The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 It's not exploitative in the least, it's an ancillary benefit. I'm sure there are more economical ways to connect with fans if that's their only goal. And of course the NFL isn't going to annouce that part of the reason they picked breast cancer as one of their charities is to help connect to a segment of the fan base, since some Peter King type douche would make it his new LAMP-de-jour (since 'creating scandal' is the primary goal of media these days). And as with any charity, slogans like 'It's about the cure' are just that --- slogans. There may never been a cure for cancer; in the meantime the idea is to detect it when it's early enough to stop it, which is a particularly good and useful strategy with breast cancer. And that's why they wear pink ribbons at the Walkathons and why the players wear *gasp* pink gloves for *gasp* four whole games. And I read the criticisms....from geniuses like metzelaars_lives. Waah, I have to look at the color pink and it upsets me because i'm such a lemming I let the world tell me that pink = girly. Yeah, that's deep stuff. Please read the NYT article I posted. Bolded = not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Please read the NYT article I posted. Bolded = not true. I didn't read your article. But I will say this and this may sound very callus but if we cure cancer we're !@#$ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I didn't read your article. But I will say this and this may sound very callus but if we cure cancer we're !@#$ed. Because? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 What I find funny is a couple of my Facebook friends have already started the "share this picture of this ribbon to show you support Breast Cancer Awareness month". The ribbon they want shared is purple, not pink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Is there anyone that isn't currently "aware" of breast cancer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Is there anyone that isn't currently "aware" of breast cancer? Maybe just oblivious to it.... http://www.theonion.com/articles/march-named-breast-cancer-obliviousness-month,256/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Please read the NYT article I posted. Bolded = not true. I read the article. It contains zero evidence to support your second sentence. It's an op-ed from an author who wrote a whole book about how pissed off she was that her daughter was being marketed typical little girl princess and pink toys. She might have a good point on that, but it doesn't exactly make her the most impartial author to write about a charity that uses the color pink as its major marketing push to women. As for content, she mixes in a few comments from doctors or vague references to unnamed studies (with little context) that generally say 'there are pros and cons to what we do now' and then she embellishes that with a bunch of personal opinions that she hopes to pass off as facts to non-careful readers. Along the way she lights a torch to the entire breast cancer industry. That oughta help the sales numbers on her next book. So what's the bottom line? That we shouldn't be promoting any type of preventative action on this disease? That the breast cancer charities are nothing but a big scam? Does that then presume that ALL cancer charities are a big scam? After all, if 'finding a cure' will be the end of their charities, all cancer research must be in the same boat. (btw, wasn't this the line the lizards used in 'V' to discredit the science community? But I digress...) Much like Ms. Orenstein, I'm not an oncologist, but I've had enough experience with cancer to know that it's not as cut and dried a disease to understand, detect and treat as Ms. Orenstein would have us believe. A few paragraphs after lecuring readers on how some cancers grow faster than others (gee, really?) she asserts she would have just caught her own cancer herself at some point down the road and everything would have been fine. Yeah, sure. So, are the current methods of detecting and treating breast or any other type of cancer perfect? Absolutely not. But suggesting that it's all just bullsh-- that does more harm than good is pretty disingenuous. As far as the level of fiscal prudence and responsibility of an individual charity, depends who we're talking about. The NFL is contributing to the American Cancer Society, right? Your article is mostly attacking the Korman Foundation. I'm sure some of the cancer charities are total shams, and in general I agree with you that many of the very large charities spend way too much money on non-program related expenses. That's why I stopped contributing to them years ago (other than a donation here and there if a friend is directly invovled). But I did look at Charity Navigator and saw the ACS spent 71% on program costs, which seems below average; Korman was 82%, which seems above average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Because? The problem with this planet is there are too many people and we can't take care of pay for all their needs as it is now. Imagine if we cured a disease that does a great job of culling the herd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 The problem with this planet is there are too many people and we can't take care of pay for all their needs as it is now. Imagine if we cured a disease that does a great job of culling the herd. Polio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Polio? No comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Meanwhile, the NFL reinforces their commitment to awareness. Great timing, fellas. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-chicago-bears-brandon-marshall-green-cleats-20131016,0,2210320.story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 So, what I gather from this thread, a lot of dudes in this forum wear pink. To each their own. I'm bald, have a 6 inch beard and tattoos from head to toe. If I could pull off pink I would but I can't quite manage to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 The pink does seem conveniently emasculating, doesn't it? It's just a color. I've worn pink shirts as a show of solidarity with my sister and two aunts who are all breast cancer survivors. With that said the NFL has overdone the pink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Report: Less than 10 percent of NFL pink merchandise sales go toward cancer research: http://tracking.si.com/2013/10/16/pink-nfl-merchandise-breast-cancer-research/?xid=nl_siextra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Oh boy.....here we go again with another month of the he-men continuously whining about pink hats and gloves. Over/Under on the # of new threads started on this topic during October: 11.5 So basically you're saying that there is really no point where the pink could reasonably be said to be overdone? Or are you really just trying to convey that you're above it all and therefore better than all the petty he-men? It's a Connerific argument you're advancing, and quite frankly I expect better from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Report: Less than 10 percent of NFL pink merchandise sales go toward cancer research: http://tracking.si.c...?xid=nl_siextra Shocking. Nobody has an opinion on the NFL dinging Brandon Marshall for his Mental Health Awareness cleats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Shocking. Nobody has an opinion on the NFL dinging Brandon Marshall for his Mental Health Awareness cleats? The NFL should have instead matched his contribution to the cause instead of assessing a fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 With all due respect to the illness and the cause for a cure, I've been hearing/seeing; marches, fund raisers, charity this & that etc. etc., for my whole life, and somehow we don't seem to be any closer to a cure for any of the cancers than we ever were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heels20X6 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 With all due respect to the illness and the cause for a cure, I've been hearing/seeing; marches, fund raisers, charity this & that etc. etc., for my whole life, and somehow we don't seem to be any closer to a cure for any of the cancers than we ever were. And therein lies the hypocrisy of the NFL....THE SHIELD determines what charities are beneficial for them. As Big Cat pointed out, aligning with the Susan Komen foundation has ancillary benefits to the NFL. I have problems with the "Breast Cancer Awareness" campaign. To me, it's just an excuse for companies to shill pink products in the name of "awareness". Myself, I give my money directly to the Canadian Cancer Society, a foundation that aims for a cure and spends all its gains on research. The SGK Foundation to me seems 'unseemly" with some of what I've read on where the money goes. I've had family affected by cancer so I donate to the cause. And I don't have a problem with pink clothes. I wear pink all the time. In fact, pink was originally a "boys color" - http://www.omg-facts.com/History/In-Western-Culture-Pink-Was-The-Color-Or/13470 Also, I wish the NFL and other leagues would get on the MOVEMBER bandwagon. There are guys in the NHL who individually take part and gives players a chance to grow sweet Magnum PI dusters. Mens health is important too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 And therein lies the hypocrisy of the NFL....THE SHIELD determines what charities are beneficial for them. As Big Cat pointed out, aligning with the Susan Komen foundation has ancillary benefits to the NFL. I have problems with the "Breast Cancer Awareness" campaign. To me, it's just an excuse for companies to shill pink products in the name of "awareness". Myself, I give my money directly to the Canadian Cancer Society, a foundation that aims for a cure and spends all its gains on research. The SGK Foundation to me seems 'unseemly" with some of what I've read on where the money goes. I've had family affected by cancer so I donate to the cause. And I don't have a problem with pink clothes. I wear pink all the time. In fact, pink was originally a "boys color" - http://www.omg-facts...-Color-Or/13470 Also, I wish the NFL and other leagues would get on the MOVEMBER bandwagon. There are guys in the NHL who individually take part and gives players a chance to grow sweet Magnum PI dusters. Mens health is important too! A close colleague of mine has very close ties to the NFL--I'd rather not divulge in a public forum. But hers is a very relevant figure in a VERY relevant organization and her description of the NFL's partnership with SGK was simple: it's a sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Report: Less than 10 percent of NFL pink merchandise sales go toward cancer research: http://tracking.si.c...?xid=nl_siextra Yeah, I would assume they still have to pay the manufacturers for the merchandise, which is probably a huge chunk of that 90%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Yeah, I would assume they still have to pay the manufacturers for the merchandise, which is probably a huge chunk of that 90%. Seriously, this isn't a coin drop on a Sunday afternoon on Main Street held by the VFW Women's Auxiliary. Perspective, people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts