Thursday, November 17, 2011

Reclaiming Breasts

Breast cancer isn't just about breasts, though slogans like "save the boobies" make it seem so. Survivors are constantly portrayed in terms of what they lack: hair, breasts, etc. Centering a campaign on breasts alone, diminishes female survivors. We should want to save more than just their breasts; lets try to save their lives.

Garland-Thomson wrote, "Breasts almost never belong to the woman to whom they are attached", and I was moved. Breasts are sexualized, I knew this. I know that a woman's nipples stir commotion because they are "only" for sexual intimacy or nursing. But thinking of a woman's breasts as a commodity for others is unsettling. Saving "the tatas" and not the woman to whom the breasts belong, exemplifies this idea. Ignoring the woman behind the breasts, ignores the actual cause. When survivors reclaim their breasts, or lack of, they are making a statement; my breasts are for me first.

Breasts are a huge indicator of female identity, and losing such a core piece of physical identity can literally change who you are. Suddenly, you have been moved to a different category of woman: survivor. While there are prosthetic breasts that can hide the loss, women who bare their scars confront normalcy and demand recognition. Matuschka made "breastlessness a public spectacle" to stir conversation. She presented her body to prove that scars and breastlessness is a beauty that has been suppressed and ignored. She reclaimed her body by forcing the attention where she chose. We are meant to stare at her chest, and we are to be surprised to see a scar instead of a nipple. She wants us to stare so we can understand. She wants us to stare so we can talk about it.

Breasts are important, they are a part of many bodies, whether desired or not. The lack of breasts are equally important, and talking about both instances can reevaluate how we view bodies. Women can still be women without breasts, and reclaiming their bodies (regardless if through tattoos or scarification) is integral to their identity and self. As for breast cancer awareness campaigns, bringing women to the forefront instead of their breasts will no longer diminish them as women or categorize them in terms of what they lack. Perhaps this is a better method, no?

6 comments:

  1. I love that you brought up that Matuschka "wants us to stare so we can talk about it." You're completely right. Talk of breast cancer is interesting because of what it focuses on, here in contemporary times, and what it leaves out. The focus is more on "boobies, tee hee" rather than saving dying women from cancer. Sure, it's a great way to raise awareness of the cause to end it, but it's problematic in that it is fueled by our culture's obsession with breasts and reducing women to their most voluptuous parts.

    What we don't hear enough of is discourse about losing an aspect of your physical self that defines a lot of women and how the pressure is on for mastectomy patients to endure breast reconstruction rather than to accept the scar as something empowering, a means by which they can appreciate life with new vigor, now that they have been close to death but returned nevertheless. What I'm trying to say is, I think your method is a very good one, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This argument is one I have though of before as I have had a close loved one been diagnosed and go through treatments. Taking away the breast, or even a little part of the breast, is more than just taking away the cancer. It is taking away a part of herself. I agree that I think people forget about the woman behind the breast.

    As for your argument about the slogans of “save the ta-tas” I agree with where you are coming from in that it is focusing more on the breast than the woman, but I also think that these campaigns are great in a sense. They encourage us to say boobies, or ta-tas, in a light hearted way in the middle of a dark, dark time. They bring solidarity to a community of people who feel they are alone. i do think that there should be campaigns that focus more on the woman AND the breast, rather than one or the other...so yes I do think that your method is a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paige, save the ta-tas and boobies can be lighthearted, but as Lillian said, it also fuels our obsession with boobs. You can't have one without the other, unfortunately.

    This is manifested in the campaigns that specifically say "I love boobs", instead of "I love humans, and will help in any way I can to fight cancer".

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really like the approach you took in your blog. I think bringing the woman's entire self into the picture. At the same time we have to keep in mind the slogans that are used are marketing techniques. Breast cancer is one of the highest marketed cancers in our society. The merchandise they sell goes towards the cause, so that definately has to be considered in the campaign. Slogans like "save the ta-ta's", "I love boobies" draw people in. Even our volleyball had a pink game in October and the slogan they used "big or small, save them all" and I know a handful of students thought it was very clever and were interested in purchasing a shirt.

    I'm no sure how companies would bring the entire woman's body but I do respect the thought. I would like to see the idea at work in a breast cancer campaign

    ReplyDelete
  5. I see what you're saying about breasts. In regard to the quote you pulled from the book, what do you think this says about culture itself? Don't you think we're all out to use breasts, whether it be for advertising, or other gains?

    If you ask me, the usage of breasts has become rampant in the advertising industry, and therefore has become indicative of our growing interest in our patriarchal society. This is a matter of capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have to admit that I never gave much thought to the breast cancer campaigns and what it was they were saying. Because it was breast cancer they were attempting to inform people about, it never occurred to me to question their focus on breasts. The breasts are, as you've said, but a part of a woman, no more or less important that any other part of her body. Yet, because breasts represent women as mothers and as sex objects, they are focused upon with such enormous attention that it minimalizes the imporance of the woman herself. I'm glad you brought this up in your blog, because, like I said, it's something I had never given much thought to before but which is important to bring to people's (including mine's) attention.

    ReplyDelete