Pink Ribbons, Inc. (1/10)
by Tony Medley
Runtime 98 minutes.
OK for children.
When my parents were a young
couple, another couple in their group was going to get married. The
night before the wedding the prospective groom, Luther, came to my
father to express his trepidation. His main complaint was, "but she is
so unreasonable!"
This film is filled with
interviews with angry, unreasonable, ungrateful women. So many, in fact,
that I don't have space to adequately deal with the wrong-headedness of
all their complaints, so two will have to suffice. The thinking in these
two examples is outrageous but the examples epitomize the entire film. I
do want to say here that I have done no research on their claims, and
just take the women at their word.
The film consists mostly of
interviews with people who either have breast cancer or are somehow
involved. All are extremely critical. This film can have little or no
positive effect on the crusade to help breast cancer research, which
everyone should support.
Barbara Brenner, executive
director of Breast Cancer Action, complains about American Express in
2002 agreeing to donate a penny each time an American express card was
used between September and December. This really infuriated Barbara, who
complained that even if a card member spent $1000 on one purchase,
American Express would still only donate a penny for that one use,
dismissing such a donation as less than worthless. The following,
however, are facts that apparently never entered Brenner's brain. As of
the end of 2009 (I don't have the number for 2002), there were 48.9
million American Express credit cards in circulation in the United
States. Rounding that out to 50 million cards outstanding, let's assume
that each cardholder uses his or her card on an average of once a week
(which is probably a gross under-assumption). That would mean that
American Express would be donating 50 million pennies each week, which
translates to $500,000 a week. Over the four month period it would
amount to $6 million. But let's be conservative; let's say that only 10%
of cardholders used their cards once a week. That would mean that Amex
would donate 5 million pennies each week which still translates to
$50,000 per week! This is the amount of money at which Barbara is
thumbing her nose. But Barbara says she was so incensed and criticized
Amex so vociferously that, as she proudly claims, she "put a stop to
it," apparently meaning that the program was terminated by Amex.
Barbara's criticism displays chilling ignorance, and obviously lost a
large charitable donation through her haughty contempt.
The NFL's pink campaign, in
which all the NFL players wore pink shoes or something pink on their
uniforms one week to raise awareness of breast cancer was severely
criticized by Samantha King, the author of Pink Ribbons, Inc. Breast
Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy, upon which this film is
based and who is also interviewed at length. I have been critical of the
NFL's program because prostate cancer is as much a threat to men as
breast cancer is to women and it seemed to me that if the NFL, a league
of men appealing mainly to men, wanted to promote cancer awareness, it
should do so for prostate cancer rather than breast cancer. But these
angry women are having none of that. King claims that the NFL was
looking for ways to rehabilitate its image because several of its
players had had trouble with the law, and it had discovered that women
made up a meaningful part of its audience, so the NFL was "interested in
maintaining and extending their (sic) female audience." Of course, she
cites no authority for this, but her criticism is that the NFL didn't
care about breast cancer, that the NFL's campaign was merely to interest
women in football. King doesn't care that the NFL's campaign against
breast cancer got national attention on the most popular television show
in America, seen several times a week by tens of millions of people. No,
she summarily rejects it because the NFL's alleged motive, in her
opinion, is not pure. Only a fool would refuse the publicity offered by
the NFL (free!) because the NFL wasn't sufficiently eleemosynary in its
motivation, but that's what King does.
Many of the women interviewed
were from a small group with stage IV cancer, which means that they
don't have long to live, so their negative outlook is arguably
understandable (although their lack of appreciation for the work done
and money donated is not). However, director Léa Pool should have
protected them by editing their shortsighted, uninformed criticisms.
There is a bare scintilla of a
good point in this film (to wit, querying how effectively the money
raised is used), but its credibility is destroyed by the arrogance,
ignorance, bias, and unreasonableness of the women interviewed. They are
vociferous in criticizing the people who are out there fighting in the
arena, but they don't come up with one positive suggestion.
In President Kennedy's press
conference on November 8, 1961, he was asked by a woman correspondent,
"Mr. President, …What have you done for women according to the promises
of the Platform?" Kennedy replied, "Well, I'm sure we haven't done
enough, (loud laughter)." After watching this film, it's pretty clear
that not much has changed.
May 30, 2012
|