Searching For Identity in the Face of Survival: Overcoming Breast Cancer in a Patriarchal Society

Photo Source:
https://www.familycircle.com/health/concerns/cancer/is-it-breast-cancer/

Staring up at the lump seen on your mammogram, the doctor’s words have faded into the background, you are now face to face with your own mortality, then you imagine the severing of one of your breasts. You begin to worry that even if you survive, you will be looked upon as an oddity. Possibly your appearance can be revived through reconstruction, make-up, and the reassurance of others; at least that’s what our patriarchal society makes you think.  

While women confront death in the face of breast cancer, one’s attention is partitioned amongst survival, identity, desirability, and femininity. The current patriarchal society forces women with breast cancer to not only be concerned with their survival, but with their ability to uphold their image of being productive members of society through gender roles, whilst staying desirable through their outward appearance. In an attempt to make up for such felt absence of identity women rely on reconstructive surgeries or prosthetics and organizations such as Susan G. Komen where the stereotypical roles of women are further instilled.  

Once a woman is able to embark on the journey of recovery being left with a portion of a breast, one, or no breasts at all, her identity is called into question due to her femininity partly being linked to this fatty tissue that once wreaked havoc on her own body. This loss of flesh not only exemplifies a survivor but reminds a woman of her loss of identity. In a patriarchal society where the identity of women is found within the stereotype of women, where appearance is in part the aspect of their life that is widely understood as their only source of value (Lorde, A., 2007, p.58).  

Ms. Marcou, a breast cancer survivor herself, spoke out about her own perception on how breast cancer impacts women's sense of identity: “Individual women still tussle with their body because it's so valued in society. Every woman who goes through this will wonder about her femininity and sexuality”. 

So, what is the response of women in order to regain this sense of femininity and womanhood? Women feel it is their own responsibility to stay sexy and desirable in the eyes of another, only to try and cover up the suffering and trauma that has just occurred. Survivors may purchase wigs, make-up, and prosthetics in order to regain a desirability that they feel cancer stripped from these survivors. Rather than womanhood being exemplified in the sheer strength that women withhold, it’s reduced to the sheer appearance of a woman down to the very detail of “normal’ breasts.  

Photo Source:
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/mastectomy

In a response to regain one's own sense of womanhood and femininity, women resort to reconstructive surgery and prosthetics in order to feel as though their identity is somewhat intact while their suffering remains. As breasts are represented as a symbol of womanhood, nurturing, and sexuality, rather than realizing these qualities within oneself, some women, as a result, opt for breast reconstruction or prosthetics in order to attempt to fill this void (Williams, L., 1991, December 25). “However well-meaning and under whatever guise, must be seen as damaging, for it keeps the post-mastectomy woman in a position of perpetual and secret insufficiency, infantilized and dependent for her identity upon an external definition of appearance.”  (Lorde, A., 2007, p.59). The importance of this quote from Audre Lorde exemplifies how women who subject themselves to this need of a disguise, are still left to fill this void, loss of womanhood and femininity because a fake breast(s) will not rebuild one's own identity, rather this is found within oneself. In reality, such reconstructive options only feed into the patriarchal society and the illusions that without hair, breasts, etc. you are unable to remain attractive, womanly, and feminine.  

On the other hand, not only are reconstructive surgeries and devices the only agents that attempt to lessen a women's identity, organizations such as the Susan G Komen have positioned themselves in a way that place women within their typical societal stereotypes. On Susan G Komen’s website, they position women as caretakers, purely heterosexual beings and represent femininity purely through the color pink, thus furthering the gender role divide. As pink has signified gender since the 1960s through apparel and toys for girls, in order to specify a gender divide between the sexes. Although the color pink has positively been used as a color to represent women, it also restrains women into the expected stereotypical role of being desirable, motherly, lady-like, sensitive, etc. Throughout this website, the color pink is overwhelmingly represented, constantly reminding women of the need to remain feminine and desirable, as though this is what is the utmost concern of those battling this life-threatening disease. 

While some may disagree and note that pink is a distinct color that has represented women’s strength throughout movements, with the pairing of overwhelming patriarchal and heterosexual propaganda I argue this use of color is used with the sole purpose of representing women who fall within their assigned role (Pandey, A., 2016, July 15). This patriarchal and heterosexual propaganda can be represented through the quote: “I worry for my daughter, her friends, my mother and women everywhere. As men, we have to realize that this disease could someday affect the women in our lives”. This quote not only signifies the need for a man to speak out in order for an issue majorly affecting women to be heard; it also represents that this website purely is speaking to women with a male partner, thus silencing a large group of women who do not find themselves as heterosexual. Throughout the website, there is consistent imagery of women with male partners. Thus, when paired with pictures of women with children, this is then once again placing women in the stereotypical role of women needing to be the productive and desirable member of society through their role as mothers and caretakers. This imagery can be harmful to women’s identity while battling with breast cancer because it is specifically speaking to a certain kind of woman that fits within the gender role seen as desirable and feminine within our patriarchal society.  

All in all, while a woman is battling cancer, she is forced by our patriarchal society to represent a woman that fits within her assigned gender role. Fitting within this gender role forces women to feel the need to remain/ become desirable and feminine. Organizations such as the Susan G. Komen organization largely represents such gender roles through patriarchal and heterosexual propaganda, while the cancer industry pushes women to gain their sense of identity back through an external self that can be discovered through surgeries and prosthetics. Rather than encouraging survivors to find a sense of identity that fulfills the patriarchal stereotype of women, why don’t we as a society offer other avenues in order to ease one’s suffering and trauma without relying on how the patriarchal ideals of what it means to be women who are productive, feminine, and desirable?  

Resources:

Lorde, A. (2007). The Cancer Journals. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books. 

Pandey, A. (2016, July 15). Pink And Blue: The Colours Of Gender Stereotyping. Retrieved December 09, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.in/aradhana-pandey/pink-and-blue-the-myth-be_b_9191840.html 

Susan G. Komen. (n.d.). Retrieved December 08, 2018, from https://ww5.komen.org/ 

Williams, L. (1991, December 25). Women Who Lose Breasts Define Their Own Femininity. Retrieved December 09, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/25/health/women-who-lose-breasts-define-their-own-femininity.html

Blinded by Rose Colored Glasses: Let's fight Pinkwashing

Corporate pinkwashing in action

We've all seen them-- the pink ribbons splashed across jackets and water bottles, spatulas and rice cookers. It seems so innocent at first-- most of us have known someone in our lives who has gone through breast cancer. For me, it was my mom. My aunt's best friend who I saw this past Thanksgiving just got diagnosed and is going through her first round of chemo.

Supporting these women is important. For people who have survived other cancers, the pink propaganda splattered across every household item rubs them the wrong way. "Thinking pink" is no only non-inclusive inherently (as campaigns and research routinely prefers white women over others who suffer from breast cancer).

Pink dominates the cancer awareness scene-- but what a lot of people don't consider is who the pink ribbon is actually helping.

Hint: Its not the 1 in 8 women who will be diagnosed with breast cancer (in the U.S. alone).

Of course breast cancer awareness is integral. But as the rates of breast cancer in women keep going up, and we keep spreading "awareness", we have to stop and look at this movement critically. Aren't we past the point where we need to raise more awareness?

Personally, I've known about breast cancer since I was a kid. I've been told I'll need to start getting mammograms early, and to check for lumps regularly. Most women are very aware of the risk, and what to *try* to look out for. Unfortunately, breasts are so diverse that often women have trouble identifying what is abnormal or not.

Awareness is in the past

Political cartoon on the concept of pinkwashing

So why are we so focused on this concept of "awareness" where buildings are lit up in pink in its name and pink ribbons are embroidered on ties?

Corporate exploitation.

Pinkwashing is a term first coined by Breast Cancer Action. It refers to when a company or organization claims to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink ribbon product, but at the same time produces, manufactures and/or sells products that are linked to the disease. This can be anything from food items with pink labels to fracking companies that use pink screws for their rigs. Its corporate dishonesty and moral deficiency-- and so many people fall victim to it in the name of trying to do some good.

This is exactly why Breast Cancer Action launched their campaign Think Before You Pink-- to try to combat this corporate exploitation.

But is it enough?

When looked at through a critical ecofeminist lens, the plight is obvious. Women are targets and immediate victims of corporate greed-- just like the environment. This deeply connected to what ecofeminism discourse argues-- the corrupt hands of corporate America reaching its grubby hands deep into breast cancer awareness campaigns. Women are the most affected-- all this money that people think is going to women and fighting this epidemic the disproportionately affects women, and all of it is going into the pockets of big business-- more so than any other ribboned cause.

We're just a profit-booster to them.

One of the worst parts is that the people who most often fall victim to this kind of marketing and exploitation are those who have been affected by this cancer epidemic-- survivors, families, et cetera.At Thanksgiving, I overheard a relative explain how they always try to purchase items with the pink ribbon label-- in support of people like my mom.

To take advantage of people's hearts like this should be a crime.

Unfortunately, in corporate America where we love capitalism, its the exact opposite: a good marketing tactic.

Shattering of rose-colored glasses

So many people don't know the facts behind the pink ribbon and all the media that comes with it. And don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with showing solidarity and bonding with others to share experiences. But we need to fight against corporate pinkwashing.

So, how do we stop this, or at least make it better?

First, lets shatter the rose colored glasses.

Educate yourself. Before you buy anything with the pink ribbon, research the company. See if any money actually goes to a research organization (Susan G. Komen doesn't count).

Include everyone affected by breast cancer intersectionally-- everyone's voice matters, and everyones experience matters. No two are alike, and breast cancer affects so many people.

