All Entries in the "The Soap Box" Category
Fetishizing the Good Cause
Breast cancer is something of an unusual poster child for altruism. As a (but not the) leading killer of women, it’s a convenient vehicle for any number of marketing campaigns. In fact, breast cancer receives the largest amounts of cancer funding in the United States, commanding roughly $599.5 million of all cancer spending in 2009, according to the National Cancer Institute. Yet other forms of more common cancer, such as lung and prostate, receive only half that dollar amount for their research and awareness efforts.
At least part of the explanation behind the significant spending on breast cancer rests with consumers. Courtesy of the Susan G. Komen Foundation and any number of organizations dedicated to eradicating breast cancer, consumers have the option to “Think Pink” on everything from skin cream to baby toys. Even fast food has gotten into the fray, with Kentucky Fried Chicken partnering with the Komen Foundation in April as part of their “Buckets for the Cure” campaign. While it may sound incredulous that an organization dedicated to a pressing women’s health concern would willingly partner with restaurant chain renowned for deep-frying their entrees, the poorly thought-out marital misstep between the Komen Foundation and the Colonel’s legacy proves one overwhelming truth: breast cancer sells.
Sadly, breast cancer isn’t a moneymaker because of the number of women it effects every year, but because it remains an issue staunchly rooted in sexuality. Essentially, we’ve reached the place where fetishizing the cause for cancer guarantees big bucks.
Consider last year’s “Save the Boobs” awareness campaign from Canada’s Rethink Breast Cancer charity. A woman with curves J. Lo would envy strolls into a party wearing a teeny white bikini amidst strip-club music while eyes from all other partygoers linger a little too long for comfort. Then it cuts away to a voice over, incorrectly informing an equally-stunned audience that breast cancer is the leading killer of women. But the commercial is effective, as Dan Neil notes for The Los Angeles Times.
“These ads make the equation explicit: More breast cancer equals fewer awesome breasts. Brilliant. Where do I send my check?” he writes.
While Neil’s tongue-in-cheek commentary left a bad taste in the mouth of a number of Feminists (including Kate Harding of “Jezebel”) he nevertheless accurately picks up on the not-so-veiled sexism that often underpins messages about breast cancer awareness. In a nutshell, he’s acknowledging that the only way to make breast cancer a worthy cause in the eyes of most typical males (because breast cancer rarely affects them, and when it does, it’s disproportionate to the number of women affected) is to play up the element that’s of interest to them. That means reminding heterosexual men that they’re attracted to breasts, and that those breasts go away if breast cancer goes unchecked.
But the message raises the ire of more than one Feminist outlet.
“Few would argue against breast cancer awareness, prevention, research and the like. And of course breasts may be a part of a woman’s sexuality,” Malori Maloney opines for bitch. “But when awareness campaigns such as Rethink Breast Cancer’s Save the Boobs reduce cancer to its possible effects on a woman’s perceived sex appeal, the result isn’t educational, motivational or inspiring. The Save the Boobs campaign may bring in money for a worthy cause, but there are certainly other, less offensive means that could be just as monetarily successful, without reducing women to sets of ‘awesome breasts.’”
Maloney’s point isn’t without merit. It does seem particularly cruel to use the suggestion of sexuality to highlight both awareness and prevention of a medical condition that often seems to strip women of their inherent sexuality. Nearly two decades ago, the Center for Sexual Function discussed how the diagnosis of breast cancer and the consequential treatment could emotionally and psychologically impact women’s sexual health, finding that even after reconstruction, many troubling self-concepts prevailed. L.R. Schover, the article’s author, suggested the true determining factor in sexual and intimate relationships were the individual’s feelings of being desirable, a notion often shaken up by the removal of breast tissue.
And there is the problematic, “ends justify the means” rhetoric that tends to go into these awareness campaigns, as Feministing’s Chloe Angyall reflects. Commenting on the newest Singapore ad campaign that urges women to ignore other body issues (such as pimples, split ends or last year’s jeans not fitting anymore) in favor of rigorous prevention of breast cancer, Angyall ponders on the dangers of sidestepping the sexism because, hey, it’s to the benefit of breast cancer research.
“There’s a tendency to come up with ’sexy’ campaigns that are all about helping women, but that look very much like the ubiquitous demeaning media depictions that harm them,” she writes on Aug. 31. “The recent Twin Titties contest is a prime example of how the phrase ‘it’s for breast cancer research’ can be used to justify objectifying women’s bodies.”
