All for the cause?

I couldn’t believe my eyes.  Was I just imagining 250lb NFL linebackers donning fuchsia pink cleats and matching gloves? Was the cable malfunctioning? Normally, as a casual football fan, I would’ve just changed the channel, especially since my team wasn’t playing, but something about the intensity of the “fashion statement” held me captive. The statement, of course, was in honor of breast cancer awareness month, and pink was everywhere: on the field, in the crowds, on the reporters, and yes, even in the pom-poms.

Living in the information age, we’re well aware of the criteria that awareness campaigns like this need to meet in order to be successful. Is it attention-grabbing? Check. Effective? Check. Did it inspire anyone to do anything other than adjust their televisions? Hummm.

But this is common fare.  As evidenced by this week’s newsfeeds, two very different approaches to promoting awareness are making headlines, challenging us to revisit the formula for success when it comes to obtaining the results we want, namely, moving the public to action. While both campaigns call attention to two devastating realities affecting women today, each have taken an approach that stands at opposite ends of the spectrum.

First was the “I like it on…” breast cancer awareness campaign that took Facebook by storm this month, soliciting a fury of reactions ranging from those who found it brilliant, to those who found it horrifying. You may or may not have come across the deliberately suggestive or risqué “status updates” by women in your newsfeed prompted by the viral campaign. While you are initially led to believe that your friends are publicly declaring where they like to “…”, they are actually referring to places where they like to leave their purse. The purse reference bears no obvious connection to breast cancer, and while crowds of women are rallying around what they believe to be a fun, flirty way to spread the word, many are left appalled by how such a tragic disease could be so trivialized.

"I don't believe in 'let's try to make this cute' because breast cancer isn't cute," said Krupali Tejura in an interview with ACBNews. As a radiation oncologist based in Southern California she noted how she sees patients dying every day and how no part of that is funny. Instead of wasting energy on a “sexually-infused, cryptic message,” she said she'd rather see people posting information about the disease.

But if something generates enough buzz to make headlines, isn’t that effective? Not quite, says Karen Young, director of marketing for Breastcancer.org. While "I like it on" rallied people around the cause, Young argues that it lacked a call to action.

Robyn Urback of the National Post wholeheartedly agrees, adding that the movement “sexualizes a disease that is, as many can attest, not in the least bit sexy." And to what end? “The problem is, the Facebook meme doesn’t do anything for the cause, and ironically may ebb motivation to actually go out and try to rouse some real awareness or fundraising,” Urback said. “This is the exactly the type of ‘slacktivism’ Malcolm Gladwell decried in his New Yorker column last week. Why would someone go out and organize a fundraiser, Gladwell asks, when weak-tie connections to online activism make him or her feel like an actual difference is being made?”

Another awareness campaign, this time highlighting the truth about abortion, is making waves north of the border. While its approach is radically different from the ‘I like it on’ campaign, it ultimately leaves us asking the same question, ‘does it work?’

As reported by the Catholic Register, five students from Carlton University’s Lifeline (a campus pro-life group) raised an extremely graphic anti-abortion display in a high traffic zone on campus on Oct. 4. The students were arrested and issued tickets totalling $130 for “failing to leave the premises when directed” and “engaging in activity prohibited on the premises.” The students had alerted the university about their display prior to the event, and had even attempted to negotiate the set up with the administration. However, since the students were offered a room that they felt was “in a segregated area, away from places where students would see it,” they went ahead with their original plan, arguing that the area they selected had been used for other forms of student activism in the past. In turn, the University got the police involved, citing previous court and human rights tribunal decisions that found similar displays to be offensive. 

While many commended these students for fearlessly displaying the brutal reality of abortion, others felt that showing enlarged pictures of dismembered foetuses was taking it a step too far. Detractors insist that such images ignore the dignity of the deceased, while failing to consider the sensitivities of those who once made that choice.     

Regardless of whether we find the approaches ingenious or offensive, both scenarios challenge us to carefully consider the way in which we chose to engage in public discourse, especially around issues claiming thousands of lives every day. Beyond our attempts to stand-out, beyond the shock-value, is our method motivating the public to take action? Does it elicit important discussions around the actual topic? Is that not ultimately the measure of success for any public awareness campaign?  Isn’t anything short of that at best, a distraction, and at worst, a failure?

I’ll say one thing. After being assured during Sunday night football that “real men wear pink,” I was suddenly reminded of that long ago email from a friend asking me to sponsor her run for the cure.  How about you?

- Michèle Nuzzo-Naglieri

 

Comments

[Kevin]

Sensationalizing a cause will gather attention and often times motivate action but without some sort of follow up, the action may not be the one hoped for. Additionally, the sensationalized appeal does not usually give background for rational decision making. The author was reminded of a previous solicitation by the pink of the football players' attire. This did not cause a deep enough inquiry to note that the Susan G. Komen group regularly gives Planned Parenthood financial support of over $700,000. When confronted with an emotional appeal, it is wise to investigate the mundane aspects as well.

[Luis]

JMJ

It is absolutely amazing to me that breast cancer can be mentioned, in any context, for any purpose, WITHOUT also mentioning that elective abortion raises the risk of breast cancer by up to 50%. The feminists who have worked hard to hide this information have a lot of women's bodies to step over in getting their work done.

I would be grateful to have the author of this article, Michèle Nuzzo-Naglieri, blog back on this subject.

[Luis]

JMJ

Ahhh, the "Detractors insist that such images ignore the dignity of the deceased, while failing to consider the sensitivities of those who once made that choice." Yes, let's worry about the "dignity of the deceased" but not worry about the motivations (meaning $$$) of the people who produce the mutilated, torn-apart corpses of the babies and the total freedom they have to commit abortions, which in turn are photographed to defend against lawsuits.

[Michèle Nuzzo-Naglieri]

Thank you for your comments Luis. The very important link between abortion and breast cancer was already raised so eloquently by our columnist Gerard Nadal (http://headlinebistro.com/hb/en/columnists/nadal/index.html), that I chose a different focus.

[Michèle Nuzzo-Naglieri]

Thank you Kevin. While my point was to zoom in on the methods of raising awareness, indeed I should have added a cautionary warning with regard to the foundations we choose to endorse.