Suzanne Reisman's blog

"Because Women's Work is Always Undervalued:" Why Child Care Workers are Some of The Lowest Paid Professionals in America

2008-07-03T08:44:33-05:00

I don't have children, and I do not plan to have any. Yet, in my mind, child care and early childhood education is the most important issue any nation faces. In the United States, we pay a lot of lip service to the importance of child care and early education, recognizing the field as critical to parents' ability to go to work, as a way to prepare young children for school, and as a safe place for older kids to go after school while their parents are at work. In theory, we acknowledge that child care is essential to our economy both directly (as a field of business, it generates jobs and money that buys supplies from other businesses) and indirectly (by allowing parents to work, child care props up an enormous portion of the economy). We realize that children who attend high quality child care programs are less likely to repeat a grade in school, drop out, become teen mothers, or be arrested. What American society refuses to do is properly invest in child care, leading to a dysfunctional industry in which skilled providers are poorly paid, burn out and turn over is absurdly high, and families cannot access the care they need. Of course, this disproportionately affects women, both as consumers (women who want to or need to work) and as providers (98% of early childhood program employees are female).

For the past 10 years, I worked on child care and public policy. The first thing I learned is that anyone who attempts to analyze the industry from a logical economic supply-and-demand model is doomed to get the wrong answers. Megan McArdle at the Atlantic Monthly controversially (and faslely) claims that child care is not a skilled labor. In fact, child care center licensing standards in many states require the lead teacher to hold a BA in early childhood education or be in the process of obtaining a degree. She correctly understands that staffing a center costs a lot of money, and when you add in overhead, the cost of offering high quality child care is more than most parents can afford. (Fight Crime, Invest in Kids reports that the cost of quality infant care is more than tuition at a public university in every single state!) Meaning: the laws of supply and demand do not apply to child care. Many parents in American do not have a choice of whether to work or stay home. Hence the demand for care is high, but the fixed cost of care means that parents cannot afford the supply. This is what economists call a market failure.

In most market failures, subsidies are applied to correct the problem. McArdle rejects subsidies for child care because she says that would drive up the wages of educators of older children. Her fundamental misunderstanding of the child care field as completely unskilled leads to this false dichotomy. (Emily Yoffe wrote an excellent article in Salon about how much skill grossly underpaid child care workers require.) Child care workers are already teachers, often possessing the same educational and training credentials as those who teach elementary school. They deserve the same rate of pay as other teachers. The reality is that subsidies will attract more skilled professionals to the early childhood field, allow more families to send their kids to quality early childhood programs, and cost society significantly less in the long run. (The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has done numerous studies on the economic benefits of quality early childhood care and education and concluded that there is as much as $17 in future benefits to be derived from every dollar invested in early childhood programs. Kathy G. at The G Spot summarizes numerous economic studies on the benefits of a variety of early childhood care and education programs.)

So, given the market failure and obvious benefits of quality child care and early education, why isn't investing in young children a priority in the US? Why have I not hear one presidential candidate mention the struggle that working parents face in finding high quality, affordable child care? Laura at 11D said it best:

Also, babysitters are poorly paid, because people think it's easy, because women's work is always undervalued, and because society doesn't want to pay for work that they still think should be freely given. Sometimes you can't understand economics without looking at the politics.

And here's where feminism really fits in. Child care is women's work. (Married, middle-class) Moms are expected to stay home and do the work for free, even as we live in a world in which single parents are common, and even married middle-class families can't make ends meet without both parents working. We see this lack of appreciation for educating young children mirrored in how the child care workforce is composed and paid. A whopping 98% of child care workers are women, and the average salary $17,630. Yoffe points out, "The advocacy group Center for the Child Care Workforce points out that only a handful of the more than 800 occupations surveyed by the BLS have lower wages—these include parking lot attendants and dishwashers." Personally, I also believe that race is an issue as well: more than one-third of child care workers are women of color. If US social policy has treated women's work as a whole as worthless, we have generally treated women of color even worse. This is clearly reflected in the poverty wages we deal out to people who are shaping our children's futures.

By standing up for child care, we are saying that caring and education children - something done nearly exclusively by women and traditionally done either without compensation or with extremely low pay because it is "women's work" - is valuable. Child care (whether done by moms, aunts, grandparents, or paid workers) should not be a female ghetto, populated by poorly paid and disrespected women. We need to stop paying lip service to its importance and start paying dollars.

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and about positive social change at Just Cause. Her first book, "Off the Beaten (Subway) Track: New York City's Best Unusual Attractions," is hitting bookshelves in July.

Join The 2008 Swimsuit Brigade for Honest Photos

2008-06-29T00:00:00-05:00

Last summer, I launched the Swimsuit Brigade for Honest Photos at BlogHer. I just returned from the beach, where I spent 25% of my time worrying that I looked fat. Yet another magazine cover air brushing scandal coursed through the blogosphere around that time. (See: Women 4 Hope; Susan Wagner and Maria Niles on BlogHer.) It hit a nerve. Why was I so obsessed with looking like a figment of the Beauty Industrial Complex's (BIC) profitable imagination?

Because women are bombarded with unrealistic images of womens (so unrealitic, in fact, that they must be created through Photoshop because not even actual models are that thing, wrinkle-free, or flawlessly complected), we doubt ourselves. We spend hours analyzing ourselves in the mirror. What can we do to hide our love handles or plump up a small bust? Clothes and cosmetics are ways to create our own illusions and hide our "flaws."

So, if there is anything women across the political spectrum have in comment, it is hatred of appearing in public in a bathing suit. There is nowhere to hide when one is decked out for the beach. Every bulge is on display; each dimple of cellulite out there to catch the sunlight. (Or at least this is true for me. Other women may find that their skinny butts leave the suit sagging or a long torso means it barely covers one's chest.) It's hard to feel confident when the constant message we receive is, "You look like crap in your natural form."

To spend so much time pondering what my ass looks like was a disturbing waste of time. I could instead worry about what happens when global warming raises the water levels and there is no beach. Or, I could actually focus on having fun. (Ridiculous, I know!)

The worst part about my obsessing was that I'm closer than ever to the "ideal." I'll never be tall or without hips and a butt, but the reality is that I am at a very healthy weight for my height. By the numbers, I hover at 61 or so inches tall and I weigh 122 pounds. The AMA claps for my BMI. Totally normal and healthy.

However, by Beauty Industrial Complex standards (what we truly seem to measure ourselves by), I am 22 pounds overweight. Approximately two of those pounds are in my arms, and the other 20 "extra" are split between my tummy, lower abdomen, hips, ass, and thighs. Since the AMA does not take out ads with women who look like me to sell healthy lifestyles, I am left comparing myself to women who are a foot taller than I am but weigh the same, not to mention are a decade younger, plus "perfected" by computer software.

What can we do to stop the insanity? The Swimsuit Brigade for Honest Photos was my modest attempt to fight back. I figured that if women consistently saw pictures of real women - women with bodies reflecting the full range of who we are - we might stop feeling so bad about ourselves. We'd feel normal. At peace. Like we belong. Hell, some might even puff up with pride at our natural beauty.

It was time to lead by example. I took a deep breath, put on my bathing suit, and took a picture. Then I posted it on BlogHer and my personal blog, Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants. If I can do it, so can you!, I challenged the blog world. BlogHers like Birdie Jaworski, Erin Koteki Vest, Laurie, Debra Roby, Laurie, and Angel joined me by posting pictures in the comments to my post or on their own blogs. It was awesome. Everyone looked glorious, no Photoshopping needed.

