and never did I behave like they do on the street. We might of sang down the road or donesomething funny/ silly, but not lying in gutters or having sex in front of the camera, ( Ibiza series ), I find it very sad.
At the same time I like being a girl with my makeup and nails, I love it when my nearly 4 yr old granddaughter comes round and we paint our nails, plait her hair, she puts scruchies in my wig, and she loves putting on my jewelry and having a squirt of purfume, am I having double standards, don't know. It's complicated.
CM, BD and Sky2Sea I absolutely think this is all linked - as LG said it's complex. The size issue (with Jordan tits of course) is intrinsic to the body fascism that we have (and it's increasingly applying to men too). Germaine Greer says that young girls are trained to be consumers of beauty products from a very young age through magazines which make them feel insecure about themselves in ways that can be 'fixed' by buying the right makeup and clothes. I used to do a lecture on 'tweeny' culture, and remember using a makeover of an 8 year old from 'Twinkle' magazine where the girl was made up to look like Faye Steps, including 'tinted moisturiser' to 'cover the blotchy bits'. The time this stuff takes means that poor girls/women have limited time to do anything more worthwhile. The mass marketing machine works by creating these insecurities and creating markets where none previously existed - another lecture I used to do was about advertising and gender, and included the market in 'feminine hygiene products' - which basically say you're a woman and you stink, this will help! The biggest laugh used to come from the ad for black G-String panty liners...
StayCalm you've hit the nail on the head there - there's nothing wrong with being a girly girl but we are limiting our options and those of little girls through not challenging what's going on. It's not liberated to perform sex acts for men in public, no matter how educated (or otherwise) you are. I'm a paramedic now, and we often pick up semi- or unconscious girls in the back streets of the local city around the club district on friday and saturday nights. They have barely any clothes on, are usually wearing a thong that's vanished, and have no idea what's happened to them. Sometimes they try to come on to male ambulance staff. Usually they're covered in vomit and are underage. How do they feel about themselves really? They certainly don't get respect from men/boys. We also see a lot of horribly posessive, abusive relationships which I feel are a product of this culture of putting everything on show and acting trashy. Question is, what can we do about it?
Beautifully put SCACO, well done. Interesting, isn't it, that feminism in fashion first enabled women to wear trousers whilst cycling, and dress in a more masculine way to enable them to carry out day to day activites.. yet now this same woman empowerment lets us all dress like hookers, should we wish to do so... and we call this progress???
Very well put SCACO! X
I LOVE being a woman and all womanly things. I wear make-up, nail varnish, heels, hair, the lot. Yet i'm still intelligent and responsible for both myself and my kids and i have been known to be forthright in my opinions. It's a personal choice and i think that is what 'Women's Lib' is all about: being the woman you want to be and to be taken seriously.
However, in recent years i have been wondering what has happened to 'Womens' Lib'. Take a recent competition run by a 'lads mag'. Girls at a nightclub 'performed' on a double bed in order to win the prize for being the most desirable woman (or something like that). Now as it was on a bed i'm sure you realise that they weren't being asked to show their adept at working out some accounts, writing a story, baking a cake, etc; no, in front of a crowd of drunk, leering men these 'ordinary' girls cavorted around, playing with themselves sexually with very little on. You could argue, as some do, that this is true femenism, where a woman can be in control of herself and do what the hell she likes, but i don't see it that way. I see a poor, young, average looking girl who only feels self-worth when making out to men that she's good in the sack. She may have a masters degree in bio-chemistry but at that particular moment is she been taken seriously?
You may say "Aah, see - she has a degree, therefore this is her RIGHT to act like this. She IS intelligent but as you say SCACO - you have the right to be the woman you want to be!" But the point is why does she feel the need to do this? Look good - yes. Wear 'sexy' clothes if you like. Enjoy sex - be promiscuous if you like, perform for your partner of you like it - it's fun! But why the need to perform to a gang of drunk, braying men? because it gives a feeling of self-worth. how sad.
I'm a primary school teacher (Y6) and sometimes feel really sad at the way some (not all) of the girls feel the need to copy the latest raunchy dance moves and wear the latest provocative clothing. These girls aren't doing it out of 'choice', these girls aren't doing it in irony, they are too young to know themselves, let alone play such a sophisticated game. No, they are being doctrinated into this way of behaving before they've had time to decide or find out what'who they are.
