Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts

Thursday, February 02, 2012

On Ranting, as usual

oh there's some hardcore liberal bias here, so don't think I'm trying to represent any position but my own and don't be too upset if we disagree - it's bound to happen:

I'm getting myself super worked up about this whole Komen-defunding-Planned-Parenthood deal. It's not a big deal. It doesn't directly affect me. But seriously? I'm never going to participate in, donate to, or eat another Komen-labeled anything. Not that I actively chose their products in the past (I am not the best eater of yogurt nor the biggest fan of pink), but now I'm consciously going to avoid. And perhaps I can flex my nasty letter writing muscles and do some direct complaining. They also spend a ridiculously low amount of their actual funds on research. 20%-ish?

I'm probably going to get breast cancer some day (from what I know about my medical history - which isn't much - my birth mom, biological grandmother, and several of her sisters have all had it/died of it/have it right now). Of course I want a cure, but we're silly to think that cures come from organizations.
The backlash against the Komen foundation has been insane. Donations to Planned Parenthood are way up. If I wasn't broke as shit, I'd be all over that. I decided many years ago that when I finally get enough money to be generous with it, it's not going to my alma maters, it's going to Planned Parenthood, because they are absolute rock stars at what they do. I'm so sick of hearing about how horrible they are.

I hope that young women everywhere are able to continue to access care that their primary care providers may have denied them; I hope that young women of all colors and religions and income levels can continue to access healthcare including cancer screenings, STI-testing and treatment, and birth control, especially when they don't have access to a primary care provider like I do.

Why? Because it's important. The work that Planned Parenthood does isn't just abortions (do I actually need to repeat myself again? Only 3% of their services go to abortions. That's roughly 300,000 abortions per year. But guess what? That's only about a third of the total number of abortions provided in the US. Where is everyone else having those?).

The reason I bring this up is because I was reading a Catholic website (trying to get all sides' opinions) and they had huge charts about how 96.3% of services provided to pregnant women were abortion-related. Okay, I'll take that. Yes, there is a disparity between abortion numbers and adoption numbers. I'd argue that that's pretty consistent with the rest of the US as well. But does this Catholic website take into account the other forms of adoption such as from government agencies (41% of adoptions in 2008), kinship adoptions, foreign adoptions, etc? Probably not.

And how many un-pregnant women and men and people are using Planned Parenthood to access other resources? 3 million people go to Planned Parenthood every year. 3 million is a lot more than 300,000. By providing resources to the community including contraception, Planned Parenthood is helping to ensure that there will be fewer unintended pregnancies and thus fewer abortions as a result.

Here's why I support Planned Parenthood 100% - and this has absolutely nothing to do with the Komen debacle. It'll all blow over. Komen will continue to be the shining pink face of breast cancer walks everywhere and Planned Parenthood will continue to be the source of so much distress for ~~conservatives~~ the uninformed everywhere:

[I'm sort of uncomfortable about posting this story online - to be honest, I think I've posted this before but can't find it in the archives, and at the same time, I'm even more uncomfortable knowing that people perceive Planned Parenthood to be this horrible, evil organization that exists solely to kill babies. So this is why I'm putting this out there.]

I wasn't quite 18 yet, which means I was somewhere between 16 and 17. I wanted birth control. When I asked my pediatrician's nurse practitioner for a prescription (without telling her why I wanted it - Was it heavy periods? Was it hormonal reasons? Did I just want to take hormonal birth control because everyone else was doing it? Was I having sex?), she told me that doing so would put her "between a rock and a hard place."

What she was referring to was my father, who has always been overbearing and inappropriate at the most inconvenient times. As soon as I started high school, he became convinced that I was having all sorts of sex (I wasn't. I didn't kiss a boy until I was almost fifteen) and consequently, had been squawking about it to anyone who would listen and making it nearly impossible for me to date (this, of course, backfired horribly and led to me putting myself in dangerous-ish situations on more than one occasion: sneaking out, hanging out with undesirables, etc).

I was well aware that Colorado law allows minors to consent to a prescription for birth control without obtaining parental consent or having to even notify a parent or guardian about it. When she told me that no matter what I said, she wouldn't write me a prescription for birth control, I was furious. I still am. I never went back to that doctor's office, even though I'd been going since birth.

That's why, even to this day, I do not stand for doctors of any sort denying women information or care based on their own personal beliefs or fears. I also do not believe that doctors and providers (including nurses, etc) should be anything but professional. I had a friend go to her gynecologist and ask for routine STI testing only to be asked, "Why? Have you been exposed?" I told her to immediately find a new doctor. Call it overreacting but I call it ridiculous that you should have to answer any sort of seemingly-accusatory questions. I have doctors who I absolutely adore. They respect me; they don't question me when I say, "Hey, throw an HIV test onto my blood work!" They respect that I'm active about my own health - regardless of whether it's ADHD, STI-testing, the sniffles, the cut on my finger that should have had stitches 16 hours ago....(the last one was a joke...that was me not being proactive and facing the consequences).