So, in honor of the start of summer, a time of year many women dread, BlogHer is bringing back the Swimsuit Brigade for Honest Photos. My picture is posted above, and I hope you will help take back control of women's images by posting one of yourself, too. (And I think my friend Alex's photo of herself and a friend crossing the finish of a triathlon counts, so it does not have to be a bathing suit.) Write a post on your blog, label it Swimsuit Brigade, and link back here through Mr. Linky. Only together can we take down the pernicious unreal standards set by the industry.

Have a great summer feeling comfortable in your own skin!

Suzanne also blogs about life at CUSS and about creating social change at Just Cause.

"Third Genders" in Societies with Rigid Gender Roles

2008-06-26T08:11:51-05:00

Yesterday morning over breakfast, I was riveted by a New York Times article on elective female-to-male transgenderism in rural Albania. The story detailed the practice of "sworn virgins" (although I think this name is misleading and sensationalizing), women who, after the death of the family's patriarch, volunteer to remain virgins for the rest of their lives and then assume the male role of the family. (Since a virgin is worth 12 oxen - the same value as a man - the conversion is easy.) From then on, society defers to these biological females as men, and accords them the power and respect that men receive. The practice has existing for centuries, in both Christian and Muslim cultures. In this society of rigid gender roles, there is no question based on sex organs which gender the women are. It is just accepted that they are men. This is fascinating to me.

Other women looked at the article from other perspectives. A at Combing My Hair related it it to modern Western culture:

After reading this article I initially believed that it was a medieval practice that, due to isolationism, had survived the evolution of thought concerning gender and sex over the years. And then I realized that this article was only a hyper example of the norm still found in even the most liberated countries like America. This might be because I spent last night watching the Tila Tequila pre-reunion (a blog-worthy subject in itself)... After reading this article I initially believed that it was a medieval practice that, due to isolationism, had survived the evolution of thought concerning gender and sex over the years. And then I realized that this article was only a hyper example of the norm still found in even the most liberated countries like America.

Kate Hutchinson at Defending Pandora compared the sworn virgins to women in corporate America today:

Imagine for a moment that a woman in America could be allowed to dress and present herself as a man, and gain respect from both men and women around her. (It's not a solution to the issue certainly; the real solution is for women to be valued for what they offer instead of being labeled by their gender.) But this situation wouldn't happen. If a woman dressed as a man in the American office, she would be labeled a freak. Even women who work hard to act like men (i.e. aggressively) are not safe once they reach the executive level... [In Albania] In the face of women's advancement, there are no new sworn virgins. If Albania is making this leap forward in valuing its women , perhaps American corporate culture could as well?

Rachel Storm at Crash thought about it from the perspective of patriarchal domination:

One thing that I find fascinating about these sworn virgins is that they can even take on the misogynist beliefs of a man. Well, at least men from their generation. They believe that women these days don't know their place, and act inappropriately. Which makes sense, if they only fraternize with men, and are treated by their society like men, it makes total sense that they would agree with the patriarchal beliefs that create the need for their existence as a sworn virgin in the first place.

Still, I am most intrigued by how cultures choose to acknowledge gender. Many countries have what is considered to be a "third gender," a gray area for people whose gender and sex do not match. Albania has sworn virgins; Samoa has fafafini (biological males assigned to be women; they are considered by society to be female and marry heterosexual men); Thailand has katooeys. As Nadia at Nadia's Transgender

reminds us, "transgender people have always been here, we will always be here, and in a sense, we are a necessary part of society and humanity." So true.

In BlogHer's May podcast with transgender activist Calpernia Addams, Calpernia noted that one of the main barriers transgendered individuals face is being accepted for who they are without surgery. She said, "A lot of transgendered women feel comfortable with their birth genitals as long as they can live the social role... [but] it's about how outsiders tolerate us." I think Americans and other Westerners - supposedly open-minded and liberal cultures - cannot handle the idea that a woman can dress like a man, live like a man, and consider herself a man unless she has a penis. That is, society as it is does not accept that gender can function outside of biological sex. It is striking to me that cultures with extremely rigid gender roles can manage to dissociate sex from gender under certain constraints. I'm not saying that it is better to live in rural Albania or Samoa, where women's roles are strictly confined to child birth, child rearing, cooking, and cleaning, but that there is something interesting to way these societies make allowances that Western ones don't. Kate's point about corporate America is right-on: it is hard for women who act like men (as well as men who act like women) to be respected. At best, people face severe discrimination. At worst, the violence that is often unleashed on transgressors is horrifying.

Today, the Times article points out, women in Albania have made progress in many areas of life. As a result, there are only 40 or so sworn virgins. As women gain rights around the world, will the practice of recognizing third genders fall by the wayside? If so, is that really progress? I think not, and it is my sincerest hope that one day we can all live in a world where people are free to express their gender in the way that fits best for them as an individual.

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and about creating positive social change at Just Cause.

Are Reproductive Rights Not an Important Issue to Women in this Election Year?

2008-06-19T08:07:00-05:00

Dr. George Tiller is a saint. Despite three decades of harassment - legal and illegal, such as when someone shot him in both arms, Dr. Tiller continues to provide abortions for women carrying severely damaged fetuses or whose lives are endangered by their pregnancies. Like Dr. Tiller, Dr. Bernard Slepian and Dr. David Gunn are heroes, too. These men died while helping women use their legal right to an abortion. They are not the only ones, either. The National Abortion Federation has a list of names of those injured or killed, documenting the murders or attempted murders of doctors, clinic workers, and by-standers by those who claim to be defending life. I suppose if John McCain wins the presidential election and overturns Roe v. Wade, as he said he would like to do, this will resolve the problem of violence against clinic workers since there will be no clinics in many states. Of course, this also means that women in many states will have even less access to a health procedure than they currently do. (In 2005, 87 percent of all U.S. counties lacked an abortion provider; 35 percent of American women live in those areas. Almost 25 percent of women requiring an abortion travel over 50 miles to obtain the procedure.)

Given the obstacles that many people must overcome to obtain and/or provide abortions, reproductive rights are always in my top three issues when I evaluate a candidate. In the past, I've explained that I usually find that candidates who are pro-choice tend to support a ranges of other issues that are important to me, like ending the war in Iraq, the environment, fixing our social safety net by ending tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, and expanding health care coverage. Thus I assume that other progressive women are like me, and they prioritize reproductive rights as an election issue.

It turns out that I may be wrong about the role reproductive rights plays in this election. My 100% anecdotal evidence is derived from a writing class in which I am enrolled. Comprised of 12 individuals - nine of whom are women, and 11 of whom are admitted liberals/progressives - we went around the room and named our top three issues in this election. Nearly everyone said the war in Iraq, the environment, and health care/health insurance. Only one person said reproductive rights. Yes, that person was me. Call me Harpy McHarperson for focusing on the issue, but I am scared.

Maybe people don't prioritize reproductive rights as an issue in this election because they think neither candidate really opposes them. For example, Planned Parenthood produced a short (and entertaining) video about McCain's track record on the issues vs. Bush's, and most people were unaware that McCain is even more extreme than Bush in some instances. For example, he does not believe that insurance companies should be required to cover birth control. (And if you think that this won't happen, the movement to ban the pill is well underway. Allowing insurance to deny prescription drug coverage to women for ideological purposes is only step one.)

When people learn what a candidate's position on reproductive rights is, does that change their perception of the candidate? (If yes, I'm assuming this means that the reproductive rights issue is actually very important to voters, but they don't realize it because they don't think that the election will jeopardize them.) Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post reports that:

Over half of all women in these states have no idea what McCain's positions are on reproductive health. Forty-nine percent of women in battleground states who currently favor McCain are pro-choice. Twenty-three percent of them believe McCain agrees with them on choice.

