Suzanne Reisman's blog http://www.blogher.com/blog/54/atom/feed 2009-09-14T11:38:34-05:00 US Takes Step to Offer Political Asylum to Victims of Domestic Violence http://www.blogher.com/us-takes-step-offer-political-asylum-victims-domestic-violence 2009-11-05T14:16:18-06:00 2009-11-05T14:16:18-06:00 Suzanne Reisman 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.

]]> 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.! http://www.blogher.com/were-1-plus-30-closing-gender-gap-go-u-s 2009-11-02T09:42:32-06:00 2009-11-02T09:42:32-06:00 Suzanne Reisman 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:

]]> 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 http://www.blogher.com/recipe-happy-lasting-marriage-does-not-include-cougars 2009-10-29T01:29:15-05:00 2009-10-29T01:29:15-05:00 Suzanne Reisman 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!

]]> 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? http://www.blogher.com/gardasil-good-enough-girls-not-boys 2009-10-26T09:22:21-05:00 2009-10-26T09:22:21-05:00 Suzanne Reisman 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.

]]> 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 http://www.blogher.com/preventing-reproductive-health-services-all-costs 2009-10-22T09:22:14-05:00 2009-10-22T09:22:14-05:00 Suzanne Reisman 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.

]]> 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 http://www.blogher.com/breast-cancer-awareness-month-bunk 2009-10-19T09:17:00-05:00 2009-10-19T09:18:27-05:00 Suzanne Reisman 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.

]]> 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 http://www.blogher.com/how-tv-portrays-abortion 2009-10-12T09:24:11-05:00 2009-10-12T17:58:44-05:00 Suzanne Reisman 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.

]]> 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 http://www.blogher.com/scary-statistics-teenage-prostitution 2009-10-08T12:43:22-05:00 2009-10-08T12:43:22-05:00 Suzanne Reisman 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.

]]> 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 http://www.blogher.com/why-everyone-should-know-gabourey-gabby-sidibe 2009-10-05T10:12:57-05:00 2009-10-05T19:49:35-05:00 Suzanne Reisman 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.

]]> 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.

NY Film Festival screening of 'Precious' in NYC

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 http://www.blogher.com/glare-media-cuts-both-ways-case-nujood-ali 2009-10-01T10:47:29-05:00 2009-10-01T10:47:29-05:00 Suzanne Reisman 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.

]]> 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 http://www.blogher.com/deodorant-discrimination-stinks 2009-09-28T11:11:40-05:00 2009-09-28T11:13:29-05:00 Suzanne Reisman 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.

]]> 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 http://www.blogher.com/ten-push-ups-command-sgt-maj-teresa-l-king-1 2009-09-24T10:22:56-05:00 2009-09-24T10:22:56-05:00 Suzanne Reisman 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:

]]> 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.

]]> 2009 Swimsuit Brigade for Honest Photos http://www.blogher.com/2009-swimsuit-brigade-honest-photos-0 2009-09-21T15:55:18-05:00 2009-09-21T15:55:18-05:00 Suzanne Reisman I wore my bathing suit once this summer, in late August when I went to visit a friend at her parents' house on the Jersey shore. I blame my failure to launch a more timely Swimsuit Brigade for Honest Photos on this, as in previous summers I self-consciously pranced around in swimwear, wondering why I looked so "bad" despite my generally healthy weight, earlier and more frequently. Certainly, this summer has had no fewer body image and photoshopping scandals than summers past.

]]> I wore my bathing suit once this summer, in late August when I went to visit a friend at her parents' house on the Jersey shore. I blame my failure to launch a more timely Swimsuit Brigade for Honest Photos on this, as in previous summers I self-consciously pranced around in swimwear, wondering why I looked so "bad" despite my generally healthy weight, earlier and more frequently. Certainly, this summer has had no fewer body image and photoshopping scandals than summers past. But, better late than never, so on this last official day of summer, I ask that people join me in the fight to bring real, untouched photos of women to the blogosphere.

