Miley Cirus and teen hypersexualization

When I first saw the photo of Miley Cirus (age 15) in a silk sheet circulating around the Internet, I wasn't sure what to think. As it turns out, millions of teenage girls in the country must have been just as puzzled as I was. While we hear messages from politicians telling us that being sexual is 'bad' and that abstinence is the only way to go, the media's capitalizing on bare skin and shock value is sending our young culture some very mixed signals.

Jessica from Feministing.com comments on what she calls the Stockholm Syndrome in Media. The media's portrayal of young women as sexual objects, Jessica believes, acts like a subtle version of verbal and physical harassment and is always present in the background. Subconsciously, girls absorb these messages and try to weigh them against the voices that are telling them (in their schools) that acting/dressing sexy and being interested in sex before marriage is bad. 

The real message, according to Jessica: girls shouldn't want to be powerful. The result: serious barriers between us and full equality.

Pay Equity

Senate democrats tried to overturn the recent supreme court ruling regarding pay equity. A woman working for goodyear found out she was making at least $6,000 less than the lowest paid male doing work equal to her. She sewed the company and won, but lost the appeal at the supreme court because she did not take action within six months of hte discrimination. But, she never knew it was going on, so how could she take action? Goodyear managers were forbidden from discussing pay.

Senate democrats' bill would give the employee 6 months after each paycheck to take action, instead of 6 months from the time of discrimination. Ted Kennedy gave a great speech about the measure, shaming the supreme court for ignoring civil rights and siding with discrimination. Republicans are against it because they think it would encourage law suits. I think they're against it because they don't support pay equity.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89886016

FLDSA mothers and children separated in Texas

The Times posted an article from the AP about the latest update on the FLDSA compound in Texas. Texas officials raided the Yearning for Zion compound in Eldorado on April 3rd. The compound is owned by an unrecognized faction of the Mormon Church, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The raid came after officials received an anonymous call from a woman claiming to be a 16 year old girl from the compound who was being physically and seuxally abused by her husband. While authorities have still not identified the caller they did remove all the children from the compound and place them in temporary facilities. The sate separated mothers from their children last week except in the cases of children 5 or under. Today, however, the mothers were told that any child over 1 years old would be removed to Child Protective Custody and placed in the foster care system until individual custody cases could be heard. The women had also been removed from the ranch and were given a choice to go back or go to a "safe" location. More than 400 children in total had been removed from the compound.

The Times article followed the analysis of many other media sources I have heard covering the raid on this compound. Instead of offering a full analysis of the situation, the author conflated women and children to the same status and removed much of the women's agency. The article did not report the number of women or children speaking in favor of the compound or possible scenarios besides the claims of abuse and brain washing. While the women and children appear to have lived in a limited sphere of agency, this article and others like it, only serves to victimize them further and not allow them to assess their own choices and situation. The raid also did not lead to men leaving the compound to stay with their children, but focused only on women and children. This ignores the possibility that any of the adults could have been involved in the abuse and assumes the guilt of the men alone. While the situation seems very tragic, I wish the Times had offered more comprehensive analysis and multiple understandings of the scenario.

Republicans Block Vote on Fair Pay

Both the New York Times and the Feminist Daily News posted stories on Senate Republicans' filibuster of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. With a vote of 56-42, the Senate did not reach the 60 votes needed to override the filibuste. The legislation would overturn last summer's Supreme Court ruling in Lebdbetter v. Goodyear Tire Company which made it harder for women workers to sue for wage discrimination. Shortly before retiring after working at Goodyear for more than 20 years, Ledbetter found out that she had persistently been paid less than her male coworkers throughout her career; at some points she made 40% less than an equivalent male employee. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that Ledbetter could not sue for discrimination because she had not filed her claim within 180 days of the discriminatory act.

The Times spoke about the political aspects of today's vote, noting that the Democrats waited until the last moment in order to try and gain more Republican votes. Both articles also wrote about the return of the two democratic presidential nominees to vote in favor of the bill and Senator McCain's absence from the vote, but his statement against the act. The Feminist Daily News highlighted Ledbetter's presence in the Senate chamber, as well as the lobbying of a numerous women's groups. The Times also wrote about Ledbetter including a quote from her and noting that the wage discrimination did not end when she retired as her pay rate affects her pension and social security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/washington/24cong.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=10960

Women Superdelegates

The AP published an article by Laurie Kellman last Friday about female super-delegates' struggle in endorsing Barack Obama without having their "sisterhood" questioned, quite the same way that black Democrats have received criticism for endorsing Hillary Clinton. Many women believe that if Clinton doesn't win the White House this year, no woman will reach this goal in their lifetime (although it seems that this belief faces a bit of a generational divide, with younger female voters more eagerly and less guiltily voicing their support for the youthful Senator Obama). Some super-delegates fear the possibility of losing their seats over these endorsements. As Ellen R. Malcolm, founder of EMILY's list, states, "They feel that they elected the women and have gone to bat for them, so they want every single woman [super-delegate] to vote for the woman candidate." In the midst of such strong sentiments, some female delegates have decided to remain neutral until a clear winner emerges; Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick of Michigan, who is black and a woman, is one such delegate. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California is another.

In the absence of major differences between the two Democratic contestants, race and gender loyalty can become pivotal factors. Former lawmaker Pat Schroeder points to the media's portrayal of Hillary Clinton as a sort of "female legend." "There's a feeling, you know, of sisterhood," she explains. "There's really a general consensus that Clinton's gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to the media, and you have women knowing all along that women have had a tough go in politics." 

Defining "women's issues"

Women's eNews published an article last Friday compiling a list of issues that women have been paying particular attention to this election. The list was based on reader correspondence, and helps to outline some of the main issues women are interested in hearing more about (Keep in mind that 60% of voters in the 2004 election were women!):

1. Reproductive rights

• Federal insurance for birth control

• Comprehensive sexual education/condoms available at public school infirmaries

• Funds for abstinence-free education

• Federal law guaranteeing a woman's right to choose

2. Cervical cancer prevention

• Federal law requiring the immunization of girls with HPV vaccine

• Funding for HPV vaccine

3. Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

• Finally get bill ratified?