The good news is, 36 percent of pro-choice McCain supporters are less likely to vote for him after learning that McCain opposes Roe v. Wade and favors making most abortions illegal. That number hits 38 percent when those voters learn that McCain has also consistently voted against expanding access to programs that reduce pregnancy and the need for abortion, consistently voted in favor of abstinence-only programs, and against legislation requiring insurance companies to cover birth control.

The [Planned Parenthood] poll's encouraging conclusion: "The simple arithmetic of these findings suggests that just filling in McCain's actual voting record and his publicly stated positions on a handful of key issues has the potential to diminish his total vote share among battleground women voters by about 17 to 20 percentage points."

Reproductive Rights Prof Blog reports that "John McCain could lose the support of significant numbers of independent and pro-choice Republican women—if they are educated about the Arizona senator's antiabortion voting record."

Huffington also reminds us that McCain proudly told Chris Matthews last month that, "The rights of the unborn is one of my most important values." And what about the rights of the born? Well, it seems we can just crawl off into a corner and die if we need an abortion to save our lives and we live in a state where abortion is illegal. My friend Logan Levkoff who has a PhD in human sexuality and is the author of Third Base Ain't What It Used to Be, a book for parents to help them talk to their kids about sex, told me that Dr. Tiller saved her friend's life a few years ago. But Dr. Tiller's clinic would likely be shut down if Roe was overturned, so her friend would have died.

We all know that making abortion illegal does not stop women from obtaining abortions. Currently, around the world, 70,000 women die every year from unsafe (i.e. - illegal) abortions and an additional 5 million women are permanently or temporarily harmed by illegal abortions. Is it truly not important to American voters that we not add to these horrifying statistics? I don't think so. Does information make a difference in how we value reproductive rights as an election issue? Yes. So let's get the word out there and remind people that reproductive rights are a critical issue in this election. Dr. Tiller and the other workers need our support.

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants, yogurt at Live Active Cultures, and creating positive social change at Just Cause.

Sexist Media Did Not Cost Hillary Rodham Clinton the Democratic Nomination

2008-06-15T08:22:07-05:00

I am a feminist. I have been a feminist for as long as I can remember. If there is anything that I want in this world, it is equality for all (i.e. - feminism = equality.) When I say equality, I mean that every person has the opportunity to become the best person he/she can possibly be. That gender, race, class, and the other human-erected barriers we place on people are eradicated. For example, if a woman is qualified to be president, I do not believe that her gender should prevent that from happening.

That said, I did not vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton in my state primary. The reason I did not do so is because I did not feel she was the best qualified candidate, and I will be damned if I vote for her merely because she is a woman. In fact, voting for a person solely on her sex would be in direct violation of my belief that you should not pick someone just based on genital status alone. (Meaning: if I don't like people who say they would never vote for a woman, I sure as hell better not vote against someone because he happens to be male.) Yet, supporters of HRC seemed to believe that is exactly what I should do. Worse, as a feminist, I was told I owed it to Clinton to vote for her. This is about the most insulting message that could be sent to me.

Now people are insisting that she lost the Democratic nomination because the media is sexist. Yes, the media is very sexist. For example, every time I read an article in the newspaper or see something on TV about infertility, it is ALWAYS about women and why they waited too long to try to have a baby, or are too uptight, or ate the wrong thing for breakfast on Dec. 22, 1982 and thus it is her fault for fucking up her chances to fulfill her feminine need for biological children. Only once did I see a tiny article noting that when treating fertility problems, 40% of issues are in females, 40% are in males, and in 20% of the cases, both have issues. And only once did I see something noting that men's sperm degrades in quality over time, leading to as many birth defects and problems as older women have. That is sexist coverage.

On the other hand, Clinton ran a terrible campaign. Sometimes, she absolutely was covered unfairly by the media, such as when they commented on her cleavage, said she "cackled," or described her as resembling a spurned first wife outside of probate court. However, these incidents, as bad as they are, did not cause HRC to lose the nomination. No, HRC lost the nomination because she alienated voters like me. Voters she should have had locked up, but instead drove away with things like the campaign's offhand slurs against Obama's ethnicity, her stupid moves to pander to every group in the world so that they would like her, and her refusal to acknowledge that she was wrong when she voted for Iraq.

Sadly, her supporters are refusing to acknowledge how poorly she campaigned. They can blame the media all they want. Sometimes, commentary did inflame her mistakes. However, the media was also all over the Wright "issue" and other Obama "flubs." If HRC lost, it is absolutely not because the media "robbed her of any shot" as supporter Allida M. Black of the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers at GW University told the New York Times on Friday. It is because she refused to stand up for anything, refused to take responsibility for her campaign's errors, and refused to be above the board. It is because she could not convince me - a committed, lifelong feminist and progressive who is essentially the spitting image of a stereotypical feminist protesting for reproductive rights with short hair, unshaved legs, and no make up - that she was the best candidate. And this is why she lost. If you can't convince those who should be your core supporters that you are the best candidate, you have a serious problem.

Clinton supporters who are angry about how women are portrayed in the news should be angry. Women generally get the very short end of the stick. But Clinton's coverage is absolutely the wrong issue to go ballistic about. (And really, if we want to look at sexism in the media, let's focus our outrage for Fox's horrifying most recent slur against Michelle Obama.) Let's raise the issue of sexism, work to alleviate the problems that arose, and move on.

Like every feminist, I do very much want to see a woman in the White House soon, and not as the First Lady. Learning from the Clinton campaign mistakes will only make the next female candidate even stronger. I'm looking forward to that.

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and about creating positive social change at Just Cause.

Banning the Pill Kills Women. Period.

2008-06-12T08:35:48-05:00

Sort of like how each episode of Sesame Street amusingly was sponsored by a few letters and numbers, today's post is sponsored by irony. Generally when I want to write something about reproductive rights, the first sites that match my search terms are ones that inevitably lead me to websites like prochoice.com, which is not remotely pro-choice and contains inaccurate information about abortion, complete with an extremely freakish waving fetus and a lecture on how parenthood is hard and you can never be prepared for it anyway, so just go ahead and carry a pregnancy to term because there are absolutely no costs associated with child birth or raising children that people should prepare themselves for. Today, I wanted to find some sites that participated in The Pill Kills Day '08, which took place this past Saturday, June 7. Of course, initially all I could find was commentary on how horrific and misleading this campaign is.

Why June 7? Well, as Cristina Page at RH Reality Check explains:

June 7 is the anniversary of Griswold v Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that granted married people the right to use contraception... Anti-contraception activism has been working its way up the priority list of the anti-choice movement in the United States in recent years and today's campaign is one of the most organized and visible displays of this broadening agenda.

Currently, there is not one pro-life organization in the U.S. that supports contraception. In fact, the multi-pronged attack against the right to use contraception is led entirely by anti-abortion groups. Their initiatives (to name just a few) include opposing health insurance of contraception, urging pharmacists to deny women's birth control prescriptions, and attempting (with no scientific rationale) to reclassify the birth control pill, and all other hormonal forms of contraception, as abortion methods with the goal of banning them. This represents an important and frightening shift in focus by the anti-abortion movement.

Despite the fact that contraception is the only proven way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and reduce abortion rates, anti-choice groups would forgo these benefits, and even risk dramatically increasing abortion rates, in favor of a larger, more insidious goal: changing Americans' sex lives.

