Why the Komen/Planned Parenthood Breakup—While It Lasted—Was Good for Feminism
http://www.thenation.com/article/166072/why-komenplanned-parenthood-breakup-while-it-lasted-was-good-feminismMy delight at the Susan G. Komen Foundation/Planned Parenthood breakup lasted a glorious forty-eight hourswhich is the time it took for the nations most prominent breast cancer charity to reverse the decision that it would no longer fund the nations most prominent womens healthcare provider. It might not look like it at first, but Komens actions and the ensuing backlash are a huge boon for the feminist movement. The fact that Planned Parenthood will again be eligible for funding in future grant cycles, on top of the $3 million it has raised in the past week, just makes the incident a win-win. But the Komen controversy still has ramifications beyond the budgets of the two organizations: it provided a long-overdue spotlight on the difference between feminism as a brand and feminism as a political movement.
The past decades have seen the rise of a nominally apolitical marketing campaign masquerading as feminism, with Komen merely the most visible symbol. Komen aligns perfectly with what Linda Hirshman labeled choice feminisma moral-relativist approach to feminism that tries to scrub the movement of politics and value judgments in favor of uncritical affirmation of all womens choices.
In her statement of apology, Komen CEO Nancy Brinker said, We do not want our mission marred or affected by politicsanyones politics. Thats exactly the fallacythat somehow womens health can be narrowed to an apolitical and innocuous agenda. Womens bodies are the most politicized sites on earth. When women focus on a hyperfeminine aesthetic at the expense of issues of substance, we end up with a hot pink ghetto of goodwill that forfeits the conversation about rights, access and money to the menfolk.
For the past decade, this has been the feminists lament: How do we identify the line where feminism becomes a marketing strategy for the very patriarchy it nominally opposesselling a non-threatening agenda that doesnt buck the status quo? Its often hard to tell reclamation from capitulation, and easier to rely on shorthand symbols like, say, the color pink and you go girl sloganeering; its tempting to assume that everyones on the same ideological page. By the time you realize thats not the case, youve already purchased hundreds of dollars of carcinogenic cosmetics and applauded NFL players accused of sexual assault for courageously donning pink shoes.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i started seeing this two years ago and stopped donating last year and by this year, down right disgusted. the money for corps thru others fears and illness, the NFL acting friend to women as a rapist is heralded as redeeming himself because he made it to the superbowl last year, i love boobies and sexualizing women for the buck as women lost their boobies and were trying to deal.
all of it has made me disgusted with the underlining use of womens fears, illnesses and even deaths for a buck.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)It looked like nothing but pandering. I didn't object to the NFL being involved in trying to raise awareness. A simple pink ribbon on the field or something like that would have sufficed. But, the pink shoes were horrible imo.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)I don't seem to recall either the President or any of the Repuke candidates uttering a peep about this, if it doesn't make it into the political arena, it's a tempest in a teapot.
Also, when has SGK said that it's going to stop threatening to sue other organizations over the purported ownership of a part of the color spectrum and three common English words? We're looking for some Komen sense here.
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)how true, how damn, damn true: Womens bodies are the most politicized sites on earth.