• Madison stratey (3 more states) or Maloney (would begin process all over again)

4. CEDAW treaty

• Would eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. Ratified by 180 countries except for the U.S. 

5. Social Security

• Women more dependent on social security because live longer than men

• Prevent privatization of Social Security Trust Fund

• Increase tax cap above $97,500

6. Taxes

• Second-earner bias in tax code injected in 1948 discourages women from employment

7. Welfare Assistance

• Opposition to continuing Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, because of 40-hour work requirement component. A disaster for poor women

• Increase income assistance for women and their dependents

• Increase funding for food stamp program

8. Violence Against Women Act

• Funding cuts proposed by President Bush, by roughly 1/3 in 2009

• Victim assistance grants reduced by 40% since 2006

9. Breast Cancer

• 40,000 women die of breast cancer annually

• Research funds $700 million each year; must be increased

10. Rape

• Every 2 minutes, a sexual assault takes place in America. 1/6 women will be assaulted in her lifetime

• Only 6% of rapists get jail sentence. Need better victims' rights, unbiased police work, consistent prosecution, higher conviction rates, help for survivors

11. Immigration and deportation

• Last year, over 870,000 undocumented immigrants, many of who had children living in the U.S., were deported. Support for immigrant law reforms to stop breaking apart families

• Department of Homeland Security must issue visas to immigrant women who were battered and abused by their spouses

12. Equal pay

• Women earn 77 cents to each man's dollar for equal work

• Support Paycheck Fairness Act, stepping up federal enforcement of equal-pay mandates

Early First Ladies

Cokie Roberts wrote a book about the early first ladies and their enormous impact on American political history. She jokes about how they all would have done a better job as president than their husbands did. Her favorite is Dolly Madison. Candidates running against James Madison claimed that they would have been able to beat him had he not been married to Dolly. During the fire while she was first lady, she saved the portrait of George Washington.

Jon Stewart tried to bring up the issue of how far a first lady's power can go. Even today, there are certain things first ladies can do and certain things that our looked at. He used Hillary Clinton as an example of people thinking she was too active. Roberts responded that she didn't think it was true and the reason she wrote the book was to show the power and contributions of first ladies.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=165753&title=cokie-roberts

Stds and girls

25% of girls have an STD. In the past they have had similar data, but in this survey they grouped the four main STDs together, so the total percentage became higher. The doctor calls for better sex education because he thinks the study shows that teens are not using condoms.

This story specifically addresses the issue of girls vs. boys. The study did not survey boys, though in the past they have.This doctor says that more girls have stds than boys because
girls have sex with older guys, and boys have sex with girls their age. He says this affects transmission. (I don't know if I really agree with this...)

NPR interviewed some teen about the findings and they did not seem surprised. All of them said that they have friends (who are girls) that make poor decisions sexually. But why is it they don't point to the boys who make bad decisions? Is there a double standard in health politics? Also, one student made an interesting point: girls are taught more about the dangers of getting pregnant than STDs.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88140117

Single Mother by War

Over 3,000 children have lost a parent in the Iraq War. NPR profiled a woman who found out her finacee died in a helicopter crash just weeks before she was going to have their son. Now, the boy is six months old and the mother is thinking about how she is going to explain his father's death to him. The story focuses on the politics of the war and how it has affected communities.

In the end, the mother said she would love to know why her fiancee had to die for this war. I got very sad listening to her speak because I realized how many other widows had to raise a child on their own. The personal toll the war takes is always the hardest to deal with.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89573805

Clinton takes a shot of whiskey

Hah- I open CNN's front page to find that there is a video of Senator Clinton having a shot of whiskey, which is known to be a "man's drink." How fascinating that 1:12 was entirely devoted to this act! Is it really worth CNN's and our time?

Female bloggers- an article related to last class' topic

Female Bloggers Make Campaign History Too (4/10/08) by Sheila Gibbons, posted on Women's e-News website.

Interesting points:

• Women consistently express more interest in stories about weather, health and safely, natural disasters, crime and celebrity news

• Men tend to be more interested in international affairs, Washington news and sports

• In five weekly news interest surveys in 2008, 37% of men and 32% of women say they have followed campaign news very closely

• While women continue to show more interest in local and community news - where they comprise 58% of the audience - plenty are also focused in global events

• Women's interest is heightened if key figures were also women (ex: Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination)

• 24% of men and 19% of women say they read political blogs regularly

• Women and men post comments to blogs in similar proportions

• "In many ways the blogosphere is a place where a woman's voice is equal to a man's. A Google search doesn't discriminate between a blog by Catherine or by Joe" - Catherine Morgan

• Women have generally expressed less interest in politics and don't run for office as often as men do

• But there is a paradox: there is a high correlation between education and political literacy and interest in politics, and women have outnumbered men as college students for quite a while. Women are also more likely to be political science majors than men. And women vote more than men! So is there a gap in our understanding of women and political engagement?

• The author suggests that, to close this gap, perhaps women should continue to expand their media choices beyond the traditional attachment to network TV programming. Her solution therefore is not looking to the media to create change but for the women themselves to make that change by becoming a part of the blogging world.

This article was a good recap of what we read last week, with an interesting conclusion about the significance and potential of the so-called blogosphere.

TV ads and the FCC

I was checking out feministing.com's website today, and was struck to see that Carl's Jr., the fast food chain, has put out another provocative ad displaying a woman gyrating on an electric bull while seductively eating a hamburger. I thought that the outrage at the Paris Hilton ad, which came out in 2005, would have either forced the company to revise its campaign strategy, or would have prompted the FCC to request that it be pulled off the air. "Edgy" and "tasteless" is how this article by FoxNews.com described the Hilton ad back in 2006. Unfortunately, it seems that commercials continue to escape regulation. The Parents Television Council has been fighting to keep ads such as Carl's Jr.'s off of primetime television; "This is the ultimate example of corporate irresponsibility," the Council is quoted as saying. According to the FCC, "indecent" or "profane" programming is illegal between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm, when there is a reasonable chance that children are watching. This leaves me to wonder: where does one draw the line? What is considered "profane" and "indecent," and who decides? Carl's Jr. seems to have its own opinion on what it broadcasts, stating that, "[the ad] was designed to be racy, but we don't consider it pornographic. Let's not be too serious about our hamburgers, shall we?" To which I must respond, it's not the hamburgers I'm worried about.