As the American Life League, the nation's largest pro-life educational organization, explains in its materials, "The American Life League denies the moral acceptability of artificial birth control and encourages each individual to trust in God, to surrender to His will, and to be predisposed to welcoming children." The American Life League prefers to put the choices in the hands of God, a choice they want to impose on everyone. "It must be clear that couples understand that when they ask God to not send them another child just now they are also saying, ‘If it is Your will to send us another child at this time, we praise You for Your divine providence,'" the group says.

What? The anti-reproductive rights movement uses misleading and full of inaccurate information to achieve their extreme goals? Why would they do that if their cause is so obvious? Self-described "radical pro-lifer" Jill Stanek doesn't bother mentioning that birth control pills (or the ring or the patch or whatever ingested contraceptive a woman may use) works primarily by preventing ovulation so there is no chance that an egg might be released and fertilized. That would imply that women do not have the right to prevent themselves from getting pregnant, taking conception out of God's hands and putting it into her own. Instead, Stanek informs readers that:

"...one way the birth control pill works is it makes the wall of the uterus impermeable to implantation, in which case the very young preborn human is aborted... Neanderthals like me think women should know the pill can kill their 5- to 9-day-old children.

(Back to today's sponsor, irony. How ironic is it that Stanek sardonically calls herself a Neanderthal?!?!)

As long as we are talking about the rarer uses of birth control, I might as well point out that I take the Pill literally to save my life. As a sufferer of polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), a condition that affects up to 1 in 10 women of childbearing age, I don't get my period. At all. Ever. While many might celebrate this lack of monthly nuisance, it actually causes a higher risk for endometrial cancer. To combat that danger, I take the Pill so that I can shed the lining of my uterus. Hence, the Pill may save my life by preventing me from contracting cancer. But why should I have the right to take a drug that could save my life if it also kills my hypothetical baby? Just ban contraceptives, and we'll save the unborn who aren't even conceived! Yay!

Of course, being completely open and upfront about why they really think birth control should be banned is not going to be very popular. Rebellios Jezebel Blogging notes that, "Never mind that this happens quite naturally about half the time, or that the Pill just prevents ovulation in general, the Pill Kills! REALLY!" As the fshk blog points out, "Many, many people rely on their birth control, and I’d be willing to bet there are a lot of women who oppose abortion but still take a Pill every day so, you know, they are never in the position of having to decide whether or not to have an abortion." The implantation dilemma is a shocking device that skirts the real issue, that the consequence of a woman having sex is that she might get pregnant, and that would be her proper punishment for sex, even with a spouse. Because sex for any purpose other than procreation is wrong. Period.

I know that the anti-choice movement - and in this case, I feel 100% accurate in calling these extreme activists who impose their religious beliefs on everyone else forced childbirth activists, since they are essentially forcing women to forgo sex or risk procreating when they do not want to - loves calling themselves "pro-life." But forcing women to have children is not terribly effective at saving the lives of those who are already born if they need medical care and have no insurance. It doesn't address the fact that, as Nicholas D. Kristof reports in today's New York Times:

In some African countries, a woman has more than a 1-in-10 lifetime risk of dying in childbirth. If men were dying at such a rate for fathering children, the G-8 would be holding emergency summits.

Yet President Bush has actually proposed an 18 percent cut in 2009 in our aid agency’s negligible spending for maternal and child care abroad. Family planning, which reduces pregnancies and thus also prevents both abortions and maternal deaths, is perennially starved for funds.

Nope, forget a human right to sexuality - it seems that women do not even have right to life. As long as a baby is born (hopefully alive), the woman can be rendered disabled during pregnancy or even die during childbirth. (Any female of the age to conceive isn't really a person, anyway.) Killing women in the name of life is the ultimate irony, isn't it?

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and about creating positive social change at Just Cause.

Fun with Feminism & Gender at the BlogHer Conference - Vote Now!

2008-06-08T17:17:01-05:00

I want to take a moment from my usual ranting about the state of the world. (I'll leave that to Catherine Morgan's excellent post pondering why anyone who supports feminist causes would consider voting for McCain since he clearly supports sexism;see: my ranting comment on his speech in rural Kentucky about why he opposes legislation like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that allows women to sue employers who discriminate against them and effectively hide it for long periods of time because women just need the education and training, and don't forget to send him your resume through Moms Rising to remind him that all the education in the world doesn't do a damn thing if employers are allowed to discriminate against you because you are a woman.) OK, so maybe I'll rant a little before I discuss two cool options for feminists attending BlogHer's July 18-19 conference awesome, progressive in San Francisco. (I couldn't control myself. I'm just so befuddled by the idea that someone who liked Clinton's center-progressive policies would vote for someone who wants to continue Bush's not-remotely-close-to-center-let-alone-progressive-ideas that it causes me to write horrible run-on sentences with lots of supporting links.)

Deep breath. On to what I meant to focus on... Last month, I suggested that sex-positive feminists attending the conference might enjoy a field trip to the awesome, feminist, gender-neutral sex shop Good Vibrations. A few people left comments indicating that, heck yeah!, that's be fun. BlogHer Contributing Editor Maria Niles was even good enough to put me in touch with some people she knew at the store, and they were extremely enthusiastic about BlogHers coming to visit. Events staff offered me two options:

1. Thursday, ~~June~~ JULY 17: We can take a tour of the Good Vibrations store. The tour will be conducted by the amazing sexologist Dr. Carol Queen!!!! How freakin' cool is that?!?! Time is to be determined, but they are open until 8 PM, so I was aiming for meeting up in the lobby of the Westin around 6:30 and head over together. Afterward, interested parties who do not want to run back to their room immediately to test their fabulous new sex toys can feast on the delicious cuisine in the neighborhood. (Note: This is at the same time as the Newbie Mixer from 8-10PM on Thursday night, open to all first-time BlogHer attendees.)

2. Friday, ~~June~~ JULY 18: The store is hosting a panel discussion on do-it-yourself porn, moderated by Dr. Queen and featuring two filmmakers. We are welcome to join the evening event after attending the conference welcome session, although we would depart before it ends at 9 PM.

I need to let the good folks at Good Vibrations know how many people will be coming (hopefully all of us - heh heh) on the trip, and of course, which trip we prefer. If you are interested in this, please leave a comment below BY FRIDAY, JUNE 13 and let me know which event you prefer.

Likely to be equally stimulating (albeit in a very different way) than a trip to Good Vibrations is the Feminism & Gender Meet-Up on Day Two (July 19) of the conference. This will take place from 2:30-3:10, and be led by yours truly. We have 40 minutes to discuss whatever we want to about feminism, gender, and blogging. That's plenty of time to get everything we have to say off our chests, right? Sure... Personally, I'm interested in talking about how feminism plays out across culture and class. However, to quote Elisa Camahort, "whoever shows up can determine what you all want to talk about: From feedback on where you want BlogHer's coverage of your favorite topic to go next to plotting how your flock can achieve world domination." So if there's anything on the topic that you're thinking about (and I know you are), please come!

That does it for my (mostly) non-ranting post. Hope to hear from you ASAP! Goodness knows, most of us could use more fun feminist events in our lives.

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Rants (CUSS) & Other Rants, about yogurt and pudding at Live Active Cultures, and about creating positive social change at Just Cause.

Shocking News: Prosperity and Peace Linked to Women's Equality and Freedom!

