Suzanne Reisman's blog

Do Working Moms Lose Child Custody in Divorces?

2009-11-19T14:45:52-06:00

Not long after I graduated from college, I worked at a government agency. One of my co-workers was in the middle of a bitter divorce. Prior to the divorce, he stayed home caring for his two young sons. Once his wife left him, however, she filed for custody of the children. At the time, he did not contest the filing, as he did not want to upset his kids any more than they already were. However, he was clearly heartbroken and missed nurturing his children.

I left my job to return to school, as did my colleague. Over the years, I lost track of him. Then, many years later, I was at LaGuardia Airport when I noticed my former friend's face on the cover of one of New York City's tabloid-y newspapers. "City's Worst Deadbeat Dad!" the headline screamed. "WTF?" I thought to myself. I bought a paper.

Long story short, eventually Bob (not even close to his real name) became upset with the way his ex was raising their kids. He went to court to get them back. He lost. Bob was also ordered to pay more child support, although his ex had a very high salary herself. Rather than give her more money, Bob quit his job and moved into his mother's basement. The article portrayed Bob as a horrendous person and his wife as a victim of a petty man. I felt awful for Bob and the children; the media coverage relied heavily on the stereotypical idea that men cannot possibly be as good caregivers as women.

It seems, however, that Working Mother magazine readers disagree:

A new survey by Working Mother magazine shows that 74% of respondents believe a mother’s nurturing is essential to a child’s development, but at least 50% of custody cases now end with the father gaining primary custody, and this figure looks set to rise.

Here's what I say to that: so what? Of course, I'm not in favor of the idea that working mothers should be punished for doing so by losing their kids. But if we are asking fathers and other partners to step up and do their part in caring for and raising children - as they should - then we also have to acknowledge some stereotypes that have traditionally worked to the benefit of women and we have to be willing to give up those privileges.

I'm not saying that there are not scary issues that this raises. Clearly, we do not yet live in a world where people understand that a mom who works is as devoted to her children as a mom who does not. The idea that women might be losing custody of kids merely because working women are seen as less devoted to their children is horrifying. And I also know a woman in the midst of a terrible divorce whose powerful, working-long-hours husband filed for sole custody, saying his wife neglected their school-age kids because she opted to go to night classes in a master's degree program two nights a week. That is evil.

But back to the idea of sharing and working toward a better world. It turns out, contrary to popular belief and strange excuses, that men are actually capable of nurturing and raising kids. Some do it on their own when their wife dies or leaves them. Others have male partners and no women in the household. Another group shares responsibility with the children's mother. When men care for their own children, they do not "babysit" any more than mothers do when they care for their kids. If a man is a stay-at-home dad, why shouldn't he have any less of right to custody than a stay-at-home mom? That is insulting and absurd.

In the past, it was thought that a father's role in child rearing was to earn some money so that the kids had a house and food and clothing. That was pretty much it. Maybe he was also expected to discipline the kids or show the kids what the proper role of men was, but when couples got divorced under this rubric, it made sense to automatically grant custody to the moms. At the same time, the mom and kids were usually plunged into lower economic circumstances for a variety of reasons, one being that she had been out of the work force for a while, another being that women are paid about 25% less than men for doing the same job, and a third that alimony doesn't really add up to enough to support a family. Plus, men got remarried and had new families to look after. Really, when I think about it, the old system kind of sucked.

Since I don't want to live in a world where women are made to feel guilty if they work and men are not expected to have real responsibility in raising the kiddies, I'm down with the idea that more men want to share custody of their kids. The key is to make sure that women are not punished for working while men are rewarded for changing an extra diaper or two every week. But a knee jerk reaction to news that dads want custody and that women must do everything they can to prevent this from happening is wrong. It doesn't serve working parents, stay-at-home parents, or most importantly, the kids.

Those are my two cents. There's a very interesting discussion over at the Feministing Community on custody and whether courts favor mothers. Back in 2006, Ampersand at Alas, a Blog offered an excellent analysis of custody decisions and the stat that men get custody 50% of the time. On a related topic, Hannah "might mouth" Wallen shares her frustrations over Sexism in Divorce law and Child Support enforcement. Cafe Cynthia at Cafe Mom looks at both sides of the Working Mother article. Finally, Deesha at Co-parenting 101 looks at the original article and few other blogs and concludes, "we believe that joint custody should be granted except in situations where such an arrangement is detrimental to the kids."

Suzanne also blogs at Camapign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and is the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track

To Get/Keep a Man, Shave to His Will?

2009-11-16T10:11:09-06:00

I visited a friend in London this past weekend. While I was there, I ate lots and lots of yummy chocolate and cheese and baked goods. I basked in the idea that national health care was a given. Even more, the UK National Health Service doesn't rob women of their reproductive rights by allowing religion to dictate what health services are covered; except for in Northern Ireland, termination (abortion) services are covered. After a horrible week in the US, where Democrats sold out women and allowed religious lobbies to impose their beliefs on my health, I thought about defecting. London is perfect! Well, except that even in the UK, women are told that you need set aside your own preferences and needs if you want to get and keep a man.

The controversy flared before my trip. On Halloween (insert "trick" joke here), Suzi Godson told a woman in the The Times that if she wants to keep her younger boyfriend, she should groom herself in the way he finds attractive. And by groom, I mean get a Brazilian wax. According to Godson, porn has rendered men incapable of looking at women with pubic hair and finding them attractive. Godson's sage advice is thus:

Though the feminist ethos of your “take me as I am” argument is perfectly valid, your boyfriend’s reaction is instinctive — and in the face of something that is honestly perceived as a turn-off by one partner, rational arguments simply do not work. The good news is that, as “issues” go, this is a pretty small one and, hey, if the relationship doesn’t work out you can return to your old ways.

Now, I'm not going to argue against the idea that rational arguments can't be used on desire. That makes sense. I disagree that men instinctively like waxed snatch, but even that's not really the point here. Maybe, just maybe, the better conclusion to this issue is that these people are not so compatible. If the woman isn't really into all the expense - both in terms of time and money - and potential complications of Brazilian waxing (Godson's next paragraphs then explain how waxing and shaving can lead to infections and all sorts of other problems for some women), perhaps it makes more sense to find a partner that is not turned off by her. Why is changing your preferences and personal appearance to fit a man's desires a good idea?

At Salon's Broadsheet, Mary Elizabeth Williams took offense at Godson's advice. She wrote:

At no point in her wisdom-dispensing did Godson ask the woman if she herself might enjoy experimenting with a walk on the bare side. It's hair! It grows back! Nor did she conversely say that maybe after a little open conversation, her new beau might appreciate a woman who looks and feels different than his previous lovers... She didn't offer an invitation to the writer to first figure out what makes her happy, and if that shocks her suitor, who needs him?

My feelings exactly! This is not really about pubic hair or not pubic hair - it is about the idea that women never need consider what they want or need in a sexual relationship, but should just do what the man wants. Otherwise, you'll risk dying alone and unloved, with 47 cats. When you die, it will take days for anyone to even notice, and by then, your starving cats will have eaten off your face in desperation. Many of the people who left comments on Williams's post, however, said that there's nothing un-feminist about suggesting that a woman must undergo crotch waxing to make a man happy, and that Williams overreacted.

Fortunately, there are people who also thought it important to make a fuss over telling someone to take on a beauty practice specifically to please her guy. Unsolicited Opinion rakes Godson over the rails, too. After analyzing the idea that pron guides instinct, she concluded, "I hope the letter-writer has the good sense to ignore her stupid advice... and either tell her young man to appreciate her body or get the hell out of Dodge." BellaSugar turned to sex educator Debby Herbenick, Ph.D., MPH for a second opinion. Her advice made much more sense. I summarize: "I would advise this particular woman — and any woman or man who isn't sure what to do with their pubic hair — to do only what they feel comfortable or sexy doing."

Ah, the craziness of that suggestion! Do what you feel comfortable or sexy doing! How novel and delightful! Yet I hope no matter what side of the pond a woman lives on, she has the courage to take it to heart. And speaking of hearts, despite the fact that I can't get entirely away from sexist stupidity by moving to another country (there's always something), I'd still love to live in London...

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants. Her first book, Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, is about unusual things to see and do in NYC, no waxing required.

The (Female) Hero of Ft. Hood

2009-11-09T17:23:23-06:00

Whenever I hear arguments about how women perform their jobs differently than men, I cringe. Usually it is meant as a compliment, like the idea that because women are supposedly inherently nurturing, consensus seeking, peacemakers, we are better managers or legislators or whatever. Really, what's important is when women who are able and competent get jobs they deserve. No example is more obvious than that of Ft. Hood civilian police Sgt. Kimberly Munley.

