As many of you probably know, October is breast cancer awareness month. Some of you may be decked out in pink ribbons, t-shirts, and arm bands yourself, as a friend or relative of a victim of breast cancer--Or perhaps you are a survivor yourself.

I'm all for awareness of the dangers of breast cancer. However, some young activists are using some questionable methods of creating awareness and buzz. Many ads feature highly sexual images and themes--Take this advertisement for a Toronto-based charity's event called the Booby Ball: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/10/02/sexy-breast-cancer-ads-provocative-or-patronizing-.aspx

Is this going too far? I think they're right in thinking that these types of ads will generate more attention and awareness to the issue, but the question is whether these ads are in good taste. For instance, in my opinion, I think that they could have nixed the "You know you like them... save the boobs" line and the (albeit censored) flashing scene at the end. Of course, I roll my eyes at the basic concept of the ad, but other than that, I don't have a personal issue with it. However, will a victim of breast cancer, or someone who's lost a mother, a sister, an aunt, a grandmother, a wife, or a daughter to breast cancer feel the same?

Posted by armst231 at 2:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today, I woke up a little early for class. Like any responsible college student, I chose to spend my precious extra minutes creeping on Facebook. Checking out my newsfeed, I click on my male friend's girlfriend's profile. Creeping along, I look at her groups, and notice one called, "A List for Women: What Guys Want You to Know." I figured I was in for a laugh, and clicked on the link.

I was disgusted. The description included 100 rules that women apparently need to live by in order to stand a chance at scoring a man. Initially, the "rules" weren't too bad--joking about how football always came first, etc. It was peppered with the typical, gross and mildly degrading guy banter that we've been desensitized to--E.g. "SWALLOW! SWALLOW! SWALLOW!" But as I continued through the group description, they grew increasingly disrespectful and downright outrageous.

One of the first eyebrow raisers was Number 21, which warned women against inviting your significant other to meet your parents before they ask you to meet theirs--because "men do rule relationships." Last time I checked, any healthy relationship was a partnership.

The author/s continued to further degrade women and imply their inferiority. Number 41 explains that "you will never be as good at any sport as a guy." So, sporty ladies, quit while you're ahead--You can never aspire to the athletic greatness of a man. In fact, you're probably better off not speaking at all, because, as Number 56 states, "girls can't do banter, so don't even bother trying. You will just embarrass yourself and us. Leave it to the professionals."

Really, though, it was quite an informative piece of literature. Thanks to Number 81, I now know to "expect abuse whilst on the walk of shame, " because I am a "dirty little slut," and that "if we {men} cheat it doesn't mean we don't love you (88). Women everywhere can rejoice that they are "primarily f*cktoys" (92), then housekeepers (93), and then, lucky us, whatever we fancy (94). I wouldn't get too crazy though, because we should also do exactly as we're told, all the time, every time (34). On the discussion board, one man guaranteed that if women did exactly what they were told, when they were told, how they were told to, there would be a decrease in domestic violence. WHAT?

How fortunate are we that we can do whatever we want, providing we keep a clean house, satisfy our man, and ask first? What's truly disgusting is that while the administrator of the group is a man (or--misogynistic pig, whichever you prefer), the only additional officer is a WOMAN.

Check it out yourself, ladies. If you're feeling particularly feisty, join the group and wreak a little mayhem in the discussion boards.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=2220694360.

Posted by armst231 at 2:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I didn't know it could get worse...

While browsing my favorite blogs and news sites for the first time since last week, I noticed that wherever I roamed, I heard about the FDA cutting the funding for the Office of Women's Health. For those of you who do not know much about the Office for Women's Health, here is their 'mission':

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Office of Women's Health (OWH) serves as a champion for women's health both within and outside the agency. To achieve its goals, OWH:

Ensures that FDA functions, both regulatory and oversight, remain gender sensitive and responsive;
Works to correct any identified gender disparities in drug, device and biologics testing, and regulation policy;
Monitors progress of priority women's health initiatives within FDA;
Promotes an integrative and interactive approach regarding women's health issues across all the organizational components of the FDA; and
Forms partnerships with government and non-government entities, including consumer groups, health advocates, professional organizations, and industry, to promote FDA's women's health objectives.

I suppose since women still make about 3/4 of what men make on average, it would be alright to justify cutting 1.2 million dollars of the allotted 4 million? According to the Washington Post, the Office for Women's health really needs the remainder of their funding:

Because the remaining $2.8 million has already been spent or allocated for salaries and started projects, the office must effectively halt further operations for the rest of the year, according to a high-level agency official with knowledge of the budget plan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official is not authorized to speak publicly.

According to feministing, without this funding, the office will be in a bind right away, not in a few months or years. What really makes me nervous is that this fiasco may be backlash against plan-b.

Women's health advocates inside and outside the agency suspect they are witnessing, at least in part, a long-anticipated payback for the trouble the office stirred during the prolonged debate over nonprescription sales of Plan B. Taking a position that chafed the administration's conservative base, the office had stood up for scientific research that had backed the safety and appropriateness of such sales.

On a more silly note, let us all take the advice of Bitch Ph.D:

"So, everyone: don't get sick for the rest of the year, 'kay?"

Posted by Jessica Englund at 9:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)