Go cry about it

Ok, this post is just to vent some cynicism. Curious to see how the media had reporter President Bush's tearing up during the ceremony on Tuesday in which he presented Navy Seal Petty Officer Michael Monsoor with a posthumous medal, I googled the keywords "bush tears up." Here at the top hits:

1. A video clip of the President shedding a tear, with no commentary

2. An AOL video clip, again, with no commentary

3. A HuffingtonPost post entitled, "Bush Tears Up: US Should Have Bombed Auschwitz" (are you feeling the testosterone yet?). The article was actually about the January memorial of the Hollocaust, which took place in Jerusalem's Holocaust memorial. One reader kindly comments, "Pulling a Hillary won't save your presidency."

4. The next couple of links take you to an uncommented photograph of President Bush in tears

5. Ah-hah! Here we are: finally, Google hits back with some videos of Hillary (mind you, her name was not in my search). The first: a YouTube video entitled "Hillary Tears up on Campaign Trail.

6. Followed with an article from The Swamp: "Hillary Clinton Cries in Connecticut." Cries? Oh please. Contrast video at #5 with photo at #4 and tell me that Clinton's emotions were not blown out of proportion.

I realize I'm probably making a bigger deal out of this than necessary...but it just irks me. Why MUST they attack Hillary for a crack in her voice ('women are too emotional') while silently praising Bush for his compassion? At the same time, Hillary is considered to be a cold-hearted, insensitive bitch. How must a woman portray herself in order to be both feminine and taken seriously?

"Clinton's Persistence Could Help Obama"

Following up on Karina's report about democratic leaders pressuring Senator Clinton to drop out of the presidential race, I found this story in the New York Times saying her persistence may help the democratic party in the long run: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/us/politics/02web-seelye.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin. The article mentions the many critics of Clinton's campaign but continues on to analyze its potential benefits. Clinton has largely responded to attacks on her campaign with cries of voter disenfranchisement. These calls have garnered her a lot of support from Democrats, especially those in the upcoming primary states, who usually have no voice in the primary race. Some think this increase in voter turnout and support could continue into the November election helping either Clinton or Senator Obama. The article also noted that Clinton and Obama both seem to have turned away from negative attacks on each other. They seem to be focusing on the problems with President Bush and Senator McCain, rather than squabbling over their minor policy differences.

So while Karina is right that many pundits and political leaders have attacked Clinton for continuing her campaign, some media outlets are offering alternative views as well. However, while this article did not focus on the pitfalls of Clinton's campaign, it did not paint her in a completely positive light either. The media still seems to be offering more favorable coverage for Obama and scattering even its supportive articles for Clinton with subtle or not-so-subtle bits of criticism.

"Too much democracy is killing democratic party"

Important democratic party leaders are publicly telling Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race. Dean, Dodd, Leahy and all sorts of pundits are saying she should drop out by all different dates. Some say May, others June or July. The interesting part about this is that the media is portraying her as "tearing" apart the democratic party. It's not her fault that this is such a tight election. Why should she drop out because it's close?

Why is there so much pressure for Clinton to drop out when Obama hasn't won the number of delegates needed yet? Even Obama has said that she can stay in the race as long as she wants. So, why are so many people in the media nad politicians asking her to leave? If it were the other way around, and Obama were behind Clinton, would everyone be asking him to drop out "for the sake of the party"? I don't think so.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=165227&title=hillary-drop-out

Ethics statement misinterpreted

The Ob-Gyn board released a statement that said doctors who are against conducting abortions must refer patients to another doctor who will. Doctors who do not refer patients risk losing their certifications. Pro-life Ob-Gyns are against this because they are morally opposed to abortions. Now, the board is saying that everyone misinterpreted its statement. The director says that doctors who are pro-life will not have their certification revoked if they refuse to refer their patients to another doctor. The Bush administration did not agree with the original ethics statement. Also, the secretary of health does not believe that doctors should be obligated to provide contraceptive to patients, which was also part of the ethics statement.

If you are morally opposed to abortions, why would you become and Ob-Gyn? Abortion surgeries and referals are part of their job. Doctors are supposed to serve their patients in the best way they can. Their personal bias for or against abortion should have nothing to do with the healthcare they provide.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88650797

Legislation against eating disorders?

Eating disorders such as anorexia disproportionately affect women (90% to 10%), so I consider the Italian government's decision to start a campaign against eating disorders as not just a health but very much a women's issue. The Associated Press published an article on March 25, posted on the San Francisco Chronicle's website, entitled Italy Starts Anti-Anorexia Campaign. The Italian Ministries of Health and Sports are reported to have invested around $1.5 million against the growing epidemic of anorexia and other eating disorders particularly known in this country where high fashion and image consciousness are so elevated. The program recognizes eating disorders as diseases, and will aim schools, dance instructors, swim and gymnastic coaches, and the media, providing guidelines for magazines, television, radio and Internet.  Somewhere I'm glad to see that the media is being held accountable for its contribution to the portrayal of a certain beauty ideal; on the other hand, though, I wonder how effective this campaign will really be. As one user commented on Feministing.com, "it does irk me though how much blame is put on the nameless and faceless 'media.' " The media responds to what sells; in other words, consumers influence the media in this respect as much, if not more so, than the media influences consumers. Are we placing too much responsibility on reporters/editors/photographers and not enough on our own actions?

Outsourcing Surrogacy

On March 10th, the New York Times covered an article about the increasing use of Indian women serving as surrogates for foreign couples. While commercial surrogacy remains illegal in many states and European countries, India legalized the practice in 2002, attracting many infertile foreign couples. The price of surrogacy in India, around US$25,000 is also a lot cheaper than in most Western nations. The Times article highlighted a specific clinic in India which keeps the procedure anonymous, never allowing the surrogate and the parents to meet, and always uses a separate surrogate and egg donor for each case. While the surrogates only get about $7,500 of the $25,000-$30,000 paid by the couple, this is often more than what many Indian women could make in a year. The lure of money attracts the Indian women while the cheap prices and government support attract foreign couples to seek wombs outside their country of origin.