Sgt. Munley, who has a long and distinguished career in law enforcement, was on her way to have her car repaired when "she responded to a police radio report of gunfire" at a processing center for soldiers at Ft. Hood who were about to be deployed overseas. She spotted the gunman as she arrived, and according to the New York Times,

bolted from her car, yanked her pistol out and shot at Major Hasan. He turned on her and began to fire. She ran toward him, continuing to fire, and both she and Major Hasan went down with several bullet wounds...

As Blksista at this black sista's page wrote:

Sgt. Kimberly [Munley] is being roundly lauded for her heroism for shooting Major Hasan down and saving the lives of others. But she too is not out of the woods. This young woman, the mother of two, lost so much blood, the medics first thought she would die. Her first words were, “Did anybody die?” It could mean that two things, did she stop the assailant, or did anyone die from the shootings.

She did stop the assailant. And she did stop further carnage.

Of course, for all the great work done by Sgt. Munley, if she were in the military, she would not be allowed in combat. There are many reasons for this (see a great post at Feminist Legal Theory listing all of them), but as Azaria Jagger at Gawker argues, they are stupid:

But if a woman can storm into that place and save all those people, shouldn't she be allowed serve alongside them in a war zone, too? Yeah, sexual tension has a tendency to spook the Army (which is why there are no gays in the military, not even one!) and, oh, it'd be such a drag to deal with girl toilets and tampons in the barracks. But, guys, a chick just saved all your asses. Figure it out, already.

I don't know what Sgt. Munley's political or personal beliefs are, but I am taking it upon myself to classify her as a feminist hero and role model. Not only is she awesome at her job, but she is also a mother of two. See? It is possible to be tough and nurturing; to be a woman and to be able to handle very stressful situations. At The Examiner, Marc Rubin reminds wrote:

As Munley is being honored for her heroism, returning fire after being shot herself, and taking down Nadal Hasan, putting an end to his killing spree, we should remind ourselves that conservatives opposed women becoming police officers, they opposed women in combat roles in the military, they opposed the removing of any institutionalized barriers that separated men and women in terms of opportunity, authority, and ability. And they did it because they said women just werent equipped to do the job. They told us where a woman's place was. Which is not to say a woman shouldnt have her place in the home and raising children or combining it with a career if thats what she wants to do. No one ever said flying to the moon was a bigger accomplishment than raising a child. And it isnt.

This is what feminism is all about: finding ways for each individual to lead fulfilling, satisfying lives. If we can help or even save others while doing it, even better. Under normal circumstances, I would never say this phrse as it is overused to the point of being trite, but seriously, Sgt. Munley, you go woman! Thanks for everything. (And same to all the other women who are serving in the military and in law enforcement positions everywhere.)

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants. She is the author Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, a guide to unusual things to see and do in NYC..

US Takes Step to Offer Political Asylum to Victims of Domestic Violence

2009-11-05T14:16:18-06:00

For almost 15 years, Rody Alvarado Peña fought to stay in the United States. She fled here seeking asylum after suffering from horrific abuse at the hands of her husband. To save her life, she had to leave her two children with her parents. Her hope was that once she established herself in the US, they could join her. Instead, she found herself caught in a legal debate over whether domestic violence is a legitimate claim for asylum seekers. On October 30, 2009, The New York Times reported that the Obama administration recommended that Ms. Alvarado be granted asylum.

While Ms. Alvarado was relieved that she could remain, she also mentioned that it was hard to wait fourteen years for a final decision. Her case has been deemed by legal experts to be "the iconic case of domestic abuse as a basis for asylum,” and the Times notes that the one-paragraph document filed by the Obama administration in immigration court in San Francisco is "a major step toward clarifying a murky area of asylum law and defining the legal grounds on which battered and sexually abused women in foreign countries could seek protection here." Hopefully, other women in Ms. Alvarado's situation will not have to spend more than a decade in their attempts to be granted asylum as a result.

Women bloggers welcomed the announcement. Marie at Every Day Is a Miracle wrote, "Finally, an option for women fleeing domestic abuse in other countries." Other bloggers noted that Ms. Alvarado's case follows a move from the Obama administration back in July 2009, when "the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered an immigration judge to further review the case of a battered Mexican woman who filed a petition for asylum in California," according to Maibe Gonzalez-Fuentes at Feet in 2 Worlds.

Even with these two precedents, it is not going to be easy for women fleeing domestic violence to secure asylum in the US. Rachel Browning's Legal Blog explains the process in detail. Reading it made my eyes hurt, and reminded me how glad I am that I dropped out of law school on my third day of class. I am all the more appreciative of the people who take these critical cases on!

The new openness for providing a safe haven for women suffering from domestic violence is great. However, as inesv reminds readers at community Feministing:

This legal/symbolic maneuver obscures the disregard that this country has for domestic violence within its borders and particularly, the women who are victims of domestic violence. Further, it suggests domestic violence is "cultural," that is, a practice of backward societies, not something that would happen in the United States. Meanwhile, an estimated thirdof women murdered in the United States were killed by an intimate partner (the statistic is for 2005). For those interested in a discussion of this rhetorical strategy see philosopher Uma Narayan's discussion of "death by culture" in her 1997 book.

What with all the pink ribbon corporate craziness going on in October, it is sometimes hard to remember that October is also Domestic Violence Awareness month. The fact that the Obama administration came through for women in violent relationships in other countries during that month is excellent. Now let's remember that we need to offer safe havens and eliminate domestic violence here, too.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants. She is the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, a book about unusual things to see and do in NYC.

We're #1 (Plus 30) in Closing the Gender Gap! Go U.S.!

2009-11-02T09:42:32-06:00

For the past four years, the World Economic Forum has studied the gender gap - that is, the amount of resources dedicated to boys and girls and women's opportunities to fully participate in society - in over 100 countries, then ranked them. (In 2009, the Index included data from 134 nations. At least 12 of 14 indicators used for the Index must be available in order for a country to be included.) The goal, according to the 2009 Global Gender Gap Report, is:

From a values and social justice perspective, empowering women and providing them with equal rights and opportunities for fulfilling their potential is long overdue. From a business, economic and competitiveness viewpoint, targeting gender parity is a necessary condition for progress.The aim is thus to achieve parity of participation and opportunity while facilitating diversity of thoughts, opinions and approaches.

This is good. A lot of ink has been spilled in the mainstream media and pixels have been dedicated online to the novel idea that blatant discrimination against women is probably a bad idea in terms of positive societal development. Emily Goligoski at The San Franista recently attended a talk with Nicholas Kristof about the book he co-authored with reporter Sheryl WuDunn (who is also his wife), Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. The premise of the book is "that investing in women has exponential benefits on a country’s birth rate, workforce output, and poverty rate." Goligoski rated the discussion as "was one of the more insightful 90 minute presentations I’ve heard (read: it had me engaged in the far back of the Fairmont main ballroom around the dinner hour)."

The 2009 Global Gender Gap Report indicates that countries are waking up to this wacky idea, and notes that:

Out of the 115 countries covered in the report since 2006, more than two-thirds have posted gains in overall index scores, indicating that the world in general has made progress towards equality between men and women, although there are countries that continue to lose ground.

Here in the United States, we are so on the program that we've slipped three places to #31. (Hey, that's still the top quarter, right? - go us!) The report says this is due to "minor drops in the participation of women in the economy and improvements in the scores of previously lower-ranking countries." (Yeah, all those reports about how women are pushing men out of the labor force in a bad economy? Not exactly true. The pay gap is still killer, too.) Never a nation to shy away from the tough issues (bwa ha ha ha, yeah, I'm hilarious, aren't I?), Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress issued a report in October 2009 on the status of women in the US, A Woman's Nation.

Reminding me that American women have great senses of humor, The Well Read Hostess titled her post about the report, They Could Have Saved The Rockefeller Foundation The Cash And Just Asked Me. She summarizes the report's findings as thus:

Women are the primary or equal breadwinners in 2/3 of American families; women and men agree that all women, even women who work outside the home, are responsible for the bulk of those tasks that fall into the "household management" category; women are primarily responsible for childcare and, very interesting and topical, elder care; women still earn less pay for equal work; men feel like their identities and roles are shifting and are insecure about where they stand (boohoo, suck it up); and so on.