The need for girls and women to see what real women look like in photographs is critical. Every day, we are bombarded with altered images of models who we are pressured to emulate. Since no one - not even the actual models - can achieve these looks, the lack of seeing ourselves in photographs has dangerous physical and psychological effects. As a Wall Street Journal article reported on Sept. 2, 2009, 60% of girls think that they need to be thin to be popular. In the article, my friend Claire Mysko pointed out that, "girls today see body images in ads that are even further from reality. Retouching is rampant." Since studies also show that media images can trigger extreme dieting in girls, it is important for girls - and women - to see pictures of what happy, healthy, unaltered women look like to know what is "normal." ("Normal," of course, including a huge range of sizes and body types.)

In August, Self magazine - a magazine dedicated to healthy living, including eating and exercising, for women - released its September issue. The cover featured a photo of singer Kelly Clarkson. Except that it was a version of Kelly that doesn't exist. The photo was altered to make Clarkson look thinner. Margaret at Jezebel noted that, "Two Self editors have announced their magazine was right to give Kelly Clarkson a slimmer body on their September issue, explaining that covers shouldn't reflect reality, but 'inspire women to want to be their best.'" Uh huh.

The Kelly Clarkson-Self incident was fresh on the brain at In My Hair when she also wrote about a photo showing a model with a belly in Glamour magazine:

In Glamour's September issue you'll find plus-size model Lizzie Miller and her midriff. On page 194, is Miller laughing in her underwear while forgetting to tuck in a charming little paunch.

"The reaction to that one picture has been incredible," Miller said yesterday, speaking over the phone from her fourth-floor apartment in midtown Manhattan.

...Miller said she has received emails and messages on Facebook, including one from a woman who said the picture inspired her to throw away her diet pills and laxatives; and from a man who claimed that only now, after Miller's un-self-conscious image hit newsstands, will his similarly proportioned girlfriend believe him when he tells her she's pretty.

Maybe I'm too emotionally invested in the topic of body image and female self-hatred, but I cried when I read that. For the past two summers, I took a deep breath and posted pictures of myself in bathing suit online. I asked other women to post a picture of themselves in their swimwear to show people that there is not just one way to look; women are beautiful in all shapes and sizes. The responses were great - including this lovely shot of Motherscribe in 2008 and Grace at What if No One's Watching? in 2007.

This year, while thinking about how wonderful it was that so many women joined the Brigade, and about how great Miller's photo is, I decided to go one step further. I have enough problems seeing myself in a one piece swimsuit, although I look just fine. To live up to the challenge that women look great as they are, I took my Swimsuit Brigade for Honest Photos (deep breath) in a bikini:

And, really, although it is scary to post for the world to see and judge, it's also just fine - nothing to be ashamed of! Still, it would definitely be easier for me to accept how I look if I could regularly see other women posting their pictures, proud of themselves as they are.

Is anyone willing to join me in the 2009 Swimsuit Brigade for Honest Photos? If so, post your photo on your blog, then leave a comment on this post with the link. Trust me, you'll look great!

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.

]]> Planned Parenthood: Using the Internet for Better Reproductive Health in the US http://www.blogher.com/planned-parenthood-using-internet-better-reproductive-health-us 2009-09-17T09:03:14-05:00 2009-09-17T09:03:14-05:00 Suzanne Reisman "We have a reproductive health care crisis, and we need to do something about it," Tom Subak, Vice President for Online Services at Planned Parenthood, told me when I visited their office last week. "One in four women has an STD, and one in two African American women has an STD."

]]> "We have a reproductive health care crisis, and we need to do something about it," Tom Subak, Vice President for Online Services at Planned Parenthood, told me when I visited their office last week. "One in four women has an STD, and one in two African American women has an STD."

