In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

What Komen Reveals About the Ugly Truth of American Politics

A must-read by Jill Lepore in the New Yorker:

The people who have urged Komen to stop supporting Planned Parenthood aren’t opposed to breast-cancer screenings; they’re opposed to other services Planned Parenthood provides, which include contraception and abortion. But a campaign to sever the ties between a foundation that’s raising money to find a cure for breast cancer and a health-care provider that advocates for reproductive rights exposes more than a division over contraception and abortion. It exposes a gruesome truth about politics in this country.

In American politics, women’s bodies are not bodies, but parts. People like to talk about some parts more than others. Embryos and fetuses are the most charged subject in American political discourse. Saying the word “cervix” was the beginning of Rick Perry’s end. In politics, breasts are easier to talk about. I first understood this a few years ago, when I was offered, at an otherwise very ordinary restaurant, a cupcake frosted to look like a breast, with a nipple made of piped pink icing. It was called a “breast-cancer cupcake,” and proceeds went to the Race for the Cure.

Dividing women’s bodies into parts, politically, has only adversely affected women’s health. Planned Parenthood started offering cancer screenings in the early nineteen-sixties. At the time, the organization’s medical director, Mary Steichen Calderone, tried to convince the American Cancer Society to help pay for Pap smears, which can catch cervical cancer early, for poor women who came to Planned Parenthood clinics for contraception. The Cancer Society refused, not wanting to be affiliated with an organization that provided birth control at a time when, in many parts of the country, it was not only controversial—as it remains today—but also illegal. (It was only in 1965 that the Supreme Court ruled, in Griswold v. Connecticut, that contraception was protected under a Constitutional right to privacy.) “It was such a pity,” Calderone later said in an interview, “because here were these women going to be seen regularly, once a year or once every two years. They would have been ideal to give Pap smears to.”

The women’s-health movement, which began in the nineteen-seventies, tried to explain that women’s bodies are not parts, but bodies, and that health care for women must, at a minimum, meet the standards of health care for men. This week’s dissolution of a bond between the nation’s largest funder of breast-cancer research and one of the largest providers of women’s health services suggests just how dismally that effort has failed.


4 thoughts on What Komen Reveals About the Ugly Truth of American Politics

  1. I’m surprised this post hasn’t received any comments, because I think the linked article is a real keeper.

    The women’s-health movement, which began in the nineteen-seventies, tried to explain that women’s bodies are not parts, but bodies, and that health care for women must, at a minimum, meet the standards of health care for men. This week’s dissolution of a bond between the nation’s largest funder of breast-cancer research and one of the largest providers of women’s health services suggests just how dismally that effort has failed.

    We have simply got to keep our eye on this ball.

  2. I think that she makes a lot of valuable points, but I don’t myself agree with the good vs. bad parts theory. And I think it can’t be denied that Komen kicked ass at marketing the issue. Do I think they did so in a toxic fashion? Absofuckinglutely. But they were very, very effective at it nonetheless.

  3. I think that she makes a lot of valuable points, but I don’t myself agree with the good vs. bad parts theory. And I think it can’t be denied that Komen kicked ass at marketing the issue. Do I think they did so in a toxic fashion? Absofuckinglutely. But they were very, very effective at it nonetheless.

    The reason why this article is completely on point *is* because of SGK’s “kick ass marketing.” The kick ass marketing is about *boobs*–a part of the body that for some people represents motherhood, femininity, sisterhood, wives etc., not say, pre-marital sex. I mean, heck, breast cancer isn’t the number one killer of women in the USA–it’s heart disease, but you probably wouldn’t know that from how ubiquitous the pink ribbon is (at least in the states).

    But of course, the problem is, breast cancer doesn’t care if you are rich, poor, conservative, liberal, had an abortion, didn’t have an abortion, had pre-marital sex, didn’t have pre-marital sex etc.

    Perhaps some women can pat themselves on the shoulder for being anti-abortion or something, but the great irony is, breast cancer doesn’t give a fuck.

Comments are currently closed.