Breast Regards: The "I (heart) Boobies" Bracelet Ban

In 2010, Eastern Area Middle School in Pennsylvania suspended several middle school students for wearing the "I (heart) boobies" breast-cancer fundraising bracelets.  The students then did what any self-respecting tween with money will do-- took the school district to court, claiming the ban on the trendy wrist-wear violated their freedom of speech.  While the federal judge ruled in their favor last year, the school district appealed to the federal circuit court, which recently determined it will hear the case in front of the full 14-judge court.  

As a former teacher of young teens (which Science has proven to be the most annoying age EVER), I empathize with the teachers and administrators at this school.  There is nothing like delivering a beautifully poetic and painstakingly-rehearsed lesson on the pythagorean theorem, only to be interrupted by a cacophony of giggles and snorts of "haha BOOBS!"  Yet, at the same time, it is difficult to tell a teenager who is supporting their mother, sister, aunt, etc. who has battled cancer that their particular form of support may be inappropriate for the classroom.  

Regardless of this quandary, which will soon be settled in the federal courts, the situation gives us an opportunity to examine a very problematic media campaign.

The Keep A Breast Foundation, a breast cancer awareness nonprofit in California, introduced the "I (heart) boobies" rubber bracelets in 2004 as part of a strategy to involve younger generations in the fight against breast cancer.  With their bright colors and semi-risque phraseology, the bracelets made breast cancer fun and sexy (because what's sexier than a debilitating disease?). Since then, the bracelets have become a fashion craze among teens and tweens across the country.  

But at what cost?

While the campaign has successfully reached a previously untapped demographic, it is popular only because it sexualizes a very serious disease and objectifies women’s bodies.

Think of it this way: the bracelets do not say “I (heart) women.”  The message is not that women are awesome, that we should concern ourselves with saving women's lives.  No, the message is that boobs are awesome, that we should worry about saving boobs.   It reduces women's complex lives down to a highly sexualized body part.  Consequently, the breast-cancer-battleground shifts from promoting women's health to protecting men's desire to look at, play with, and otherwise enjoy breasts.

If the end goal of breast cancer awareness, education, and research is to improve the health and well-being of women, then this type of outreach is counterintuitive.  Sex may sell, but the cost-- reinforcing a system of male gaze and privilege-- is simply too high.

Can Women Have it All: Bridging the Public and Private Spheres

Former State Department official, Anne-Marie Slaughter has swept headlines and conversations with her recent piece in The Atlantic, “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All.”  Reactions have been published in Salon.com, The New York Times, Forbes and feminist blogs across the country.  I find the piece particularly fascinating for the way it challenges our traditional definitions of "equality" and progress for women.


In the piece, Slaughter destroys the popular myth that women today can “have it all”-- meaning, simultaneously successful careers and families-- without significant changes in our social and economic structure that would allow a healthy work-life balance for women and their families.  Yet, often women, themselves, are responsible for perpetuating the “myth” that this work-life balance is achievable.

It is easy to understand why women would continue this fiction.  We constantly urge that women can do everything as well as men-- that, given the opportunity, women have every ability to be as successful as their male counterparts.  

What is ignored, however, is that the cost of achieving this is often one’s personal and family life.  Our current society is structured so that there is a tradeoff-- you are either a good professional or a good parent.  As Slaughter states,

Male leaders are routinely praised for having sacrificed their personal life on the altar of public or corporate service. That sacrifice, of course, typically involves their family....It is clear which set of choices society values more today. Workers who put their careers first are typically rewarded; workers who choose their families are overlooked, disbelieved, or accused of unprofessionalism.

Seeing the Forrest: Population, Development, and Women’s Self-Determination

In a recent New York Times article, Elisabeth Rosenthal addresses the population crisis occurring in Sub-Saharan Africa, where population in many areas far exceeds resources. This rampant population growth has predictably disastrous consequences: substandard living conditions, congestion, rampant unemployment, drains on infrastructure and natural resources (including food and water supply), and, in some areas, immigration concerns.

Rosenthal specifically cites the case of Nigeria, which has seen its population balloon in the last quarter-century to 300 million people despite the spatial and economic limitations of the country. Nigeria contributes to a trend of overall population increase in sub-Saharan Africa, where, in many countries, women often average more than 5 children. Experts state that it growth within this region that is largely accountable for the world population recently exceeding 7 billion.

This is in stark contrast to “developing” countries* in Asia and Latin America, which have seen birth rates stabilize at the expert-sanctioned 2 children per family after years of intensive policy prescriptions aimed at lowering fertility. What is note-worthy, is that most of these interventions are directed at improving women's opportunities and choices.  As the world has learned, when women are educated, afforded some degree of self-determination, and have access to contraceptives and reproductive healthcare, the birth rate drastically decreases and standard of living increases.

What's 'Freedom of Conscience' Got To Do With It?

There is heated controversy surrounding the Obama mandate for employers to provide no-copay birth control under the Affordable Care Act. Unsurprisingly, the mandate has caused an uproar among religious conservatives, who insist that forcing all employers, especially those of religious organizations, to provide contraception is a violation of “freedom of conscience.” Despite a compromise to address the issue, wherein the burden of conscience would shift to insurance companies rather than employers, conservatives remain firm in their opposition.  They've even gone so far as to organize a House forum entitled “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” (I couldn't make this up, if I tried).  


Sadly, resistance to contraception access is part of a long historical trend.  While this remains constant, I am continually fascinated by the changes in argumentation for and against reproductive justice in this country.  Mostly, I have studied these rhetorical shifts in terms of abortion (if you would like a copy of my widely-read BA thesis, address inquiries at the bottom), but there is distinct overlap with the discourse around birth control, as well.