While this is on a different subject than most of the other women's issues we have covered in this blog, I thought the article provided an interesting perspective on the legally and ethically contentious area of reproductive technology. The article highlighted some of the issues with using surrogates abroad and pointed the vast economic discrepancies that have led to this influx of Indian surrogates. While the Indian women receive a relatively high wage, they have very few rights when carrying another couple's baby. The article spoke about some of the calls for surrogacy reform in India and how these may help all the parties involved. While the idea of outsourcing reproductive processes may seem like a great way for poorer, infertile couples to create a family, it also reinforces global racial and economic hierarchies that place Indian women below the Western mothers and fathers -to-be.

Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/world/asia/10surrogate.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=india%20and%20surrogacy&st=cse&scp=1

Where is feminism at today?

Both the New York Times and Condé Nast's Portfolio.com recently published articles addressing in general terms the state of feminism today. 

1. The first article, written by Kate Zernike and entitled Where Does Society Stand on Gender Matters, is a response to the Eliot Spitzer scandal and Hillary Clinton's campaign. "The politics of the last few months have certainly opened a spigot on the question of where exactly society stands on gender matters," writes Zernike. "Weren't we in what some people have long called a postfeminist era?" In reference to the Spitzer scandal, she observes the fact that men and women's reaction to the scandal were quite different; as a result, "even people who were unwilling to see it before are more likely to acknowledge the pervasiveness of sex stereotypes." The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, has entered the gender minefield (especially after Geraldine Ferraro's comments), which "explains why older women form the core of her support." The two issues are explicitly linked on Slate magazine's female blog (The XX Factor), on which Noreen Malone wrote that, "Oddly enough, it's taken Spitzergate - not Hillary's tears - to make me less dismissive of the feminist 'obligation' to vote for a woman." Unfortunately, in contrast to our beliefs a year ago when Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy, "it has proved harder to move the country beyond stereotypes." Even more important: "Some also argue that the media is not as quick to recognize misogyny as it is to recognize racism. The media is on eggshells about race, bus has blinders on about sex and gender stereotyping." 

2. The second article is entitled Sexism in the Workplace and is written by Harriet Rubin. It documents, in a rather interesting and interactive manner, the differences between men and women in corporate America over the past 30 years. The startoff point: a book published in 1977 by Anne Jardim and her partner Margaret Hennig, entitled The Managerial Woman. Today, 52% of all middle managers are women. "Poof! Sexism in America - gone," write Rubin. "20 or 30 years ago, people thought it could actually work like that: deal with sexism and be done with it." With today's presidential race, the question of gender bias vs. racial bias is stirring things up and making us re-question just how far along we truly are. The article looks at it from a statistical perspective, pointing out key indicators such as women's pay rate, board seats and corporate-officer posts, which have all dropped in recent years. Among the Fortune 500 firms, for example, the number of female officers has declined each year since 2005, resulting in a low of only 14.8% of board seats in these companies being held by women. Still, the popular perception is that "women have it made": a female candidate for the White House, a woman House speaker,...There's nothing to discuss! "I've never had so much trouble getting people to talk to me," writes Rubin. "Nobody really wanted to get into it." Rubin also gets into the issue of power/success vs. femininity, particularly as portrayed in the media; it seems you cannot have one with the other. Case in point: Hillary Clinton's criticism for showing cleavage (which garnered her a 747-word censure by Pulitzer-prize winning, Washington-Post reporter Robin Givhan), followed by her refusal to pose for Vogue (which garnered the dismay of Anna Wintour). 

So where is the feminist movement today? Is this election a good time to look back and reassess how far we've come along- and whether or not we are slipping back? How much does the media play into people's perceptions of the current levels of sexism and the country's sensitivity towards it?

Gender at Women's Colleges

The Sunday Times magazine this week had a cover story about transgender students at women's colleges. The story highlighted a tranman who originally attended Barnard, but transferred to Columbia as well as a transgender student from Wellesley College. The article largely focused on their stories and their struggles at women's colleges. It also looked at how women's colleges are often better situations for gender nonconforming students than co-ed institutions. They pointed out that this does not mean that it is always easy for these students or that all the gender conforming students accept trans students. The author spoke to some students who felt reluctant to allow trans students on campus because they felt it violated their women's college experience. Rey, the student who attended Barnard, experienced many of these sentiments and ultimately had to transfer to Columbia.

I thought that it was interesting and positive that the New York Times wrote such a lengthy article on gender nonconforming students. The unique issues of students falling outside the gender binary are often not addressed on college campuses. I particularly liked that this article focused on women's colleges and some of the debates around accepting transmen at a women's institution. The article also introduced readers to the differences between transgender, transsexual, gender nonconforming, etc. I think that this could increase people's education around this issue and bring shed a different light on gender differences on college campuses.

Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16students-t.html?pagewanted=2

Cal Poly sets up classes in Saudi Arabia

Cal Poly is going to work with a Saudi Arabia University to set up a Cal Poly engineering program in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabia university does not allow women. Therefore, they would not allow women to take cal poly classes there.

Cal Poly is known for recruiting women to its school. Professors, students, and alums are shocked that the school supports women in the US, but is signing a contract with a regime that suppressed women. One professor said it was just for the money and he was ashamed to hear about it. The school is recieving $5.9 million.

The administration views the deal as a way to eventually get Saudi women involved. At first it will be just for men, but they think that in the future it will be opened up to women. The administration is optimistic that the deal will help change Saudi attitudes about women.

