Archive for the ‘Health’ Category

by Melinda Tankard Reist, Contributing Writer for AnaiRhoads.org

‘Help The Hooters’, ‘Save The Jugs’, ‘Don’t Let Cancer Steal Second Base’, ‘Cop a Feel’, ‘Save The Tattas’, ‘Save The Boobies’, ‘Save The Headlights’: these are just some of the slogans which have been used to promote breast cancer awareness and fundraising around the world.

There’s a new slogan appearing on twitter at the moment. It’s ‘Feel Them Up Friday’ (#feelthemupFriday).

EllyMc (@Ellymc) took issue with this slogan, believing it sexualised breast cancer awareness. She expressed her thoughts in a piece titled ‘On Public Health, Prudes and Hashtags’ which she then circulated through twitter last Thursday. I agreed with her, so re-tweeted another tweet about it by @daiskmeliadorn.

Missing the Point

Well, didn’t that cause a flurry of responses? I was making a big deal out of nothing, picking a fight,  it was just a ‘fun hashtag’.  I was even accused of saying women touching their own breasts was “sexual”. 

Now, I really don’t mind anyone disagreeing with my arguments. I’m kind of used to that. But I’d prefer an argument about what I said, not about what I didn’t say.

I have no issue at all with women touching their breasts and support self-examination. I’ve done it myself and found something suspicious which was checked out (there’s some family history of the disease, so I try to be vigilant). Fortunately, it wasn’t cause for concern.

But I do have an issue with the kind of language used in these campaigns because it emphasises the sexual desirability of breasts, especially as objects for male sexual gratification – and not a woman’s health and wellbeing.  ‘Feel Them Up’ is associated with the sexual behaviour of some men. The phrase is linked with and suggestive of adolescent males groping girls. (You would never hear the sentence ‘She felt him up in the back of the car’).

Even if the phrase is appropriated, and it is women doing the ‘feeling’, these connotations remain. The language contributes to the broader cultural sexualisation of the breast regardless of whatever arguments are employed to justify its use. Using these words in mainstream breast cancer awarenss campaigns normalises them and makes them OK – just a bit of ‘fun’.  This wider commodified sexualisation of the breasts contributes to many negative outcomes, not least mixed feelings about breast feeding. The sexification of the breast is mentioned in this journal article. (Thanks Dr Samantha Thomas for directing me to it. Samantha also has a piece on problematic breast cancer promotion on her blog which is worth reading ).

Some women lose their breasts

Many of the slogans used in breast awareness campaigns are about saving boobies/hooters/jugs. But many breast cancer survivors lose their breasts. What do these campaigns say about them? They survived, their breasts did not. Perhaps this is why survivors who have had mastectomies don’t feature much in breast cancer advertising – like this public service announcement for ‘Saving The Boobies’ (note also the apparent jealousy of the smaller breasted women towards the woman with the larger breasts who is attracting all the attention).

And don’t tell me this nude modelling site – billed as a ‘Breast appreciation gallery’ -  is really about “Helping defeat breast cancer”. The fundraising angle can be used as a nice cover for displaying women’s naked bodies – their  ‘assets’ as described here - all in the name of  a ‘great cause’.

“Nude models wanted. Share your beauty with us and help Q’BellaT with a great cause… If you’re outgoing, fun, daring, over 18, female; and you think your assets belong here…then…contact us with your information. Tell your friends to join us!!!”

Is it any wonder that the less ‘sexy’ cancer causes find it more of a struggle to attract funding and donations?

‘The sexism of breast cancer awareness normalizes the view that women are sexual objects rather than subjects with agency and dignity’.

Here’s a great article which expresses my thoughts on this. It’s by Beth Mendenhall, a senior in political science and philosophy at Kansas State College, published in February:

Breast cancer campaigns demean women

Without the appropriate context, one might interpret slogans such as “I < 3 boobs,” “Help the Hooters” and “Save the Jugs” as lubricious frat-boy appeals to more cleavage shots in the next “American Pie” movie.

In reality, these slogans and others like them are the new vanguard in breast cancer awareness campaigns. Despite its good intentions, the focus on saving breasts because they are objects of sexual desire is an insidious reinforcement of sexist norms and explicitly excludes most breast cancer survivors from the campaign.

The new culture of breast cancer awareness can be characterized by two features: appeals to saving the breasts, rather than the women, and slogans couched in vernacular terms like “boobs” and “hooters.” These campaigns treat women’s bodies as objects whose central purpose is the sexual gratification of the male libido.

