But the ads for this year’s “Manicure for the Cure” have turned the event into a polarizing force. When we first saw the ads — which urge “gentlemen” to “save second base” by getting a manicure or massage — there were almost too many objections to name. First of all, the ads don’t even mention breasts. Many people were confused by what the posters were trying to say — we can’t count the number of times we’ve had to explain to other students how “second base” relates to manicures. (No, it doesn’t have anything to do with hands.) Second, by focusing solely on Princeton’s male population, the “Save Second Base” campaign dabbles in heteronormativity; but sadly, that’s not the worst part.
The framing of this tragic disease as the loss of an object of male sexual desire belittles everyone involved — the men who are the targets of the ads, the men and women who suffer from breast cancer and anyone who cares about the devastating effects of the disease. While we’re sure that the ads’ offensiveness was unintentional, their tastelessness indicates a larger problem with the way we approach activism at Princeton.
Instead of decrying the posters as insulting and essentialist, let’s use the “Save Second Base” campaign as a springboard for larger conversations about campus activism. We should lay aside the problem of assuming that we can only motivate our fellow students to support this type of work through what is basically self-indulgence. The posters are problematic enough on their own because they make it seem as though we’re comfortable objectifying women as mere possessors of breasts and breast cancer as merely an impasse to sexual experience. Is there no other reason men (or women) would want to support breast cancer research? What does that say about us as student activists seeking to incite change?
As evidenced by the posters placed around campus in response to the “Save Second Base” campaign (which feature taglines such as “Gentlemen, Save Titty F**king” and “Ladies, Save the Male G-Spot”), we are not alone in questioning the ways in which the tagline for this charitable event degrades the women it purports to help. This guerilla campaign, if anything, serves to show that there does exist a sub-population of Princetonians who object to this treatment of breast cancer patients and survivors. But why is it that these conversations only come to the fore when blatantly politically incorrect campaigns are waged? Do these sorts of interactions aid greater discussions about breast cancer and its impact, or merely allow the discussion to devolve into arguments about strategy and branding? We’re not getting to the root of the problem here by complaining about these particular ads. We’re actually distancing ourselves from them. We need more than a snappy comeback — we need actual discussion.
Breast cancer is a serious issue that impacts the lives of many people, and we can for the most part agree that supporting research for a cure is a noble endeavor. If we as a campus truly want to act in a positive manner to help those who suffer from breast cancer, we need to talk about these issues in an open and straightforward manner. This doesn’t mean that the original campaign shouldn’t be criticized, because it was offensive. But we can’t let the conversation end with the posters outside Frist. We should support breast cancer research to show solidarity with those who struggle with the disease, not because of perceived sexual payoffs, or because the ads were irritating. As activists, we have a responsibility to criticize misogyny, but we need to go further — we need to examine our reactions, and question why we only act when we’re provoked. Is that reaction enough? It’s certainly not helping the people suffering from breast cancer.
Grace Remington is a sophomore from Seattle, Wa., and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux is a sophomore from Charlottesville, Va. They can be reached individually at gremingt@princeton.edu and ajthomso@princeton.edu.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