I was shocked by this news! If an American school wants to set up a program in another country to try and change the regime, then the way to do that is through its own rules. Cal Poly should not allow the Saudis to reject women from engineering classes. By allowing it, the California school is actually strengthening sexism in the area.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=88251837&m=88251813

Girls and STDs

As Katie mentioned in the previous post, the media has been covering a recent study that finds 1 in 4 teenage girls "infected" by a sexually transmitted disease. The way the issue has been framed, however, leads me to question why the focus has only been placed on girls. True, STDs are more easily detected in women; but using terms like "infected" and failing to bring up the teenage boys' role is making it look as though teenage girls are either particularly promiscuous and to blame for this high STD rate, or that they are vulnerable, naive and unaware of their sexual activities. I was particularly frustrated with an editorial in the New York Times entitled, "One in Four Girls." The articles begins by suggesting that, "Teenage girls and their parents need to read the latest government study of sexually transmitted diseases." My first thought is, what about male teenagers? Don't they need to be aware and involved in preventing the transfer of STDs? After all, they are the other half of the puzzle. I was also upset by the article's last sentence: "Teenage girls...need to understand that a serious infection is but a careless sexual encounter away." Why employ the word 'careless'? STDs can be transmitted in all sorts of situations, even when the girl is careful to educate herself and to know the sexual history of her partner. The responsibility (and judgment) of the act should not be cast solely on girls- teenage boys are just as accountable and should be included in this matter, especially if opinions are going to be cast on awareness and responsibility.

One Quarter of Teenage Girls Have STDs

A new study released by the Centers for Disease control indicates that 1 in four US women ages 14 to 19 are infected with at least one sexually transmitted disease. The CDC checked for the human paillomavirus (HPV), chlamydia, genital herpes and trichomoniasis. The number of infected African American teenage girls is strikingly higher than white girls (50% compared to 20%). Many women do not know they are infected with these diseases which can lead to serious complications, such as cervical cancer or genital warts in the case of HPV.

The New York Times article focused mainly on the methods of the survey as well as prevention and treatment ideas. They also briefly mentioned the connection to abstinence only education through a quote from a Planned Parenthood representative. The Feminist Daily News, however, wrote a shorter story that pressed for changes in abstinence education policies. They criticized the Bush government for their role in promoting abstinence only and had a link to information about the ineffectiveness of these programs.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/science/12std.html?hp
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=10870

Spitzer's Cheating

Why is that when a politician cheats on his wife, he always has the wife stand next to him at his press conference about it? It seems cruel that women not only have to deal with it at personal level, but also in a public forum. Samantha Bee's fake announcement that she cheated on her husband was influenced by Governor Spitzer's press conference yesterday.

It's ridiculous that these men cheat on their entire families and then drag their wives up to the podiums with them. It's like they won't go down alone. The Daily Show skit mocks this logic. Men who cheat should not have the comfort of having thier wives stand by them and walk off the stage hold thier hand.

Think about how this affects the view of women in American society. A wife should not always stand by her husband, especially not on TV while the whole country is witnessing her humiliation. This perpetuates the idea that a man cheating is somehow the woman's fault. As Samantha Bee says, "You should have the hooker up there with him!"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163844&title=shame-parade

Iraqi Women Face Risks Behind the Wheel

When Saddam Hussein was in power, Iraq had one of the highest proportions of women driving in the Middle East. After the American invasion, bad traffic, convoys, and insurgent attacks are keeping women out of the driver's seats. However, one woman continues driving a van full of children to school. She has been doing it for 28 years and is very poopular in her neighborhood.

She does not wear a head scarf, except when she goes to get gas for her car. One time she forgot her head scarf and the men at the station said she better have it next time she came. Her family tells her it is too dangerous not to wear it. Her family also wants to stop driving because of the danger, but she refuses.

Many women who have stopped driving miss the independence and going out. They use to be able to go anywhere, but now they are afraid to leave their house. Insurgents stop women in the street and tell them the Koran forbids women to drive. Sometimes, they hand out leaflets and brochures explaining why women shouldn't be driving. Women are afraid to drive because they might get shot or harrassed while stopped at a red light.

Has the US invasion of Iraq made life worse for Iraqi women?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88091798

The other side of the Spitzer Scandal

Oh how we love the scandals! Over the past two days, the front page headlines on CNN, FoxNews and the NYTimes have not stopped one second in their coverage of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's hiring of a sex worker/prostitute and the resulting pressure for his resignation. Here is how the three news sources covered the story:

1. CNN.com: "Source: Spitzer 'cannot hold on to his job'." The article is framed around the premise that that Spitzer has no choice in resigning, and goes on to project that, following Spitzer's resignation, Lt. Gov. David Paterson "would become the state's first black governor and the 4th in U.S. history." Spitzer has not been charged with a crime, however; the article explains that calls for his resignation, and perhaps impeachment, are centered around "what's right and wrong in moving this government forward." Throughout the article, the sex worker in question is only referred to as "Kristen," a "pretty  and she is quote several times in broken conversation stating that she knew what her purpose for meeting with Spitzer was. At no point does the article invoke the issue of sex rings, or the question of legality/morality in exploiting sex workers; it only accuses Spitzer of being hypocritical in his previous attempts to prosecute prostitution rings.

2. FoxNews.com: "New York Republicans Demand Eliot Spitzer's Resignation With Threat of Impeachment." This article is very similar to the CNN article- detailing Spitzer's activities, the fact that he was caught as "Kristen" crossed state boundaries, and the calls for his resignation. This article does, however, comment on the fact that Spitzer was known as the "Sheriff of Wall Street," named by Time Magazine as "Crusader of the Year," and that he is a "square-jaw graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law" who was "sometimes mentioned as a potential presidential candidate." This reinforces the framing of the story around Spitzer, his character and his position, rather than around the issue of sex rings. It also fails to mention that Gov. David Paterson would be the state's first black governor.

3. NYTimes: "State in Limbo Awaiting Word on Spitzer." The article begins by introducing Gov. David Paterson, who "was in limbo on Tuesday afternoon as he and the rest of the state awaited word on whether Gov. Eliot Spitzer would resign." "No one has talked to me about his resignation and no one has talked to me about a transition," he was quote as saying. The article also details Assemblyman James Tedisco's move to impeach Spitzer if the governor did not step down with 48 hours. On several occasions, the article mentions the fact that Spitzer lives in an apartment on Fifth Avenue, a symbol of wealth in New York. This is the closest hint in all three articles about the significance of wealth in the exploitation of vulnerable sex-workers. 