Yes, everything that the Global Gender Gap Index frowns upon, except that we seem to invest in girls, which is good. Hurray for us! And, incidentally, although for some reason no one likes to report it, men are increasingly responsible for elder care. (I seriously cannot be the only person who finds this revolutionary, can I?)

Anyway, before we Americans strain our shoulders from patting ourselves on the back, consider our standing amongst other countries that routinely offer resources like health care and education for girls. Our fine allies Germany (12) and the United Kingdom (15) also again slipped down the Global Gender Gap Index this year, but we lag far behind Iceland (1), Finland (2), Norway (3), and Sweden (4). All countries which are plunged into almost constant night for a portion of the year. I'd suggest that getting more or less even amounts of sunlight throughout the year might be bad for gender equality, but New Zealand stands at #5. Rounding out the top ten countries are South Africa, Denmark, Ireland, the Philippines, and Lesotho. Yes, I am so proud to be an American right now. (On the other hand, as Diane K. Danielson wrote in a long post about women's declining status in the US on Downtown Women's Club, "at least we're not Italy (#72).")

But hey, an American man won the New York City Marathon for the first time since 1982, so why worry? I'm sure the economy will recover nicely on its own and continue to grow without Americans taking a long, hard look at gender discrimination in the Land of Opportunity.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants. You can win a copy of her book about unusual things to see and do in NYC, Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, at Traveling Mom.

Recipe for a Happy, Lasting Marriage Does Not Include Cougars

2009-10-29T01:29:15-05:00

1 Man, older and less educated than the woman
1 Woman, at least 5 years younger (be sure to check freshness date!) and smarter than the man
0 Couples of the same sex
0 Previous divorces
0 Cougars

Place man and woman in same home. Stir. Voila! Enjoy your happy, lasting marriage!

Or so claims the newest study on what makes good marriages, according to the BBC. (I love that the headline says that men should choose younger, smarter women in order to be happy, but it doesn't say whether this makes women happy or not.)

Using only the soundest scientific methodology, researchers at Bath University studied interviews of more than 1,500 married people or couples who were in a long term relationship. Following up with 2/3 of these couples, researchers found that men married to women at least five years older than them (formerly referred to as "hags" or "shrews," but now re-labeled "cougars" - more on that in a moment), were more than three times as likely to be divorced than couples who were the same age. Couples in which the male is older than the lady, as nature intended, have higher "odds of marital bliss." Oh, and sometimes couples choose partners "on the basis of love, physical attraction, similarity of taste, beliefs and attitudes, and shared values." But whatever. That's not important.

Upon reading this article, two things crossed my mind: 1. Why the fuck do people spend money doing inane "research" like this? The amount of money that is wasted just blows my mind. In fact, the article links to two other exciting stories about marriage and happiness, which reinforce the notion that we could more efficiently use money as fireplace tinder (Marriage makes both sexes happy and Wedded bliss 'only lasts a year'.); and 2. This is possibly some of the worst headline-not-matching-article-stories I've read in a long time. I'll never stop recommending a 2008 article in Bitch magazine by Beth Skwarecki (who writes the Science and miscellanea blog - awesome!) on how to "deconstruct bunk reporting". It is a must-read for anyone who cares about how the mainstream media promotes gender stereotypes through their headlines.

I wonder if these magic relationships work better because these smart women realize that a) statistically speaking, men tend to die younger than women; and b) statistically speaking, the older their husbands are, the sooner they are likely to die, leaving them free to do whatever they want for a longer period of time. Hence they are more cheerful or something, which makes their dim husbands feel good, so everyone is happier. Which reminds me that, once again, I screwed up big time. I married a dude who is not only seven months younger than me, but a lot smarter than I am. We will be together for 15 years in February. What a sham life I've been leading! Maybe we are happy because he looks like he is about five years older than me. Seriously, someone should do a study to see if a couple is less likely to get divorced if the husband looks older than the wife. That would totally change everything!

Judy Grundstrom at Just JudyJudyJusy is so on the same page as me with this. She wrote:

The Telegraph’s headline was, “Men should marry young, smart women, say scientists” and the BBC’s was, “ ‘Younger Wife’ for Marital Bliss”. This not only takes the position that readers of both of these publications are male, but that men better take note at this important new research. I can only imagine the headlines if the research told women to marry younger men, possibly, “Look Out For Cougar Attacks As Women Need Young Husbands”.

Yes, speaking of cougars.... Linda Franklin is the Real Cougar Woman, and she invites all cougars and cougar wanna-bes to join the fabulous world of cougardom at The Real Cougar Woman: "This is the place where fabulous females over 40 come to unleash their Real Cougar." Assuming that marrying a man who looks at least five years older than me works the same way as marrying a man who actually is five years older than me (and I will be shattered if a pricey study does not happen to confirm my anecdote and invalidate the relationship of every woman who married an older man who looks younger than her), I will not have the chance to join Franklin's cougar community because I am likely to remain married when I am 40. Bummer. But have no fear. I am also not a mom, so I am not eligible to participate in what is sure to be the greatest event ever in New York City - the "Annual New York's Hottest Mom Contest For Cougars Over 35 and Kittens Under."

The contest is sponsored by Q104.3 (which is New York's oldies station!). Their press release notes that this contest is today in Times Square! Like, for reals! Men, if you decide to go, whether to seek a deceptively young-looking wife (since 35 is sooooo fucking old) or one who is legitimately at least five years younger than you, "There will be a cougars category awarded for moms over 35 and a Kittens for those sexy moms that are under. Hundreds are expected to attend and judge the annual mom-fest which will bring together some of New York City's finest looking mothers."

Hopefully, these moms will never have been married though, as a past divorce increases chances for a future one, according to our informative friends at Bath University. I do not know, however, if one factor might cancel out another. Like, if the wife is more than five years younger than the husband, but looks at least half her age and has a PhD, if that at all negates the effects of a past divorce. These variables are so complicated. I hope someone decides to study that issue soon.

One thing is for sure - Mindy at The Mommy Blog is not going to enter the contest, nor will she schedule media appearances with the winners. "I mean, really. For fuck’s sake," she wrote. Yeah. I'm with Mindy. And I'm going to commission a study on the impact of winning the title of "Hottest Cougar Mom" on marriage.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and is reliving her youth at Always. Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, her book about unusual things to see and do in NYC, does not include any Hot Cougar Contests or Times Square.

Gardasil: Good Enough for Girls, But Not Boys?

2009-10-26T09:22:21-05:00

Ever since the HPV prevention drug Gardasil hit the market in 2006, I've been very suspicious. The marketing campaign says that it is the "only vaccine for cervical cancer," but what Gardasil actually protects against are some strains of HPV, a sexually transmitted disease that may cause cervical cancer. This is very misleading, not to mention that it is possible to prevent HPV infections through safe sex practices. What also got my dander was how quickly it got pushed on the public.

A few years ago, I became friendly with a statistician who worked for a drug company in New Jersey. "All the clinical studies are manipulated," she told me. She was tired of their unethical practices, and she was looking to find a new way to use her statistics skills and her insight to help the American public understand how new "cures" we are sold are potentially more harmful than what ails us in the first place. Her insider knowledge put all the prescription drug recalls and lawsuits into perspective for me. I decided that, unless I had no other alternative (i.e. - I'd die anyway), I would not use any drugs unless they'd be around for at least five years, and preferably ten.

Which brings me back to Gardasil. A vaccine is even more serious than a pill. Someone can always stop taking a pill if there are side effects, but once she is inoculated, there's no way to get it out of one's system that I am aware of. In that case, it seems like before the FDA approves and health organizations recommend a vaccine, there better be a lot of evidence that it is safe. I wasn't sure how this worked for Gardasil, but according to Lisa at The Looney Bin, there's plenty to worry about:

The FDA allows “fast tracking” of certain drugs that are considered important to human health. Gardasil was allowed through the system this way. This process allowed Gardasil to be available to the public within six months of development.

Six months!!!!! It took almost more than twice the amount of time for Gardasil manufacturer, Merck, to move onto their next profit center - er, I mean, health beneficiary. By 2008, Merck was pushing for boys to also get a vaccine against cervical cancer.

What? How does this make any sense? It all goes back to the fact that Gardasil is not an inoculation against cervical cancer, but rather HPV. Since HPV is carried and transmitted by men, it makes at least as much sense to give them an HPV vaccine. If they don't get HPV, which can cause really gross genital warts as well as cervical cancer, then their partners won't get it. A 2008 New York Times article noted:

How do you pitch.. Gardasil Boy’s parents?

