I was listening to This American Life yesterday (I am really ashamed to admit how much that damned show with all those everyday funny/touching stories gets to me– I’ve been at work a few times now wiping away tears). But in any case, I was listening to a program that originally aired in 1998 (#99!) which caught my eye for fairly obvious reasons. It’s title: I Enjoy Being a Girl, Sort of.

The prologue of the program is a conversation between host, Ira Glass, and a high school girl talking about a friend who constantly changed her style every few months (picture from Valley Girl to punk to goth to ghetto fab to…etc) The point being that such chameleon abilities are a distinctly girl phenomenon. I won’t quibble with this point too much– I have been known to make my own transformations, from blonde-haired prepster in high school (what? it was Connecticut) to a brunette look that teeters between–well, unfashionable to mildly hipster to sometime boho chic? To be honest, I don’t put that much thought into it all–I’m just happy that mismatching clothes is suddenly in fashion. But I don’t feel that my transformations were a distinctly female phenomenon–or one that couldn’t be, and haven’t been, perpetrated by male counterparts making those strategic high school to college to real life moves.

What I found most interesting about the dialogue, was that Glass asked the student about the title of the show: Did she enjoy being a girl, sort of? Her reaction was vehement. She loved being a girl. Why? Because girls get to do all the fun things. Part of me waited with heart sinking a little, with bated breath, wondering if she was going to say that they get to go shopping and aren’t expected to work, or some such like that. Instead she pointed out three things:

1. Since equal rights, girls have all the opportunities boys do

2. Girls don’t have pressures, like joining gangs, like boys do, though they can join if they want

3. Girls get to change styles, they have power over the way they look, and therefore more choices

I recognized the first claim as one I often made in high school, which speaks to the education girls now receive on being equal. It’s an important education, and one that in some ways imbues girls with the confidence that they can do anything they want, but I think this education also need to acknowledge that there’s still work to do.

The second fact I think is a strong reminder to all feminists everywhere that your battles are not necessarily the battles of other women– that as we all grow in sometimes vastly different circumstances, a feminist program must be broad enough, or adaptable enough, to make room for these differences. I grew up wanting to do everything a boy could do (and better!)–never faced with a situation where I might be grateful I wasn’t expected to do what a boy was.

But I thought the last point was the most interesting. Is the focus on body and face of women a power? Is obsession with beauty and style actually a gift that woman can use to recreate themselves everyday, to free themselves from constrictions that men can’t transcend? After all, I can turn from business woman to casual jeans-wearing gal next store to late-night club kid to hipster-freak with just a twist of mascara, a different skirt, and the gifts of a curling iron or hair straightener. Is this power?

On the one hand, I think it can be, it means you can alter people’s perception of you. On the other hand, of course, this means that people will make certain assumptions about you based on the way you look in a way that they wouldn’t with a guy. Is she weak? frivolous? a slut? all business? a bitch? All this can be judged on a woman’s style. I would also question whether we haven’t reached a point where men have nearly as many tools as women: they can be punks, hipsters, straight-laced preps, bi-gendered eyeline-wearing rockers if they want. And people, too, will judge them on this.

I think it safe to say that women are judged more frequently and more drastically based on their appearance, and, most significantly, are raised to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy worrying about the way they look, having an ingrained idea that their worth is judged in large part on the way they look. This is not something men, who may have as many transformative fashion options as women do when it comes down to it, face. Sure it’s fun to dress up (my own closet of clothes can attest to it), but it should be a game a woman can opt into when she wants to–not a defining feature of worth and character.

Just had to note this excellent article by Katha Pollitt over at The Nation chronicling both women’s strides (viable female candidate, powerful Hollywood execs, women in higher ed) and what appears to be a severe cultural backlash (”the Pill kills”?, women can’t sue over discriminatory pay after six months of employment? South Dakota banning abortion, again?)

And why, why is Washington University awarding Phyllis Schlafly an honorary degree???