4. Feministing.com: "Politicians and Prostitutes: the Real Victims of Public Sex Shamings." Blogger 'Samhita' raises the issue that seems to be missing from all the mainstream-media articles: the problem of "hyper-masculinity" that comes out of the aggressive framing of political power, and the fact that, while Spitzer will not get prosecuted, there is a good chance "Kristen" will. "I think it tells a biggesr story of patriarchy, heterosexuality, legalization of sex work and the ethical treatment of sex workers," writes Samhita. While she does not believe that either should be prosecuted (in fact, Samhita seems to believe we should legalize sex work), she does believe this is an opportunity to "talk about the rights and conditions of sex workers." 

My question is, who is 'we', though? The media is certainly not talking about this aspect of the Spitzer scandal, and I'm not sure that they will. As Samhita states, "Spitzer may get a slap n the wrist, but sex workers nation-wide will contiue to be subjected to harsh criminal proceedings, high incarceration rates, drug use, violence, lack of health-care and not protection from violent, retaliatory pimps." Will the media cover "the bigger story of the horrid treatment of sex workers by the criminal justice system"? If it doesn't, who will spark the conversation?

Women's Day has come and gone

March 8 was International Women's Day- and I'm embarrassed to say, I had no idea. But is it really my fault? After all, the media barely even touched on it. So I went around digging today for articles on IWD, and sure enough, I found a mix of relevance and perturbation:

• The Women's Rights Blog very mutedly reported on Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice's speech in Brussels on Thursday at a conference of women leaders entitled, "Women: stabilising an insecure world." The blog highlighted Rice's call for actions over rhetoric, encouraging the education and protection of girls and women.

• The blog provides a link to an article by Sarah Collins, published on The Parliament.com. The article was just as muted as the blog post, simply relating select quotes from Rice's speech and commenting on EU parliament president Hans-Gert Pottering's suggestion to create a special EU envoy for women's rights in international relations. No further information was provided on the feasibility or background of this proposed policy.

• I found another article about the conference, posted on the Daily Star in Lebanon in the form of two "first person" accounts by writers Benita Ferrero-Waldner and Margot Wallstrem. Much more detail was provided, as well as detailed and informative references to the implications of the conference. Ferroro-Waldner and Wallstrem bring up issues of war ("women are often disproportionately affected [by war] due to their traditionally more vulnerable place in society") as well as issues of refugees ("80% of the world's refugees are women and children"), along with issues of sexual violence and rape, climate change and environmental degradation. They lead each paragraph with strong statements, such as "Without education you cannot have social stability," and "We believe the key to a stable world is sustainable development." The article also touches on their opinion of women's roles, stating that, "Women make a difference in part because they adopt a more inclusive approach toward security and address key social and economic issues that would otherwise be ignored." It concludes by listing the key obstacles that still stand in the way of women's contributions: "[Women] remain marginalized in decision-making, peace-building and peacekeeping operations. Under-representation of women in politics still persists worldwide, including European. Only 6% of ministers worldwide and 10% of parliamentarians are women. And we all know that the famous "glass ceiling" is still in place."

• To my dismay, I also found some ghastly commentary against IWD and feminist movements in general, published on the Fox Business website and originally posted on a website entitled "The Eagle Forum," which presents itself as "Leading the Pro-Family Movement since 1972." The article, published on March 7th, referred to IWD as "serving to advance radical feminism in the form of promoting pro-abortion and pro-gay rights legislation, Title IX, government babysitting services and government wage control, commonly camouflaged as 'pay equity' or 'comparable worth.'" It refers to women's groups as "feminist groups," and denounces international women's solidarity by claiming that, "Radical feminists know that they can't complain about American women because we are the most fortunate class of people who ever lived, so they search for oppression in other countries using taxpayer dollars." The article concludes that, "The United States should seriously reconsider lending its stamp of approval to future IWDs."

Elle Magazine - political analyst?

Ok- I don't usually look for political opinions in my beloved fashion magazines, but I was flipping through the January issue of Elle a couple of days ago, and I came across an article that I had initially overlooked- not for lack of interest, but for lack of energy. The article is entitled, "The H-Bomb," written by Katha Pollitt, and addresses exactly the issue I've been talking about over my last couple of posts: the incredible and shocking amount of sexist rhetoric that Hillary Clinton has had to endure since she declared her candidacy for president of the United States. (I've hotlinked the article here).

The article begins by stating out right what the author thinks is on everyone's mind: Hillary presents a threat because she is "an older powerful liberal woman whose power is illegitimate because it is bound up somehow with sex- how else could a woman get power over men, its rightful possessors?" And I agree with her- this seems to be a feeling that men (I can think of examples out of the ones I know) have deep down inside, but would never directly vocalize. Or wait- maybe they would?! It seems Don Imus has- in fact, he did so 11 times in one of his shows. Glenn Beck referred to her as the Antichrist, and Michael Savage called her Hitlerian. Have these people gone mad?? Since when did serious and business-like start to come off as cold and bitchy? And since when are presidential elections run like beauty pageants? Even women have dared cross over onto the misogynistic side: columnist Maureen Dowd compared Hillary to the power-hungry Tony Suprano. And a FoxNews clip I happened to catch a couple of days ago features a couple of female anchors offhandedly commenting to a couple of anchors that they wear skirt-suits rather than pant-suits because they enjoy looking "feminine"... Somewhere in there, an-ever so subtle reference to Hillary was made. On live TV! Have I been living under a rock? Why am I so surprised/offended??

Oh the plus side, I suppose, many women have actually taken these accusations to heart- Pollitt writes that, "I come across one of these sulfurous emanations from the national collective unconsciousness and I want to sit down and write Hillary's campaign a check immediately." I heard this type of response on the NPR show I commented on last week- a right-wing caller told Tom Ashbrook that, after hearing the remarks thrown at Clinton, she decided to vote for her. "Sisterhood is powerful!" adds Pollitt. 