Think altruism. Responsibility. Chivalry, even? Oh, and yes: some explicit details about genital warts and sexual transmission.

What's really interesting is the resistance Merck is facing in trying to make it a routine vaccine for boys. On Tuesday, October 21, the New York Times reported that Merck was successful in its bid to get Gardasil approved for boys to protect them from genital warts. However:

...the panel of independent medical experts stopped short of urging its routine use in boys, as it has recommended for girls. And members questioned whether vaccinating boys was a cost-effective way to protect their future sexual partners against cervical and other types of cancer caused by human papillomavirus, or HPV.

And in an article that is ostensibly about protecting boys, the focus was as much on what Gardasil can do for women. Again, it seems like not much that couldn't be done through safe sex and routine pap smears. (One doctor interviewed said that focusing on an HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer was a waste of resources. Offering routine pap smears to women without access to gynecologists "would have a greater effect than Gardasil.") Not one to miss out on 50% of the market, though, Merck promised to come back with more data showing how Gardasil can prevent HPV-related male cancers.

The blogspohere had a mixed reaction to this decision, worrying about the extra burden that women continue to carry when it comes to sexual health. At Picture of Health, Kelly Brewington wrote:

Others hoped that the approval would signal gender parity in the war against sexually transmitted diseases. After all, it takes two doesn't it? If girls can contract HPV from sex, shouldn't their partners help protect them from the virus?

On that same line of thinking, Cynthia at The Attached Feminist asks:

Meanwhile will the pap smear become less routine over the next 20 years? Might some women slip through the cracks? And meanwhile, what about the men? What sort of HPV testing will our country encourage for young men? It seems like the men should have to know if they are spreading a disease that causes cervical cancer. Would our government be inclined to fund a mandatory vaccine for young boys? Especially if it had any scary reproductive side effect at all? I wonder...

Caitlin at Feminists for Choice points out another double standard surrounding Gardasil. When the vaccine first came out, certain communities freaked out that it would cause girls to become sluts, since obviously getting a vaccine against a semi-obscure sexually transmitted disease that may cause cervical cancer causes girls to throw all caution to the wind and fuck any guy that approaches her. That is not the case when it comes to Gardasil for boys:

There isn’t worry about boys becoming promiscuous. In fact there is only talk of making sure the vaccine was safe enough for them. Where was this safety conversation when the drug was approved for girls? As a nation, do we still feel our girls are more expendable than our boys? That thinking is more suitable for the eighteenth century, not the twenty-first.

Across the pond, a drug called Cervarix is being treated in much the same manner as Gardasil when it comes to determining whether boys should get vaccinated against HPV. (I don't know if more clinical trials and stringent testing standards are in effect over there, but I certainly hope so.) Vagina Dentata argues against the reasoning of both the American CDC panel and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in the UK, which decided that it is only cost-effective to inoculate girls against HPV. She wrote:

This is not just a political point or an abstract notion of ‘fairness’, it is also a public health one. Due largely to the risk of pregnancy, women routinely take more responsibility for sexual health then men (I won’t go into it here but this still has implications for lesbian and gay people). Therefore, gender discrimination and inequality impacts on sexually transmitted infections when for example, women are not in a position to insist on condom use. This is not just the role of sexual or public health education, our systems and programmes need to support the principle of men and women taking responsibility for sexual health matters.

So, in summary, I hate that Gardasil was not thoroughly vetted before it was unleashed upon Americans with a scare-tactic campaign suggesting that anyone who did not get the vaccine was condemning their daughters to cervical cancer and death. I hate that Merck is using another scare-tactic campaign to foist Gardasil onto boys. I hate that arguments for or against Gardasil for girls rely on ludicrous ideas about female sexuality, and when it comes to whether or not boys should get vaccinated, we discuss whether the vaccine is safe and/or cost-effective. I hate that by determining that it is not worth the cost of preventing HPV in men, the notion that only women are responsible for sexual health is reinforced. Gardasil seems, in fact, to be credited with the potential for preventing every disease under the sun except for sexism.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and Always.

Preventing Reproductive Health Services at All Costs

2009-10-22T09:22:14-05:00

Every year, Planned Parenthood offers services to more than five million men, women, and adolescents. In that year, they offer nearly one million Pap tests and more than 850,000 breast exams, provide provides more than 3.3 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, and estimate that their services prevent as many as 621,000 unintended pregnancies. Many locations offer prenatal and postpartum care. In addition, they offer safe, affordable abortions.

People who oppose reproductive self-determination hate that. Why should women have the right to decide if they become pregnant? After all, if God didn't want you to punish you with the blessing of a baby, He wouldn't have made you a wanton slut who seeks sexual pleasure.

Hence, Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health clinics around the country find themselves dealing with a special campaign called "40 Days for Life." Serena at Feminists for Choice explains how it works:

Forty Days for Life and other anti-choice groups are conducting a “prayer vigil” campaign, where they will target Planned Parenthood clinics and other family planning providers, holding protests outside of the buildings and generally harassing patients.

She has a list of this year's targeted clinics, as well as suggestions for how to help women exercise their right to health care during this time. The Choices Campus Blog is calling for students to help targeted clinics as much as possible. And don't be fooled that this is about abortion.

I can completely understand why someone might be opposed to abortion (although I don't agree with the reasoning nor do I believe that one person has the right to impose their religious beliefs about conception on others), but also insisting that birth control is immoral is beyond the pale for most Americans, who quite frankly, kind of like the idea that they can have sex without fear of pregnancy. But "40 Days for Life" is about birth control, too. Erica at Idle Disquisitions explains:

There's a nice video [embedded in her post] that sums up what these protesters think, but in a nutshell, it is that all forms of contraception should be illegal. There give arguments like, "Condoms just allow men to use women... we're just allowing more use-ary [sic]" and, direct quote: "It's like telling your husband, okay you can talk to me but first let me put on ear plugs." Is she trying to say that women can't feel anything through a condom? I'm confused. They also think that the pill is harmful to women, and so they stand outside clinic and harass those who are going to pick up a prescription.

Birth control aside, and since the vast majority of people going to Planned Parenthood are not getting abortions, but rather pap smears, breast exams, tests and treatments for STDs (which, if left untreated, could actually prevent pregnancy), and sometimes prenatal and postpartum care, it is hard to see how supposedly "pro-life" protesters are supporting life by harassing people who want health care services and in many cases, can't get them elsewhere. Don't pap smears and breast exams help keep people alive? I know. I'm just stoopid and morally corrupt and confused in thinking that people should make decisions about their reproductive capabilities based on their own values, morals, and religions. Pray for me.

Another thing I love about supporters of "40 Days for Life" is that they claim they are just peaceful lovers of the unborn facing violent, angry feminist murders doing their best to subvert God's intended unequal relationship between men and women. This may be true in some cases, but the I Am Emily X blog gives Planned Parenthood's workers an anonymous way to share their experiences during this difficult period. They describe everything from people shouting "Murderer" in their face to protesters wearing vests made to look like Planned Parenthood volunteers' vests so they can confuse patients.

It all leaves me wondering: If a cause is just, where do deception and intimidation fit in?

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and Always.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month is Bunk

2009-10-19T09:17:00-05:00

Three years ago, I saw a story on the news while I was at the gym. An investigative feature on the breast cancer awareness contributions that various corporations pledged during Breast Cancer Awareness Month found that most of these promotions led to increased sales and windfall profits that dwarfed the piddling donations that the extra sales generated. Until that moment, I was gung-ho about buying products marked with pink ribbons. My mother was only 33 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1980, and I am forever grateful that a mastectomy preserved her life. Buying things that could help other women seemed like a no-brainer - the corporations had brainwashed me but good.

Once I saw the news story, I did some research. A few outlets were starting to discuss the gross exploitation of breast cancer and loose laws that allowed companies to say they were giving money to a cause to convince people to buy their products, and then give a teensy donation to a foundation. The resource for critical thinking about breast cancer awareness is a nonprofit agency called Breast Cancer Action. They launched "Think Before You Pink" in 2002 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month exploded from something to educate women about the risks of breast cancer to Corporate Profit-A-Thon. It was through BCA that I learned that many, many of the products sold to help "fight" breast cancer actually contain chemicals that are linked to the disease. I credit the evolution of my thinking on shopping/walking/whatevering for "the cure" to BCA.

Another important eye-opener for me was Samantha King's book Pink Ribbons, Inc.. King's research crystallized the link between exploiting fear of losing one's breasts or dying with the obscene amount of money corporations began raking in by affiliating themselves with "breast cancer awareness." The social cause marketers really believe that they are doing good things.

