Apparently, Jack Black and others are promoting the Noreen Fraser Foundation, which:
'urges men to support the women in their lives with a pledge that involves healthy eating, regular exercise, self breast exams and scheduling appointments for a mammogram.'
Jack Black's awareness-raising technique was to go for a scan himself (Of course men can get breast cancer too). But he also says:
'All us guys, dudes and bromigos are getting off our lazy butts and making appointments for our beloved ladies to meet with this bad boy - the mammogram machine - or, as I like to call her, the boob saver.'
Oh, I see. Not the woman saver. The boob saver. Because we can't have those lovely breasts going to waste and depriving men of the pleasure provided by 'their' ladies. And as if a woman needs a man to make an appointment for her. This is not about saving the women from other kinds of cancer, like lung cancer which kills more women than breast cancer, but that's different because, you know, breasts are hot.
And then there's the bit about 'healthy eating and regular exercise'. It sounds at first as if this means the MEN are going to support their girlfriends by taking care of themselves, which would certainly be interesting (although of course nobody should be working out or dieting simply to please their partner rather than themselves). But when you look closer, it seems it's about men policing their girlfriend's eating and exercise habits. I'm all for men giving real support to their partners, but not the way this sounds.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Men 'support their girlfriends' with diet plans and breast screening.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15853
This kind of jocular frat boy talk will always make me retch. Breasts need to be healthy, not to have some degree of arbitrary size distinction placed on them. Though I like Jack Black's music, I can't say I agree with everything he stands for, but if I made that the qualifying factor in everything I enjoyed, I don't know to whom I'd have to listen, read, watch, or otherwise appreciate.
As for this stupid statement, file it under pseudo-intellectualism. *shrugs*
He degrades himself in the quote when he calls himself lazy. Is the statement inherently oppressive, yeah. But will my lazy boyfriend take in interest in the health of my body and help me maneuver health insurance forms because Jack said he does for his wife. Maybe.
Either way, I'm glad he said something rather than nothing at all.
Is this NFF initiative a good or a bad thing?
This reminds me of an ad run in Australia for Men's PSA testing. The ad featured women nagging (yes, it was actually meant to be portrayed as nagging, not reasoning or encouraging) 'their men' to go to the doctor and get a 'little prick' (a blood test) to check on their PSA level.
The reasoning being that men wouldn't look after themselves, so it was up to the women in their lives to pester them until they went and saw a doctor.
The ad finished with one woman saying 'Guys, do it for your wives, do it for your girlfriends, go and get a little prick this week!'
I think these two campaigns can be filed under 'Trying to make people responsible for their partner's health.'
That campaign is interesting.
At uni, one of our lecturers was talking about how lots of Australian men wont go to the doctor unless encouraged to do so by a female because of issues around what it means to be 'a man'. Consequently, the blokes who won't go to a doctor end up being a lot more vulnerable to health problems than necessary.
I'm really curious about how effective it was in comparison to other health campaigns targeted at men? Did the presence of women in the advertisement make a difference, or was it just another example of bad advertising?
Here in America, a lot of men avoid going to the doctor because many doctors are very obnoxious, condescending and insulting - they may have very useful health information for the patient, but they insist on communicating it in a very belligerent and insulting way.
Many women are socialized to believe that it is appropriate to be talked to this way by authority figures so they tolerate it.
Many men are socialized to NOT allow anybody to talk to them like that - and, rather than get in a situation where they'd have to get in a fight with the doctor who insulted them, they just avoid the situation altogether.
I know that's why I avoid doctor visits.
Maybe the same phenomenon is going on in Australia - many Australian doctors are insulting to their patients, many women patients tolerate it, many men patients simply avoid the situation rather than get in a fight with the doctor for being a condescending jerk.
Wow. A dude can't win, can he? Someone should have coached Jack Black on the correct way to speak, so that he could have avoided inadvertantly offending some women while trying to accomplish something genuinely good. He's a comdedian- a big joking joker of a jokester- his calling the mammogram thingie the "boob saver" was meant to be funny, and, in my opinion, you have to really be looking for something to be offended about to take it any other way.
