• Mon, Nov 26 2012

Daily Fail: Oprah Didn’t Have A Breast Cancer Scare Because She Chose Career Over Kids

oprah breast cancer scareOprah opened up about a breast cancer scare at a conference in Los Angeles last month, and she also told the New York Times about her struggles at the helm of OWN and O Magazine. The Daily Mail‘s summary is dramatized, as can be expected, but it also couches a pretty offensive dig at women who choose to focus on their careers, minus a family–in the form of scientific claims about breast cancer risk.

Oprah’s breast cancer scare (which turned out to be a false alarm) is only related to comments about her career by virtue of the fact that Oprah announced it in front of 5,000 people at the O magazine conference in Los Angeles last month, where she also discussed the future of her business, both on stage and in an interview with the New York Times‘ Christine Haughney. But the Daily Mail found their own link; an unsupported tidbit of science in the form of a jab women who aren’t mothers:

“Researchers have found that childless women like her are more likely to develop breast cancer than those who give birth.”

The Daily Mail’s judgements are usually pretty offensive, but this one is particularly upsetting: While research has shown a slightly higher breast cancer risk for childless women, they’re throwing out the claim without further information, links to studies, or quotes from doctors. (Or, more importantly, comments from Oprah herself on how her life choices may impact her health.) Instead, they’re mostly just passing judgement on women for making unconventional choices in the form of cautionary health advice.

Oprah has been wide open about her diet, exercise, weight issues, and health in general–all of which are clearly related to breast cancer risk–but blaming it on her choice to be childless and focus on her career is pretty outlandish (especially because Oprah doesn’t even have breast cancer; the connection is made mostly to scare readers and remind us that, hey: if you don’t have kids, you’re up next).

Photo: O Magazine

What We're Reading:
Share This Post:
  • Bea

    I had brest cancer and I have 3 children. I don’t think women who don’t have children are at any higher risk. I had 40 radation treatments. The ladies who were taking treatments while I was were all moms except a 16 year old girl. She had brain cancer,

    • mm

      I hope you’re okay now! I hope all of the other people are, as well. That tidbit about the 16 year old girl made me horribly sad =(

  • Jebella

    And….Oprah told Piers Morgan she had a baby at 14 (who was born stillborn), so the Daily Mail’s “hook” isn’t even relevant here. (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/17/winfrey-losing-baby-as-a-teen-was-my-second-chance/)

    • StephKay

      Yeah, I clicked this link just to mention that same thing. It’s super cruel and insulting to refer to the mother of a dead child as childless. I was under the impression that he did live briefly, but even if she did have a stillborn this “chose to be childless” business is all kinds of wrong.

  • Jim McKee

    Laughable. A women who’s been hiding her homosexuality for years and the cover of her “O” magazine always has a pic of a ‘slim’ Oprah (from those scarce weeks in her life) instead of pics of who she REALLY is. The cover pics of her mag are literally 15-20 years old.

    And every sheep women will defend her. Because they’ve been sucked into the same marketing bullshit that martha stewart employed to grow her wealth.

    Sure, plenty is done to contribute to the plight of those she defends on all her talk shows, and a fantastic business expense at that, isn’t it..?

    • http://www.facebook.com/houde.veronique Véronique Houde

      what in the world does you comment have anything to do with this article??