I went to Planned Parenthood. I did it after school one day when Mike had practice so I knew I had some time. I was terrified. I was not getting the prescription so that I could have reckless, unprotected sex. I was not pregnant. I was just looking for something that my own doctor was unwilling to give me, but something that I knew I had a legal right to obtain and use.

My experience there was absolutely amazing. The staff was so nice to me. I think they absolutely understood how scared I was (I've never been good at hiding my emotions) and I think they went the extra mile to make sure that I had the most positive experience possible. I got my prescription. I got birth control. And it was in a no-stress, no-judgement, no-pressure situation.

My mom eventually found out that I was on birth control. She was furious. But she wasn't mad that I was on it; she was mad that I had gone alone. She was mad that I was paying for it all by myself. She was just as mad at my doctor's office as I was and she helped me to become a part of the practice that I currently attend (do you attend a doctor's office? visit? reluctantly stop by sometimes?). I think that a lot about that experience helped solidify our relationship. It was a little bit rocky during high school - think ages 15-17. She was open and willing to talk about issues that I'd never realized I could talk to her about. She never judged me or criticized my opinions or decisions. She supported me so much then and continues to do so today. I honestly think that without those frank discussions, we wouldn't have the relationship we do now. It's stronger than it's ever been and I'm so grateful to know that I can call her and tell her anything. She may not agree with it (she'll definitely tell me when she doesn't) but she'll listen. And knowing that she respected me enough back then to know that I was making informed decisions about my own health is something that still makes me incredibly happy.

That's why I love Planned Parenthood. I have only been there maybe twice in my life, but those two times were the most positive experiences I could have had. I'm grateful that they were there for me, and even though I hope my children will never have to go behind my back to get access to care, I hope they're still there, just in case.

Monday, January 23, 2012

On Math.

I'm admittedly not the biggest fan of the Huffington Post, but you know, they're not all bad. Anyway, saw this article this morning.

I've been bad at math since about fourth grade. "Bad" is relative: on recent intelligence tests (I'll explain in a blog post soon), even my weaknesses measure at or above average. So "bad" at math isn't really that bad. But I'm still not great. However, finding out that I might be genetically inclined not to understand fractals and long division makes the grieving process (for my future as a geneticist or forensic scientist) much easier. Okay, so there's not really any proof of the gender gap, but I'm going to run with it: Damn you, double-X chromosomes and breasts! (Hah, mark this as the first time they've actually gotten in my way.)

Math Gender Gap Not Result of Girls' Low Self-Esteem, Researchers Say

First Posted: 1/19/12 09:47 AM ET Updated: 1/19/12 09:48 AM ET

React

Amazing Inspiring Funny Scary Hot Crazy Important Weird

Education , Gender Gap , Boys Better Than Girls At Math , Gender Gap Math , Girls Bad At Math , Girls Boys Math , Girls Math , Women Bad At Math , Science New

Are girls bad at math? From a talking Barbie doll saying "Math class is tough" to Larry Summers, the ex-President of Harvard University, speaking on the "different availability of aptitude," it's an issue that's seen plenty of controversy. As one of the most sensitive topics in education today, there's plenty of research on it, and even a body of research on the research.

A study to be published in Review of General Psychology, falls into the latter category. Its authors, David Geary of the University of Missouri and Giljsbert Stoet of the University of Leeds, find that if a gender gap in math test scores exists, it isn't a manifestation of the so-called "stereotype threat" theory, as many researchers seem to believe.

According to that theory, girls tend to perform worse on tests after they've been told they'll do poorly. Geary and Stoet found that past studies relying on the theory were flawed and lacking real evidence. This suggests that if girls are scoring worse than boys on standardized math tests, it's not because of their low self esteem.

In other words, don't blame ditzy Barbie.

The new finding suggests that it might make sense to scale back social programs designed to counter the stereotype threat. As Geary noted:

“The stereotype theory really was adopted by psychologists and policy makers around the world as the final word, with the idea that eliminating the stereotype could eliminate the gender gap...However, even with many programs established to address the issue, the problem continued. We now believe the wrong problem is being addressed.”

Geary and Stoat make no contention about the gender gap itself. Their study makes a strong case for ruling out a self esteem-based explanation of the gender gap, but an increasing number of scientists believe the gender gap is illusory in the first place.