2008-06-05T11:10:47-05:00

The excellent economists at Vox, a site featuring research-based (which, I point out, is unfortunately rare when discussing gender; most "research" turns out to be opinion and stereotype-based, but I digress) policy analysis and commentary from leading economists, concluded the obvious but rarely discussed: that nations with better gender equality are wealthier than those in which women suffer from substantial discrimination. Given this reality, authors Matthias Doepke and Michèle Tertilt propose "an explanation for the relationship between economic development and female empowerment that emphasises [sic] changes in the incentives males face rather than shifts in moral sentiment." This is very exciting because as we have seen time and time again, attempting to brow beat people into changing their culture is very ineffective when it comes to improving living standards for girls in women anywhere, including the United States.

In brief, the authors argue that men should get behind the empowerment of women because:

Husbands don’t gain directly from their wives having more bargaining power, so ideally men would prefer their own wives to have no rights. But since boosting women’s bargaining power increases human-capital investment in children, men might gain from other women having rights in two ways. First, men are altruistic towards their own children, some of which are daughters. Since men want their daughters to be treated well by their sons-in-law and they want their grandchildren to be well educated, men have a motivation to improve their daughters’ bargaining position. Second, a father prefers his children to find high-quality mates, and therefore stands to gain from building the human capital of his future children-in-law through their mothers.

I'm not entirely convinced that all fathers care if their daughters are treated well by their husbands, but I'm willing to overlook that point and go on. (Nattavudh Powdthavee at tomyum thinktank cites research that men with daughters are more likely to vote liberal than men without daughters so that he can help provide them with a better world, so that seems to back up Doepke and Tertilt's claim with research-based analysis, rather than my suspicions based on anecdotal evidence...)

Our theory suggests that the historical advance of women’s rights in the West wasn’t due to a sudden enlightenment of mankind after millennia of patriarchy. Rather, it was driven by old-fashioned self-interest deriving from men’s concern about their daughters’ welfare and their descendants’ education.5 But lest we lose faith in mankind, there is an upside. If our theory is correct, it implies that men in today’s developing countries can be given a stake in women’s rights. Ultimately, inducing developing countries to improve women’s rights on their own accord may be a more promising strategy than trying to impose gender equality from the outside.

The authors sum up by recommending that governments create incentives for families to educate their children. This "can change men’s attitudes toward female empowerment, helping to create a broader coalition in favour of expanding women’s rights." Welllll.... OK. It's hard to argue against more education for children, but this seems rather bland as a policy recommendation to increase women's equality.

Another fascinating piece of research-based analysis that demonstrates the important of women's freedom is Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence by Dale Peterson and Richard Wrangham. I learned about this book at a hipster Memorial Day BBQ, of all places (don't ask me what I was doing there) on the roof of a warehouse converted into lofts in Brooklyn. (This was certainly the last place I expected to engage in a conversation about feminism and women's rights, but again, it goes to show that stereotypes are not effective gauges for most things.) The woman who told me about the book explained that, after studying several simian societies, the author found that the least violent societies are the ones that impose the least control over female sexuality. Plus - and this is key - the females stick together instead of competing for males, partly because their sexuality is not dominated by men. Sarah at The Napping House summarizes the findings:

Bonobos - now here's the interesting group. Bonobos have no "relationship violence", as a general rule. There is no rape, as a general rule, no infanticide. These apes are not a "nice" species, there is nothing that can be seen in their genetic makeup that makes them more peaceful. What makes them more peaceful? The females.

Female bonobos have the power. If a male attacks a female, he does not just have her to deal with - he has to fight off all of her supporters also. Female bonobos spend a lot of time and effort building up a support network. When a female is in danger, her friends come to her aid physically and emotionally. They support her with hoots and howls when she's fighting well and support her physically if she's being beaten. Rape is not allowed - the male would be beaten down.

Both of these studies demonstrating that the world is a much better place when we stop discriminating against, controlling, and abasing women are totally fascinating, but also something we all knew in our collective feminist gut, right? Still, it is very nice to have research-based analysis to back us up. Now let's put it into practice. I hate to wait until I am reincarnated as a female bonobo to live among a civilized species...

Suzanne also blogs at life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants, about yogurt at Live Active Cultures, and about creating positive social change at Just Cause.

What Do Women Want? (Tell Them so Someone Finally Gets a Clue!)

2008-06-01T19:25:00-05:00

The Boston Consulting Group wants to know What Women Want. When I heard about this survey from BlogHer Elise Bauer, I initially chuckled sardonically. "Wow, I hope that these people know what they are in for," I thought. While it would be nice if women all wanted the same thing, I guarantee if you ask five women what they want you will get at least 15 different answers. Women. You know, we're sort of a diverse group of people and all. Since the goal of the survey is "...creating a comprehensive understanding of the needs of women worldwide," I think it is a good idea to answer the survey to remind people that we are not all white, upper-middle-class, highly educated creatures (or stupid bimbos) who want to be rich, thin, and married (to a handsome man); stay at home with our kids (or go to work) in stiletto heels and mini skirts; and if we have to repair something, we'll only use a pink tool kit. It seems that's the only way we are portrayed in the media and marketed to.

So what do women want? As we are well aware, bloggers offer a lot of different answers. Paola at Live from Planet Paola took the survey and noted:

Today I spent some time answering a thoughtful survey by BCG authors Michael Silverstein and Kate Sayre. I say “thoughtful” because, in spite of the odd question or two about your cooking skills, it moves beyond the traditional questions on respondents’ consumption preferences and patterns and tries to link women’s behaviors as consumers to their values, beliefs and priorities in life... Somehow I think that a better world does not necessarily have much to do with whether the products we buy are designed for our hope and happiness. For a truly better world, we need a different kind of societal change.

Ms. Single Mama believes that the #1 thing women want (from men, anyway) is empathy. (Check out her post for 19 more desires.) Clara Hardie at Think Girl compiled a list from a Mother's Day workshop, in which, among other things, women said they want:

* For my girls not to have kids until they are prepared financially
* To find my own voice
* Raise my children to have strong minds, healthy bodies, kind hearts and rich souls
* To find work that is bone-deep satisfying
* Bring attention to the value of women in the church
* Catch thieves who come into the house
* Finish my degree
* Start a bake sale and maybe a bakery one day
* Stop feeling sorry for myself; go out and make things happen
* Be a helpful neighbor
* Children work out their problems by talking, not fighting or shooting
* Kids and adults come together to stop violence
* More jobs in our community
* Our leaders unite and set a great example
* Drugs off the streets
* To become a teacher
* People have higher expectations of women

Odd, none of these women seem to want things along the lines of the hidden desires a mind-reading Mel Gibson ferreted out of women in the film What Women Want. (Although I confess that when the movie came out eight years ago, I found it sort of funny.) Perhaps because this is a more diverse cast of women than the typically ones included in Hollywood and media-generated fairy tales?

Personally, I want three main things:

1. Respect. I have a lot of opinions and ideas. As I get older, these concepts are increasingly informed by learning and experience. I want to be heard, and more important, taken seriously. I want to be trusted that I have a value system and I can make decisions for myself based on those values.

2. A meaningful and personally fulfilling professional life. I spent 10 years working on community development and child care policy, and while it was meaningful, it also left me burned out. I am one of very few women fortunate enough to be able to take some time from paid work and explore what else I might like to do, and in the past two years, I discovered that I loved writing. (As a subset of this, I'd like to be a better writer and for people to laugh at my jokes, but that's another story.) If there is a way to combine my two interests (writing and do-gooding), I feel like I would be more personally satisfied. Yet we don't really live in a society that lets people engage in decent part-time work.

