Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Ochalla, Oct 12, 2012.

  1. For the rest of the article.

    So is greenwashing, and redwashing (AIDS) and all kinds of other special colours they slap on products just to sell. Be sure you read the fine print and make sure their donation is an actual decent percentage of the cost of the item.

    My main issue with all this pinkwashing is this:

    You're doing a big disservice to the people you claim to be helping if you don't also raise awareness to help prevent or to know the signs of breast cancer. Or even if you fail to assist families in the cost of fighting the disease. Costs of both time and money.

    For instance: Komen does a lot towards Breast Cancer Research but how much do they assist in helping to raise awareness about self-examination? About risk populations? About early treatment? In recent years, due to the whole Planned Parenthood debate, Komen threatened to pull critical funding from PP clinics WHICH ARE A MAJOR LOCATION FOR UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED TO RECEIVE PREVENTATIVE CARE. This includes wellness checks for men and women (men can get breast cancer too, and a more aggressive form of the disease!), mammograms, and health education.

    Komen has turned themselves into a brand name, a selling point. This not-for-profit has certainly become the closest thing to a for-profit as it can get. They squeeze out smaller charities through lawsuits over trademarking. Is it really a surprise that they're donating less and less to what it claims as its mission?
  3. Thank you for posting this, Ocha! I can't believe that they would be doing this, honestly. Would a better benefit be to go to smaller charities, or would they only get uprooted due to Komen? One that I'm thinking of is Locks of Love [even though I don't have the hair for it yet], or has that become name brand, too?
  4. i r halpng u ochatz

  5. I have no idea what to say about this other than I was surprised at this piece of news. Honestly, just slapping a pink band on a piece of clothing and claiming that it supports charity, even though only a small fraction of it does, is insulting. People buy these products so they can support something indirectly, so they can show that they support charity, and thus may be raise awareness. But what message does it give if only a small percent of the actual income goes towards actual charity?