Recent years have brought mounting evidence against the idea that, other things being equal, women are worse at math than men. A 2011 study published in Psychological Bulletin found evidence of gender gaps in various countries, but noted that in some countries, such as Jordan and Bahrain, girls had the edge.

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/gender-gap-in-math_n_1214517.html

Friday, January 20, 2012

On Obama's Awesomeness for Today

Yay! I love this:

Victory! Obama Stands Up to Bishops and Protects Birth Control Coverage

January 20, 2012 by Annie Shields · Leave a Comment

Great news! Despite months of fierce lobbying by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Obama administration announced today that it would not exempt Catholic hospitals from the Affordable Care Act requirement for insurance plans to cover employees’ birth control. The news, which comes on the first day of Trust Women Week, is a welcome victory for feminists.

Back in November, feminists were concerned that President Obama might cave in to the Bishops’ pressure to exempt religious institutions. If the Bishops had their way, it would have meant that organizations that aren’t actual churches–such as colleges, universities and hospitals–would get out of covering birth control in insurance plans for their students and employees, despite an HHS ruling last August that birth control constitutes preventive care and should be covered with no copay. Feminists–including Feminist Majority President (and Ms. publisher) Eleanor Smeal–have loudly urged the administration not to let Catholic Bishops deny no-cost birth control coverage to millions. Here is Smeal’s response to today’s announcement:

At last—concern for women’s health trumps pressure from the Catholic Bishops. Millions of women who may have been denied access to birth control with no co-pays or deductibles will now have full access. I am especially pleased that college students at religiously affiliated institutions will now have coverage for birth control without co-pays or deductibles under their school health plans beginning in August 2012.

Birth control is the number one prescription drug for women ages 18 to 44 years. Right now, the average woman has to pay $50 per month for 30 years for birth control. No wonder many low-income women have had to forgo regular use of birth control and half of US pregnancies are unplanned. This decision will help millions of women and their families.

Some religious institutions will be given a one-year extension–from August 2012 to August 2013–to implement the no-fee coverage. Here are the details of the ruling:

Insurance plans that already cover birth control, including those of religious institutions, must do so with no co-pays or deductibles starting August 2012

All student insurance plans at religiously affiliated universities must cover contraception with no co-pays or deductibles beginning August 2012

Non-profit religious institutions that do not currently cover contraception have until August 2013 to do so with no co-pays or deductibles

Only women who work directly for a house of worship, such as for a church, synagogue, or mosque itself, are exempted from this required coverage

Photo of President Obama from Flickr user lednichenkoolga under Creative Commons 2.0

source: Ms. Magazine Blog

Monday, December 05, 2011

On Capital, sort of.

The 99%: "Money Can't Buy You Class"

Social Commentary post by GretchenSisson, Submitted by GretchenSisson on December 5, 2011 - 12:24pm;tagged Beverly Hills, Gossip Girl, inequality, Real Housewives, Wealth.

screen shot from the opening credits of the Beverly Hillbillies, showing a family of four white people driving in a car with lots of stuff in the back

A very special thank you to the Countess LuAnn of the Real Housewives of New York for supplying the title to today’s post. I doubt this is what the Countess was going for, but she brings up a good point: what’s the difference between having money and having class privilege? Is there one anymore?

There’s always been the concept of “old money” and “new money,” and the former seems to spend a good deal of time spurning the latter until begrudgingly accepting them—usually when newer money comes along. In fact, when Caroline Schermerhorn married William Astor in 1854, this was a marriage of old and new money. Caroline brought to the marriage old New York Knickerbocker stock (this is where the New York Knicks get their name from) and William Astor brought the new real estate money. The Astors were now “old” money, and would be allowed to look down their noses at the upstart Vanderbilts with their tacky railroads.

But do these lines between old and new money ever really go away? The Beverly Hillbillies of the 1960s showed us an unsophisticated rural family transplanted into swanky Beverly Hills after oil is found on their land. Are they accepted by their neighbors? No, obviously not. But their tight-knit family and clearly voiced morals place them as superior to their rich, superficial neighbors. If upward mobility won’t get you accepted by the people with money, well, that’s OK—did you really want to be like them anyway?

Even on Gossip Girl, ruling prep school princess and over-achiever Blair Waldorf is portrayed as a bit of an upstart because both of her parents have earned, rather than inherited, their money (like Serena’s parents did). As Jenny (who lives in Brooklyn, takes the subway to school, and makes her own clothes, so is clearly “poor”) tells Blair in season two: “You might be privileged, Blair, but you work for every single thing you’ve achieved. Like me. Serena just glides through.”

What’s really going on here?

Well, the Countess has a point. Class privilege is something different from having money, even though having money can take you pretty far. (And it should go without saying that class privilege is connected to race privilege—people of color don't have the same opportunities or experiences as white people, regardless of how wealthy they are.)

Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu was one of the first to spell out how class privilege really comes from different kinds of capital. There’s the obvious kind: economic capital, cash money, the stuff that gives you purchasing power and freedom from having to worry about how to pay rent, your heating bill, and your student loans.

Then there’s social capital. This is your network: who you know, who your parents know. Unsurprisingly, if you go to a fancy prep school with the grandsons of Congressmen and the daughters of business leaders, you have pretty darn high social capital. You have easier access to sources of power, which means you have more power and privilege.

Finally, there’s cultural capital. This form of capital is not who you know, but what you know about how to succeed in the culture you live in. (It can also include what you own, based on what you purchased because of what you know.) So, if you’re well educated, and you read the right books, know the right artists, own the right gadgets, watch the right TV shows, can name the right designers, speak with the right accent, and eat with the right fork—well, that’s a form of privilege all on its own. Middle-class families can be really, really good at giving their children lots of cultural capital, even when they lack economic and social capital.

I’m opening my series with this little sociology refresher so that, as you (hopefully) read on, you understand what I mean when I refer to class privilege, and you can think about what kinds of privilege different characters in pop culture might have and where they got it. Additionally, when we talk about social mobility, we might wonder with kinds of capital are most important to that mobility. Because, really, we’re not just talking about money.

source: Bitch Magazine

Friday, December 02, 2011

On Working Moms

Working Moms Multitask, And Stress, More Than Dads

by PATTI NEIGHMOND

Allison Long/MCT /Landov

A Kansas City family prepares a meal together. A new study finds that working mothers log more hours — and get more stressed — than working fathers while multitasking at home. (This family wasn't part of the research.)

A new study in the December issue of the American Sociological Review comes up with some findings that lots of women may feel they already know too much about: Working mothers spend significantly more time multitasking at home than working dads. And those mothers aren't happy about it.

Researchers from Bar-Ilan University in Israel and Michigan State University looked at 368 working mothers and 241 fathers who worked outside the home. Turns out, the women were on overdrive, with some even describing the hours between 5 and 8 p.m. as the "arsenic hours."

"The first thing they had to start worrying about is getting dinner, interfacing with their kids, getting done all the housework chores," says sociologist Barbara Schneider with Michigan State University, who co-authored the study. "You could see from the data all the stresses and strains they felt as they walked in the door, and all the tasks" they felt they had to accomplish during those early-evening hours.

The working parents in the study wore watches that beeped randomly seven times throughout the day. Researchers wanted to know how much they were multitasking. So, after the beep, the men and women filled out forms that described what they were doing, what "else" they were doing, and whether they were happy, stressed or wished they were doing something else.

After gathering all the information, the researchers found that working mothers spent 10.5 more hours every week on multitasking compared with working fathers — typical chores like preparing dinner, doing laundry, maybe even doing some work brought home from the office, while also talking with their child and helping with homework.

Fathers, on the other hand, did a different kind of juggling. "When they're multitasking, it tends to be more work related — so they might be answering a work call" while spending time with the kids, Schneider says.

As a result, Schneider says, the women reported much greater feelings of stress and being overwhelmed than the men reported. The men reported feeling pleased with their multitasking.

Psychologist Russell Poldrack, of the University of Texas at Austin, studies how our brains make decisions and process information. He says there's a big difference between multitasking in the short term — answering the phone while driving, for example — versus multitasking over a number of hours, like the mothers in this study. These mothers were likely overloading their "working memory," he says.

"Our brains can only hold so much information in working memory, and when we get overloaded, a different set of systems turns on in the brain — chemical systems that are actually related to the stress response," says Poldrack. "And the neurons in our prefrontal cortex lose the ability to hold information in the same way that they can when we're not stressed out."

Understanding the biology behind being frazzled may not be much comfort to the average over-stressed working mother.

Which is why researcher Barbara Schneider suggests some big changes. While men in the study worked longer hours on the job outside the home than women, Schneider says, employers could be more creative in scheduling, giving men more flexible hours and more time at home so that child care and household chores can be more equitably divided.

Source: NPR

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

On Afghan Acid Attacks...

One of the biggest issues facing our planet is women's rights. It won't stop being an issue. We can't stop the fight for education; independence; equality.

This goes beyond women's rights - which are often neglected after revolutions. Globally, we need to redefine our definitions of masculinity. We need to reinforce that violence (in all forms) has negative consequences. We need to start discussions about the negative impacts of violence on our communities.

I applaud the parents of this young woman for making the choice to refuse the man who asked for her hand in marriage. It's a shame that their strength was answered with violence. I hope that they find the support they need in their community.

Afghan woman attacked with acid after refusing marriage

inShare
Share this
Email
Print