Today we mark the low point of the breast cancer industrial complex's already sketchy Pinktober - wherein insatiable capitalism touts spending money on all things pink "for the cure" - with No Bra Day, the entirely counter-intuitive "holiday" that calls for women to let their (blessedly healthy) breasts flow free in the name of ill women who are "scarred, radiated, burned, nauseated, and fighting for their lives." Note to No Bra Day: This is bullshit, and going braless doesn't save lives.
hmmm.. no immediate comments for such a stirring piece.
I hope that maybe because its thought provoking and requiring some reflection rather than being a sensitive topic of taboo.
Whatever, for Abby Zimet, I think its a display of testos. (bravo) with deep heartfelt pain and a fair outrage at an unconscionable industry.
Whatever degree of grace one might extend for good intentions, these campaigns seem to wreak of modern pseudo art direction and fake activism. It's very hurtful to veteran artists and protestors - it's hurtful all round so I'm not surprised that the industry that trades in sickness and pain would apply mass imagery and persona hypocritically.
.... a lot more can be said about the corporate depots managing and advertising the campaigns around cancer and cancer "research".
We've had the "War on Cancer" since the 60's going no where --
Either our science and researchers stink or the Cancer Industry is too big to fail?
Women's bodies and the planet are tied together in being attacked by harmful substances, chemicals and every other kind of crap polluting the earth and destroying our immune systems. Children, as well.
Just focus for a moment on more than 100 nuclear reactors across the US, some on faults, and two on Lake Erie which is a source of drinking water -- all highly susceptible the disruptions being brought to us by Global Warming -- a product of capitalism. 500 nuclear reactors internationally.
Takes about 1 year to shut these things down properly.
We are all "downwind'ers" -- and it's another case where we are betrayed by politicians like Obama who was headed out to jump start a second generation of these nuclear reactors in the US -- which we subsidize because no insurance company will insure them. It's also a hell of a way to boil water to create steam to run the reactors. The reactors need water.
They will be threatened by floods/droughts - more lightning strikes -- more severe hurricanes, storms of every kind -- cyclones, tornadoes, and earthquakes.
All more frequent and more severe.
No-Bra day may be meaningless as far as curing anyone -- but neither do I see it as being harmful.
I think we have another FAKE war here --
I agree with these comments - cancer is a profitable industry fueled by capitalist toxicity. There are many things we can do to reduce our cancer risk, and according to a 1996 Harvard study - going braless is one of them. As per http://all-natural.com/womens-health/bras:
Women who wore their bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer (in their study, n=2056 for the cancer group and n=2674 for the standard group). Women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day but not to bed had a 1 out of 7 risk. Women who wore their bras less than 12 hours per day had a 1 out of 152 risk. Women who wore bras rarely or never had a 1 out of 168 chance of getting breast cancer. The overall difference between 24 hour wearing and not at all was a 125-fold difference.
This is said to be caused by impaired lymphatic flow.
Although not likely the intention, it seems some good can come from No Bra Day.
Not denying that there may be deleterious health effects of bras, but, sorry to say, there are a lot of quacks and charlatans on the internet. The article you linked with its rather strong claims (what woman wears a bra 24 hrs a day?) Contains no citations - the author merely stating that he "read a study a year ago".
This smells a lot like the bogus #PissForEquality prank / stunt / fail. And it makes about as much sense as a day of gluttony to show solidarity with the world's starving. If anyone finds out who came up with this, it might be worth throwing a shame spotlight on them, but otherwise, this idea deserves to die in obscurity from neglect.
Really? That didn't seem just a tad off topic here?
Actually, studies show that going braless does reduce breast cancer. So even if this day may sound trivial, if this is known, it could bring awareness to preventing some breast cancers. Bra industry probably won't like to hear this though.
Didn't see your post before I added mine today. Great info!
Only if you think that nuclear reactors have nothing to do with cancer?
Actually, haven't we always known that women wear bras in order to keep male eyes on the road?
But I do agree that the girls should be free and loose -- get a lot of fresh air --
and especially get away from those wire bras poking into you all day!
