Should NFL players be forced to wear pink?

A writer gets flak for blasting the NFL's breast cancer campaign, but you can hate cancer and its commodification

Topics: Sports Illustrated, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Peter King, Breast cancer, Cancer, Pinkwashing, ,

Should NFL players be forced to wear pink? (Credit: Reuters/Brian Snyder)

As a sports writer, Peter King is undoubtedly used to getting flak for his opinions. So when he tweeted last week in despair at professional football’s month-long, rosy-hued display of breast cancer awareness, “Please. Not pink for a month, NFL. A week, great. But a month?” the response was predictably unfavorable. “You got a problem w/ cancer awareness?” wrote one of his Twitter critics, while another asked, “Really? Is it that serious? If it’s raising money for cancer is it really worth complaining about?” and yet another declared, “Get over it for those we’ve lost and survived, we honor them in any way we can.”

In the face of the retorts, though, King pressed on, musing, “Is breast cancer the only charity NFL should support?” To the person who asked, “What if each team could pick one week in October where they wear the pink?” he retorted, “Perfect. That’d be ideal.” But over at ESPN’s radio 104.5, Jay Sanin was appalled. “ARE YOU SERIOUS?” he demanded, suggesting, “Maybe instead of being an ignorant idiot about life-threatening diseases, Peter King should stick to being an ignorant idiot about the NFL.”

Sanin argued that if the NFL were to follow King’s suggestion of limiting the amount of pink to an October team rotation, “That would mean it was seen in less stadiums, resulting in less awareness, which goes against the principles of Breast Cancer AWARENESS Month.” Yes, because if we didn’t see pink on the football field throughout October, how else would any of us know that it’s breast cancer awareness month? How would we be aware? Of breast cancer? I’ve got to ask, dude, ARE YOU SERIOUS? Have you been to, I don’t know, a store lately? Or a restaurant? Or gone outside?

Peter King’s original displeasure over the October pinking of the NFL may stem from an old-fashioned distaste for the color or the perceived feminization of a manly pursuit. But he’s dead right in his weary, oversaturated assessment of what’s become a grotesquely glutted month, the retail Christmas of cancer. The NFL’s commitment to supporting women with breast cancer — a very personal cause for many of the players — and to raising money for research is admirable, even if it does continue to throw funding at controversial causes like Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

But, as has been pointed out by many critics in innumerable venues — for instance, in last spring’s tremendous documentary “Pink Ribbons Inc.” — there is a world of difference between helping people with cancer and slapping on a cuddly color in the name of “the cure.” Breast cancer is not a single disease that manifests in exactly the same way in every patient. There will never be “a cure.” If we’re lucky, research will lead us all to a hopeful place where a variety of treatments are available to successfully target each individual’s experience of disease.

If a football player wearing pink gloves reminds somebody to get a mammogram or is seen as a sign of respect for someone who’s going through chemo right now, that’s awesome. It’s great that the NFL is working with the American Cancer Society’s Community Health Advocates National Grants for Empowerment. But it is straight-up BS to unquestioningly swallow every Pepto Bismol-colored piece of cancer cheerleading shoved down our throats every October. Many people, including those with experience of breast cancer, find themselves coming down with what writer Xeni Jardin calls “pink nausea,” unmoved by what Barbara Ehrenreich famously calls the “sentimentality” of breast cancer culture. On the Sarcastic Boob blog recently, writer Scorchy railed persuasively against “your Pinktober audience: apathetic, selfishly unaware, willfully ignorant and easily brainwashed.”

Most of us like women and don’t like cancer. Most of us extra-super-don’t-like cancer when it kills our friends and mothers and daughters. That doesn’t mean we can’t be disgusted by the over-appropriation and commodification of disease and the way it’s used to leer at women or reduce our value to just the sexy parts. We can support women, we can be outraged at the viciousness of cancer, and not believe in pink. And if pastel-tinted muffin pans and lapel ribbons or cleats aren’t a person’s thing, it’s downright bullying to suggest that automatically makes him or her “an ignorant idiot.” Ignorance is assuming that a color has a moral value and that “awareness” is sufficient. You want to see ignorance? Look around this pink-festooned month. We’re drowning in it. We’re dying in it.

Continue Reading Close
Mary Elizabeth Williams

Mary Elizabeth Williams is a staff writer for Salon and the author of "Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream." Follow her on Twitter: @embeedub.

Next Article

Featured Slide Shows

What To Read Awards: Top 10 Books of 2012 slide show

close X
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • Thumbnails
  • Fullscreen
  • 1 of 10
  • 10. "The Guardians" by Sarah Manguso: "Though Sarah Manguso’s 'The Guardians' is specifically about losing a dear friend to suicide, she pries open her intelligent heart to describe our strange, sad modern lives. I think about the small resonating moments of Manguso’s narrative every day." -- M. Rebekah Otto, The Rumpus

  • 9. "Beautiful Ruins" by Jess Walter: "'Beautiful Ruins' leads my list because it's set on the coast of Italy in 1962 and Richard Burton makes an entirely convincing cameo appearance. What more could you want?" -- Maureen Corrigan, NPR's "Fresh Air"

  • 8. "Arcadia" by Lauren Groff: "'Arcadia' captures our painful nostalgia for an idyllic past we never really had." -- Ron Charles, Washington Post

  • 7. "Gone Girl" by Gillian Flynn: "When a young wife disappears on the morning of her fifth wedding anniversary, her husband becomes the automatic suspect in this compulsively readable thriller, which is as rich with sardonic humor and social satire as it is unexpected plot twists." -- Marjorie Kehe, Christian Science Monitor

  • 6. "How Should a Person Be" by Sheila Heti: "There was a reason this book was so talked about, and it’s because Heti has tapped into something great." -- Jason Diamond, Vol. 1 Brooklyn

  • 4. TIE "NW" by Zadie Smith and "Far From the Tree" by Andrew Solomon: "Zadie Smith’s 'NW' is going to enter the canon for the sheer audacity of the book’s project." -- Roxane Gay, New York Times "'Far From the Tree' by Andrew Solomon is, to my mind, a life-changing book, one that's capable of overturning long-standing ideas of identity, family and love." -- Laura Miller, Salon

  • 3. "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" by Ben Fountain: "'Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk' says a lot about where we are today," says Marjorie Kehe of the Christian Science Monitor. "Pretty much the whole point of that novel," adds Time's Lev Grossman.

  • 2. "Bring Up the Bodies" by Hilary Mantel: "Even more accomplished than the preceding novel in this sequence, 'Wolf Hall,' Mantel's new installment in the fictionalized life of Thomas Cromwell -- master secretary and chief fixer to Henry VIII -- is a high-wire act, a feat of novelistic derring-do." -- Laura Miller, Salon

  • 1. "Behind the Beautiful Forevers" by Katherine Boo: "Like the most remarkable literary nonfiction, it reads with the bite of a novel and opens up a corner of the world that most of us know absolutely nothing about. It stuck with me all year." -- Eric Banks, president of the National Book Critics Circle

  • Recent Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • Thumbnails
  • Fullscreen
  • 1 of 10

More Related Stories

Comments

39 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( profile | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>