I saw few NFL games last Sunday and I was dismayed by the amount of hot pink gears worn by many NFL players, which is to raise awareness for breast cancer for many NFL fans across the nation. It’s truly over the top. Pink shoes, pink gloves, pink towels, hell, even pink chinstraps and I think I caught a glimpse of one player having pink mouthguards. What’s lacking is the pink ribbon on NFL players’ jerseys, which should be clearly visible on front and close to the neck/shoulder area but the pink ribbon is on all the players’ helmets on the back.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for breast cancer awareness and I have worn pink shirt and pink ribbon in the past to support the cause. It’s not the color that bothered me, but the overuse of the color on players’ gears and, fashion-wise, the hot pink color clashed with NFL teams’ uniforms and colors. When I was watching the games, the hot pink color on the gears were extremely distracting during the plays. Even the referees sported hot pink, but thankfully no pink flag (I’m sure the joke was going around the NFL teams about refs throwing pink flags for penalties or something).
October is breast cancer awareness month and NFL wanted to get involved in promoting awareness across the markets and national television in order to get many people to become aware of breast cancer, which afflicted many women and a small number of men. I think it is not necessary to goes overboard by making players wear hot pink shoes and gears for the games; a clearly visible pink ribbon on the players’ jerseys and helmets should be suffice. I would be flabbergasted and horrified to see the entire Dallas Cowboys team wearing all hot-pink uniform for their games this month but I hope that Jerry Jones isn’t batshit crazy for that (I’m a Washington Redskins fan, by the way).
Personally, I’m bothered by the overexposure of the breast cancer awareness campaign. Too much of it have created resentment and disappointment among many people whose lives are affected by cancers other than breast cancer. Men and women are more likely to develop and die from lung cancer than breast cancer in their lifetimes (ACS link on lifetime statistics here). Colon and prostate cancer risks and deaths are increasing every year. Awareness for lung cancer get the bum rap, as pointed out in this tongue-in-cheek article, “Other Cancers Sick Of Breast Cancer Hogging the Spotlight” from Dudes of America blog.
There are several different cancers that can affect men, women, and children in general. All this national focusing on breast cancer only distracts people from considering the dangers of cancer in other forms. The overexposure of breast cancer awareness campaign may be doing more harms than goods, as in this Los Angeles Times article indicated, “The Downside of Awareness Campaigns”:
Excerpt:
But now, Welch says, scientists have come to understand that breast cancer isn’t one disease but many. Some tumors are indolent and never cause trouble. Others grow slowly and may eventually spread. The most aggressive cancers metastasize before doctors and patients even know they’re there.
Unfortunately, doctors can’t tell which tumors are harmless and which are truly dangerous — so they wind up treating all of them as if they were the worst kind.
But screening tests like mammograms and self-exams are most adept at finding the indolent cancers, Welch says. As a result, the more we screen, the more women we subject to surgery, chemotherapy and radiation for cancers that never would have harmed them. A paper published last month in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated that for every life saved by a screening mammogram, five to 15 other women needlessly became diagnosed and treated.
Moreover, I’m informed that more money has been invested and allocated in research of breast cancer than money allocated in research of other individual forms of cancer, as seen in this Nanomedicinecenter.com article, dated February 2010:
Using the NCI as an example for cancer research and how money is allocated, according to their fact sheet breast cancer is the primary investment target for most funds and received $572.6 million in 2008 alone. The runner up following this was prostate cancer, receiving $285.4 million, with colorectal cancer coming in third at $273.7 million. The cancer receiving the least allocated funds is actually uterine cancer, being granted only $17.1 million in 2008. While current figures may vary slightly this general allocation of funds has remained the same for some years and is expected to continue as such in the future.
Good God, this is a disproportional allocation of money on breast cancer research. But that’s all thanks to the proactive campaign of women, whether they were affected by breast cancer or not, and slick marketing activities in the last few years, buoyed by powerful female-oriented organizations, A+ female Hollywood stars, and female politicians. All that pinkness is gold.
But at what costs? People dying from other forms of cancer, some are more lethal and painful than breast cancer itself.
There should be more money equally allocated to research for other cancers beside breast cancer. There should be a cancer awareness campaign to bring focus and information on all forms of cancer to many people. There should be a blue/pink ribbon for men, women and children affected by cancers, not just breast cancer.
NFL should lay off with hot pink gears on players and stick with the pink ribbon emblem on the players’ jerseys and helmets. It has nothing to do with the color of pink and the insecurity of men’s masculinity, but rather the overuse of pink color on gears (and other materials) and the conflicting message of supporting breast cancer campaign as other cancers, such as prostate cancer, affecting people in general get ignored.