Thanks. I always look for the positive side. In cancer prevention, awareness is key, but going braless may not be the answer. There would probably be way too many car accidents! Personally, I prefer sport bras. Modesty and support without pokey wires.
Studies can be junk. It all depends on how well designed they are. The prevailing view appears to be that the few studies which found a correlation between breast cancer and bra use did not adequately control for confounds.
I agree - it seems to almost mock victims of breast cancer.
The view of the US National Cancer Institute is that if nuclear reactors normally pose any cancer risk to the general population, the scale of that risk has been too small to detect. And the cancers most likely to be related to nuclear power are not breast cancer. (Higher doses of radiation to the chest before the age of 30 is considered a risk factor for breast cancer, but this is typically related to medical radiation, not nuclear power plants.)
I recognize there are people who think nuclear power causes breast cancer, but so too are there people who think contrails ("chemtrails"), abortions, and anti-perspirants cause breast cancer. That doesn't mean those issues would belong in a discussion about an absurd (possibly bogus) go-braless campaign.
The main purpose of bras, invented by the French in the late 19th century, from an engineering standpoint, is to enhance the shape and position of the breasts so as to make then (and the woman's overall "figure") more attractive to men - recall the padded bras that small-breasted women wear. Then, as so many other things the capitalists impose on us (but especially women it seems) - increasingly levels of shaving natural body hair comes to mind - this optional thing became something that women cane to feel physically uncomfortable not wearing and doing.
Yunzer et al, CD doesn't identify posters by gender unless they choose to self identify. From my reading of this very interesting article and responses, could it be I'm the only female who may have chosen to respond?
From personal experience the construction of bras has changed considerably over the decades there has been the expectation I should use one since age 13. Today they are far more comfortable, though generally quite expensive.
Not sure what kind of reaction there would have been had i chosen to be far more comfortable and not bothered with either the discomfort nor costs of
wearing one back in my working days which also began at a similar age. Somehow, I suspect employers would have told me to put one on or go home. However, you can all be sure this ancient, long now retiree, does put on one when I go out, but around the house, far fewer in number reside in their designated drawer the rest of the time.
Pollution causes cancer --
Our Nuclear Reactors leak --
As for nuclear reactors they were closely linked long ago to leukemia
and leukemia cases are happening again. Previously to children, now
Anything that negatively effects your immune system will cause illness.
1 in 3 people now have cancer.
What we've seen of our government agencies and unfortunately organizations
such as the US National Cancer Institute is that they are often protective and
covering-up for the people they are supposed to be opposing.
It's a Cancer Industry protecting its own welfare.
Our FDA is frequently called, "Monsanto's FDA," for instance.
We know the processed sugar industry -- sugar is a chemical -- has pushed it's influence on government agencies. There's been a book written about this by a former head of one of the agencies.
The animal-slaughter/eating industry has banned any suggestion that their product is vile. These products are negatively effecting the health of all Americans -- from HBP and heart disease to cancer.
Dr. James Hansen got info out to the public about the censorship of his Global Warming reports where changes in the meaning were made by the White House.
We also saw this when Whitman was head of the EPA and was pushed by the White House to lie to the public -- especially New Yorkers - that there was no danger after 9/11. You know how many people in NJ alone had nasal infections?
Every part of our government has been corrupted.
Fox/Murdock now owns National Geographic. On and on.
What exactly do you know about wearing bras?
How about an underwire bra?
How about wearing a bra all day long which has to be tight enough around
your back (across your rib cage) to hold the breasts up -- while you still have the need to breathe all day long?
High heels and bras should go the way of foot-binding.
True -- just as high heels alter a female's figure and make it more attractive to males.
What would women care what their breast size is? Not at all --
It is men who care what a woman's breast size is --
and I am inclined to think it has been because they were DENIED the breast
as infants due to our fake food/formula industry spreading propaganda in the interests of their own profits.
As women return to breastfeeding and "giving every baby the breast at the right time" we will probably see this obsession with breasts decline.
But, as a woman, I can tell you that lifelong you will find men staring at your breasts -- even into old age if you have the girls hiked up or if they're just flying loose.