First, I promise, no talk of bajingos in this post other than to say that HOLY SHIT SERENA WILLIAMS IS ACTUALLY A TAMPAX TAMPONS SPOKESWOMAN! I had no clue when I wrote my little black and gold bajingo string joke.  And look, here we are talking about bajingos again.

Enough.  We’re moving on to boobies!

Because I’m comfortable with my boobies.

As you know, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and the reason that you’re completely aware of that is because every third thing you buy this month in the grocery store is going to be pink. You think I’m exaggerating, but seriously, check your buggy (ding!) for yourself and you’ll find pink ribbons all over your non-perishables.

Do I think the pink thing is a little out of control? Tiny bit.  And I say that as a woman whose grandmother died at the age of 57 from breast cancer. Don’t write me nasty emails. I of course applaud efforts to raise money for breast cancer research, but sometimes I wonder why, since I don’t think there’s a person in the world that’s not “aware” of breast cancer, some companies don’t just donate the money to the cause instead of turning their products ENTIRELY PINK!  I’m looking at you, pink Terrible Towel:

It’s a bit much.

In addition, Willie Parker is going to have some odd footwear this Sunday:

It is nearly as painful as watching the Steelers’ running game these days, but, if Parker can pull on his pink shoes Sunday — worn by selected Steelers and others around the NFL this weekend for Breast Cancer Awareness Month — all might not be lost.

Pink shoes!

Will they be bedazzled with tiny crystals shaped like boobs?

In other news, Prostate Cancer Awareness Month was actually LAST month but you didn’t know that, because there were no meaningful images of surgical gloves printed on your cereal boxes and because there were no NFL players wearing reddish-colored shoes with purple veins painted on them.


You just did, didn’t you?

(h/t USC Mike)


  1. Pink Towel
    October 1, 2009 7:38 am

    “I wonder why some companies don’t just donate the money to the cause instead of turning their products ENTIRELY PINK! I’m looking at you, pink Terrible Towel”

    But Gin, the TT is non-profit. All proceeds go to the kids, so if they were to donate instead of change color they’d be taking money away from the kids. Is that what you want?

  2. Bojack
    October 1, 2009 8:05 am

    The menu looks GREAT except for three glaring omissions,
    where are the squab tacos, squabquesadillas, and squab burritos???

  3. oldgraymare
    October 1, 2009 8:12 am

    REAL FANS DON’T WEAR (or wave) PINK!!!! I have no problem with the pink campaign except when it comes to team colors. Pgh. colors are black and gold and white. period. I refuse to wear a pick steelr, pirate,penguin, etc. jersey just cause it is for a cause, or because some manufacturer thinks all females like pink. Give me my black and gold. I am a true Pittsburgh sports fan.

  4. ultraviolet
    October 1, 2009 8:53 am

    Pink is awesome but is such an unfortunately despised color (i’m not going get into that debate)
    That said, there isn’t much awareness on prostate cancer (maybe its not as common as breast cancer? I dont know.)
    My grandfather passed away from it. There is a Obediah Cole Foundation Father’s Day/Prostate Awareness 5k/10k race which is great (through the North Shore & Washingtons Landing) May not become as huge as the Mother’s Day Breast Cancer event but its good to know there are efforts to raise awareness.

  5. Matt
    October 1, 2009 9:03 am

    As for Willie Parker wearing pink shoes, I’m pretty sure that certain hockey players use pink hockey sticks. Then they auction them off in a charity auction. My question is, do they really need to be pink to auction them off? Couldn’t they just auction off the regular game used merchandise for the same profit?

  6. 7000th Nerd Girl
    October 1, 2009 9:33 am

    >> or because some manufacturer thinks all females like pink. Give me my black and gold. I am a true Pittsburgh sports fan.>>

    And one of the manufacturers (I forget which) has, on top of the pink-on-pink-on-pink thing, started using this silly diagonal stripe from the neckline to the armpit like an imitation of a Chinese cheongsam. WTF is that all about? No one’s fooled. It’s not evening wear, not even in Pittsburgh. ;)

  7. Kristie
    October 1, 2009 9:53 am

    Oldgraymare – ITA!! I can’t stand the pink jerseys.

  8. Still A Fan
    October 1, 2009 10:21 am

    My mother died at 47 from ovarian cancer. Why all of these cancer groups don’t work together and split the pot is sad to me.