See the wave of “Don’t Let Cancer Steal Second Base” T-shirts. When a campaign to raise awareness and funds to fight a deadly disease appeals to the potential loss of a sexual object, rather than the potential loss of a human life, it sends a powerful message about what our society values. The sexism of breast cancer awareness normalizes the view that women are sexual objects rather than subjects with agency and dignity.

The impacts of sexism aren’t limited to discomfort and irritation. Thousands of violent acts against women, including battery, rape and murder, are committed because the perpetrator views his victim as nothing more than an object created for his pleasure.

Anxiety and loss of confidence, eating disorders and even suicide are symptoms of women viewing themselves as imperfect if their bodies don’t reflect the perceived norm. If we valued women as subjects with agency, rather than passive objects with “boobs” attached, many of these social ills would be greatly reduced.

It’s undeniable that breast cancer awareness campaigns have been effective – despite being less fatal than other types of cancer, breast cancer receives, by far, the most funding. It works because it reflects and reinforces sexist culture, forcing women to assume the position of passive objects of male desire to be considered effective activists. This pragmatist blackmail ignores the violence and self-deprecation women experience as a result of the norms it reifies. Slogans like “We’ll Go a Long Way for a Good Rack” imply that a woman with less-than-optimal breasts doesn’t deserve as much effort.

One of the most ironic effects of boob-centric breast cancer campaigns is their complete exclusion of breast cancer survivors who have had mastectomies. The new culture of breast cancer awareness is perversely inhospitable to those it ought to support by emphasizing the link between female sexuality and healthy breasts.

This might explain awareness T-shirts with mock street signs saying “Pardon Our Appearance While We are Under Reconstruction.” A recent manifestation of this exclusion was the Facebook.com bra-color-in-status trend, which explicitly excluded survivors with mastectomies and was a painful reminder of their deviance from social norms of sexuality.

Breast cancer awareness is a worthy and honorable goal, but off and especially on-campus campaigns should critically examine the messages they send and refuse complicity with a pervasive culture of sexism. We should not give carte blanch to sexist rhetoric, even if well-intended. When we place women’s value in the maintenance of their sexualized body parts, rather than their subjectivity, we license insidious forms of physical, structural and mental violence.

Support Remission Possible: Amanda Ghirardello, a Melbourne breast cancer survivor, is climbing to Mt Everest Base Camp next month to raise funds for Australia breast cancer research. Read about it and support her here.

by Melinda Tankard Reist, Contributing Writer for AnaiRhoads.org

Or leave you permanently disfigured

“It’s an industry that has developed in health care which has nothing to do with health care” – Prof Merrilyn Walton

If you didn’t see 60 Minutes segment ‘The Beauty Trap’ on Sunday night, here it is:

The program tells the tragic story of Lauren James, who died three years ago at the age of 26 following an $8000 liposuction procedure on her thighs in a Melbourne clinic. We hear from her bereft parents and boyfriend.

It also tells the story of Kerry who suffered life-long disfigurement as a result of undergoing a breast lift as part of a $25,000 “Mum’s Makeover”, also in Melbourne. Kerry bravely tells her story and shows the extent of the mutilation of both her breasts. This extract from the transcript:

KERRY MULLINS: I was in there for three months, and each and every other day they’d take me down to theatre and so I had 22 operations all up, and every second day they would cut it away, cut it away, cut it away until it was just a big hole in my chest.

TARA BROWN: How were you coping, mentally?

KERRY MULLINS: Um, all I kept thinking was I just want to live. There was a couple of times I didn’t want to wake up, but I was in so much pain and I did looked so disfigured that I didn’t want to wake up…

KERRY MULLINS: That is my right breast, and that is my left breast and they are the scars I’m left with.

TARA BROWN: This is not easy for you, is it?

KERRY MULLINS: No, it isn’t, it isn’t, but I just want women to be aware that is they’re going to consider having plastic surgery that they look and have a look at me and see what the outcome can be, and this is what you can end up looking like.

TARA BROWN: How do you feel about your body today?

KERRY MULLINS: Um, like a freak. I’m disgusted. Even when I wash myself, I feel disgusted that I even have to even wash that area and touch that area.

TARA BROWN: Do you think you’ll ever lose that feeling?

KERRY MULLINS: No, never, never ever.

Professor Merrilyn Walton, who has investigated Australia’s cosmetic surgery industry in Australia, says it is “an industry that has developed in health care that has nothing to do with health care.” She also says Australia’s industry is less regulated than elsewhere.