True, sisterhood is powerful- those of us attending Wellesley certainly know this. But is this the way it should be? A nomination based on race and gender? When was the last time that articles (especially in these alternate forms) addressed policy-based aspects of the Democratic race? "Let's show our daughters that they can break the glass ceiling- the greatest of all the glass ceilings we have." Yes- I agree, I would love love love to see a woman in the White House. But this is not, and shouldn't be, the only reason to vote for Hillary Clinton. Or a reason NOT to vote for her. After all, Pollitt keeps reminding us that "women are just as much- well, almost as much- a part of this double standard as men are."

Sadly, Pollitt reminds us that "If she were a man, there would be no doubt she'd win the primary, and the general election, too." Even though we've known this all along, it is SO disheartening to actually see in print.

To leave on a happier note, here's my favorite line of the whole article: "Think of it this way: If all the castrating bitches voted for Satan's daughter, we might actually move the feminist revolution out of the parking lot where it has been sitting, low on gas and with major transmission problems, for the past decade and a half."

Clinton on Daily show

Jon Stewart made a great point to Clinton when he said that he didn't understand why the idea of experience and hope are "mutally exclusive". Why is that? Can't a candidate be both hopeful and experienced. Does the experience kill the hope? Clinton argues that change can't happen without experience.

Has the media been too soft on Obama? Clinton argued it was ridiculous for anyone to ask her to give up when nominations (she cited her husband's as an example) have not been wrapped up until June. So, to tell Clinton she is over when it is only February and the contest is tied, is completely uncalled for. She believes that the media (not just Obama) has played a huge role in this.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163165&title=sen.-hillary-clinton-pt.-1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163166&title=sen.-hillary-clinton-pt.-2

Making History: Clinton Wins Ohio and Texas

"We're going on, we're going strong, and we're going all the way!"--Hillary Clinton

Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas put her back in the media's spotlight. Obama had been dominating the media for the past month and various reporters and journalists had claimed Clinton was finished. These wins will shift the focus back to her and give her the attention she deserves. Now the race is virtually tied again! Clinton was able to get the women's vote and Latino vote in Texas to propel her to victory. The funniest thing is how the media was basically kicking her out of the elections. They said she was finished and that she should drop out if she didn't win Ohio and Texas. Well, she won so maybe now they'll talk about her in a positive way.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87911962

Pregnant Women Working Longer

Both the Feminist Daily News and the NY Times posted articles regarding new census bureau data on pregnant women. These articles found that 67% of pregnant women worked during their pregnancies in 2000, while only 44% did so in 1960. Women are also less likely to quit their jobs after giving birth now than in the 1960s. The Feminist Daily News reports that these changes are likely tied to women's increasingly higher levels of education, as well the increase in average age for women giving birth. They also point to the fact that more and more families are requiring two incomes in order to survive. The Times however attributed the changes mostly to the increasing availability for paid and unpaid maternity leave and better protections for women against job discrimination.

The Times and the Feminist Daily News took slightly different approaches to analyzing this data, even though the Feminist Daily News got the information from the Times. The Times highlighted the better workplace benefits for women, while the Feminist Daily News pointed to the problems families have surviving on one income. The Times article did not recognize that America has one of the worst federal policies toward maternity/parental leave in the world, only requiring companies that employ more than 50 people to offer 12 weeks of unpaid parental leave. While many more companies offer unpaid or paid leave for parents now than they did in the 1960s, women in many companies still are not offered, or cannot afford, to take substantial leaves. While the Feminist Daily News did not directly point to the lack of parental leave in America, it did not highlight better workplace benefits, therefore subtly suggesting that these benefits are not generally family or women friendly. Their article also pointed to the progressive issue of providing a living wage for workers so that parents can spend time with their children and women do not have to work late into their pregnancies.

New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/26census.html?sq=pregnant%20women&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1204646555-9JBTfYzCIPmTc2mY2nrt0Q

Feminist Daily News article:

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswire.asp

NPR covers sexism in Clinton campaign

I was listening to NPR a couple of days ago and heard a perfect follow-up interview to the topic of sexism and the Clinton campaign on the program On Point. The segment, hosted by Tom Ashbrook, was entitled, "Gender and the Clinton Campaign" and can be listen to at www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/02/20080226_a_main.asp. Guests included Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic VP nominee in 1984, and Pat Schroeder, who was considering a presidential run in 1988. Here are some highlight comments from the interviews:

"Is this country not ready for a woman in the White House? Not ready for this woman?"

"This presidential campaign has certainly suffered undertones of sexism. Hillary is criticized for her cackle, her cleavage, ... There have just been ghastly comments out there. "Do my ironing!" yelled a couple of voters in New Hampshire. There have even been anti-Hillary "Nutcracker" toys for sale." (Note: I checked this out myself and- I just can't believe this- you can buy your very own on AMAZON.com. Very disheartening).

"In order to succeed, women must be twice as experienced and twice as tough to prove themselves. Hillary did this; she checked all of these boxed- and then somehow all rules changed."

Ellen Goodman comments on Rush Limbaugh's statement, in which he asks: "Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" Goodman answers, "So why can we watch President Clinton or Bush go grey?" She also remarks later on, "Enter any sexist term you can think of into Google, such as 'Madame Defarge', for example (the ruthless character from Tale of Two Cities) and you will get hundreds of hits relating to Clinton." --> Try this. It's scary.

Geraldine Ferraro comments on the fact that both men and women feel threatened by Hillary in their gender identity. She remarks (and I hear it all the time, too) that, when asked why they would not vote for Hillary, people often answer, "She just makes me nervous," an vague and unquantifiable critique that hints at sexist undertones. "If you are feminine," concludes Ferraro, "you can't be strong. If you are strong, you can't be feminine." Yet, ironically, Obama is praised for being gentler, more collaborative- is he exhibiting feminine traits? Is he the "estrogen candidate"?

Pat Schroeder concludes the segment, stating that "Sexism a huge issue in this campaign," but is much harder to monitor because more covert than when she was running. Still, "the media is a disaster when it comes to Hillary's campaign. You expect [journalists] to be real reporters, and then they take a negative position like Tim Russert. It encourages the sexism."