  9. Robin
    October 1, 2009 10:58 am

    Just an FYI, since we’re talking pink: today is Panera Pink Ribbon Day (October 1). All pink ribbon bagel proceeds benefit the Young Women’s Breast Cancer Foundation (this is a local organization)

  10. pete morgan
    October 1, 2009 12:03 pm

    I dont have any male problem with wearing pink to call attention to the issue of breast cancer. but how about a WNBA team wearing some purple shoes or arm band to call attention to protrate cancer. You know thats no real treat either.

  11. Andrea
    October 1, 2009 12:12 pm

    The Pirates use pink bats on mother’s day and then auction them off for breast cancer charities. Guess they don’t make much money on that!

  12. mfj
    October 1, 2009 12:24 pm

    Well the bats would be brand new and completely unmarked by baseballs.

  13. Ex-Pat Pittsburgh Girl
    October 1, 2009 12:26 pm

    MLB uses Father’s Day for it’s prostate cancer awareness efforts. Players use light blue bats and wear light blue wrist bands. In addition, money is donated for each home run hit in all of the games on Father’s Day. A lot of minor league baseball teams (please no cracks about the Buccos — too easy of a set up) also participate. When I lived in Portland, OR, the Portland Beavers did a special jersey — navy blue with pink accents — and had a shirt off of our backs auction. I was the lucky winner for Justin Huber’s jersey. Justin is a tall drink of water from Australia who is now with the Twins.

  14. Pensgirl
    October 1, 2009 12:58 pm

    Still A. Fan, totally with you. I always thought there should just be one organization that covered all cancer. Just because they need to be researched separately doesn’t mean they need to be fundraised separately. “Heart disease” is a good example – that covers a lot of different things.

  15. Still A, Fan
    October 1, 2009 7:20 pm

    It makes you wonder if it’s the organization itself that aggressively markets that much harder or if it’s just that so many people want to help and they all go to them. I mean, if somewhere in a boardroom they are like “YES! We are kicking the SHIT out of Ovarian’s 3rd quarter donations” I don’t know how I’d feel about that. Does LiveStrong benefit all cancer? I think it does. I have some running gear that’s LiveStrong, of course the bracelet, a really nice mug…nothing Pink, but I do donate to two friends who do that long walk – but sometimes I’m pissed off about that too. Everybody has their own favorite charities. I do plenty off the radar. If I gave $50 to one friend who asked me first, please don’t be offended if your running ticker doesn’t say I gave to you. It’s all going to the same place. Also, we got the first email. And the second. You don’t need to send a third to see if we got the first two.

  16. Bob from Va
    October 2, 2009 3:34 am

    So tell me why Breast Cancer has to beg for spare change when less invasive and less important diseases (in terms of numbers of victims and long term deaths) get funding from the government?

    53% of the population is susceptible to breast cancer.

  17. mmppgh
    October 2, 2009 4:17 am

    I think the original campaign was created by the Susan B. Komen Foundation and then it just snowballed. So many companies jumped on the bandwagon, either because they really support the cause or because they want to appear “good corporate citizens”. And the proceeds (if any) of the purchase price benefit one of several cancer charities, which really dilutes the impact. If you really want to help, make a direct donation to an organization you feel confident in.

    One of the challenges of merging or working together is that nonprofits are initially founded on people’s passions and personal experience. So, when considering collaboration or mergers, boards are concerned that each concern will not get equal play. I’m not saying this is right, but just offering a perspective on why collaborations and mergers aren’t more prevalent.

    I agree that the Heart Association is a great example of an organization that covers several complimentary diseases, but I won’t give to them because – at least as of a few years ago – their research only focused on why people get the disease and how to prevent it – not improved treatment options. I know why my dad has heart disease; I want him to have better treatment options so he can have better quality of life. So, I guess I’m part of the problem. Find me an organization that funds that kind of research, and they will likely get my money.

  18. Still A Fan
    October 2, 2009 9:12 am

    Ginny, start a NP and be CEO. Pay yourself a fair wage and then we,ll all chime in about where to put it. If you get a good enough lawyer, maybe That’s Church can already be a religious organization with you as the High Priestess with Do Me Boots.

  19. Pensgirl
    October 2, 2009 9:35 am

    I read an article within the last few years – and I wish I could remember where and when exactly – that said basically the breast cancer advocates were very early leaders of new ideas in fundraising – the walk being a big example – and have basically become this major fundraising cog.