I see nothing wrong with anything he said, and I think it's just terribly sad that when a man takes an interest in his wife's health, and encourages others to do so as well, we pick it apart.
This reminds me of the "Save Second Base" campaign. Yeah it got an eye roll from me, but if some silly humor can help save lives then I think it is a good thing.
Thanks for that - I feel like ultimately what he's doing is in some way at least beneficial. Why can't we put our energy elsewhere
Yeah, you know I just think when something is clearly well intentioned, which this so obviously is, it's counter-productive to pick it apart looking for things about which to take offense.
This.
Oh, I see. Not the woman saver. The boob saver. Because we can't have those lovely breasts going to waste and depriving men of the pleasure provided by 'their' ladies. And as if a woman needs a man to make an appointment for her. This is not about saving the women from other kinds of cancer, like lung cancer which kills more women than breast cancer, but that's different because, you know, breasts are hot.
IF he said woman saver, I think you would have said something along the lines that a woman then must only be her breasts. There's sensitivity, then there's over sensitivity. I think you're looking to hate on Jack Black.
Doesn't he admit, by default, that he thinks of the major women in his life as more than just breasts? So, like, if they lost them to cancer, he would still love them just the same?
Or am I being too rosy and lovey-dovey here?
Also, it's not about the rest of the body because Breast Cancer is the popular cancer to fight. Breasts are so sexualized a woman is "disfigured" if she doesn't have them. So, yeah, promoting the health of the whole woman and having assistance with that from a supportive lover is an awesome thing (which can make him healthy, too, mind you).
Also, unless I'm mistaken, a mammographer does only look at breast tissue and an MRI or CT would need to look at other parts of the body. So, "boob saver" would be pretty accurate considering the specification of the machine to its use.
Actually I do quite like Jack Black. I suppose yes, you could say I'm being picky, but I think the article is slightly confusing as to what its message actually is. Women are bombarded with advice on healthy eating and regular exercise all the time anyway. The idea seems similar to the 'be cervix savvy' ads with men in them that was picked up by the F word site. You know, just because I criticise something it doesn't mean I 'hate' the person or people involved. Nor does it mean that the thing itself is necessarily all bad. You have a point when you say if it were called the 'woman-saver' I might interpret that wrongly as well. But I think it's worth discussing the language used in articles that talk about women's health, especially when seen through male eyes. This was my intention. Maybe I became slightly rant-y but I dunno, it's hard to come across completely clearly when you've only got text and you can't edit later.
I love how all the proponents of these "Save tits" bs talk about how its better than nothing... sexism isnt better than no sexism.
I also love how its all about how basely illogical and irrational men are; its as if they cannot possibly comprehend a thing so basic as doing something so their girlfriend/whatever wont frreakin die of cancer, and instead have to put it in very simple and basic terms of their selfishness.
Its like speaking to very young children; you have to finish your dinner not because you need the nutrients, but because otherwise you can't go out to play.
Guess sexists will have to sacrifice sexualization of women if they dont want the sexism to swing back at them lolz.
Gopher? Is that you?
If Jack Black had grown up on a desert island, raised by wolves, and the first thing he saw upon entering society was a mammogram being performed, then his statement would be ok. Since Mr. Black actually grew up in society as part of society and can't be bothered to rise above society by emphasizing women's lives instead of women's breasts, he is fair game for picking. I am tired of seeing breast cancer framed in terms of breasts. DO we have Save the Lungs campaigns? Save the Blood Marrow campaigns? Only breast cancer reduces its patients to body parts - it is no coincidence that said parts are sexual in this culture.
Although I must say, if I saw a Save the Breasts ad with saggy, over-40, uneven, salami-nippled, non-white breasts, I would cheer.