Urban areas tend to be ahead of the game when addressing issues of reproductive rights and access. On the one hand, this has to do with the fact that liberal, progressive populations have flocked to urban centers in recent decades. As centers of culture, intellectual life, and sexual revolutions, as well as a diversity of peoples, urban centers have a variety of perspectives and are thus much more open-minded than the average suburb. Having been raised in one of the much more conservative, suburban satellites, it has always been refreshing to live in cities where certain concepts of reproductive health and choice are the assumed norm.

On the other hand, it is also in cities where the disparity between the reproductive rights of women of different classes and races becomes the most apparent, as those who can afford greater and better access to abortions, contraception, and sexual health knowledge living side-by-side with those who have a dearth of such resources. It is thus utterly refreshing (and hopefully will be very productive!) that Mayor Bloomberg, along with the National Institute for Reproductive Health, is sponsoring a 2008 Urban Initiative for Reproductive Health National Summit (well that’s a mouthful) to address disparities in reproductive health and wyas public policy can address this. The press release on it is below the jump.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG, SPEAKER QUINN, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND MAYORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY ANNOUNCE 2008 URBAN INITIATIVE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH NATIONAL SUMMIT

35 cities to gather in New York City to share best practices to improve maternal and reproductive health care in America’s cities

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn and National Institute of Reproductive Health President Kelli Conlin, along with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich today launched the 2008 Urban Initiative for Reproductive Health National Summit being held on May 8 and 9 in New York. The Summit, hosted by the National Institute for Reproductive Health (NIRH), will bring together elected officials, public health officers and advocates from over 35 cities in the United States and Mexico to create, promote and share policy solutions that address the reproductive health issues that affect over 100 million women living in urban areas across the country.

“Cites from across the nation and the world are coming together in New York to address the growing disparities in reproductive health and discuss public policy based on science, not ideology.” said Mayor Bloomberg. “Mayors share a common determination to produce results for their constituents and this summit will draw attention to the progress cities across the nation are making in improving reproductive health for millions of women and families.”

“As municipal leaders we have a responsibility to provide for the reproductive health of our constituents, and for any of us to be successful we must have the ability to share best practices and effectively communicate with a community of experts,” said Speaker Quinn “The Urban Initiative for Reproductive Health Summit is a major step towards addressing some of the disparities that New Yorkers and other urban Americans face in everything from unintended pregnancies to sexually transmitted infections. I’m very proud that New York City has the opportunity to host elected officials from across the country for this important conversation.”

“By bringing together forward-thinking leaders from cities across the country, I believe this summit is going to change the way we solve the significant reproductive health care problems faced by urban women and families,” said NIRH President Conlin. “This is the only opportunity anywhere for leaders to share their experience creating bold and groundbreaking initiatives that greatly improve reproductive health. Participants in the Summit are visionaries who are ready to do what it takes to tackle the real issues facing women in American cities: their health, their pregnancies, their families. We believe that these are the advocates who will have a real impact on the future of reproductive health. While national leaders get bogged down in unproductive ideological battles, its urban policymakers who do the hard work of creating effective solutions that have long-lasting community impact. This Summit is putting us firmly on the path to solutions that truly improve urban health.”

“Lawmakers continue to tout politics over science and real public health solutions,” said San Francisco Mayor Newsom. “In this divisive political environment, it falls to municipal leaders to come together to push the envelope, to innovate, and to address the reality of reproductive and maternal health in urban and suburban America.”

“Mayors and city public health officials are pushing on all cylinders with proven strategies like aggressive outreach, free clinics, school-based health centers and mobile treatment teams despite federal financial setbacks and bureaucratic headaches,” said Baltimore Mayor Dixon. “We are investing in what works, and I commend Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Quinn for spearheading this dynamic initiative to unite our efforts.”

“Local governments are on the forefront of providing reproductive health care to women,” said Anchorage Mayor Begich. “We must work with diverse stakeholders to come together and create lasting changes to the public health system.”