It is time the industry was made accountable for preying on women, enticing them with false promises and playing down the risks. There should be a major overhaul of the industry with tighter regulation and accountability.

by Stephen Lendman

For months, US media reports distorted and lied about its severity, running cover for BP and the Obama administration, now practically avoiding the crisis altogether as it worsens. An August 20 Inter Press Service report is revealing, quoting Biloxi, MS fisherman Danny Ross saying hypoxia (depleted oxygen) is driving horseshoe crabs, stingrays, flounder, dolphins, and other sea life “out of the water” to escape. Another area fisherman, David Wallis said he’s “seen crabs crawling out of the water in the middle of the day.”

Other reports cite strange marine life behavior, sighted near the surface when they normally stay well submerged. Alabama fisherman Stan Fournier said in 40 years of work, he’s never seen anything like it. “It looks like all the sea life is trying to get out of the water,” unable to breathe in their normal habitat, what US media reports won’t touch, instead hyping success, saying BP’s well capped and most oil dissolved when, in fact, it won’t degrade for decades, remaining a lethal cocktail combined with dispersants, killing wildlife and poisoning anyone eating it, assuring a coming epidemic of cancers and other diseases. 

On August 19, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior scientist Bill Lehr, in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, retracted his earlier claim about most oil dispersed and dissolved. He now says “I would say most of that is still in the environment,” as much as 90%, only 6% burned and 4% skimmed, the rest contaminating a large part of the Gulf, spreading, and devastating wildlife.

In addition, on August 19, the journal Science published a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) study, confirming a giant oil plume floating about 1,200 meters below the surface – 35 km-long (22 miles), two km wide, and 200 meters thick. Persisting “for months without substantial biodegradation,” it poses a serious threat to sea life, one of the article’s writers, Dr. Chris Reddy, saying, “At this point, we know the plume exists, and we know more about its potential biological activity in the future” and harm it can cause.

It’ll be years before the full extent of damage is known. However, it’s already extensive and extremely dangerous, containing 50 micrograms per liter of “a group of particularly toxic petroleum compounds,” 6 – 7% of it a deadly benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene cocktail – released from BP’s Macondo well, the evidence clearly showing it according to research team head Richard Camilli.

He expects the plume to spread and biodegrade very slowly in cold waters. In addition, other independent researchers discovered other even larger plumes. University of Georgia Marine Sciences Professor Samantha (Mandy) B. Joye said the WHOI plume “doesn’t hold a candle” to one her team found in May. Nonetheless, BP and Obama officials signaled an all-clear, denying their existence and the catastrophic disaster, out of sight and mind instead of dealing with it responsibly.

It’s why on August 23, the Union of Concerned Scientists alerted members and supporters to “Help end America’s dangerous addiction to oil,” saying for decades it’s warned about the US’s “misguided energy and transportation policies (instead of) promoting innovative solutions to reduce our dependence on oil. (The Gulf disaster) is a painful reminder of the work” left to be done and urgency of doing it.

On August 20, Kieran Suckling, Center for Biological Diversity Executive Director headlined his press release, “Gulf of Mexico Still in Crisis Four Months After BP Explosion: Center for Biological Diversity Tour Finds Oiled Beaches, Water and Wildlife….Drilling Policy Reforms Still Too Weak, Too Late,” saying:

The Center’s team saw “firsthand how oil is still killing wildlife and fouling beaches and marshes. This crisis is far from over.” Grand Isle, LA beaches were contaminated with oil, liquid surface pools and more mixed with sand in hardened mats along the water’s edge.

“Some beaches appear fine from a distance but are actually sitting atop massive amounts of oil, which bubbled to the surface when the team walked across the sand. Digging into (it) with rubber gloves,” oil was found six inches below the surface. Crabs and birds are covered with it as they cross beaches or marsh land. “Fish and sea turtles are forced to swim through oil on the surface and below,” looking for food. “In short, (the Gulf) is still an oily mess despite rosy assertions” by BP and Obama officials, claiming most oil is gone. They know damn well it’s there to stay, poisoning everything it touches.

The Center’s survey supports independent scientists saying most remains, fouling beaches, waters, marshes and wildlife. Working for reform and serious remediation, Center officials filed seven lawsuits against BP and government regulators, including “the largest Clean Water Act suit in history,” seeking $19 billion in fines from BP. More on their likely resolution below.

Firsthand Reports from the Gulf

Reporting from the area, investigative journalist Dahr Jamail calls Grand Isle, LA’s condition “post-apocalytic,” spotting “tar balls that bob lazily underwater, amidst sand ripples in the shallows….Oil-soaked marsh abounds….the island smell(ing) like a gas station. Noxious fumes infiltrate my nose, causing me to cough. Piles of oiled oysters rest on the tide line.”