In March 2008, BlogHer contributing editor Melissa Ford reported that 25% of teenage girls have a sexually transmitted disease or infection. There are many reasons for this distressingly high rate of sexually transmitted diseases. Thanks to American views about sexuality, one of them is that women lack access to unbiased, scientific information about sexual and reproductive health. Kristin at Girl w/Pen! noted:

But what if we began to treat not only adult sexuality, but teenage sexuality, as normal? In a qualitative study comparing conceptions of teenage sexuality in the Netherlands and the United States, Amy Schalet documents how American adults dramatize teenage sexuality as hormone-raging, out-of-control, and irrational. (Part of the study is published as “Must We Fear Adolescent Sexuality? at Medscape General Medicine.) Dutch parents, on the other hand, recognize teenage relationships as legitimate and work to normalize sexuality.

Guess which country has the lower teenager pregnancy and STD rates.

Planned Parenthood seeks to change that.

When Cecile Richards became the president of Planned Parenthood, she saw online technology as a way to reach American women in ways that may not have been possible before. Determining the message and how to deliver it was crucial for success. For example, when Elexa condoms debuted a few years ago, they were marketed solely at women. I raged that this merely placed another burden for sexual and reproductive health on the heavily weighted shoulders of women. Sexologist Dr. Logan Levkoff replied, explaining that Trojan launched Elexa as a way to encourage women to combat the grim STD statistics by making condoms more female-friendly. (Sadly, Elexa never took off, but Dr. Levkoff still occasionally blogs about promoting sexual health at The Huffington Post, and has a great book about how to talk to kids about sex.) I realize that marketing a product (condoms) is not quite the same as information, but the important similarity is that if the message doesn't resonate with the intended audience, people won't use it.

To get the message and the medium right, Planned Parenthood engaged in extensive studies of what people want and need to know, and how to get that information to them. What they discovered is not entirely surprising. They learned that young women today are asking essentially the same questions that women their age asked 30 years ago. Mostly, what they want to know is about their developing bodies - things like whether it is normal for one breast to be larger than the other. They also want to know about how to protect themselves.

By increasing their presence on the internet - by launching a Facebook page and a MySpace page, and tweeting (Cecile Richards even writes her own tweets, too) - there was more chance for Planned Parenthood to reach two audiences: youth ages 13-17 and women ages 18-29. But merely being on the web isn't enough if the intended audiences aren't absorbing the messages, so they set to make sure that everyone who has a question or wants to learn more can find a way to get the answers she needs. (Incidentally, 85% of visitors to Planned Parenthood's website are women. Part of this is due to the fact that women bear the brunt of the high cost of reproductive health, and partly because women are more familiar with Planned Parenthood than men. But the smart folks at Planned Parenthood want boys to get their questions answered, too. They found that if guys didn't see pictures of men on the site, they assumed that it wasn't for them. As a result, Planned Parenthood placed more photos of men on the site to help retain male interest. Actually, visitors to Planned Parenthood's sites will notice pictures of everyone - including women and men with their children. Again, they recognize that reproductive health is not just a concern for women under the age of 30, and people need to see themselves.)

Visitors to the Planned Parenthood website can get information in many ways because people learn differently. Options include traditional FAQs/Fact Sheets, a way to submit a question, videos, and a future 24/7 live chat line with an expert. (During the piloting stages, the experts were overwhelmed by the response.)

Ignorance about our bodies, our sexuality, and our reproductive health has costly short- and long-term implications. I'm excited to see that Planned Parenthood is embracing technology and new media opportunities to combat the crisis in reproductive health. As the organization continues to innovate and develop new online outreach strategies, I plan to be a part of the solution and spread the word. I hope others will join me.

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 New York City.