City and public health officials will discuss how municipalities can help women access timely and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and care resulting in healthier women, healthier pregnancies and healthier communities. Urban communities experience disproportionate incidences of teen motherhood, unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections and adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight and infant mortality, than their rural counterparts. The Urban Initiative for Reproductive Health is the National Institute’s latest campaign to bring policy makers, advocates and elected officials to bring the issue of women’s health needs to the forefront. As part of the Urban Initiative, the National Institute will foster sharing of best-practices and promising local models for reproductive health solutions that can be replicated in cities around the country.

Cities participating in the Urban Initiative for Reproductive Health Summit include: Albuquerque, New Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Atlanta, Georgia; Austin, Texas; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Cleveland, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Detroit, Michigan; Des Moines, Iowa; East Haven, Connecticut; Hartford, Connecticut; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; Madison, Wisconsin; Mexico City, Mexico; Miami, Florida; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Minneapolis, Minnesota; New Haven, Connecticut; New York, New York; Oakland, California; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; Providence, Rhode Island; Seattle, Washington; St. Louis, Missouri; St. Paul, Minnesota; San Francisco, California; and Washington, DC.

For the past ten years, the National Institute for Reproductive Health has worked with more than 40 organizations in 32 states to design new policy approaches helping expand access to quality reproductive health care by providing information and removing barriers. Specific projects have included the Low-Income Access Program, the Residency Training Initiative, the Adolescent Health Care Communication Program, and the Latino Reproductive Rights Project.

-30-

Contact: Stu Loeser / Evelyn Erskine (212) 788-2958

Anthony Hogrebe (Council) (212) 788-7116

Mary Alice Carr (NIRH) (646) 326-4238

Yet another roadblock put in the way of women seeking abortions. This time from Oklahoma: the legislature overrode the governor’s veto on a new “informed consent” law requiring women seeking abortion to have either an abdominal or vaginal ultrasound. Take a look here for more information.

Again this is taking power out of the hands of the doctor and his/her patient and placing it into the hands of politicians who think they have the knowledge and right to mandate what should be a medical procedure requested by the patient. Such unnecessary requirements clearly derive from the moralistic underpinnings of the legislature.

Alternet has a story on this as well.

Doesn’t the above statement make your jaw drop a little and a sickening pit in your stomach to grow? It does mine. But this is the latest number put forth as a panel in the House of Representatives debated continuing to fund such abstinence-only sex ed. There seems to be a growing outcry among experts who have published reports on how abstinence-only programs not only don’t work, but can be detrimental to teens’ health. As Dr. Margaret Blythe of the American Academy of Pediatrics told the committee:

Vast sums of federal monies continue to be directed toward these programs. And, in fact, there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active.

And an ABC News story begins with this heartening anecdote:

At age 17, Max Siegel started a relationship and had unprotected sex with a man six years his senior. Siegel said he wanted to use a condom but his partner didn’t. Siegel contracted HIV.

Not only has over a billion dollars been devoted to seriously ineffective programs (1.3 billion dollars!) but 17 out of the 50 U.S. states have had to turn down money because they refused to teach abstinence only. Happily a number of Democrats are now actively working against the federal support of such programs.

Thanks to my friend, Cara, for sending me a number of links to news stories on the current debate: Los Angeles Times (free registration) (4/24), Reuters (4/24) , ABC News (4/23).

In a continuing conversation on the state of masculinity and male roles in our society, here’s a great post from the Guardian’s Comment is free… on whether men can be feminists. At a certain point, you have to wonder how much we really want to get caught up in semantics of what is feminist, pro-feminist, feminist allied, partners in the patriarchal struggle, etc. To my mind, men can definitely work toward the feminist cause, and can provide a vital perspective by querying the way their own roles have been constructed within our society, and ideas on how to counteract this. I think Cath Elliott reaches some great conclusions in the following:

Can men be feminists?