Tar balls are everywhere. “In some places, there are literally huge mats of fresh tar….The scene is apocalyptic….It is one of the more disgusting, vile scenes I’ve even seen….All we can do is take photos. The stench is overpowering. I gag. My eyes water from the burning chemicals….I feel dizzy.” The entire Gulf Coast has been raped and destroyed. Official coverup is criminal.

Only time will assess the full damage on humans and wildlife. However, the toll already is devastating, the Obama administration complicit with BP, culpable for a crime they want suppressed, ignored and forgotten, what will affect the lives of millions perhaps forever.

According to Florida State University ocean scientist Ian MacDonald: “The (disaster’s) imprint will be there in the Gulf of Mexico for the rest of my life. It is not gone,” and won’t ever “go away quickly,” warning of a potential tipping point beyond which wildlife and the ecosystem won’t recover, the crossed Rubicon after which return no longer is possible, a shocking assessment perhaps already true.

JAMA Reports Direct Threats to Human Health

In its August 16 edition, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) writers Drs. Gina M. Solomon and Sarah Janssen headlined, “Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill,” saying “it (and dispersants pose) direct threats to human health from inhalation or dermal contact,” besides harming seafood and mental health.

Solomon and Janssen explained that crude oil’s main components are “aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons.” Containing volatile organic compounds (including benezene, toluene and xylene), they “can cause respiratory irritation and central nervous system (CNS) depression.”

Benzene also causes leukemia, and toluene “is a recognized teratogen (causing embryo malformation) at high doses.” Naphthalene and other higher molecular weight chemicals are “reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans….”

Released hydrogen sulfide gas, nonvolatile polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals from oil “can contaminate the food chain. Hydrogen sulfide gas is neurotoxic and has been linked to both acute and chronic CNS (central nervous system) effects. PAHs include mutagens and probable carcinogens. Burning oil generates particulate matter, which is associated with cardiac and respiratory symptoms and premature mortality.”

Massive dispersants use greatly exacerbates the problem. They contain toxic detergents, surfactants and petroleum distillates, including known respiratory irritants like 2-butoxyethanol, propylene glycol, and sulfonic acid salts.

As a result, area residents and cleanup workers experienced headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, coughs, respiratory distress, chest pain, and other symptoms – warning signs of potentially greater future health problems.

“Skin contact with oil and dispersants causes defatting, resulting in dermatitis and secondary skin infections. Some individuals may develop a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, erythema (injured or irritated skin), edema, burning sensations, or a follicular rash.”

Potential long-term health risks are high, wildlife contamination making anyone eating Gulf seafood vulnerable. “Community residents should not fish” in oil-contaminated areas, nor should federal, state or local officials allow them.

Some Final Comments

On August 20, New York Times writer Ian Urbina headlined, “BP Settlements Likely to Shield Top Defendants,” saying:

“People and businesses seeking a lump-sum settlement from BP’s $20 billion oil spill compensation fund will most likely have to waive their right to sue not only BP, but also all the other major defendants involved with the spill, according to internal documents from the lawyers handling the fund.”

In other words, the fix is in, Obama and BP officials conspiring to let responsible parties off the hook, settlement terms designed to deny victims just compensation and for many, perhaps most, none at all, given the strict guidelines of eligibility required.

Claims czar Kenneth Feinberg is a notorious “fixer,” mandated to save BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and blowout preventer maker Cameron International potentially tens of billions in liabilities, strong-arming victims to waive their right to sue in return for amounts too meager to matter.

According to Urbina, the dilemma for those suing is deciding between “years of litigation (or) accept(ing) the (offered) settlement….before the full (extent of) damage” is known. Most important is that “those who cannot demonstrate damages caused by the direct impact of oil on beaches and fisheries will be ineligible for money.”

For example, small businesses, not located directly on affected beaches, experiencing sharp revenue drops “will not be able to receive compensation….” in violation of the federal Oil Pollution Act that excludes geographical limitations. The same holds for area residents living away from the shoreline.

Property owners who’ve seen sharp valuations drops, will also be cheated. So will cleanup workers and area residents later contracting diseases, mental illness, lost income, or other harmful effects.

As point man, Feinberg will deny, obstruct, and let criminal defendants off the hook, then (on BP’s payroll) be handsomely paid for his services, the same ones he performed earlier for Wall Street banks, Agent Orange producers, asbestos manufacturers, and Dalkon Shield maker AH Robins as well as against 9/11 victims.

Only corporate interests matter, not people whose lives they destroy, Obama officials doing nothing to help them – instead being complicit partners in the greatest ever environmental crime, whitewashing it by giving the all-clear, declaring “mission accomplished,” and protecting corporate criminals at all costs.