And so, to return to the theme of this thread: there is a lot wrong (in my humble opinion) with pink and fluffy. It is the tip of the enormous sexual ice-berg. Why is it ok to sexualise a cancer for goodness sake?? It's CANCER. And it is sexualised, albeit in a 'fun' way. If I'm honest, I didn't really take much notice of the campaign before - when i did it was usually because a bunch of drunk, mini-skirted, pink-boaed girls were thrusting a donation bucket under my nose at the local, or when Jordan happily gor hers out for the campaign - and so when i did it was pretty much in disdain. But obviously now it's different and i'm on the receiving end, now i've thought a lot about it and actually i don't like it.
I am not stupid and recognise that the pink thing raises money that would otherwise be lacking. I also understand that charity is big business and that people, generally, don't do something for nothing. There is too much to lose to change it now but wish that Society wasn't constantly having to be fed the sexual thing by the powers that be and that women could actually just get on with their cancer treatment without being represented by inane girliness.
I have cancer, i'm having chemo not brain removal.
Didn't realise secondary schools have banned make up. You are on a hiding to nothing then cos you can't ban it as you need to monitor it and like you said they will only do it as soon as they get to school. I work with infant don't have the same problem, though we did have a 5 yr old in one day with high heels on, not the dressing up ones but real shoes with a 2 -3 inch heel. Made her wear her PE shoes all day.
I don't have an answer but interesting thread reading everyones thoughts.
The school HAS banned makeup, and HAS a rule that skirts should be knee-length. When I buy school uniforms I insist, much to their disgust, that I buy skirts that adhere to the school's rules. But they just roll them up... at least I won't get snotty letters from the school but when there are 2000 pupils in the school it's an impossible task for the staff to insist that they all do up their ties and roll their skirts down and wash their faces (only to find them loosening their ties, rolling the skirts back up and painting their faces within two minutes of leaving the teacher's sight)...
Sorry for taking the thread for a wander, but it is linked in a way, as the pink and fluffy thing is very closely related to the broader question of personal image for women and girls that has coloured a lot of the responses on this thread.
I admit I am a girly girl I love make up, colouring and having good hair cuts ( when I had hair that is) and having nails painted etc, but I don't like the Jordan look, or young girls covered in slap, with foundation applied with a palate knife. I so wish schools would ban it and also skirt lengths would be longer, I know it's the norm but like CM I wish it wasn't. I was watching CSI the other night love it but I tried to find a woman on there that was above a size 10 no one appeared and if your smart and intelligent you have to walk in high heals and be a size 8. That's so much pressure on young girls these days. I heard one of my neighbours kids say about a new diet craze of eating chicken that had gone off cos you can lose lbs in one go, I know I've digressed going on to sizism, but I have a weird train of thought at moment.
BT, yes, it's the fact that they ARE the norm that gives me most concern.
Sky2sea, I find the emphasis on image and conforming with these narrow stereotypes is seen all over the place and that's what's worrying about the pink stuff. Our girls are subjected to lots of pressures from all sorts of directions in their formative years, persuading them that it is normal to be very sexualised even as pre-pubescent children, and that wearing make-up is to be admired, worse still NOT wearing make-up is to be ridiculed, from as young as Year 7 at school. My girls certainly didn't get it from me as I very rarely can be a**ed to put on the slap.
I applaud any woman or girl who feels confident enough to be herself and buck the trends, but the peer pressure is so very intense on today's young women it's very difficult not to conform. Society seems to be much LESS tolerant of difference than it used to be, or have I missed something?
A very interesting thread, thanks to all who have contributed. It's certainly not straightforward.
I know it's incredibly complex, but I do think there's a decreasing range of acceptable versions of femininity now. CM your daughters are the norm, that's what's so worrying about it. I know teenagers who spend 2 hours straightening their hair and putting their faces on before school!
I feel i've been asleep and stuff has happened quietly - i thought the equating of female with very narrow stereotypes of body types, make up and pink had been overturned many years ago. If women truly had a free choice in how to dress and behave I can't see that there would be such a focus on pink and other stereotypes.
Choccie I so agree - hate fake tans, fake nails, hair extensions, heavy make-up - but sadly I think we are a minority and the battle is lost.