Many feminists welcome men’s championship of the cause, but there’s much debate over their entitlement to call themselves feminists

Cath Elliott

April 23, 2008 10:00 AM

In the book Feminism is for Everybody, bell hooks defines feminism as “a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression”, while the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of sexual equality.” You’ll get no argument from me on either of these interpretations; they’re straightforward, non-controversial, and best of all, inclusive. Ignore all the confusing sub-divisions like Marxist feminism, radical feminism and anarcha-feminism, and the arguments about whether we’re experiencing the third-wave or whether we’re in a state of post- feminism, and feminism really can be summed up this concisely. What’s even more exciting is that if we went by either one of these definitions we’d probably be hard pushed to find someone who wasn’t prepared to declare themselves a feminist.

For the rest of the article, visit here.

In her contribution to the debate over the state of feminism and the mother-daughter battle circling Hillary Clinton’s candidacy as the first viable female presidential contender, The Feminist Reawakening: Hillary Clinton and the Fourth Wave, Amanda Fortini writes, “In particular, the campaign has divided women and the men they know on the subject of race. Indelicate as it seems to bring up, the oft-repeated question is, why do overtly sexist remarks slip by almost without comment, while any racially motivated insult would be widely censured?”

An insightful comment, it is as much as asking whether Don Imus was (initially) kicked off the air for referring to members of the Rutgers University women’s basketball team as the racist “nappy-headed” or the sexist “hos.” Given how much words such as “slut” and “ho” are slung around in the American media today, I could probably take a wild guess.

Fortini continues on to write, “The point is not to determine whether it is harder to be a white woman or a black man in America today, nor which candidate would have more symbolic value. At issue is the fact that race is, as it should be, taboo grounds for criticism, but gender remains open territory.” I am grateful that Fortini is not entering the preposterous realms of Gerraldine Ferraro, who would argue that Obama’s success is due to his role as a black candidate (I’m sure the vast number of African-Americans elected to the Senate and Congress since Reconstruction could only agree…oh wait. And I’m sure those Democratic voters who gave Obama their vote for a complex of hard-thought reasons are equally appreciative of the statement). I am further happy that she is not entering the simplistic territory of Gloria Steinem, who would argue that “gender is probably the most restricting force in American life.”

By all means I do believe gender is vastly restricting, but I don’t think it can be reduced to such a blanket statement given the various manifestations of gender-cum-race-cum-class-cum-generation. Nonetheless, I do think it fair to state, and at this point in the presidential race, fairly obvious, that sexist remarks are tolerated in a way that racist remarks no longer are in American culture. Fortini provides a laundry-list of examples in her article. I was appalled when I saw my young female cousin join the Facebook group: “Hillary Clinton Shouldn’t Run for President She Should Just Run the Dishes,” and find it gut-wrenchingly unnerving that McCain would respond to an audience question: “How do we beat the bitch?” with the response: “That’s an excellent question!” On the other hand, we are (tremendously) having one of the most weighty and complex conversations on race this nation has had in… well, ever? Why the levity on the sexism end and the fine probing on the racism side? Why, that is, is sexism not taken seriously, while racism is?

Many commentators have pegged it on the younger generation (hence the so-called mother-daughter fight). Supposedly, it is the youth of educated women who think everything is hunky-dory in the classroom and have not yet experienced the sexism of the workplace, who think: “if it ain’t happening to me it ain’t happening at all.” But I don’t think this is the real issue. After all, in a paragraph just before making this argument, Fortini lists various cultural manifestations of sexism: the fixation on the bodies of female starlets, the deleterious effect on teenage girls, etc. College-aged and younger women today have an overwhelming obsession with their bodies and images, under the impression that “looking” a certain way will help them to reach higher social echelons. In the care-free, responsibility-free atmosphere of college, women are by no means immune to issues of date rape, harassment, the labyrinth of female/male/gay/straight/bi/transgender sexual relations which may or may not border on sexism, and various manifestations of the “old boys club“–it’s still there, don’t think it’s not. Whether women experience overt sexism or not, I think it fair to say that they are not immune to the insidious ways in which a society structured around sexism affects their everyday behaviors and choices, as guided by the responsive actions and decisions of those around them. But we should not place all this weighty blame on a generation of girls who were born into and molded by such a society.