I 100% disagree with your an find it insulting that you'd jump to THAT conclusion. I'm curious have you ever seen a Testicular Cancer Campaign? As one of the leading members Sexuality Center (I run Zesty Testes, for Testicular Cancer) at my UNI, I can tell you that after consulting with other event organizers your statement is completely incorrect.
I have a feeling that this holds true for if not ALL that most reproductive and sexual cancers/ailments. Not just breast.
I have seen PSAs for testicular self exams. Were they framed as "Save the Balls"? No, they were not. The picture was of a man from the waist down, fully clothed, with no visible sign of genitalia (ie, no lumps in the crotch area). What a difference from breast cancer PSAs.
Those are the only testicular cancer ads I have ever seen. That in and of itself might be a problem, but that is not the problem we are discussing here. Go write your own community post.
Oh, and I've never seen a "Save the Prostate" campaign, either.
- I am tired of seeing breast cancer framed in terms of breasts.
That made me laugh somehow....let´s call it "chest cancer"
Mammarial Malignancy...
Well, actually calling it 'chest cancer' might help clear up some of the myths about it - for example, that men can't get it. I know the overwhelming majority are women, but one man who had it even said he got laughed at because it was seen as a 'women's disease'. I suppose they thought it was somehow *degrading* for a man to get breast cancer, like a woman might.
And FrumiousB, you are so right about the images used in the campaign being usually young white women with 'good' breasts. Actually it's funny how I hadn't noticed before you said that that the people who usually get it - women over 30, usually 40s or 50s - are not the ones used for campaign models most of the time. It's young 'pretty' breasts that people like to look at which are used.
For anyone saying 'this is so trivial, can't we think of something else', well you're totally free not to read my post at all. I understand that not everyone is into analysis on this level, that's ok and you do of course have a valid point there. But I do wish people would stop taking issues and saying 'because there's worse stuff going on we should have a go at people for talking about trivial stuff.' The trivial stuff is a symptom of the wider problems.
"you are so right about the images used in the campaign being usually young white women with 'good' breasts. Actually it's funny how I hadn't noticed before you said that that the people who usually get it - women over 30, usually 40s or 50s - are not the ones used for campaign models most of the time."
Perhaps I am missing something, but most of the breast cancer awareness campaigns I have seen don't show any actual breasts at all- just women of all ages. They might be mostly white, though.
"I understand that not everyone is into analysis on this level,"
That's somewhat...condescending, isn't it? It implies you think about things in a more deep or serious way than I. Of course I can (sort of) see what you're saying. I just think that when men do something to support women and their causes, and you pick it apart to find how it's sexist or wrong somehow, you're ultimately doing women a disservice because eventually the men will just stop trying because, jeez, they just can't do anything right.
"It implies you think about things in a more deep or serious way than I."
Well, we all make the choice about whether it's worth the time to think about a certain something seriously or deeply. There's things I sure don't think about deeply or seriously, either because I don't think it's worth it or because I just accept them automatically.
As for 'they just can't do anything right', again, it's not really about what the men are doing or not doing. It's about the language used. I for one am thrilled that breast cancer gets the attention it does, but that doesn't mean there's not problems with the campaign. Feministing is often critical of the breast cancer campaign marketing strategies.
Yeah, maybe there's something wrong with me, but I tend not to get too hung up on language- I focus more on overall intent.
Anyway, I have thought about this quite deeply. I looked at his every word and its meaning in relation to the other words, and I still can't find a reason to be offended. I get that you can, and obviously have- I just think you're really reaching here.
And I suppose we'll just agree to disagree.
The actual breast is typically not shown b/c that would violate some community statute or other. What is typically shown is a woman in a very tight t-shirt, or a nude women with strategically placed items that leave some side boob or under boob visible, or a nude woman with her arm over her breasts, again with some portion of boob visible. It's like Cosmo and Details were put in charge of designing the ads.
Are you in the US? That's where I am, and most of the print and television campaigns that I remember seeing have women's faces or whole bodies. I really don't remember it as being terribly boob-centric.
I don't know about FrumiousB, but I'm in the UK.