OT: NFL to highlight other forms of cancers during October
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
December 13th, 2016 at 8:05 PM ^
Wasn't the October NFL breast cancer stuff a big scam? Didn't most of the money go to other things besides cancer research?
December 13th, 2016 at 8:09 PM ^
a shameless attempt to appeal to the female market. Nice of the NFL poke its head out of its own ass and potentially do something productive. If this starts a trend that slowly kills the greedy breast cancer awareness movement, it would be a Godsend.
December 13th, 2016 at 8:13 PM ^
You think this is going to stop them from selling pink gear and marketing breast cancer to "appeal to the female market?"
You think they aren't just going to try and appeal to everyone and sell MOAR merch?
December 13th, 2016 at 8:21 PM ^
I'm only about that evil corporate greed meme when the money is generated from bad intentions. I think this has the potential to do good. Whether or not it actually changes anything, we'll see. Maybe the NFL doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, but...meh.
December 13th, 2016 at 8:24 PM ^
I hear you...but what makes this different from breast cancer in your eyes? You just feel that form has had enough awareness and it had gotten to the point where it was just about the money?
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.
December 13th, 2016 at 8:33 PM ^
prostates aren't sexy to look at and semen is a socially awkward topic.
December 13th, 2016 at 8:41 PM ^
I don't think Cancer boobs are particularly sexy to look at.........
December 14th, 2016 at 1:05 AM ^
December 13th, 2016 at 9:31 PM ^
Just because they lost to Army does not make them a socially akward topic....
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.)
December 13th, 2016 at 8:44 PM ^
I'd actually be really interested to hear more about this.
December 13th, 2016 at 8:57 PM ^
but if you're okay with that, then here are 9 articles:
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+the+breast+cancer+movement+is+bad+j…
December 14th, 2016 at 1:12 AM ^
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.
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.
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.)
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.
December 13th, 2016 at 8:35 PM ^
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.
December 13th, 2016 at 9:20 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 13th, 2016 at 9:21 PM ^
December 13th, 2016 at 8:14 PM ^
December 13th, 2016 at 8:58 PM ^
It's at a point where I'm just sick of hearing about breast cancer. The Komen Foundation has been so aggressive pounding that drumbeat in favor of "awareness", for so long, that by now it's just background noise.
December 13th, 2016 at 10:15 PM ^
won't post as much detail as I'd like to - but Komen is a big money grab and little goes to actual research/cures.
December 13th, 2016 at 9:47 PM ^
December 13th, 2016 at 9:05 PM ^
December 13th, 2016 at 8:22 PM ^
December 13th, 2016 at 8:25 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
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.
December 13th, 2016 at 9:05 PM ^
They should be able to have the entire season. I'd rather read about someone's charity than Nike. Nike gets enough money, but maybe [insert player name here]'s charity does not.
December 13th, 2016 at 9:03 PM ^
I read this as "NFL to highlight [forms of cancer other than the NFL] during October" and you know what? It made sense.
December 13th, 2016 at 9:08 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 13th, 2016 at 9:15 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 13th, 2016 at 9:22 PM ^
December 13th, 2016 at 9:23 PM ^
December 13th, 2016 at 9:38 PM ^
then they would be doing a massively good public service.
December 13th, 2016 at 10:41 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 14th, 2016 at 9:40 AM ^
Very sorry to hear that. Best to you, stay strong.
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.
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.
December 13th, 2016 at 9:36 PM ^
explains your last.
December 14th, 2016 at 1:20 AM ^
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.
December 14th, 2016 at 1:21 AM ^
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.
December 14th, 2016 at 1:26 AM ^
December 14th, 2016 at 6:44 AM ^