Pink Propaganda: Gender Exploitation Under the Guise of Pink Ribbon Neoliberal Ideals

More than 25 years have passed since the pink ribbon first appeared on the scene, and almost as long since the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month was founded by global pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca. Although Estée Lauder and Self Magazine introduced the pink ribbon as a symbol of breast cancer awareness and a marketing tool, Susan G. Komen was technically the organisation that first began promoting them. Since then, numerous charities and cancer organizations have joined forces each year in the hopes of finding a cure, but over time, not much has really changed - particularly with regard to mortality rates and breast cancer therapies. Each October, in an effort to raise money for cancer research, tens of thousands of survivors and those who support them, walk, run, and jump out of planes, etc. Breast cancer awareness is at the forefront of everyone’s consciousness particularly in October, dubbed “Pinktober” by many, because the colour pink is now ubiquitous and synonymous with cancer awareness; Pink ribbons, pink frosted cupcakes, pink sneakers, pink t-shirts, pink hairbands, pink gun handles, pink bedsheets, pink appliances, pink (fill in the blank). For decades, the colour pink has highjacked the way we think about and discuss breast cancer, making it appear disingenuously as a palatable women's issue that is easily overcome with cheerfulness, positivity, and the purchase of a pink item. This has become nothing more than a huge, hegemonic falsehood and distracts us from having the deeper conversations about breast cancer such as prevention and toxic environmental contaminants (a topic for another time). This article explores the pink culture phenomenon and argues that the breast cancer awareness pink ribbon campaigns exploit gender and sexual identities while peddling neoliberal and postfeminist ideologies.

~~~~~~~~~~

A historical review of the symbolic significance of female breasts is required in order to comprehend the current breast cancer landscape and pink ribbon culture. The breast itself had been steeped with history and significance long before breast cancer and the pink ribbon were part of everyday language. The breast served as the cornerstone of bourgeois family values and women's motherly responsibilities in eighteenth-century Europe. A century later, Victorians portrayed the breast as humiliating and unsightly (Yalom, 1997). Because of these ideas, the medical establishment put the submissive female patient and her body at the mercy of patriarchal medicine. Medical publications were loaded with descriptions of the Halsted Radical Mastectomy, the standard breast cancer therapy from 1895 to the middle of the 1970s, conducted primarily by white male doctors (Sulik, 2014). The entire breast, chest muscles, and lymph nodes up to the collarbone were removed during this invasive procedure. The procedure made Halsted the "father of modern surgery" and established the maxim "more is better" in medical practise (Sulik, 2014). Subsequently, the breast returned to the visual world, particularly in the arts, throughout the first half of the 20th century (Yalom, 1997). However, advertising and medicine tried to mould ideas about what a breast can and should look like, but by the second half of the 20th century, the breast had become a symbol of feminine strength (Sulik, 2014) and women began advocating for their health by claiming ownership of their bodies and questioning medical authority.

By the early 90s, a true depiction of the ravages of breast cancer was put on display on the cover of the New York Times. It featured a picture of the artist Matuschka showing off her mastectomy scar while donning a headscarf. The haunting visual "Beauty out of Damage," a self-portrait that speaks to body image, the brutality of treatment, and the quest for truth, was featured on the cover with the slogan "You Can't Look Away Anymore," which highlighted the achievements of the breast cancer movement (Ferraro, 1993) and the feminist activists of the time. Unfortunately, the message this portrayed for women was short-lived. With pink ribbon culture in full bloom by the mid 90s, in 3 short years the NYT published a very different image on their cover. This time it was the naked supermodel (Linda Evangelista), slim, tanned with her arm resting provocatively over her breast and the caption reading, “This Year’s Hot Charity” (King, 2004). Somehow, breast cancer had become sexy. Subsequently, Time magazine’s cover photos in 2002 and again in 2007 depicted idealised views of breast cancer, with young, attractive, nude models cupping their breasts in fear of getting the disease. They could not have been more than twenty-five, in contrast to the average age of women diagnosed with breast cancer, which is 50 to 60 (Sulik, 2014). Soon, breast cancer became the poster child for corporate America and the ribbon was adopted as a safe symbol of corporate investment. “The new breast cancer awareness is about pink visibility and symbolic gestures, while encouraging consumers to treat themselves to a vast selection of pink products, services, and ‘cancertainment’” (Sulik, 2014, p. 664).

The pink ribbon campaign exploits gender by actively promoting highly feminized ideas of what it means to be a woman in order to raise money and sell goods (Sulik, 2014). Pink has a long history of being associated with constrictive and ideological notions of female sexuality and female bodies. Pink is a hue associated with stereotypically feminine features. When we wrap infant girls in pink blankets, we are also encasing them in deeply ingrained, primarily white, patriarchal beliefs and concepts about female passivity, helplessness, and dependence—ideals that are frequently asserted to be biological predeterminations. As a result, it's challenging to totally free oneself from the problematic and gendered cultural connotations of the colour pink.