Yet not everyone agrees that these types of campaigns, with their ultimate goal of raising dollars for breast cancer, inherently objectify women’s bodies. As Neil points out, when breast cancer first became something of a cultural expectation in the 70s, it was also largely viewed as a personal failing. Drawing on Feminist Susan Sontag’s memoir “Illness as Metaphor,” it was subtly treated as a deficiency, not only of health, but of womanhood. While in our current time, women often struggle with their sexuality in the wake of losing their breasts to cancer, women in Sontag’s age were viewed as incompetent members of the gender for contracting it in the first place. Neil argues that the reliance of these PSAs on sexuality shows that, as a society, we’ve largely “moved beyond blaming the victim.”
But as we watch a half-dressed woman with breasts that have obviously never seen a scalpel remind us of the importance of mammograms, are we too quick to dismiss troubling notions because they are “for a good cause?” Instead of trying to “save the awesome breasts,” shouldn’t we be focused on trying to save the awesome woman that they’re attached to? And where is the line drawn between empowerment and exploitation?
Tyra’s Top Model Faux Pas
Tyra Banks has ignited her fair share of controversy. The former supermodel turned talk show host has courted plenty of criticism for her varying standards of beauty over the years. Just four years ago, she found herself in the middle of a tabloid blitz when several unflattering pictures of Banks in a bikini emerged with headlines such as, “America’s Next Top Waddle.” Banks fired back with several episodes on her eponymous talk show dedicated to developing positive body image. But those lessons seem to have disappeared, as a promo for an upcoming episode of America’s Next Top Model features a model with a shockingly thin waist.
“You have the smallest waist in the world,” Banks is heard saying in the clip, before squealing, “There’s something about her I like!”
Of course, the frightening emaciation of the model is nothing new. Neither is it the first time “America’s Next Top Model” has included a shockingly thin hopeful in any capacity. However, this controversy comes on the heels of several digital editing catastrophes of major women’s labels that have reduced already thin models to images of skeletons.
Just last September, clothing company Ralph Lauren ran an advertisement which featured a grossly distorted Filippa Hamilton sporting a larger head than pelvis thanks to sloppy editing. The ensuing maelstrom was marked by the clothing conglomerate’s refusal to accept accountability for the poor editing job while simultaneously firing the 5′10, 120-pound Hamilton for being too fat. Eventually, they admitted responsibility for the lousy excuse of airbrushing, but refused to re-hire Hamilton or pledge to avoid such horrific chop jobs in the future. True to form, just a few weeks later, they were at it again, with an image that had Jezebel columnist Margaret Hartmann asking, “Didn’t anyone notice she looks like a Bratz doll?”
But the problem isn’t limited to Ralph Lauren. Earlier this month, women’s business-casual retailer Ann Taylor experienced a public relations disaster when their interactive website showed an unaltered image that dissolved into a Frankenstein of digital touch-up.
“Remember how Ann Taylor promised to ‘feature more real, beautiful images’ after turning models into Stretch Armstrong dolls on its website? Well, they’ve started by adding some unretouched thumbnails that transform into ribless monstrosities when you click them,” Hartmann writes for Jezebel on August 3. “As the page loads, you’ll get to see what the Chiffon Trim Tank looks like on a real woman for a few seconds. Then she shrinks into an awkward creature barely able to support the weight of her torso with her tiny child hips.”
Not that it was the first offense by Ann Taylor. The clothing company has issued an apology and launched a media campaign to restore their image with their primary demographic.
“What they’ve found is that the women who buy their clothes have curves, they don’t look like those models,” Juli Banes, a Feminist and fat advocacy blogger, says. “We’re talking about career-minded women who may be conscientious of their bodies, but aren’t on the eating disordered end of the spectrum. Using these images alienates potential buyers who will automatically dismiss the possibility of buying an outfit worn on someone with a completely different body type, even if that body type isn’t authentic.”
Lingerie giant Victoria’s Secret has also been inserted into the fray, recently running an advertisement of a sloppily edited photograph of a belly-baring model clad in some adorable pajamas. Despite the woman looking straight into the camera, her back and navel indicate that she’s standing at an angle, leading to the conclusion that her stomach had been hurriedly Photoshopped for a “flatter” appearance.
It’s a disappointing follow-up to pop princess Britney Spears’s decision to release the unaltered photos alongside the “finished product” of advertisements for her Candie’s-sponsored clothing line. Spears, hoping to highlight body image issues and encourage retailers to reduce the extent of digital image alterations, insisted that the major changes be identified for consumers to see.
Whether the subjects are digitally-altered models or single subjects sporting unusual body sizes, Feminist sources are often left wondering why media outlets won’t simply use “real” women. Most clothing manufacturers defend the use of digital imaging, insisting it’s “necessary” to help women understand what the clothes will actually look like on. Of course, how realistic can these methods be if they involve reducing women to caricatures of form? According to Julie Frederickson, spokesperson for Ann Taylor, the excuse seems to be that even the most beautiful of models needs retouching, so why bother with someone that doesn’t meet their beauty standards?
