OT: NFL to highlight other forms of cancers during October

Submitted by lilpenny1316 on

Details still need to be worked out, but it looks like individual teams can choose which cancer they would like to raise awareness for.  For those of us who have suffered loss from other forms of cancer besides breast cancer, this is welcome news.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/13/news/companies/nfl-breast-cancer/index.html

 

MGoBoard
Football
NFL
cancer awareness

huntmich

December 13th, 2016 at 8:31 PM ^

Fun fact: prostate cancer kills nearly as many men as breast cancer does women, but you don't see a whole shitload of walks to 'raise awareness', whatever the hell that means. Do people not already know about breast cancer? I don't think I need to see football players laying hits with pink socks to be reminded.

Joined: 10/18/2015

MGoPoints: 18173

taistreetsmyhero

December 13th, 2016 at 8:36 PM ^

has always been disgustingly sexualized. The "Save the Ta Ta's" slogan is one of the most pig-headed money grabs I can recall. The pink merchandise overload is also sexist, IMO.

As a movement, It feels way more about breasts than about breast cancer. I'm not saying that there aren't millions of people who have benefited from this movement and have intimately personal stories of tragedy who relate to some of these things (i.e. the NFL players with mothers who battled breast cancer you mentioned above). I just think it's been pretty much proven the people who run these organizations could not care less about the human element.

(edit: I've mostly become a puppet for my fiance on this issue, but she is very passionately against this movement for some of the reasons I outlined above. She could probably give a 5 hour dissertation on all the reasons why breast cancer movement in particular is bad. I didn't even mention the less controversial fact that so little of the proceeds go towards research. But I don't think that is unique to breast cancer, per se.)

Joined: 08/08/2012

MGoPoints: 39396

Mr. Elbel

December 14th, 2016 at 1:12 AM ^

1 million times yes to this! my fiancé's sister is dying of metastatic breast cancer right now. she *hates* the pink shit. Even what money it raises goes towards detecting breast cancer, not necessarily helping women who already have it. less than 10% of all breast cancer research and funds go towards post-metastatic cancer, despite almost half of breast cancer deaths occurring after its been treated and has come back somewhere else. people who are in this situation have very few options, and are treated by most researchers as as good as dead. it's really sad.

Joined: 03/02/2014

MGoPoints: 21377

BlowGoo

December 14th, 2016 at 7:27 AM ^

It also became a cynical method to distract from the scandals of the NFL's longstanding tax-exempt status for being a "charitable" organization (since revoked) as well as the concussion issues.

I'm against breast cancer as much as anyone (even moreso given the toll it has taken on my family). But the NFL is more about marketing itself than fighting any disease.

 

I'll believe in the NFL's sincerity the second its accountants retroactively calculate how much in tax dollars it got away with not paying by pretending to be a charitable organization and donating THAT amount to cancer research. Or even post-traumatic encephalopathy research.

Until then, they're FOS.

Joined: 10/16/2011

MGoPoints: 7078

Mr. Yost

December 13th, 2016 at 8:10 PM ^

Wasn't making enough money off of all of the pink gear? Realized they can profit from all forms of cancer and they shouldn't discriminate this to just breasts?

I guess the rumors are true...people aren't watching a much and the numbers are down.

The NFL and the power of a dollar.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

taistreetsmyhero

December 13th, 2016 at 8:19 PM ^

there are actually some forms of cancer that need more awareness, they just aren't sexy and you can't easily make disgusting slogans like "save the ta ta's" out of them.

For example, one of my buddy's father was recently diagnosed with HPV+ oropharyngeal cancer. Doubt a majority of parents know that their boy could one day get throat cancer from the "genital warts" virus, and that it could be prevented with a simple vaccine. (Granted, the HPV vaccine wasn't around before he turned 26. But, my buddy sure got the vaccine because of this whole ordeal.)

Joined: 08/08/2012

MGoPoints: 39396

Mr. Yost

December 13th, 2016 at 8:23 PM ^

Absolutely. I'm all about awareness.

I'm just saying this is still a money grab in a lot of ways, IMO.

Also, the teams get to pick. Are they going to research the rare forms of cancer? I hope so, but it wouldn't shock me if they choose the most popular forms of cancer because those are the forms that affected them or their families.

I'm not saying lesser known is synonomous with "less people have it"...but I think more often than not it'll be as simple as what's affecting our team? For example Devon and Leah Still and the Bengals. Or DeAngelo Williams and his pink dreads he's had for awhile to honor his mother.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

taistreetsmyhero

December 13th, 2016 at 8:43 PM ^

My friend is just starting college so not really sure how much motion has been in his ocean, but the vaccine is definitely most effective (by far) prior to any sexual activity. BUT, oncogenic strains are less common and you could be exposed from any new partner, so better to get the vaccine late (prior to 26) than never.

Joined: 08/08/2012

MGoPoints: 39396

Everyone Murders

December 13th, 2016 at 8:14 PM ^

For those that pay attention to these things, cancer fundraising can get political right, quick, and in a hurry. Love it or hate it, The Susan Komen Foundation is very political and protects its brand ... diligently. Including work to exclude others from using pink as a cancer brand. Is that right or wrong? I don't know, but cancer awareness goes well beyond that foundation or even the hideousness that is breast cancer. So broadening the message seems like a good idea. Lots of forms of cancer out there, and they ALL deserve attention.

Joined: 12/14/2010

MGoPoints: 65552

weasel3216

December 13th, 2016 at 8:22 PM ^

This is actually a good move, it will be a better move of the NFL can make any sales off apparel go directly to the true cancer research and not though the middle man that takes their cut.