Support your loved ones in other ways. We need to stop thinking pink and start thinking human.

Women Without Breasts Are Still Women

Women Without Breasts Are Still Women

The focus of a breast cancer survivor should be the woman, not her anatomy

The New York Times

We must stop imposing our patriarchal views of what a woman is supposed to look like on breast cancer patients. 

It is engrained in us to attach a certain value to women's breasts in respect to their femininity and value. But the decision to undergo reconstructive surgery or wear breast forms should be left up to a woman - and her alone. 

Following her double mastectomy at age 34, Cathie chose not to use any type of breast forms. A fitness instructor, Cathie found her prosthesis to be too "uncomfortable" and"impossible to wear" while teaching her classes. Her decision was a difficult one, but one that she felt was necessary for her own body. 

Cathie

"Going flat", as many women and physicians call it, is the decision that women who have had a mastectomy make to not have any further reconstructive surgery or prostheses. However, the majority of women still continue on with the reconstructive process. It is a deeply personal choice and it is one that should not be imposed upon by others.

Chiara D'Agostino speaks of her own decision to go flat, which was influenced by an article in The New York Times that featured "strong, beautiful, and creative images." This representation of women without their breasts depicted in a beautiful, strong manner is important in framing the narrative of empowered, breast-less women. It allows for other breast cancer survivors to  see a physical example of these women and understand that their beauty is not intertwined to what is deemed as a "normal" woman's body. 

For some women, like Cathie, going flat was the right decision due to their love of physical activity. Some women prefer to not have any additional or unnecessary procedures. Some women want to get back to their everyday lives as quickly as possible. Some women just wanted time to heal. Some women with breast cancer do not have the choice of reconstructive surgery due to radiotherapy. And for some women, not having breasts is a part of their narrative in overcoming breast cancer. Reconstructive surgery is not the right choice for every woman, but it is their choice and their choice alone.

After having a mastectomy, women are bombarded with expectations about how they will once again return to their "true form". To be a woman in a patriarchal society, of course, means having breasts. Therefore, it is only natural that a woman who has had her breasts removed would want to have them back once again.

By pushing our expectations on breast cancer survivors to wear a prosthesis invalidates the struggle in which they experienced. This struggle is something of which to be proud. In fact, around 42% of women do not have any form of breast reconstruction post mastectomy. 

Audre Lorde

In The Cancer Journals by Audre Lorde, she states that “each of us [breast cancer patients] struggles daily with the pressures of conformity and the loneliness of difference from which those choices seem to offer escape. I only know that those choices do not work for me, nor for other women who, not without fear, have survived cancer by scrutinizing its meaning within our lives, and by attempting to integrate this crisis into useful strengths for change.” Herein lies great power for these women in the choice of whether or not to seek restoration of their breasts. 

Furthermore, Lorde recalls an instance where she was told by a doctor that she should wear her prosthetic breast in order to "boost the morale" of her fellow breast cancer patients. Boosting the morale of these breast cancer patients is synonymous here only with having one's breasts back. Breasts, in the realm of breast cancer survivors, are equated with strength, warriors, and success. Implying that breast cancer patients need them in order to claim victory over the disease or regain a sense of self-worth is an unfair sentiment that undermines all women. It puts their validation in the hands of others instead of themselves. It does not allow for women to reclaim their own bodies from cancer. Lorde was enough with and without her breasts - a prosthesis or surgery never had the capability to change that.

The New York Times

There is nothing wrong with choosing to have reconstructive breast surgery or choosing to wear prosthetics. Choosing this route is empowering for many women. It makes them feel more attractive. It makes them feel like their old selves. For the majority of women, reconstructive surgery or the use of breast forms is the right decision for them. 

Choosing not to have breasts after having a mastectomy, however, is also empowering. These women are still themselves. And they are still attractive. Women can be all of these things - with and without breasts. The anatomy of a woman does not change her value. By implying that women should have reconstructive surgery or use some form of prosthetics is to say her value is directly tied to her physical body. 

This sentiment is untrue and must stop being perpetuated. What makes up a woman who has survived breast cancer is courage, strength, and perseverance. We can't continue to diminish these qualities with the sentiment that the power of survivors lies within their breasts. These qualities carry more weight in a person than does breast tissue. 

Going flat is a physical symbol of the strength these women contain. It is something to be proud of. It should not be seen as something abnormal or something that is needed to be fixed. But, most importantly, it is a decision to be made by the patient and only her. Women deserve to make this decision without the pressure of outside forces. 

Cathie goes on to state that "breast cancer never truly leaves you," but isn't that the point? We often long so much to return to normalcy after a difficult life experience, whether it be cancer or the loss of a loved one, that we don't quite accept that these hardships make us who we are. They do not define us, but rather they shape us into the people we are today, they contribute to our character, they make us grow.

The breasts of women who have survived breast cancer are not symbols of her success. They are not comparable to her tenacity. The woman herself is - we must remember that.