Otherwise, no one was saying much about the disgusting way Breast Cancer Awareness Month had been turned in Profit-Generating Month. I am happy to say that although the situation has only worsened, awareness of the exploitation - not only of the corporations and the marketers, but of some of the beneficiary agencies themselves - has grown exponentially. When I sat down to write this post, I found tons of bloggers and media outlets turning a skeptical (and righteously angry eye) on pink ribbon bullshit.

My friend Alex Elliot at Formula Fed & Flexible Parenting sent me a link to an article on Shine by Dory Devlin, Pink overload: Are companies taking advantage of Breast Cancer Awareness Month?. Devlin, in turn, cites articles about corporate abuse of breast cancer awareness in The Boston Globe and Daily Finance. Devlin's warning: "Buying pink does not always mean your green will go to cancer research." At the end of the article, she offers a list of places interested parties can donate to directly.

Siel at Green LA Girl has a few other suggestions for people who want to do their part in the battle against breast cancer:

So if you’d like to donate $10 to fight breast cancer, don’t buy 500 Swiffers. Instead, consider donating that money directly to groups like Breast Cancer Action, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, and Environmental Working Group — all of which work to limit environmental exposures that put people at risk for breast cancer. That way, more money will go towards reducing the number of people who get cancer in the first place, less to companies cashing in on a do-gooder campaign.

Reminder: not only do you know exactly where your donation is going when you give directly to a charity, but you get a tax write-off. This is truly double bottom line investing!

Note that the big charities like Susan Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the National Breast Cancer Foundation that benefit from most of the big campaigns are not on Siel's list. Not a mere oversight. In fact, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation was started by Evelyn Lauder. You may know her from her family's business, Estee Lauder cosmetics. What you may not know is that many Estee Lauder products contain parabens, which are estrogenic. According to BCA, "Estrogenic chemicals mimic the function of the naturally occurring hormone estrogen, and exposure to external estrogens has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer." While it is great that Lauder wants to help find a cure for breast cancer, she could help prevent it in the first place by producing make-up that is paraben free.

As for Susan Komen, Ann Bartow at Feminist Law Professors goes one step further, and I like the way she thinks:

Meanwhile, over at the Komen Foundation website you can buy a pink feather boa for $10, and 25% of the purchase price “will benefit Susan G. Komen for the Cure® in the fight against breast cure.” But what does that mean? Komen gets $2.50 if I buy a boa but what exactly does Komen do with the money? All I learned from the most recent Komen Annual Report is that it spent the following on “Program Services” in 2008:

Research $98,548,000
Education $134,195,000
Screening $37,804,000
Treatment $22,024,000
Total Program Services $292,571,000

Based on expenditures the Komen’s biggest priority is “education” and I wonder if that includes advertising campaigns like “Punch It.”

"Punch It," by the way, features posters of women wearing t-shirts describing the fight against breast cancer like some sort of mob beating. Another poster highlights the breast-y goodness of fighting breast cancer. Back in September, my friend Suebob at Red Stapler wrote about how marketers try to get more men interested in "breast cancer awareness" by promoting titties. She noted:

To get a few more dollars for the cause, we further objectify women and, in the process, play into the idea that men are hopeless, sex-crazed goons who can't get their heads out of their asses unless a woman is shaking her boobs in their face. (Mixed metaphors our specialty)....Here's a hint for the marketers: breast cancer is a deadly, serious disease that affects a WHOLE WOMAN, not just her fun-sacks.

Really! I'm at the point where Breast Cancer Awareness Month is making me (and my at-risk fun-sacks) ill. Between the companies that sell us products that may cause cancer so they can throw some pennies to foundations that exploit women in order to fight cancer, how can I not be cynical?

If you still want to buy something to commemorate Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I suggest picking up a copy of Not Done Yet, a fabulous book by blogger Laurie Kingston. I bought a copy for my mom at the BlogHer conference in Chicago this past summer, and Laurie was kind enough to sign it, then go out for pizza with me, my mom, and an awesome group of women bloggers. She is awesome. Sure, by buying her book, no donation is going any "cause," but to me, this is one of the best ways to support women who are dealing with or dealt with breast cancer.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants. When not plugging her book about unusual things to see and do in NYC (Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, she gets her mind off the tyranny of Breast Cancer Awareness Month by posting chapters from the young adult novel she wrote when she was in 8th grade at Always.

How TV Portrays Abortion

2009-10-12T09:24:11-05:00

I know that the Golden Age of TV is supposedly long over, but what makes me really sad is how the boob tube literally continues to treat women and desire to control our fertility with rose colored glasses. The inability of network television to portray anything but women who "make the right choice" when faced with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy is depressing. Since the only show I ever watch is CSI (they make sure that only the guilty go to jail; if that isn't escapist fantasy TV, I don't know what is!), I hadn't been as aware of this latest trend until BlogHer CE Nordette Adams pointed out that an episode of this season's Desperate Housewives flirted with the idea that Lynette, a stressed out mother struggling to juggle everything already on her plate, might have an abortion. Interesting, I thought.

But of course it is not interesting. No network would allow a person to make a "controversial" decision for herself. There'd be complaints and boycotts and maybe a loss of advertising revenue. So, as Stefanie Lee wrote at TV.com:

Oh, Desperate Housewives. You came so close to making a statement. Standing out. Being different. Your Season 6 premiere re-introduced a weighty topic -- abortion -- but by the second episode, the issue was moot... Her husband Tom's (Doug Savant) guilt-ridden facial expressions and Susan's passive-aggressive pleading were enough to control the situation -- and enough to cement Desperate Housewives' place in the boundless field of shows that say: "Abortion is wrong."

...This isn't a question of Pro-Life or Pro-Choice -- it's a question of the responsibility of television. Shouldn't we expect something fresh, new, and real? Shouldn't we expect the characters to take risks and encounter challenges? And, most importantly, shouldn't we expect female characters to decide things for themselves?

What? Expecting something challenging from TV? Pshaw. At least not network TV. One of the other shows that Lee mentions in her post that cheerfully depicts a single woman unexpectedly finding herself pregnant and deciding to continue the pregnancy is Accidentally on Purpose starring Jenna Elfman. Let's not even go into how much the title annoys me because it brings to mind the idea of women trapping men in relationships by getting pregnant accidentally on purpose. (Not that this doesn't happen; I even know someone in that situation, and shockingly [!], it does not have a fairy tale ending.) To some extent, it is harder to criticize the show because it is based on the memoir of Mary Pols, a film critic for the New York Times. Instead, let's focus on Pols' own criticism of the show. Melissa at Women and Hollywood did the hard work of actually watching the first episode, and offers the following insight:

Pols wrote an interesting piece in XX about how the show left out her real life considerations of whether to have an abortion or not before deciding to keep the baby.

Billie is a movie critic, so she should, in theory, do some critical thinking in regard to her own life. It also seems reasonable to expect that a journalist would be able to use the word “abortion” in relation to her own situation. As in, “Should I have an abortion?” She does not ask that question, at least in this first episode. I, however, most certainly did.

Or maybe portraying abortion in more than a simplistic light on a network show is a curse in these conservative times. Consider Defying Gravity, a science fiction show on ABC. It aired starting in August 2009, and Maria V at The Hathor Legacy summed up the show, including its exploration of abortion:

The first eight episodes of this series dealt with abortion (or at least keeping a baby) — this familiar not-America makes explicit the pressures facing a woman when she’s unfortunate enough to face an unwanted pregnancy. The issue of Zoe’s abortion — and the kind of options women have in regards to their reproductive freedome — acts as one of the foundational questions of the show. What I like about this is that it is surprisingly nuanced. While Zoe has dreams about crying babies, and had a traumatic abortion, she’s not presented as longing for a child....There’s a lot of regret in this scene, but no blame. There’s also a lot of happiness — while Zoe and her friend are both sad about the might-have-beens revealed in this picture exchange, neither seems to regret her day-to-day life. Also, Ajay delivers a surprisingly touching monologue making it clear that this was the best decision Zoe could have made. He says that her abortion freed both herself and her potential child to find lives in which they could both find happiness.

Ah, nuance! Something severely lacking on TV's successful programs. No wonder that the show has already been canceled. Heh.