My personal favorite quote of the interview is a reference to Tina Fey's endorsement of Hillary Clinton: "Yeah, she's a bitch. But bitches get stuff done."

Madaleine Albright on Daily Show

Albright was a guest on the Daily Show to promote her new book, "Memo to the President Elect". She sees the next president's task as the most difficult everbecause she has: "never seen world in such a mess". The main issue for hte next president will be how to end the Iraq war because it was the "greatest disaster in American foreign policy". She thinks that you can't leave troops there permanently and the next president needs to get them all out.

Albright endorsed Clinton becuase she has the experience to deal with these difficult foreign policy issues and ending the war. She said: "I'm a flat-out a democrat" and "I would be ok with Obama but I want Hillary". Her main justification for supporting Clinton is because she believes that Hillary will be able to get things done in Washington becuase of her experience regarding the relationship between the executive and legislative branches.

"Bouncing effect of diplomacy"- someone gives a speech in the U.S. and it is interpreted all different ways around the world by the news coverage and the different audiences. Diplomats an dpoliticians have to keep in mind that they are not just delivering a message to one country/audience.

"I know people get their news from you." - Albright about the Daily Show
This relates to what we discussed in class- news show vs. comedy show?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156941&title=madeleine-albright-pt.-1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156942&title=madeleine-albright-pt.-2

Pre-Ohio debate coverage

In the Pre-Ohio debate coverage on NPR, Mara Liasson and Robert Siegel reassure listeners that Hillary will come out fighting tonight. However, they are pessimistic about her actual chances of winning the nomination. They discuss the number of delegates she has to win in Texas and Ohio to stay in the running, and add that it will be very difficult for her to accomplish that. In general, they had few nice things to say about her and basically proclaimed Obama the winner.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=38131288

"If you assume that women are only supporting Hillary because she's a woman, then you're not giving women the credit we deserve." Why do women always have to defend their votes? I feel like any one outside of Wellesley that I tell who I voted for I get the response "...becasue she's a woman!" This link off a local texas npr station sums up why women are voting for Hillary- and it's not JUST because she's a woman.

http://elections.kut.org/2008/02/26/ladies-this-election-could-be-for-you/

Some Voters Say Sexism Less Offensive than Racism

This CNN headline caught my eye about a week ago: "Some Voters Say Sexism Less Offensive than Racism." These words are practically identical to those delivered by feminist icon Gloria Steinem, who, while lecturing on campus earlier this month, cautioned Wellesley women against voting for a candidate by virtue of their sex or skin color. The Democratic nomination, unfortunately, seems to have come down to a choice between a 'black man' and a 'white woman'- all policy and substance seem to have somehow magically evaporated into thin air. If things continue along this path, CNN's article implies that we can expect a win for Obama: America, many agree, suffers from 'racial guilt,' a sense of tremendous responsibility over the lives lost for civil rights. This one thick layer of guilt, however, has overshadowed other important layers; women were for a very long time considered the property of their fathers and husbands, and were denied basic rights in a fashion that today would be considered appalling. 

Still, while voters are caught up in Obama's rhetoric of 'Change,' it seems that all cameras are on Hillary's hairdo, cleavage and ankles, waiting for the minor crack in her voice or tear in her eye to pounce on her and make her out to be a vulnerable, emotional candidate prone to dangerous 'female' forms of human expression. Wait a minute- wasn't she previously criticized for being too hard, too "tightly scripted" and not human enough? I lay much of the blame for this sexist caricature of Hillary on the media. Get this: as Hillary was in the process of delivering the infamous answer, a local reporter broadcasted live that Hillary had "started crying." Soon enough, headlines like "Trail of Tears" began to pop up everywhere. Just to be sure, I went onto YouTube and watched the clip at least half a dozen times- at no point was she crying; her eyes may have temporarily welled with tears (come on, she's exhausted!), but there was no 'trail of tears' to be seen. Rather, journalists' intense coverage of the 'emotional moment' greatly overshadowed a previous hour of serious, detailed policy talk.

I find the media's handling of the Clinton campaign to be oftentimes blatantly sexist and tasteless. "Did the Emotional Moment come too late?" asks a reporter, manipulating Clinton's emotions into some sort of campaign ploy. My question is: is it too late to reverse the damage done by the media?

Turkey ends ban on head scarves

On February 9th, the Turkish Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of amending their Constitution to end a ban on head scarves in schools and universities. The ban was enacted in the 1990s as many authorities believed that the growing number of women covering their heads threatened Turkey's secularism, one of the nation's founding principles. Many of the secular elite feel that ending this ban is a move toward a more repressive Islamic regime. Others, however, argue that the veil has multiple meanings and that ending the ban will allow more women to attend university.

Turkey is rather unique in its attempts to balance Islam, democracy and secularism. Does this constitutional amendment signify a decrease in secularism and an increase in Islamic influences? Or can the country still maintain its secular principles? This new law will help more women attend universities, but could it also make more women feel obliged to wear head scarves?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/world/europe/10turkey.html?scp=1&sq=turkey+head+scarves&st=nyt

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=10814

Obama stealing Clinton's base!

Obama's win in Wisconsin yesterday marked 10 straight victories, which can only mean one thing: he's stealing Clinton's base. He got the same percentage of the women's vote as she did yesterday- and it's showing in her delegate count. From the beginning, everyone knew that the way Hillary Clinton would win the primaries (and the national election, for that matter) is through the support of women. Women make up 60% of registered democrats, which should allow her to run away with the nomination. However, women have not recently been voting for her in the numbers she predicted (and needed).

What does this say about American women? Maybe they don't believe having a woman president is *that* important. Maybe they have just been really impressed with Obama. NPR portrays the primaries as basically over. Obama has so much momentum that they don't think anyone can stop him. NPR reports that Texas is her last chance. If she doesn't win, she's done- and she blew it.

Why aren't women supporting each other? What social and psychological forces are keeping women from voting for Hillary in larger numbers?


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188844

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19215808