American society now recognizes the absurdity of assuming that one race embodies certain characteristics, but it has not yet reached that point in regards to gender. There are some bodied reasons for this: people find women’s reproductive roles so ingrained that they think they must necessitate certain characteristics, needs, wants of women. On the other hand we have come to recognize that the color of one’s skin does not biologically determine one’s makeup. Women are still expected to occupy the more feminized roles in society; they worry about being called “sluts” or “whores,” or yes, “bitches”; questions of childcare inevitably revolve around the women’s work/home decisions. Both men and women ignore the fact that telling Hillary to go “fold the laundry” is inherently sexist, because they still believe, in some way, that this is the woman’s role.

I wonder, then, whether the second-wave insistence on women banded together against the sexist onslaught isn’t ignoring a much more powerful tool for undermining these social notions. Yes, on one hand, it is why women need to address the micro-concerns: the sexist slurs and the division of household duties. But, does it make sense to claim that women, as a gender group, must vote for Hillary? As if we, en masse, carried the exact same concerns and perspectives? Isn’t it absurd to ignore the differences between women’s situations that might in turn help prove that women are not one stereotypical, collective laundry-cleaning, baby-bearing, Mary-vs.-Eve-splicing gender? Wouldn’t it be better to acknowledge that “womanhood” is a veritable patchwork of ages, sexual orientations, races, economic levels, regional groups, reproductive decisions, and career concerns? Wouldn’t it be better to attack such repugnant sexism by making it just as hard, and offensive, to peg “women” under one, all-encompassing label as it is to apply any stereotypical catchphrase to a race?

This is why we have a new generation of women who refuse to listen to their “mothers’” concerns. Despite the large common ground we hold — career, economics, bodily sovereignty, right to sexuality — because our society has changed, our concerns today are different and, in some ways, more expansive. And this is why this third wave generation appreciates the “mothers” for voicing their concerns– as one voice in a crowd, proving that we are a multitude of identities. But please, don’t tell us that we don’t have a right to our own voice as well.

The feminists at Feministing have picked up on an abortion ban currently being considered by the Lithuanian Parliament, under pressure from the Catholic Church, to ban abortion in their country. They make the most significant point that such abortion bans only truly affect lower-income women, and this has been the case throughout much of history. In the case of Lithuania, wealthy women will be able to travel to other European countries for abortions, while women without economic means to do so will be unable to seek these options.

This is again why women in New York and the more liberal “blue” states should still be concerned about abortion bans in other states in the U.S. “Let them fly to New York,” they say, when faced with the prospect of bans in South Dakota. But who is this “them” and how will they have the funds, nevermind the resources if they are younger and without familial support, to do so? Within a state or country that bans abortion, wealthy women have historically been able to find doctors who, for the right price, will perform a medically-safe abortion. It is for this reason that we must be concerned not only with our regional laws, but with our national ones, and remember that while middle-class and higher-income women may have the means to circumvent such laws, many women do not have a plethora of options, or even one other option, at hand.

Well, after a temporary absence from the land of the internets, AdHoc Magazine, Columbia’s premier (=only) progressive magazine, is back online! As a kickback to the past, here’s an article we did the year it all began.

Columbia University, like many contemporary universities, has a problem with “leaks” in the academic pipeline: i.e. a significantly greater number of female PhD candidates drop out of their graduate programs than their male counterparts. In response to this problem, Columbia launched a “Diversity Initiative” to try to determine the reasons why women and minority PhD candidates were dropping out of their programs at this higher rate and to attempt to rectify this problem. In this article, which won the 2006 Campus Independent Journalism Award for Women/Gender Coverage, Alex Jung explores the status and success of the Initiative, creating a public record of one university’s attempt to improve diversity. In doing so, Jung looked at the role of mentors, the effect of seeing professors of the same gender or color as you, questions of other diversities such as sexuality, and the vast bureaucratization of the university.

While the story was written in March 2006, I doubt that situation is very different today (given the sluglike movements of the academic steamship), though if anyone knows any differently, I’d love to hear about it.

