|This is the only appropriate place for pink to appear on an NFL field!|
It's that time of the year again.
Yes, folks, we must all do our part to RAISE AWARENESS.
I've certainly done my part a few times now in the past several years.
After all, as an avid NFL fan, the spectacle of all the pink all over the place every October certainly serves as an all important reminder!
Millions upon millions (if not billions) of dollars are riding on all this AWARENESS!
Many bloggers and commenters in our fringe sector of teh interwebz oft raise many different points on how all this Pink in the NFL is a concerted effort of feminists to impinge on one of the last true male institutions that celebrates true meritocracy and unabashed expression of masculine aggression. No doubt, the feminists who support such things really do support all this pink invading male spectator sporting events. Awareness is a good thing, right!?
Seems like even the feminists are getting in on the act...Jezebel.com writer, Erin Ryan (not linking to Jezebel, google it yourself if you like), writes in her recent article, The NFL's Campaign Against Breast Cancer Is a Total Scam:
The NFL claims that its pink philanthropy efforts "support the fight against breast cancer" by "promoting awareness" and providing funds to the American Cancer Society. But what they're mostly promoting is, uh, buying NFL gear, the profits from which are overwhelmingly pocketed by the NFL.
Of course, the Jezebeller's feminist-focused point is that not enough money being raised by all these sales is designated for the actual research for the cure...and like most feminists, she's making the marxist class warfare angle - don't buy the pink, it enriches the already rich Billionaire NFL owners, instead of most of it going for the womynz!
Since the program's inception four years ago, the NFL has raised $3 million for breast cancer. In 2009, the League made $8.5 billion. Last year, they made $9.5 billion. Commissioner Roger Goodell has set a revenue goal of $25 billion per year by the year 2027. A million per year out of between $8.5 and $9.5 billion in revenues? Pardon me while I don't slobber all over the NFL's pink-drenched marketing campaign.
Like most feminists, she misses the forest for the trees. Besides, most of the manosphere folks that believe the pink-ification of the NFL is primarily a feminist agenda are mistaken.
Here's the lady responsible for this eyesore in the football stadiums across the nation:
|Center: Tanya Snyder, wife of Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, NFL Breast Cancer Awareness Spokesperson|
AWARENESS merchandise is just the way in which the NFL is paid off by the American Cancer Society to promote the real agenda:
WOMEN 40 OR OLDER SHOULD GET A MAMMOGRAM EVERY YEAR
Why would the American Cancer society advocate that women radiate their breasts once a year after the age of 40? Surely they just want to save lives!
Cancer prevention expert, Professor emeritus at Univeristy of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago, Samuel S. Epstein, disagrees:
However, the FDA remains strangely unaware that radiation from routine premenopausal mammography poses significant and cumulative risks of breast cancer. This is also contrary to conventional assurances that radiation exposure from mammography is trivial, about 1/ 1,000 of a rad, and similar to just that from a chest X-ray. However, the routine practice of taking two films of each breast results in exposure of about 0.4 rads, focused on the breast rather than on the entire chest. Thus, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a total of at least four rads for each breast, at least eight times greater radiation than FDA's "cancer risk" level. Such high radiation exposure approximates to that of Japanese women living approximately one mile away from the site of the Hiroshima atom bomb explosion.
Good thing we have all the pink to remind all the women at age 40 to begin their annual dosage of radiation to their breasts...and we're not even mentioning all that radiation she's exposed to if she flies frequently and forgoes the gate rape option and favors TSA radiation "security."
Why, after 10 or so years, when she's 50...why her life will have been saved when the Mammogram detects a lump! A decade plus of regularly radiating her breasts would have nothing to do with it...right?! At least she followed the conventional wisdom!
EARLY DETECTION IS THE BEST PREVENTION
The best prevention for loss of profits from a most lucrative industry, that is.
From American Cancer Society: The World's Wealthiest "Nonprofit" Institution
The ACS has close connections to the mammography industry. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in its every move, the ACS reflects the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and film, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker. In fact, if every woman were to follow ACS and NCI mammography guidelines, the annual revenue to health care facilities would be a staggering $5 billion, including at least $2.5 billion for premenopausal women.
Promotions of the ACS continue to lure women of all ages into mammography centers, leading them to believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer.
But it's not just he expensive mammogram machines, jobs for licensing and certifying mammogram technicians, or inflated billings by healthcare insurance companies that are counting on all this raising of AWARENESS!
As Professor Epstein reiterates:
Five radiologists have served as presidents of the ACS. In its every move, the ACS promotes the interests of the major manufacturers of mammography machines, particularly the latest digital machines. These are four times more expensive, but no more effective than the film machines.
The mammography industry conducts "research" for the ACS and its grantees, serves on its advisory boards, and donates considerable funds. In virtually all its actions, the ACS has been and remains strongly linked with the industry. An ACS communications director admitted the obvious in a 1999 article published by the Massachusetts Women's Community's journal Cancer. "Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business."
Ah, but all this Pink inspired awareness is not just for the benefit of the Mammogram industry...let's not forget Big Pharma as well:
The ACS conflicts of interest extend well beyond the mammography industry. The ACS has received contributions in excess of $100,000 from a wide range of "Excalibur (industry) Donors," who manufacture carcinogenic products. These include petrochemical companies (DuPont, BP and Pennzoil), Big Pharma (AstraZenceca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Company and Novartis), and cosmetic companies (Christian Dior, Avon, Revlon and Elizabeth Arden).
October AWARENESS merchandise is just the way in which the NFL is allowed to garner their share of the loot from unsuspecting folks thinking they're contributing to "the war against cancer," when what they're really contributing to is the profits of a multitude of industries and "non-profits."
There's all the motive$ you need to understand why the NFL goes all pink every October.
Since I do not now, nor have I ever worn a single article of pink in my entire life, I guess I'm not a REAL MAN. Somehow, I think I'll manage to carry on.