Fortunately, there are more realistic considerations on TV, but one must have cable. Way back in January 2007, a character on The L Word decided to have an abortion. This interests me for several reasons. The discussion between the character and her partner is not shown, so we don't have any idea why the decision is made or how the characters feel about it. I like this because, as in real life, it is actually no one else's business why someone decides to have an abortion. Another interesting aspect is what happens when the character goes to have the procedure. Vanessa at Feministing explains:

Kit, played by Pam Grier a.k.a. Jackie Brown, goes to a "clinic" to get an abortion and finds herself trapped in a "pregnancy crisis center." While it was pretty terrifying to see a depiction of what they put these poor women through, it was dope to see Grier go buck wild on their deceving asses. After all, she is Pam Grier.

Another woman, Laura G., sums up the scene:

It just reassures my own personal feelings of abortion... I don't agree with it... But I also feel that Kit's rights were extremely violated... I don't feel that anyone needs to have the additional trauma...

The accurate depiction of how women are treated at these supposedly women-friendly fake clinics is so critical. This is an experience that hundreds, if not thousands, of women have been subjected to, and it receives far less attention than it should.

I could go on and on, but all the bloggers linked here already cover the pathetic situation, so why reiterate what has already been more eloquently said? Ultimately, if we want to see TV that offers compelling, balanced, and interesting versions of the reality faced by millions of women, we have to get cable. The days of Maude, as Amanda Marcotte wrote, are sadly long-gone:

It's shocking how different this is than most subsequent portrayals of abortion. Maude isn't broken or pathetic. She doesn't need outrageous extenuating circumstances to "deserve" her abortion--she's treated with the respect accorded an adult who has every right to decide her own fate. The sanctity of her marriage and her privacy alone justifies her decision. They even take some time to send up the cult of motherhood and suggest that not every woman enjoys being surrounded by children at all times. But nor is it suggested that Maude's unwillingness to be a mother at this point in her life means she was a bad mother at the time she did want it.

Well, we might as well enjoy our free fetus cupcakes as contemplate the situation, because these bakers are in charge of what we get to view. OMG! Wait! Wouldn't it be great to have a show that's a cross between Ace of Cakes and Top Chef in which anti-choice activists compete to see who can make the best anti-choice cupcake?!?! I would totally watch that! Maybe TV isn't doomed after all...

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants.

The Scary Statistics of Teenage Prostitution

2009-10-08T12:43:22-05:00

A story about the abusive background suffered by many teenage prostitutes and what Georgia is doing to help them appeared on my Facebook feed from Women's eNews on Monday. (It seems to not be working at this writing, but I linked to it in case it comes back up.) Yesterday, Diane Loupe wrote another story about Georgia's innovative plan. The new program is called "A Future. Not A Past," and instead of throwing teen prostitutes in jail, it offers them safe housing, education, and therapy. Brilliant!

The way our nation treats teenage prostitutes is a moral failure. Over two years ago, Elizabeth Anne Wood at wrote about two bills moving through New York State's legislature at Sex in the Public Square:

If it were to pass it would mean, as the New York Times pointed out in an editorial this morning, that we would treat American born teen prostitutes much the way we treat internationally trafficked teens caught working as prostitutes: that is, we would treat them as people in need of protection and services rather than as criminals. Here’s the lead paragraph from this morning’s New York Times editorial:

Sexually exploited children can be helped by the law or victimized by it, depending on where they are from. An Eastern European child smuggled into this country as a sex slave is offered protection under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act. An American child who flees abusive parents and ends up selling her body on the streets is labeled a criminal and sent to the juvenile equivalent of prison.

That statement is important because it points out one reality of young prostitutes: they are sometimes engaged in prostitution because, as runaways, there are few options open to them that will allow them to remain free of the homes they are trying to escape. The National Runaway Switchboard sites a 1998 study published in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect, indicating that 34% of runaway youth (girls and boys) reported sexual abuse before leaving home and forty-three percent of runaway youth (girls and boys) reported physical abuse before leaving home.

One of my favorite New York Times opinion columnists, Bob Herbert, has written many articles about the sex slave trade and how teen prostitutes feed it. After his column criticizing Las Vegas appeared, The Arizona Republic reported that the city's mayor said that "he'd like to take a baseball bat to Herbert." But the paper stood up for Herbert's thoughtful reporting, noting:

Las Vegas Family Court Judge William Voy told the Las Vegas Sun that 70 percent of the juvenile prostitution cases he deals with involve children who came from out of state. What's more, most of them worked as prostitutes in their home states.

Teen girls do not "choose" a whore's lifestyle because it is so glamorous. They are coerced, raped, beaten and controlled by pimps who take advantage of their youth and play off a popular culture that glorifies sex as something women are supposed to deliver on cue.

The interstate nature of teenage prostitution has Georgia's new program director concerned. Women's eNews reported that:

[Kaffie] McCullough, director of "A Future. Not A Past," hopes Georgia's program spreads beyond the state's borders. "Pimps and traffickers don't recognize boundaries of states, so if Georgia gets tough they may take the girls to South Carolina, Florida, Alabama or Tennessee," she said.

McCullough is right to be worried. Melissa Snow at the End Human Trafficking blog explained how pimps lure young girls into prostitution:

Here in America, the average age a child is targeted and recruited into sex trafficking is 13 years old. Pimps prey on the innocence of youth because it provides them with a target that can be romanced, tricked and then brutally forced into the sex trafficking market. Pimps use a variety of techniques to target and recruit a child into prostitution, from immediate force and violence as demonstrated in the case of two underage girls from Toledo, to the more common "loverboy" or boyfriend approach.

With either approach, pimps prey on and target girls who project a low self-esteem, or who have run away from home due to familial physical or sexual abuse. This provides the pimps with the opportunity to fill the gap of the lover or caretaker role as both "daddy and boyfriend". The pimp will invest as much time as necessary into securing the trust and loyalty of his victim. He will fulfill all his promises, buy her nice things and say all the caring words that she has been longing for - biding time to turn the seemingly caring relationship into one of sexual exploitation and torture.

Finally, here's a mind-blowing graphic that I pulled off Mormon Feminist Housewives:

Given the extremely troubled background of many prostitutes, especially teenage ones, it just seems extra vile to treat prostitutes as criminals.

Personally, I think prostitution should be legalized, and we would avoid a lot of these problems as a result. (Tracy Clark-Flory at Salon has the same view: there serious are problems with prostitution, but railing against it doesn't help the women who wind up working in it.) As the law stands now, women and girls who work as prostitutes bear the full burden of the law, which as discussed above makes no moral sense, and anyone trained in cost-benefit analysis (cough*me*cough) can attest to what an enormous waste of money it is to throw women in jail. However, the laws against sex trafficking and pimps should be ramped up so that the real "bad guys" face serious penalties for coercing and abusing women. The penalties for recruiting teenagers to work in the sex trade should be even higher. Given the serial predatory nature of pimp work, I'm talking like maybe life in jail or something like that. Let's give some real meaning to the stupid (but infuriatingly catchy), Oscar-winning song "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp."

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants. She is the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, a book about unusual (but legal and fun) things to see and do in New York City.

Why Everyone Should Know Gabourey "Gabby" Sidibe

2009-10-05T10:12:57-05:00

Last night, I took a break from my homework and read New York Magazine. When I hit page 77, I was surprised to see a stunning black and white photo of a large black women gracing the page. I thought Mo'Nique was looking good. Then I realized that it wasn't Mo'Nique, but Gabourey "Gabby" Sidibe, Mo'Nique's co-star in the movie Precious.

The article by Tim Murphy went on to describe Sidibe's experience on the movie set, which was grueling. (The film is based on Sapphire's graphic book about abuse, Push, of which I have read excerpts, and I cannot imagine what it would be like to watch this film let alone make it, but it is winning accolades at film festivals. (In May, Siditty compared the book and the film trailer, and judged both to have merits, even if they differed slightly.) Sidibe and others also weighed in on her body. I felt the tone of the story was caught between wanting to admire this woman whose confidence almost verges into the obnoxious, and incredulity that a fat woman could be happy, desirable, and successful. Still, Sidibe's awareness of media manipulation and her insistence on taking control is inspiring:

To play Precious, she had to unwork all her confidence, and speak lower, slower, and gutturally. Only in the fantasy sequences”—when Precious dissociates from rape and abuse by thinking about runways and red carpets—“do you see who Sidibe is, bubbly and giggly.”

Which, according to Sidibe, is miles from how she’s been portrayed in the press so far. “They try to paint the picture that I was this downtrodden, ugly girl who was unpopular in school and in life, and then I got this role and now I’m awesome,” says the actress. “But the truth is that I’ve been awesome, and then I got this role.”