Joined: 08/09/2009

MGoPoints: 3502

Mr. Yost

December 13th, 2016 at 8:28 PM ^

The NFL is also building on the My Cleats, My Cause campaign

It sounds like they could have a month where players can wear whatever cleats they want to support whatever cause they want.

I'm sure there are some stipulations which is why it hasn't been finalized. The NFL isn't going to have someone running around in cleats that are going to be politcal/controversial in any way. I wonder if "Black Lives Matter" falls into that.

Right now they're trying to focus on foundations like Make A Wish, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Humane Societies.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

RationalBuckeye

December 13th, 2016 at 9:15 PM ^

I have brain cancer and until I was diagnosed I didn't notice how little people talk about it, so this is a very positive step for the league and for general awareness of lesser funded forms of cancer



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 04/06/2012

MGoPoints: 3237

jethro34

December 13th, 2016 at 9:22 PM ^

To be clear, the NFL partnership is NOT with Komen, rather with the American Cancer Society - a completely separate nonprofit that has always been an advocate for all screenings and funds more research grants than anyone outside the US government. I've lost family members to multiple forms of cancer and am among numerous cancer survivors in our family. ACS has been extremely helpful in providing education for what we have faced. I've had an association with them for two years now.

Joined: 01/28/2011

MGoPoints: 2346

bdstain

December 13th, 2016 at 10:41 PM ^

Absolutely - I am currently going through aggressive chemotherapy treatments to treat colo-rectal cancer discovered during my standard 50 year old colonoscopy. No signs or family history - getting the colonoscopy is critical to try and discover early enough.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 09/14/2010

MGoPoints: 128

stephenrjking

December 13th, 2016 at 9:32 PM ^

My dad died from breast cancer (you read that correctly) and as such I have a bit of skin in the game. I think this is generally a good move. I think the breast cancer issue in particular became something of an opportunity to signal virtue more than any real effort to help or be productive. That's a popular trapping of our modern culture, a trapping that in my opinion cuts across all idealogical boundaries. 

I believe teams are still free to advocate breast cancer awareness, which is good. I think that if they manage this well, they might actually be able to fulfill the stated goal by increasing awareness just through variety. "Why are the Cowboys wearing brown argyle accessories?" "They're doing it to increase awareness of [insert relatively obscure but serious form of cancer here]."

Might be visually ugly, but effective.

Joined: 03/15/2012

MGoPoints: 20143524

GoBlueinEugene

December 13th, 2016 at 9:35 PM ^

More men watch football than women. 

Research indicates that men are less likely to seek medical treatment than women. 

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men (second only to lung cancer).

That's why the NFL has a month dedicated to... breast cancer awareness. 

 

Joined: 11/13/2010

MGoPoints: 5061

Mr. Elbel

December 14th, 2016 at 1:20 AM ^

which is why it's disgusting. as someone engaged to a woman who's BRCA1+ and has already had her breasts removed as a preventative measure, the whole idea that men should be interested in giving towards breast cancer research because men like boobs is stupid. it puts even more emphasis on women being valued for their bodies, which is a hard pill to swallow for the many who are forced to surgically remove what many consider to make them a woman. how about we care about breast cancer (or any other kind of cancer) because it kills people instead of this sexualized marketing shit?

Joined: 03/02/2014

MGoPoints: 21377

turtleboy

December 13th, 2016 at 9:59 PM ^

I have to say objectively, the biggest critics you'll find of breast cancer charities are survivors of breast cancer, and family members of victims. I also have to say, personally, aside form Chris Spielmans chairty, I have nothing but awful, angry, hateful things to say about breast cancer charities.

Fuck. Them. 

I'm glad to see the NFL branching out.

Joined: 04/22/2011

MGoPoints: 35131

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 13th, 2016 at 11:06 PM ^

It's definitely about time some other cancers got some attention from the marketers.  By the very definition of the word, they could use some "awareness."  Preferably, some focus on cancers that are a bit rarer but far deadlier.

I recall a column run by the Detroit News, written by a staffer who'd just been diagnosed with breast cancer, and the introduction to the whole thing stated she would "chronicle her journey to being a breast cancer survivor."  That right there made the whole thing jump the shark in my mind, though it was already halfway there.  Breast cancer is actually awfully damn survivable - rather similar to diabetes, in fact.  On the other hand, there's no such thing as a "journey to being a pancreatic cancer survivor" and no cheering support club - you simply resign yourself to the extreme likelihood you'll never vote for another president.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 41586

Mr. Elbel

December 14th, 2016 at 1:26 AM ^

this is a very good point. although it ignores the fact that breast cancer is almost always fatal if it ever comes back. my future sister in law now has it in her bones, despite them catching it early the first time. that is how most people die of breast cancer. she had a $500 pill keeping her alive right now. still...I agree that the focus needs to shift from awareness of what we're all clearly aware of and go to the people who start with cancer in their bones or brain or blood or whatever in the first place.

Joined: 03/02/2014

MGoPoints: 21377

jethro34

December 14th, 2016 at 6:44 AM ^

For most cancers the survival rate is exponentially higher if detected early. Breast cancer in particular, if detected at stage 2 or earlier, has a 90-some % survival rate. But if not detected until stage 4 it is under 30%. As much as the NFL is trying to benefit from image with this, Crucial Catch money is directly tied to making screenings more accessible, particularly in communities where people are less likely to have insurance. Through ACS and partnerships with medical systems in these communities, many women have had their first ever mammogram. While I'm not on the "let's bash breast cancer awareness initiatives" bandwagon that many ignorant people have hopped on, I'm all for anything that expands this to other forms of cancer that are commonly ignored. Colorectal cancer is the one ACS is currently making a big push on. Screening rates are lower than 30%.

Joined: 01/28/2011

MGoPoints: 2346