3. To be surrounded by friends and family. I could have all the respect and job satisfaction in the world, but I would be extremely lonely if not for my friends and family. I need them to be part of my life. I need to give love back and be part of other people's lives. That's not something that anyone can sell me.

What do you want? In addition to taking the survey, blog about what you want and leave a link in the comments.

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and creating positive social change at Just Cause.

Podcast: BlogHer talks to Calpernia Addams

2008-05-29T05:45:40-05:00

On May 21, I interviewed actress, author, and activist Calpernia Addams about body image, gender, and sexuality for BlogHer. Ms. Addams runs Deep Stealth Productions, Inc., with business partner Andrea James, producing media with an awareness of the truth and value of trans people's contributions to society. (For more background, her hilariously informative YouTube video, "Bad Questions to Ask a Transsexual: The Director's Cut," is a must-see. The interview was thought-provoking and fun, and will hopefully open more dialog among the BlogHer community about how we think about gender, sexuality, and body image.

Listen to the podcast with this player:

Or, right click this link, BlogHer Podcast with Calpernia Addams, and save it to your computer.

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants, about yogurt at Live Active Cultures, and about creating positive social change at Just Cause.

When Women's Voices Add to the Cacophony, Not the Progress

2008-05-29T00:07:56-05:00

One of my favorite aspects of feminism is that it encourages women to speak out about issues that matter to us and make our ideas, opinions, and thoughts heard. Feminism values women's voices; it understands that, in general, the more discourse happens, the more people can understand one another. However, what happens when some women use their voices to oppress others? Is it ever OK to tell a woman to sit down and shut up?

Two recent incidents made me want to utter the verboten phrase. On one end of the spectrum, we have Michelle Malkin, rallying the world against Rachael Ray's scarf in a Dunkin' Donuts commercial. On the other, we have Belgian Malika El Aroud, using her words as a weapon in jihad.

The Dunkin' Donuts "controversy" was born on May 23, when Malkin wrote on her blog about Ray's "clueless sporting of a jihadi chic keffiyeh in a recent DD ad campaign. I’m hoping her hate couture choice was spurred more by ignorance than ideology." Overly sensitive right-wing ideologues considered a ban on Dunkin' Donuts (which, thanks to Malkin's blog, I now know supports restrictive immigration policies, which is rather ironic for a franchise business that is often operated by immigrants, but I digress). By May 27th, The Boston Globe reported that Dunkin' Donuts "abruptly canceled" the ad which caused such offense.

On one hand, this whole thing makes me want to laugh. Do we not have anything better to worry about than the scarf worn by a pitchwoman for iced coffee? On the other, the cultural hatred shown in these statements is terrifying. I'll say it: I am a proud supporter of Israel. I believe that it has a right to exist, and that a two state solution must be worked out. But I no more look at a keffiyeh and associate it with terrorism than I view a priest's collar and associate it with the Inquisition; it's the condemnation of an entire people and culture, and it makes no sense. I don't think this is what feminists had in mind when we encouraged women to add their voices to political discourse. The only upside to this type of statement is that it may be drown out in the infamous marketplace of ideas.

The flip side to Malkin is El Aroud. According to an article in The New York Times, El Aroud:

...insists that she does not disseminate instructions on bomb-making and has no intention of taking up arms herself. Rather, she bullies Muslim men to go and fight and rallies women to join the cause.

“It’s not my role to set off bombs — that’s ridiculous,” she said in a rare interview. “I have a weapon. It’s to write. It’s to speak out. That’s my jihad. You can do many things with words. Writing is also a bomb.”

She even reflects the ideals of feminism in defense of her hate speech, saying, "It is important that I am a woman. There are men who don’t want to speak out because they are afraid of getting into trouble. Even when I get into trouble, I speak out." This is the ultimate perversion of the power of women's speech. Feminism was not meant to empower women to so that we can encourage the murder of others.

What scares me about El Aroud's use of speech is that it not only encourages others to eradicate women like me, but it also provides a kernel of justification to women like Malkin. In both cases, I worry that the marketplace of ideas may not even be effective. Other women may add their voices to the discussion, but the followers of women like El Aroud and Malkin chose to be ignorant. Facts are meaningless to them unless they conform with their world view. El Aroud told the Times that, “Women didn’t have problems under the Taliban." Malkin has argued that the interment of the Japanese during WWII was an appropriate response to Pearl Harbor.

Again, if the point of feminism is that women should be heard, how do we encourage women to share their views and experiences when we sometimes disagree with them? Who decides what is appropriate and what should be condemned? How does culture fit into the picture? Gulfs between us appear on all sorts of topics, not just whether a scarf resembles a keffiyeh or someone issues a call to arms. For example, I've vehemently disagreed with other American women on whether abortion should be legal, if I am obligated to vote for Hillary Clinton, and whether Brazilian waxes were some sort of sick manifestation of a return to childhood. Thanks to some of these discussions, I've learned a lot and changed my stance on some issues (although not my personal blog's title). On others, I've wanted to clamp my hands over my ears and tell people to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Other women are saying:

"So, what do you know, there's even a glass ceiling in jihad." - Tracey Clark-Flory on Salon's Broadsheet
"In Sweden the "palestina scarf" as we call it has been a staple of communist, punks, vegans and other alternative kids clothing since the seventies..." - Dabitch on Adland

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants, about yogurt at Live Active Cultures, and about creating positive social change at Just Cause.

C'est Bon? No, Your Gender Marketing and rBGH Yogurts Suck

2008-05-25T08:19:53-05:00

I admit it: I am a yogurt freak. My mother developed osteoporosis at a relatively young age, so I am vigilant about meeting my Recommended Daily Allowance for calcium. At my age, my friends at the National Institute for Health tell me I should be sucking in 1,000 mg per day. Fortunately, I love diary products, and although I could definitely up my intake of the leafy greens, I do OK. (The nutrients from calcium supplements and vitamins, by the way, are not absorbed as well as those from natural foods, so while I take supplements, I don't count on them solely.) The greatest news for me is that yogurt is generally chock full of calcium, so unlike other foods I love (say, cake) it is actually healthy for me.

Not that yogurt advertisers spend much time dwelling on that. Generally, the mass producers of yogurt are encouraging me to eat the creamy good stuff because it will help me lose weight. Another benefit of yogurt that the advertisers like to throw around these days is its special digestive restorative properties. Average Jane sent me a link to a funny and thought-provoking Current TV video by Sarah Haskins about gendered yogurt ads and their target audiences. (Read: me, a white married woman with a master's degree...)

While the point of Sarah's video was that yogurt ads are stupid and insult the intelligence of their target audience (I have always, always hated those damn "c'est bon" commercials from Yoplait that she mocks so delightfully), encouraging women to eat large quantities of standard yogurt is also unsafe because of the presence of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH or rBST) in dairy products. Shirah at Unbossed reports that:

The Nurses Work Group of Health Care Without Harm, announced the release of an rBGH-free Dairy Toolkit in conjunction with National Nurses Week, May 6th – May 12th...

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH or rBST) is an artificial hormone given to dairy cows to increase milk production. “There are growing concerns that the use of rBGH may pose unnecessary risks to human health,” stated Karen A. Ballard, MA, RN, the Nurses Work Group’s Chair. “Precaution is a principle of our profession, so especially when our health is concerned, it is logical to avoid the use of dairy produced with this unnecessary hormone.” The use of rBGH has been banned in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all 27 nations of the European Union.