I love that she says she was awesome before Hollywood came around. Love, love, love it. I wish more girls and young women had that kind of confidence. What's not so cool is how the director described his impression of her audition tape and how the reporter explains the process:

[Director Lee] Daniels, who saw hundreds of audition tapes from across the country (350-pound actresses don’t grow on trees), was blown away by Sidibe. “She is unequivocally comfortable in her body, in a very bizarre way. Either she’s in a state of denial or she’s so elevated that she’s on another level,” he says. “I had no doubt in my mind that she had four or five boyfriends, easily.”

She's in a state of denial because she likes herself as she is? Fat actresses don't "grow on trees?" I'd love to avoid these types of stereotypes in an article about a fat woman who is confident in herself and her abilities. And perhaps there is a dearth of large actresses because there aren't exactly a lot of roles out there for them, so they pursue other lines of work. (And here I am thinking a little tangentially to Julie and Julia, in which author Julie Powell, who wrote so eloquently about her struggles with PCOS and her weight, was played by Amy Adams, who is stick thin; or the new Bridget Jones movie, in which skinny actress Renee Zellweger will don a fat suit...)

Despite the skepticism about fat actresses, mo pie at big fat deal is excited about both Gabby Sidibe and the film:

I’m giving Gabby Sidibe her own category because I don’t want to be caught unawares when she’s walking down the red carpet on Oscar night and we need to post about how hot she looks and/or what insane thing she’s wearing... I won’t lie–I’m kind of nervous to see Precious, because it is clearly not an easy movie to experience. But I’m thrilled to see actresses like Sidibe and Mo’Nique getting recognition for this project, and I have no doubt that it’s an outstanding film.

Not only can Sidibe act, she can also sing. Her mother is infamous as an R&B performer in the subway, and the daughter inherited her singing chops. Although Daniels initial reaction to Sidibe was less than stellar in terms of body image, he is eager to cast her in a musical, a la Rizzo from Grease. Until that happens, Sidibe will be appearing in a Sundance Lab film, Yelling to the Sky with Don Cheadle. Rock on!

Still, Sidibe explained that she felt enormous pressure about her weight not only from the media, but from friends and family. An aunt offered to send her on a cruise if she's lost 50 pounds. A friend told her that she should stop eating things that are "disgusting" because designers would not make dresses for fat women. Sidibe's response:

"I learned to love myself, because I sleep with myself every night and I wake up with myself every morning, and if I don’t like myself, there’s no reason to even live the life. I love the way I look. I’m fine with it. And if my body changes, I’ll be fine with that.”

At 26 years old, this woman has it figured out better than a lot of people. I hope that as her star rises (and hopefully it will), she can retain the positive feelings she has about who she is, and I also hope that she doesn't fall into the ego trap of so many other famous people. (The article, incidentally, ends with her telling a guy who blew her off that, "I'm not a regular girl. I just got off a plane from France.") Nope - Gabourey Sidibe is not a regular girl, but trips to France have nothing to do with that.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants. She is also the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, a guide to unusual things to see and do in NYC. Catch her on Wed. Oct 7 from 6-7 pm on Seven Second Delay on WFMU.

The Glare of Media Cuts Both Ways: The Case of Nujood Ali

2009-10-01T10:47:29-05:00

No one is going to make a TV movie about Nujood Ali, nor should they. The beloved Hollywood happy ending to a sad story is not in sight. (Not that this would actually stop someone from making a TV movie "based on a true story," in which the ending was changed, but that's beside the point.) Two years ago, CNN first brought Ali into the world's eye when they wrote a story detailing how the 10 year old child bride escaped her abusive marriage (if you can call a relationship between an adult and a child "marriage," even if it is legally recognized), made her way to a courthouse in her town in Yemen, and waited on a bench until a judge saw her.

He granted her the divorce.

This is the kind of story that we all love to hear. Nujood Ali was named Woman of the Year by Glamour magazine in 2008, and a book about her will appear in 20 languages. In Western parlance, this girl stood up against the Goliath of oppression and won. Hurray!

However, CNN now reports that all of the attention Ali has received has caused her more harm than good. Although donors cover tuition for a private education, she dropped out of school. Her parents are angry that her story is not earning more money for the family.

Paula Newtown, a CNN correspondent, summed up the story at CNN's In the Field blog:

In repeated calls to concerned human rights campaigners, lawyers, the judge involved in the case and government officials there has been precious little clarity about Nujood’s future.

Apparently, there is some type of a scholarship fund set up for education, but Nujood’s school attendance has been sporadic in part because, her attorney says, her family has not supported her education whole-heartedly.

It’s clear Nujood and her family believed being famous would earn them a fortune. It hasn’t. Some have said to me that Nujood has been victimized twice by her family.

First, Nujood was forced into an early marriage she did not want and later into a publicity frenzy that her family believed would make them thousands of dollars.

Whatever the truth, Nujood has been hurt and very little in her life has changed for the better.

This has been a difficult but important story to tell for all these months. Verifying the facts of what happened to Nujood has been daunting but it has been insightful.

At its core, though, this is a real and gritty story about what it means to rebel against cultures, religion and government.

Nujood is very confused and angry and is far from living out the childhood all young girls deserve.

Tiffany at We Blog You Read is disturbed by the aftermath of the Nujood Ali story:

...this young girl has every right to be mad. What angers me is that instead of quietly getting this girl help behind the scenes, society chose to exploit her and put her story on as many cover pages as possible. Something that instead of helping, seems to only have hurt the child. Sure, she’s no longer married to a man four times her senior, but her life is forever changed and she’s changed. She claims she can’t go to school because every where she goes she’s taunted and treated badly. She claims she’s angry because she can’t live a normal life. This story and so many other stories of children who are abused and then exploited absolutely breaks my heart.

At what point do we stop hurting those we’re trying to help and start helping? Nujood Ali didn’t need to be a Woman of the Year to get a divorce. And she didn’t need to do 1,000 TV interviews. She needed some quiet saviors to come in and help and not ask for recognition of their good deeds. We all want the pat on the back that lets us know someone else thinks we did the right thing, but in the end, what message are we sending to people like Nujood Ali and others who end up in her situation and then are forgotten when the cameras are off?

Clearly, this is one of those situations where good intentions seriously backfire because, while the media intended (I hope) to help Ali, not fully understanding the circumstances of her life led to a different bad outcome. Cultural understand and sensitivity is pivotal when reporting on events in other countries. Although as I write that, I also think that reporters and media types need to be sensitive about their lenses of privilege on reporting stories at home, too. How many "Cinderella" stories and "miracle babies" and "miraculously cured diseases" are played out on TV and in movies, and in reality, as Tiffany said, we have no idea what happens after the camera leaves?

The intention and desire to help is important. It is a critical part of humanity to want to do something positive when we see others suffering from injustice. The hard part, of course, is how to do the right thing in the right way. It seems easy - it should be easy - but it isn't.

At Chick Talk Dallas, American Ramadan reminds readers of another danger of "helping," when the help arises from stereotypes:

...And all of those poor, poor Muslim Yemeni girls CNN reporter Paula Newton writes, “Nujood showed a character and strength not easily expressed by women in Yemen, let alone a 10-year-old child bride.” Yes, Nujood did have strength, and I hope she continues to stay strong.

But there’s another Yemeni girl, a Muslim woman, who also has a strength of character you might not know about. Why? Because she doesn’t fit the the “scary/poor/uneducated/burka covered/Muslim woman” stereotype we’ve become used to. Her name is Mai Noman. She came to Dallas a few years ago as part of a cultural exchange program. Now she’s the editor of a youth magazine in Yemen called YoO! A progressive culture and entertainment magazine. While I wait the next 3.5 hours for sun down and prepare a meal for my non pedophile Muslim husband, I’m going to pray that continued ignorance and stereotypes that persist in the West especially among Christians and specifically those that pop up on my Facebook account, cease. You may not like to hear this, but what you think Islam is and who you think ALL Muslims are may not be true.

Before we can "help," we have to understand the context of the lives of the women and girls who are facing injustice. While understanding does not always mean agreeing, it does mean that any subsequent actions have a higher chance of succeeding because they are more likely to be appropriate.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants. She is also the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, a book about unusual things to see and do in NYC.