From the first paragraph:

Columbia uses the word diversity so often that it can sound like white noise in the background. But throw in $15 million and people start to pay attention and ask questions. Columbia created the Diversity Initiative in the Provost’s Office, appointed Jean Howard as vice provost, and earmarked $15 million to diversify the Arts and Science faculty. The creation of the Initiative was the result of a series of faculty-led initiatives. First, the Commission on the Status of Women, of which Howard was the chair, released the “Pipeline Report” in November 2001. The report found “leaks” in the academic pipeline from Ph.D. programs to tenured faculty positions. That is, females in academia, beginning as Ph.D. candidates, somehow left the road to tenure at a higher rate than their male peers. The Commission then formed an alliance with minority faculty members because, as Howard notes, it was “cryingly obvious” that there were not enough minority or female faculty members. They presented their concerns to University President Bollinger and Provost Brinkley, and in the fall of 2004, the Diversity Initiative was born. The question is what, exactly, it will do.

The full article can be found here.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel went to the new Oslo opera house this weekend and showed a bit of décolletage. Now, while this news is unworthy in itself (and yes, I do feel ambivalent about drawing attention to it), there does seem to be a gulf of difference between the German newspapers’ coverage of this versus the way Hillary Clinton’s cleavage was treated by the American news media which is worth exploring.

In most of the major German newspapers, the Chancellor’s fashion choice was a non-item. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung had almost zero news on her trip; the Frankfurter Rundshau had a lovely article about the opening of the opera but no commentary; Die Zeit and Der Tagesspiel both also had nothing doing. Only two major news sources really took note, as far as I’ve seen. Der Spiegel, a national magazine, noted it within the body of an article about her appearance at the Opera, describing her as “feminine, glamorous, and stately.” Die Welt, on the other hand, provided a very helpful seven photo gallery of the “décolletage” event, labeling it “The new style of the Chancellor.” While both of these are problematic in considering what the Chancellor wore a matter of national interest, never mind Die Welt’s decision to dwell through copious pages on the quote, unquote “scandalous” cleavage exhibition, Merkel’s fashion is still far from receiving the across-the-board coverage that the American media graced Hillary with.

Hillary Clinton’s “shocking” dip into cleavage territory initially set off the alarm at that stalwart of national news (and many 2008 Pulitzer Prizes!) the Washington Post. Then the New York Times decided to add their two cents, reporting it as a hard news item, and an opportunity for Mr. William Safire to muse upon the etymology of cleavage and for Judith Warner to explore the “cleavage conundrum.” Never mind the online chatter that ensued.

While I don’t think a politician’s fashion choices should be a real matter of discussion (except when the fashion is overtly tied to politics), particularly as only female candidates generally receive this kind of scrutiny, let’s take a moment to pull at the threads and determine the reasons behind this differentiated coverage. On the one hand, Der Spiegel’s rather blasé reference speaks to a more European approach to dipped necklines. But more pertinently the silence from most of the dailies may speak to either a masculinizing or de-gendering of Merkel because of her role as Chancellor.

I had never really thought about this before, or realized it, though it is thoroughly disheartening, but in the introduction to Gendering Modern German History, Karen Hagemann and Jean H. Quataert discuss how labor historians show that “a feminization of the workforce often spells a decline in professional status” (16). The unwillingness to discuss Merkel’s cleavage may be an unwillingness on the part of the German media to admit to the feminization of their highest office. Which leads us to the same gender questions that are plaguing (provoking, stumping) the media/public in the first American presidential campaign with a major female contender: what does it mean to be ‘feminine.’ Should a female candidate use this ‘femininity’ to garner support or to differentiate herself from a male candidate? Should all gender be ignored? But is ignoring gender just a euphemism for maintaining the traditional ‘masculinity’ of the office?

My gut feeling is that I prefer a media that does not privilege a female officeholder’s dress over her actions. On the other hand, female candidates should not have to “act the male” to avoid this. On the third hand (yes! we magically have three!) it doesn’t seem that Chancellor Merkel was masculinizing herself in this case, but just wearing what she would normally wear to the opera. Can we acclaim the German media’s non-interest a moment of progress? Would this be shocking?!? Scandalous!?!