    Bob, I haven’t done specific research, but basically the idea of charity is to do soemthing that would otherwise fall to the government. So where foundations are filling a need, the government can then turn its dollars to areas that aren’t being privately funded. Breast cancer has a ton of private funding compared with other diseases, so the government isn’t left HAVING to fund it.

    The article I mentioned (and again I wish I remembered its authors) basically said that breast cancer research is actually TOO well funded in comparison with the number of people it affects. I mean, it’s probably the first disease-related charity cause people would give you if you asked them to name one. There are schools of thought that it’s such a major marketing machine that it’s hurting the efforts of other charities. The idea is that because people tend to gravitate toward the familiar, and the breast cancer advocates have done an excellent job of entrenching their cause into EVERYBODY’s consciousness, that people give money to that and then are (or feel) tapped-out when other causes started coming along.

    And again, none of this is to say it’s not a worthy cause. Preventing, treating, and curing anything that kills people is a worthy cause. It’s just a matter of trying to spend wisely both within a cause and within the spectrum of causes.

    Mmppgh, there’s nothing wrong with choosing not to donate to a particular organization – we can’t all fund everything. The hope is that enough people will fund each thing that between all of us, we’ll get it all covered (eventually).

    I choose to donate to lesser-funded causes because they are lesser-funded. I know that millions upon millions of my peeps have breast cancer funding covered. If for some reason that balance shifts, I’ll shift my focus too. The great thing about America is that we have that choice to fund what we want – and the great thing about Americans is that so many of do fund SOMETHING.

  20. justagirl
    October 2, 2009 1:05 pm

    One thing that bothers me about the corporate use of the Breast Cancer Awareness campaign is that often companies set certain amounts that they will donate (profits up to X thousand dollars) or an end date to donations, but that information is in tiny print somewhere inconvenient on the package. It’s also an amount they expect to easily reach, and they produce many more goods packaged in the Breast Cancer Awareness campaign packaging than they sell in the allotted time, so that people specifically opt to buy them because they believe they are helping a charity, when in fact that charity has already received all the money it’s going to, or the end date has already passed.

    A while back there was a Wired Magazine article about an institute started to research ways to detect cancer. Any and all types of cancer. Because the one thing that ALL cancers have in common is that the earlier it is detected, the greater a person’s chance to survive. As a person passes into later stages of the disease, their survival chances plummet (some forms of cancer more quickly than others). So by focusing on finding new ways of detecting cancers cheaply, efficiently, and early, and hopefully looking for more than one cancer at a time, they’re hoping to help save many people who might come down with varying cancers. It’s been a while since I read the article, but that was my recollection of it. As someone who has lost a grandmother, aunt, professor, and coworker to ovarian cancer (which is notoriously hard to detect), it sounds like a fantastic idea to me.

    That doesn’t mean I think we should stop funding cancer treatment research, but I certainly think anything they find in terms of detection that can be applied to cancers or other diseases is a worthy goal.

  21. justagirl
    October 2, 2009 1:14 pm

    Oh, hey. Apparently it was the cover story of the January 2009 Wired Magazine. Seems to be readable online at

  22. Sofa King
    October 5, 2009 10:51 am

    I’m glad so many people are saying what I’ve been thinking about the pink campaign. I’m all for supporting the cause- my grandmother died in her 40’s from breast cancer and my mother-in-law is a survivor- but all of this is getting to be a little much. As we speak, I have a miniature Arena Football League ball on my desk with pink laces and stripes on it. The Komen Foundation has done an AWESOME job at raising awareness of this disease and helping to decrease the mortality rate associated with it, to the point that it is now one of the more survivable forms of cancer out there. There are so many other cancers out there that are much more devastating and get much less PR because they don’t have the marketing money behind them. I thought that the struggles of Randy Pausch, Patrick Swayze, and Justice Ginsburg with Pancreatic Cancer would at least have the positive after-effect of shining a light on this truly terrifying form of cancer, but unfortunately, it doesn’t seems like they have.

    October 6, 2009 6:12 am

    Hi…I am personally involved in the American Cancer Society’s Relay for Life. It is a much less corporate-driven event that focuses on a community coming together for 24 hours to fight cancer. It is a great thing and my family has been involved for years!
    I am selling shirts that say SAVE THE BOOBIES. The money goes to the Relay for Life and breast cancer research! How about them boobies!