The gender stereotypes that are reinforced by the colour pink include those that healing from breast cancer necessitates breast reconstruction, wearing makeup, and restoring the feminine body (Ehrenreich, 2001). Women are encouraged to restore their bodies to “normal” (prior to mastectomy) with breast reconstruction, prosthetics and beauty enhancements. “Advice on restoring women’s looks and (interchangeably) their self-worth stems from programmes such as Reach to Recovery [offers support to women who undergo breast reconstruction] and Look Good, Feel Good [offers tips/workshops for dealing with appearance-related side effects of treatment], which have been dominant sources of advice for women since the 1950s” (Gibson et al, 2014, p. 525). While some women might find this to be liberating, it also serves to reinforce how important appearance is to women's identities by implying that this should be every woman's top priority and maintains the emphasis on femininity for which pink is a well-known colour.

Pink ribbon culture furthers gender exploitation by sexually objectifying women and trivializing/infantilizing their experiences with the illness. Trivialization comes in the form of the many, pink-themed products for sale such as pink confetti, pink balloon animals, ribbon-shaped fake pink tattoos and the like that permeate the culture leading up to and during Pinktober. These pink gimmicky products downplay, minimize, and understate the disease (Sulik, 2014) thereby trivializing it. Furthermore, infantilization – the act of treating or condescending - as though women with breast cancer were still little girls - is implied when women diagnosed with the illness are given one of the many breast cancer stuffed teddy bears as gifts. Feminist Barbara Ehrenreich (2001) refers to this “infantilizing trope” as some “version of the prevailing gender ideology, [where] femininity is by its nature incompatible with full adulthood” (p. 3). She further deliberates that men with prostate cancer do not get Matchbox cars as gifts (Ehrenreich, 2001).

While trivialising and infantilizing breast cancer is a severe issue in and of itself, the sexual objectification of women's bodies and breasts is possibly a more troubling example of gender exploitation that feminist discourse continues to study. The practise of using another person only as a tool or object for one's own sexual gratification or profit increase, is as old as time. The pink ribbon campaigns have been highly sexualized in the media while mastectomies (signs of disfigurement) are altogether absent from the discourse (Gibson et al, 2014). Some raunchy examples include:

“A porn site that donates a penny to charity for every boob-themed video watched; a Las Vegas restaurant promises to ‘Save 2nd Base’ and provide an open bar to guests in pink bathing suits; campaigns like ‘Save the Ta-Tas’ and ‘Feel Your Boobies’ use slang and provocative imagery to raise funds and visibility” (Sulik, 2014, p. 668).

The kitschy campaign slogans go on and on. Big or Small, Save Them All; Honk If You Heart Ta-tas; Fight Lika a Girl; I Love Boobies; Great Breasts are Worth Fighting For. Moreover, the overt sexualization of campaigns that purport to support self-detection techniques can be seen in the images of males grabbing women's breasts and urging them to "coppafeel." Men's health publications and "Touch Yourself" campaigns have joined forces to produce postcards with men saying, "I need to check your boobs. Trust me, it's for science” (Sweeney & Killoran-McKibbon, 2016, p. 464). While this hyper-sexualization increases media attention, it also draws comparisons between breast cancer and losing one's sexual identity.

The pink ribbon campaigns are all problematic for the same reason. They demean, objectify, and continue to oppress women. They use bodies as objects and place the emphasis entirely on ‘saving the boob’. These campaigns inadvertently simplify the fight against breast cancer to a battle to save breasts as opposed to saving the individual and distracts from the serious side of the conversation that needs to take place regarding prevention and chemical toxicity in the environment and beauty products.

The pink ribbon movement has shown itself to conform to the ideologies of postfeminist neoliberalism by promoting self-responsibility, empowerment, and self-surveillance. In order to capture and generate funds for breast cancer awareness, the pink ribbon campaign mobilises women as consumers, making use of their significant purchasing power. Breast cancer is thusly presented as a condition that puts all women at risk and necessitates ongoing attention through breast self-examinations, clinical breast exams, and mammography (Sweeney & Killoran-McKibbon, 2016). It continues to run on a discourse of optimism that promotes women's empowerment through involvement in early detection and screening activities. (Sweeney & Killoran-McKibbon, 2016). Focusing on how lifestyle and individual behaviour affect health outcomes has a long history. A paradigm of responsibility has emerged as a result of the individualization of health and illness (Sweeney & Killoran-McKibbon, 2016). This ideology puts the onus of responsibility on the person and contends that risk factors for health are manageable if one adopts the proper dietary, exercise, and alcohol consumption patterns. The responsibility for being ill rests with the person in question if they act appropriately or do so but still get sick. This paradigm puts the individual at the centre of disease prevention, depoliticizing and reducing cancer prevention to behaviour changes (Sweeney & Killoran-McKibbon, 2016). The individual is clearly responsible for deciding their own health outcomes, according to this paradigm. The overarching message of these campaigns is that leading a "healthy lifestyle" will help people avoid developing breast cancer, conforming to the individualistic nature of neoliberalism. Although women are perceived as having more personal authority when it comes to their health, this comes at the expense of responsibility and self-control.

