Susan G Komen

A much needed message

Not supporting PETA =//= Not supporting better treatment of animals.

Not supporting Susan G. Komen =//= Not supporting breast cancer research.

Not supporting Autism Speaks =//= Not supporting autism awareness.

Not supporting BLM =//= Not supporting racial equality.

Not supporting feminism =//= Not supporting gender equality.

Dear everybody who keeps telling people not to buy the Pink Mercy skin because they believe the proceeds are going to Susan G. Komen,

shut the fuck up. That’s not the charity Blizzard is supporting. They’re supporting Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

If you’re going to tell people to “do their research”, you’d better damn well make sure that you’ve actually bothered to do yours. It takes literally 5 seconds to google this information.

anonymous asked:

Can you explain why organizations such as FCKH8 and autism speaks and other ones you've mentioned are bad? I'm just curious as I don't really pay attention to those organizations, so I don't really understand what they do wrong... or right. ..

Sure thing, I don’t blame people for not knowing. (I had a feeling someone would ask eventually, actually)

  • FCKH8 namely profiteers off of whatever is popular at the time. As their ads present, they advocate using hate which is never effective. Despite their claims they donate very little if anything to charities, and have had marked incidents of racism, sexism, transphobia, and ace+pan erasure. Plus they’ve stolen from artists which is wonderful! This is a recent masterpost I’ve seen, though I’ve had issues with them for a long-ass time.
  • AutismSpeaks namely has issues with how they handle autism that’s fairly disrespectful. While not donating a lot to begin with, they also treat autism as if it’s some grand, terrifying burden which furthers the misunderstandings of it rather than educating people. It’s all a ploy to get more donations. Here’s some sourced info.
  • Susan G. Komen I feel a bit more personal about since my dad died to cancer (not breast cancer, but still). While they do donate a bit more than these other groups (which isn’t saying much), they’re essentially donating directly to the pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical companies however have no interest in cancer research: this may sound tin-foil-hatty but it’s really kinda common business sense. Curing cancer would destroy their business. So, cancer is never going to see a cure in conventional medicine, and the Susan G. Komen foundation will preserve that.
    That aside, they’re also criticized for sexualizing the disease (save the boobies etc.) which is fucking stupid, as if tits are more important than the human lives affected by the disease. More reading.
    EDIT: HOW COULD I OF FORGOTTEN TO MENTION? Susan G. Komen has also sued other charities for just using the word ‘cure’ in their slogans, regardless of their relation to breast cancer  research! (Not that SGK would ever endorse an actual cure themselves)
  • PETA I hope is obvious. They’ve largely been criticized both for their attention-grabbing displays and a for-profit approach similar to FCKH8. Many of the animals they “save” are euthanized due to it being more cost effective. They’ve even come out and confessed that they do euthanize animals (though of course spun it to make themselves look better) but they’re predominately for-profit.

I’ve been obsessing over this recently and it’s honestly fucking with me whenever I think about it: charity campaigns by for-profit corporations.

This isn’t about charity groups like the Susan G. Komen Foundation scraping every donation from the bottom of the barrel to fill the CEO’s pockets and not using it for those in need. No, this isn’t about sketchy charities like that.

This is about product manufacturers and big brand labels doing some promotional gimmick where they promise to give a portion of the profits made from their limited-time offers to some charity and those in need. This also includes things like shoe companies promising to give one pair of shoes to people in the developing world for every pair you buy during this particular sales campaign or, more recently, buying a fancy drinking glass from Stella Artois to provide clean water resources to developing countries.

But when I consider how cheap the actual parts and labor for the product is, how little it costs to provide that small amount of humanitarian aid, how sales for these products increase during that marketing campaign, how much the company makes (yearly and/or quarterly) and the very fact that they’re only using a portion of the profits to do all this, it seems incredibly fucked-up.

A company airs all these commercials to advertise their product(s), offers a discount price or a limited-edition bonus with every purchase or a one-time-only product by itself, boosts its sales to make even more money than it already was, gives a small amount of the revenue or the product made in that narrow span of time, then stops donating and pats itself on the back for being humanitarian.

Companies generating many billions of dollars with CEOs making many millions or even billions annually (with bonuses) working to increase the amount of purchases and profits for a product manufactured for the lowest possible cost, essentially saying “give me more of your money and I’ll do the bare minimum to help-out the poor people”.

"Locks of Love gave me a free wig" / "PETA fought for me to adopt a pet that the shelter was going to euthanize" / "Autism Speaks bought my kid an iPad"

Good for you! Really. I’m glad that the amount of actual charity work these scam organizations do is not zero. And if you happen to be one of the few recipients, rock on.

But please recognize that your experience is rare. You are the exception, not the rule. Your experience of actually receiving services in no way invalidates my far more common experience of being scammed. Your one success does not outweigh the many failures.

Anecdote is not evidence. When you assert that “I got something, therefore this isn’t a scam” well first of all I want to ask if you know how pyramid schemes work. Furthermore, you sound ridiculous. Compare similar statements:

“I’m not poor, therefore poverty isn’t real.”

“I don’t vote, therefore democracy is a lie.”

“A cop once let me off with a warning, therefore no police brutality to anyone anywhere.”

“I have a job, therefore labor discrimination isn’t a thing.”

“I’m healthy today, therefore no diseases exist.”

only fuckin overwatch fans would possibly get into discourse about a 100% optional skin that you for once can buy from the storefronts of overwatch and where all the money blizzard gets from it goes to a cancer charity with a good reputation, rather than fuckin susan g komen scam lmao

Komen Claims to Restore @Ppact funding. Read Between The Lines.

#FF @jamiekillstein, @ThinkProgress & @pamelaoldham for information that lead to the following.

Komen for the Cure just released the following statement from Nancy Brinker and the Susan G. Komen Board of Directors:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Yes they were.  But, whatever.  Continue.  

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process.

So far so good.  Now what?

We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

Ah.  There we go.  Weasel clause #1.  The Affiliates can decide now, which means the heinous policy can be continued but now smaller organizations can be blamed.  "It wasn’t us, it was the Mississippi branch!“

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women.

Ah.  Weasel clause #2.  "Without controversies.”  Well, this is one now.  And now they can say funding Planned Parenthood is ALSO a controversy.   This smells of smoke and horse crap.

We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics - anyone’s politics.

Well, you started it.  You can stop it by firing Karen Handel, the Sarah Palin Tea Party puppet that has her finger prints all over this.  You started it by singling out Planned Parenthood out of 2000 organizations you fund.

So no - those of us who believe you have overreached, overstepped and catered to a fringe, anti-science mentality will not “slow down and reflect.”  If anything, we will stay vigilant and watch:  What you do, who you fund, and what your decisions regarding Planned Parenthood are in 2012 and beyond.

Because YOU were the one that put them in the crosshairs.

And surprise.  Despite what a small group of loud, hard-minded zealots might have told you, people know bullish*t when they smell it, and not only did you create your own, you stepped in it.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

Weasel Clause #3 clarifying weasel clause #1:  Shifting any blame for negative moves on local affiliates.  Have fun, small town people that just wanted to do something good!  You’re about to bear the brunt!

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

And, finally, a thank you to the people who they didn’t delete off their Facebook page.

I don’t trust this.  Not as far as I can throw it.

I will watch with a wary eye, and hope for the best but expect more of the same.

UPDATE:  11:21

External image

Yes, 4800 articles about it and probably not one of them looking at this critically.