]]> Gender Differences: Socially Conditioned and Reinforced through the Media http://www.blogher.com/gender-differences-socially-conditioned-and-reinforced-through-media 2009-09-14T11:38:34-05:00 2009-09-14T11:38:34-05:00 Suzanne Reisman Sharon Begley is my hero. Begley is a senior editor and science writer at Newsweek magazine. In column after column, she debunks junk evolutionary psychology "science" and other theories that insist that gender differences are 100% hard wired. Back in June 2009, Begley wrote "Why Do We Rape, Kill and Sleep Around?," which thoroughly trashed an evolutionary psychology theory that it is in human (male) genes to rape because 100,000 years ago:

]]> Sharon Begley is my hero. Begley is a senior editor and science writer at Newsweek magazine. In column after column, she debunks junk evolutionary psychology "science" and other theories that insist that gender differences are 100% hard wired. Back in June 2009, Begley wrote "Why Do We Rape, Kill and Sleep Around?," which thoroughly trashed an evolutionary psychology theory that it is in human (male) genes to rape because 100,000 years ago:

...men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.

Last week, Begley discoursed on a new book by Lise Eliot, Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps—And What We Can Do About It (available online or at a fine bookstore near you starting today!). Eliot reviewed hundreds of scientific studies, and concluded that there is "little solid evidence of sex differences in children's brains." Along the way, Eliot presents compelling evidence that people treat baby boys and girls differently (even if they think they are not doing so nor intend to):

In one [study], scientists dressed newborns in gender-neutral clothes and misled adults about their sex. The adults described the "boys" (actually girls) as angry or distressed more often than did adults who thought they were observing girls, and described the "girls" (actually boys) as happy and socially engaged more than adults who knew the babies were boys. Dozens of such disguised-gender experiments have shown that adults perceive baby boys and girls differently, seeing identical behavior through a gender-tinted lens. In another study, mothers estimated how steep a slope their 11-month-olds could crawl down. Moms of boys got it right to within one degree; moms of girls underestimated what their daughters could do by nine degrees, even though there are no differences in the motor skills of infant boys and girls. But that prejudice may cause parents to unconsciously limit their daughter's physical activity. How we perceive children—sociable or remote, physically bold or reticent—shapes how we treat them and therefore what experiences we give them.

(Emphasis mine.) Begley explains that the result of this gendered way of looking at babies impacts the development of brains, and "these various experiences produce sex differences in adult behavior and brains—the result not of innate and inborn nature but of nurture." Neither Eliot nor Begley deny that adult men and women have differences, but they use explain how interactions as babies could cause them. This is not saying that all people are the same, as the book also covers general differences in the development of baby boys and girls, but that people develop cognitively in different ways, and boys may be more likely to be one way than girls because of how we treat them while brains are at their most impressionable.

Laura Vanderkam at The Gifted Exchange has been reading Eliot's book while waiting to give birth to second son. She wrote:

I find it all very fascinating -- both from the perspective of trying to raise my sons and from what the various research into brain differences says about society. There is some evidence that little girls are becoming more open to playing with boy toys and doing "boy things" which makes sense as women have more paths open to them. On the other hand, boys are still being raised largely as boys -- we worry more about boys being sissies than girls being aggressive go-getters. Eliot also points out that a big problem with brain research is that studies that show gender differences tend to get the headlines. So, when one study seems to show that women do better on spatial reasoning when they are menstruating (and hence have less estrogen coursing through their blood), this gets trumpeted in the popular press with headlines like "Hormones make men and women better and worse at math!" Then, of course, when follow-up studies fail to replicate this result, there are no headlines.

The media bias against printing stories that don't confirm stereotypes is what makes me love Begley so much. I would not have heard of Eliot's book had she not covered it (and, to be fair, a friend who works at the Guttmacher Foundation had not linked to Begley's article on Facebook). I've cited this before, but I still believe that a 2008 article in Bitch magazine by Beth Skwarecki (who writes the Science and miscellanea blog - awesome!) on how to "deconstruct bunk reporting" is a must-read for anyone who cares about how the mainstream media promotes gender stereotypes through their headlines. Now that I think about it, Skwarecki is also one of my heroes, too. And I'll add Lise Eliot to the list while I'm at it.

Smart women who use science and clear prose to create a better understanding of gender constructs rock!

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants. When not blogging or looking for steady employment, she promotes her book, Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, which is about unusual things to see and do in NYC.

]]>