Deodorant Discrimination Stinks

2009-09-28T11:11:40-05:00

Perhaps here is proof that I have too much time on my hands these days. While buying deodorant at my nearest convenient drugstore chain (Duane Reade), I noticed that the price of deodorants designed for men and those designed for women was the same. I spent at least 40 minutes looking at every deodorant product on the shelf, logging the prices in my BlackBerry, and getting angrier by the second. What I found: men's deodorant sticks contained as much as three ounces more of deodorant than women's did. I reiterate that the price was the same.

I tried to be calm. What reasons could there be that men's deodorant - which was often advertised as being stronger - somehow contained fewer or cheaper ingredients than women's deodorant, thus justifying giving men more for their money? Fortunately, the internets allowed me to run a free side-by-side comparison from the comfort of my living room.

From drugstore.com:

Degree Men Anti-Perspirant & Deodorant, Invisible Solid, Cool Rush 2.7 oz (76 g)
Active Ingredients: Aluminum Zirconium Tetrachlorohydrex Gly (17.8%) (Anti-Perspirant)
Inactive Ingredients: Cyclopentasiloxane, PPG 14 Butyl Ether, Stearyl Alcohol, Hydrogenated Castor Oil, PEG 8 Distearate, Talc, Fragrance (Parfum), Zea Mays (Corn) Starch, BHT

Degree Women Anti-Perspirant & Deodorant, Invisible Solid, Shower Clean 2.6 oz (73 g)
Active Ingredients: Aluminum Zirconium Tetrachlorohydrex Gly (17.8% W/W) (anti-perspirant)
Inactive Ingredients: Cyclopentasiloxane, PPG 14 Butyl Ether, Stearyl Alcohol, Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Talc, Fragrance (parfum), BHT, Zea Mays (Corn) Starch

Nope. The ingredients are almost 100% the same, albeit in a slightly different formula, and men even get an extra ingredient (PEG 8 Distearate - whatever that is, I do not want to know). I am thus forced to conclude that men get much more product for their money.

Here in New York City, Duane Reade is the most prominent drugstore, with over 250 locations charging women more money for less product. (Degree for women: $3.99 for 2.6 oz; Degree for men: $3.99 for 3.0 oz; Speedstick: $4.19 for 3 oz; Lady speedstick: $4.19 for 2.3 oz; only Mitchum Power Gel and Mitchum Lady Power Gel offered the same amount of anti-stink for the same price, $5.49 for 3.4 oz.) Things were not much better online. The same-price-for-less-product issue is also true of drugstore.com and walgreens.com. (My local grocery store, however, actually charged more for men's deodorant than for women's. Yay, Fariway!) My other findings include: Arm & Hammer and Arrid give 1 oz less if the deodorant is in powder scent instead of regular, and on the flip side, Sure for Men is actually 1 oz less than plain ungendered Sure.

Speaking of ungendered, do you remember when deodorant, for the most part, was just deodorant, not deodorant for men or women specifically? That was when I got into Degree. It worked wonders for me. When it split into "Degree for Men" and "Degree for Women" a few years ago, I was disappointed. I suspected that "Degree for Men" was actually just plain old Degree, so I kept using it. I've noticed that when the same products are marketed to different genders, ones made for men tend to be of higher quality. The women at Cafe Mom agree that men's deodorant seems to work better than women's.

While studying the prices and sizes of deodorant at Duane Reade, I also noticed a marketing difference. The sticker on one brand (*cough, Degree, cough*) read, "Extra responsive in emotional moments" on women's sticks, but "Guaranteed odor protection" on men's. You know how we women are with all those crazy emotions! Men just have pressure and stress at work or at home that they need odor protection from, but women have "emotional moments" that cause us to sweat. I suppose the rage that encompassed me when I noticed that was just another of my "emotional moments." That "moment" caused me to buy Suave, though.

"Emotional moments" aside, I also noticed that deodorants that came in clinical strength cost the same and supplied the same amount of product regardless of which gender it was pitched to. This is somewhat meaningless, though, as clinical strength is costs about 50% more than regular deodorant anyway. Medium Happiness points out that the active ingredients in this product are the same as that of Mitchum, which is about half the price. As noted earlier, Mitchum, which may now be my new favorite deodorant, offers the same amount of deodorant at the same price to both men and women.

I stumbled into this topic just as Consumer Reports blogged that they are looking for information about campaigns that use gender marketing to sell the same product for different prices (with women usually being the ones paying more). I'll be curious to hear what their investigation yields.

Regardless of price, I have read many articles that discuss the potential role deodorant may play in breast cancer, and I would be remiss to leave this out, however tangential it is to my rant about gender marketing. At Why Kan't Doc Zoe Write?, there is a four post series exploring this issue (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3). The conclusion:

...there is no conclusion yet. More extensive research is needed to investigate the long-term effects of the applicaiton of these underarm cosmetic products over an entire lifetime and on a global population of men and women.

I, however, conclude that if women are going to wear deodorant, we should not pay more money for less product. This may be due to experiencing an "emotional moment," but I am boycotting companies that rip women off, including dry cleaners and health insurance companies, although I suppose I have a lot less control when over who I use in latter. It just pisses me off to no end that the most effective way to save money on so many things is to not be female.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants, and is the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, a book about unusual things to see and do in NYC.

Ten Push-ups for Command Sgt. Maj. Teresa L. King

2009-09-24T10:22:56-05:00

September 22, the first day of autumn of 2009, saw another first: Command Sgt. Maj. Teresa L. King was appointed first female head of the Army drill sergeant school in Ft. Jackson, SC.

Meloukhia at this ain't livin' wrote, "Congratulations are in order for Sergeant Major Teresa L. King... Seriously, people, go read about her, she’s amazing." Here's an excerpt of what the New York Times had to say:

The eighth of 12 children, the sergeant major is the daughter of a sharecropper who grew cucumbers and tobacco near Fort Bragg, N.C. Her first job in the Army was as a postal clerk, a traditional position for women in those days... in her new job, she will have significant influence over the basic training of every enlisted soldier.

...As a child, she refused her mother’s cooking lessons, insisting on driving her father’s tractor and playing basketball instead. When her siblings got in trouble, she volunteered to take their spankings.

It was the sight of a commanding-looking female soldier in a stylish red beret at the fort that inspired her to enlist while still in high school. Within three years, she was sent to drill sergeant school, graduating as one of five women in a class of 30.

“Turns out she was about the best first sergeant they ever had,” [Willie Shelley, a retired command sergeant major who supervised Sergeant Major King in three postings] said. “It would not surprise me that she could become the first female sergeant major of the Army,” he added, referring to its top enlisted soldier.

Inspiring? Yes, although also a little scary. (A kid who volunteers to take her siblings' corporal punishments? Wow. Very intense...) I love that seeing another woman in the role of a soldier drove her to her career path. That is exactly what female role models are about. In that vein, Lisa at Pink Hand Gun hoped that Command Sgt. Maj. King would not leave other women behind:

While King's promotion is pushing gender boundaries, her own mentality may still be a bit prohibitive. She is quoted as saying that while she believes women should be allowed onto the frontline of battle, she doesn't think most women capable of meeting the standards required of male soldiers. King herself has met those standards (which include physical training tests of strength and endurance).

King has said that one of her priorities will be to recruit more women into her school. Let's hope that she has the foresight to believe her female recruits capable of achieving everything their male counterparts can achieve. Because if there's any evidence that women can do everything men can do, it's King's own journey to the top.

Personally, I think Command Sgt. Maj. King's comments on frontline battle were reasonable. What always makes curious is how men are held to the same standards. It seems like the Army takes into account how aging affects men's bodies, establishing a time in which one must run two miles by age group. If that's the case, shouldn't older men be assigned to different roles as younger men if they are also less fit to be on the front? (Or maybe it does already work that way, as I have no idea how the Army assigns people to various duties. I do know that fire departments that are always protesting the appointment of "less fit" women often allow older men who can't pass physical tests to remain on the squad, which undermines the argument that any weak link will bring down the team.)

While Command Sgt. Maj. King's promotion is great news in many ways, Jill Nelson at Nia Online compared Command Sgt. Maj. King's story to another one that is in the news, the beating of Army reservist Tasha Hill at a Cracker Barrel:

In ways that are simultaneously profoundly similar and vastly different the experiences of these two African American women capture a uniquely American moment and reality, rife, as usual, with contradictions. We rise. We are beat down. We rise. So much trouble in the world, so much violence against women. We rise. Is it time for sisters to organize in defense of ourselves?

She raises a crucial point: while we congratulate one woman for her achievements, we cannot forget the others who face discrimination (and violence) that prevents them from being all that they can be.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants. Her first book, Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, is about unusual things to see and do in NYC.