When women are shown to engage in behaviours that preserve their femininity and breast self-surveillance techniques they are positioned as "empowered" individuals. In addition, providing women with breast cancer with knowledge and support, medical and informational resources also serve as a structural foundation for women's empowerment (Gibson et al, 2014). “Attention to empowerment does serve to position women as in control of their illness trajectories in ways that were previously disallowed” (Gibson et al, 2014, p. 524). This places the responsibility for managing one's health and sickness under one's own control, reflecting the neoliberal individualism of Western society. Moreover, practices that encourage others to help women with breast cancer by participating in consumerist and "run for a cure" sporting events to raise money and publicity for the illness (Gibson et al, 2014), also serve as examples of the postfeminist neoliberal focus of individualism and consumerism. The emphasis becomes on self-surveillance, self-monitoring, and self-discipline with external structural assistance to give women a sense of empowerment. Finally, while the pink ribbon breast cancer awareness campaigns are built on a vocabulary of personal accountability, empowerment, and self-surveillance, this discourse can result in duty and blame, further reproducing the neoliberal emphasis on self-care, while ignoring prevention. ~~~~~~~~~ The pink ribbon campaigns for breast cancer have been developed into a very marketable, lucrative brand thanks to the explosion of pink products available for purchase. The fact that billions of dollars have been raised so far for treatment is indicative of this. However, little has changed in terms of mortality rates or therapy. The culture uses gender exploitation to sell more pink goods. The illness is trivialized by the abundance of gimmicky and girlish products available on the market, while women's identities and bodies are likewise infantilized and sexualized. Women are under pressure to adhere to the pink ribbon culture's beauty norms because of these historically structured gendered practices. This shifts the conversation away from "choice" and toward expectations when it comes to breast reconstruction, prosthesis, and makeup use. Additionally, this has framed breast cancer as a disease that is primarily focused on the individual's appearance, with less focus being placed on political issues like environmental and beauty product contamination.

Additionally, when women are perceived to practice self-surveillance or alter their behavior in an effort to prevent breast cancer, this reinforces the idea that they have control over the disease. As a result, they are made to feel that they are in charge of managing their health. When they are engaging in behaviors like exercise, diet, and restrictive alcohol consumption, or reclaiming their femininity through beauty rituals, they feel equally empowered. These procedures may aid many women in coping with their disease or maintaining their identities while facing a potentially fatal illness. However, some of these discourses and patterns can be limiting. Women are positioned as being strong and independent, but they are also seen as being personally accountable for preserving or regaining their health. As a result, breast cancer is framed as a uniquely personal issue that calls for an internalized self-regulated approach rather than an external one.

There is little doubt that many women, their families, and friends have benefited from the pink ribbon culture. Users are urged to shop pink to show their support for breast cancer research. This “pink marketing” replaces political activity with consumer expenditure, shifting the emphasis away from action toward neoliberal consumer choice and individualized responsibility. The rhetoric on personal accountability and empowerment is a reflection of post-feminist neoliberal principles and practices that govern modern Western culture and place a strong emphasis on autonomy, self-actualization, consumerism, and responsibility. The pink ribbon campaign effectively commercializes health and illness and aims to deflect attention away from the real concerns of breast cancer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sources Cited:

Ehrenreich, B. (2001, November). WELCOME TO CANCERLAND. Harper's Magazine, 303(1818), 43. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A79665310/AONE?u=yorku_main&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=bc845fe3

Ferraro, Susan. 1993. You can’t look away anymore. The New York Times Magazine,15 August.

Gibson, Lee, C., & Crabb, S. (2014). “If you grow them, know them”: Discursive constructions of the pink ribbon culture of breast cancer in the Australian context. Feminism & Psychology, 24(4), 521–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353514548100

King. (2004). Pink Ribbons Inc: breast cancer activism and the politics of philanthropy.Int ernational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(4), 473–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390410001709553

Sulik. (2014). RETHINKPINK: Moving beyond Breast Cancer Awareness SWS Distinguished Feminist Lecture. Gender & Society, 28(5), 655–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243214540991

Sweeney, & Killoran-McKibbin, S. (2016). Selling Pink: Feminizing the Non-Profit Industrial Complex from Ribbons to Lemonaid. Women’s Studies, 45(5), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/00497878.2016.1186492

Yalom, Marilyn. 1997. A history of the breast. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The Ballantine.