Breast Cancer Action, my absolute favorite group that works for breast cancer justice, has long discussed the potential cancer risks posed by rBGH. Guess which yogurt company raises money fore breast cancer causes by selling yogurt made with rBGH? That's right - Yoplait! Don't forget, if you eat yogurt to lose weight, you'll want to use the low fat, sugar free version, which is loaded with aspartame, which may or may not also cause cancer. Which yogurt is on the lower end of the scale in terms of supplying calcium? Yep, my friend Yoplait, with only 20% of the RDA for calcium. But don't worry - they add some vitamin D that your body probably won't absorb so that your body has a better chance at using every last milligram of of calcium that it can squeeze out. (For the sake of comparison, Fat Free Stonyfield Farm has 30% of the RDA for calcium and 20% Vitamin D with no pesky traces of rBGH.) If it sounds artificial, it tastes that way, too.

I'm sort of being unfair to Yoplait. For the record, Dannon (makers of the ridiculously promoted Activia gut-fixing yogurt) does not report that their yogurt is free of rBGH, either. It's calcium payload is pretty pathetic, too, at 20% of the RDA. My favorite yogurt, Fage Total Greek Yogurt is the worst in terms of calcium (only 15% - eek!) and makes no promises of dairy that is free from rBGH. (It does have some protein, though.)

Sorry, I'm getting all yogurt geeky here. The point is that yogurt can and should be a woman's partner in a healthy diet. The key is to make sure that the yogurt we eat is actually healthy. (Even non-yogurt lovers like Caroline Leavittville can find a really healthy yogurt to enjoy if you search hard enough and can shell out for a cartoon of quality. I think price is actually the biggest obstacle here because yummy, healthy yogurt can run as much as $2.79 per six ounce serving.) Marketers will do their best to lure us silly women into eating their products because they tell us it will make us skinny, and if we eat a lot of chemicals that cause cancer, that can become frighteningly prophetic. Building strong bones and enjoying a tasty product are cool. Being treated like bimbo idiots and infused with additives are decidedly not.

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants, about yogurt at Live Active Cultures (she is currently obsessed with goat and sheep milk yogurts), and about creating positive social change at Just Cause.

What a Heel: Why I Hate Stilettos

2008-05-22T08:25:36-05:00

While riding the subway to work on Tuesday morning, I drowsily read the latest Entertainment Weekly. I like reading "fluff" on my way to and from work, as it is a gentle transition for my overtaxed brain. As I skimmed a sidebar on the possibilities for this summer's "it" song, my eyes lingered on a photo of 20 year old singer Rihanna. She was looking rather sassy in her tight pants, low-cut black corset-style top with pink polka dots, and stiletto heel platform shoes that seemed to be at least 4 inches high. I sighed loudly, causing two people to look over at me suspiciously. If there is one fashion I hate more than pointy-toed shoes, it is stiletto heels.

When is this woman-hating trend ever going to go away? It probably doesn't help that the new Sex and the City is opening this weekend, which is actually what the entire issue of EW was dedicated to, including Carrie's Manolos. (Trust me, any New Yorker who regularly rides the subway or walks anywhere does not wear stilettos on a daily basis. Even the most talented stilt walker would break an ankle.) I know that flats are sort of in, and thanks to the arrival of spring in the northern hemisphere, flip flops are slapping sidewalks once again. Yet when it comes to sexiness, everyone turns to mile-high heels, health consequences be damned!

The hilarious, brilliant, and (in my mind) stylish Jennifer Ouellette explains the health risks (and a fabulous scientific equation for how high a heel can be before a women topples over) of heels at Cocktail Party Physics:

Stevenson's formula was primarily concerned with balance, but the awkward angles and high pressures associated with heels has been cause for concern in some circles. For years now, orthopaedists, podiatrists and other medical sorts have been warning women about the health risks of routinely donning high heels: bunions, stress fractures, joint pain in the ball of the foot (because weight is shifted to the ball of your foot, rather than being distributed over the entire foot), corns and calluses, hammertoes, ingrown toenails, toenail fungus, and something called "pump bumps" (enlargement of the bony area on the back of the heel). High heels have been linked to injured leg muscles, lower back pain, and osteoarthritis in the knee, too, because when you wear heels, the foot slides forward, redistributes your weight and creates those unnatural pressure points. You can pretty much kiss healthy spinal alignment goodbye.

High heels also mean your heel bones don't regularly come into contact with the ground, so the Achilles tendon can't stretch out properly while walking, and thus becomes shortened and/or tightened. Then there's a little thing called Morton's neuroma, a growth of nerve tissue in the foot -- usually between the third and fourth toes -- that arises when you wear too-tight shoes, causing sharp burning pain in the ball of your foot and a stinging or numbness in your toes. The list goes on and on. In fact, thanks to high heels, the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society estimates that women account for 90% of surgeries performed each year for common foot ailments. That's about $3.5 billion annually in the US alone, according to this May 2007 article in the Washington Post.

Ouch! Yes, I understand that beauty often comes at the price of comfort and sometimes even health. (That's why I am a Dansko clog wearing slob.) And, yes, before you say, "You can have my stilettos when you pry them off my cold dead feet," I acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with women wanting to look or feel sexy. Shelly at Sista So Fine recently took stock and decided:

After a careful inventory of my closet, I have come to the conclusion that all of my shoes are less than sexy. Cute, yes. Sassy, most assuredly. But sexy... hell to the naw! Will a pair of iridescent pearl gladiator stilettos from Jimmy Choo do the trick? Let's strap in and find out. ($750)

Now, I sort of gasped when I got a gander of the shoes that Shelly chose to vamp up her shoe wardrobe. (Part of it was due to the price, but the other part was the fact that these shoes look to me like serious torture devices in more ways than one.) And I wonder if it is not only the height and form that stilettos lend women that makes them sexy, but the fact that the wearer is sacrificing her comfort to look good. But why is pain - especially female pain - sexy in the first place? Does anyone ever look at a woman teetering (or even gracefully gliding) around and think, "Wow, those shoes are hot, and I bet they feel great?"

At any rate, whether women chose to wear high heels or not, it is our prerogative as adults to make these decisions. However, more and more often, I see young girls wandering around in heels that are not age-appropriate. As usual, the trend is set by celebrities. When I was a wee lass emulating my favorite stars, I don't remember Debbie Gibson or Tiffany wearing shoes that would give me nose bleeds. (Of course, this is possibly because I'm so old that I don't accurately remember what they were wearing.) Now, we have Beyonce designing pimps-and-hos style for the kiddies, including high heels for the preschool set. As Cassy Fiano wrote on Wizbang noted:

It's sad that little girls aren't allowed to be little girls anymore. I mean, jeez, I would SO have been the odd kid out if I was growing up today. Check out my sexy style as a kid:
Tucked-in t-shirt. Knee-length shorts. Tennis shoes. Maybe the outfit's a little dorky (OK, a lot dorky), but I'd take that over an eight-year-old slut any day.

If women are going to ruin our bodies with sexy shoes and clothes, let's at least wait until we are old enough to understand what we are doing and why. Personally, I'll be skipping the ladies in the Sex and the City flick this weekend in favor of Cate Blanchett's bad ass villain in the new Indiana Jones movie. Her character's boots appear to be flat, and they are sexy as hell.

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and about creating positive social change at Just Cause.

Good Vibrations, or Buzzing with Joy at BlogHer in July

2008-05-18T06:03:47-05:00

In preparing to head out to San Francisco for the BlogHer Conference, I ran through my mental list of favorite things to do in the Bay Area. Of course, stopping by the feminist sex shop Good Vibrations is always a must. (Not only a sex-positive shop that supports the spectrum of gender identities, Good Vibrations is also a co-operative!) The last time I was there, they has an awesome little vibrator museum in the store. Looking at the various apparatuses and comparing them to current vibrator design was a kick (dare I say thrill?), and it also spoke to the history of women's sexuality in the US. These days, we may be living in hypersexualized-yet-puritanical times in which women are both encouraged to flaunt their sexuality and also punished for being sexual, but this was not always the case - at least in regards to women's self-pleasure.

While I was browsing through Sexy Funky Fun, I came across a reprinted review of Passion and Power: The Technology of Orgasm. The review is by Janice Formichetta and originally appeared on Feminist Review:

Passion and Power: The Technology of Orgasm is a documentary from award winning filmmakers Wandy [sic] Slick and Emiko Omori. Based on a best-selling book by Rachel Maines, The Technology of Orgasm: “Hysteria,” the Vibrator, and Women’s Sexual Satisfaction, the film provides a comprehensive look at the history of the vibrator and societal views of the female orgasm, beginning as far back as Copernicus. Unashamed, humorous, and admittedly feminist, the film explores all aspects of the vibrator and - to use a term coined by Betty Dodson, who is highlighted in the film — the liberation of masturbation.

Passion and Power is an empowering perspective of female sexuality and is a must see for any woman, regardless of their indulgence in battery-powered instruments. Hilarious as well as educational, the film is a crash course in the female orgasm and includes "fun facts" from Maines' book. For instance, did you know the first vibrators in the United States, originally used by physicians, were as big as a dining room table? Or that between the beginning of the 1900s and the mid-1920s there was no stigma or shame associated with using or purchasing a vibrator, and they were sold in such respectable magazines as Sears Roebuck? And, at the time of filming, Texas law stated that it was illegal to own more than 5 items that may be used for sexual gratification? Any more than 5 would suggest intent to sell such items, which was also illegal.

Fascinating as it may be (and I find this utterly transfixing), those in the market for vibrators who won't be making it to the blogger conference (and for those of you who will, I am suddenly thinking maybe we need to arrange an organized field trip to the Mission... who's in?), there are some other excellent feminist sources on the web that highlight the latest in self-love technology. One site that I particularly like is Daily Bedpost. Written by the infamous Em & Lo, plus my soon-to-be new gynecologist (how can I not go to a gyny who writes on a feminist sex blog and advised Glamour magazine readers that Brazilian waxes are not always a great idea? This is a woman of my own heart...) have links to an adorable beaver vibrator wearing tighty-whities as well as more sophisticated and sensual models, plus advice on how to choose the one that's right for you! Not only do the ladies bring you the latest 411 on love toys, but their blog is chock full of other information and advice. (As good as it is, it was probably unwise of me to look at it while I was at work. Oh well.)

Now, as you're reading this blog post, are you thinking to yourself, "Yes, I agree that women should enjoy masturbating, but this is official proof that Suzanne is an utter lunatic - I would never go on a group vibrator-buying trip! How embarrassing!!!" OK, I admit that when I say "as you're reading this post," I actually meant me, because in person, these topics totally make me blush. BlogHers are such a cool group of women that of course we all own vibrators and talk freely about getting ourselves off. Right? Well, not always. Fun with Feminism says no more:

Of all of the things my friends and I talk about, masturbation is still one of the more taboo topics. We are all confident women, why do we still feel some sort of need to seem non-sexual? Why does admitting to owning a vibrator (or looking at porn, or talking about masturbating) make us feel ashamed and embarrassed? As one of my pals said recently, "I would rather talk about anal sex with my girlfriends than about masturbation." Why?...

Time for us to take action! Start admitting to your friends that you own a vibrator and you use it, whether you are single or in a relationship. If you don't have one, think about getting one! Don't be embarrassed, there is nothing to be ashamed of! It's harmless and fun! If you're not sure where to start, check out the Babeland Blog. They have all sorts of testimonials and reviews, and there is nothing creepy about the site. It's cute!

So next time you feel weird about masturbating, or owning a vibrator, or liking porn, or whatever other solo sexual activities you might feel hung up on, stop yourself. There is no reason to feel weird. You should feel good about yourself! Say it loud, "I have a vibrator and I'm proud"!

I am so down with this idea. In the past, BlogHer has had little ice breakers at their conferences, like taking pictures of people's shoes or their busts. This year, why not get your roommate to pose with her vibrator? Or, if she doesn't bring it with her because the TSA is full of nosy bastards and while one may be loud and proud of her vibrator, no wants it flung around the security check point at JFK, maybe we can just ask what kind of vibrators our fellow conference attendees prefer. And, I'm now officially 100% serious about the group trip to Good Vibrations. If anyone is coming in on Thursday afternoon and wants to go, say so in the comments. If we gather enough of a group, maybe I can pre-arrange for a class on vibrators and dildos or a tour of the museum or something along those lines.

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch, about yogurt at Live Active Cultures, and about creating positive social change at Just Cause.

Call for Questions - Podcast Conversation with Calpernia Addams!

2008-05-16T13:38:31-05:00

In the next two weeks, it will be my honor to talk to actress, author, and activist Calpernia Addams for an upcoming podcast! Please submit your questions, comments, and thoughts to guide the interview in the comments section.

Born genitally male, Ms. Addams served for four years as a field medical combat specialist (HM 8404) in the Navy and with the Marines during the first Gulf War. Upon her return as a decorated war veteran, set out to become one of the top showgirls in Tennessee. During one of her popular performances at a nightclub in Nashville, Calpernia met Pfc. Barry Winchell. Winchell was one of those exceptional human beings who truly loved a person for who she is, not what her physical manifestation dictates. According to an an article in The New York Times:

They fell into an easy affair. Winchell brought almost no philosophy or gender theory to this relationship. He considered his girlfriend to be a woman, yet considered himself gay for sleeping with her, friends of Winchell's say. ''He wasn't really torn or tortured about those things, and once he felt comfortable with me, our sexuality together was very easy,'' Addams says. Addams would introduce him as heterosexual, but he would always correct her, saying, ''It's O.K.''

''They were very attached to each other,'' says Mike McCoy, a friend of both from local gay bars. ''Wherever he was, you wouldn't find her too far behind. Just like an ordinary couple would be.''

Tragically, several other soldiers at Ft. Campbell were not able to accept Winchell's relationship with Addams. He was severely harassed for being gay, and eventually brutally beaten to death with a baseball bat while he slept one night. It happened to be the same night that Calpernia Addams won the Tennessee Entertainer of the Year Contest, "taking on the outsize personalities of drag queens, transvestites, transsexuals and transgendered stage legends from across the state," as the New York Times described it. The aftermath of the murder drew a spotlight on Pres. Clinton's problematic "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military, although Addam's female gender did not fit a traditional model for a homosexual relationship. The story was dramatized in the Showtime movie Soldier's Girl.

Today, Calpernia works as an actress, author, and activist. She runs Deep Stealth Productions, Inc., with business partner Andrea James, producing media with an awareness of the truth and value of trans people's contributions to society. For more background, her hilariously informative YouTube video, "Bad Questions to Ask a Transsexual: The Director's Cut," is a must-see. Christine Burns at Just Plain Sense posted a podcast with Calpernia in April when she was in London promoting her short film, Casting Pearls Bianca James at School for Scandal has a great review/recap of Calpernia reality dating competition show, Transamerican Love Story, and an interview with Shawn, who won.

Please submit your questions, comments, and thoughts for the interview in the comments below! The more input from the BlogHer community, the better the interview!

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants, about yogurt at Live Active Cultures, and about creating positive social change at Just Cause.