“We work with clothes that aren’t fully fitted to the model,” she tells Jezebel’s Jenna Sauers. “We need to do standard removal of pins, clips, and temporary pinning. Sometimes we remove as standard practice, tattoos, blemishes, and excessive wrinkles or folds that may detract from true product experience.”
Like Ann Taylor, Banks has apologized, but like Ralph Lauren and Ann Taylor forces before her, insists it was merely an “oversight,” rather than a campaign against women of size.
“It’s just impossible for me to see everything that’s created before it’s released to all of you,” she writes on her website.
While consumers can and should expect a certain unsympathetic doublespeak from clothing corporations, Banks’s flippant dismissal of responsibility is a particularly disappointing blow from a woman that has encouraged countless impressionable viewers to “rock what they’ve got.”
Perhaps the best solution would be to require all women-centric powerhouses, whether it’s in the media or in clothing, to take a play out of the Lane Bryant playbook. Since the controversial commercial was censored by ABC and Fox four months ago, the plus-sized women’s chain has emerged as a focal point of self-love and body empowerment.
“In this day and age, with all body types finding role models, it’s simply astounding that we still have companies that think reducing all women to lollipops will turn profits,” Banes writes. “In this economy, mid-priced retailers would do well to remember that even women of size can choose where to shop, and they’re not going to give their money to stores that don’t cater to them. As for Tyra Banks, she needs to continue abiding by the principles she encourages women to live by. It isn’t about penalizing women who are naturally thin, but promoting the idea that women who are naturally curvy or plus-sized are just as worthy of buying and selling clothes, or parading on shows celebrating the female form.”
Is Cyber-Impersonation Protected by the Constitution?
The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution has always drawn a pretty stark contrast between America and the rest of the world. For some reason, we just tend to be more accepting of the viewpoints of others, even when we find their positions idiotic or morally reprehensible. This vision of tolerance is absolutely unmatched the world over: even in France, le berceau de la liberté, you can get arrested merely for speech that incites hatred against a particular religion. Just ask former French film star Brigitte Bardot, who got a two-month prison sentence and a $23,000 fine over her “controversial” remarks about the Islamic faith. For better or for worse, Muslims enjoy no such protections here – I suppose things balance out when one considers that female observers of the faith are, at least for now, still allowed to wear their burqas in public.
You’d think that dealing with the worst recession in generations would distract those folks from their perpetual quest to prevent the spread of unpopular ideas, but you’d also be wrong. Even now, my state government in California is attempting to outlaw the unspeakable act of impersonating someone else on the internet. This is just the latest salvo in the newest free-speech battlefront, namely that against “cyber-bullying” or cyber-impersonation. Essentially, SB 1411 makes it a crime to knowingly impersonate another person in an attempt to cause “harm” of some kind to another party. Like most laws restricting unpopular speech, the wording is fairly innocuous. I mean, we’re just trying to protect people, right?
Maybe. However, there are some questions we need to ask before rendering an intelligent judgment. For instance, does the law do an effective job of preventing the objectionable behavior? Is it constitutional? Is there a legitimate concern that the law will lead to unintended consequences? Is it even a good idea to impose criminal sanctions on the online equivalent of a high school rumor mill?
I say no to all of the foregoing: like most attempts to put a muzzle on the populace, SB 1411’s protections come at too great a cost, and as such, the law must be condemned. Loudly.
Could You Vague That Up a Little?
It’s ironic, but in its quest to pass constitutional muster, SB 1411 appears to have been massively gutted from its original inception. First, the law only covers the impersonation of a “real” person – perceptive readers will realize that such a device would have been useless to address the harm done to Megan Meier, who committed suicide after months of torment at the hands of several unscrupulous cyber-bullies. Her cyber-bullies were impersonating a boy, but since he turned out not to exist at all, they would be exempt from any criminal prosecution under SB 1411’s provisions.
Additionally, the law only covers a “credible” impersonation, so there’s no remedy for people on Facebook who get hacked by an anonymous phisher. This is because I’m pretty likely to know that my best friend probably isn’t spamming me non-stop with bogus sex toy advertisements. Ditto for angry ex-boyfriends who are trashing their former squeezes on public forums – the more outrageous the accusations, the more likely that folks will see them for a huge charade.
While I’m sure the authors of this law wanted it to provide further coverage, they were probably too worried about 1st Amendment problems to include broader provisions. What’s particularly hilarious about their efforts is that, in attempting to make the law simultaneously comprehensive and narrowly-tailored, they seem to have produced a watered-down bill that is still unconstitutional, which is arguably a bigger issue than the simple confusion of jurisdiction and a lack of enforceability.
Firstly, the law doesn’t distinguish between true and false speech – both appear to be criminalized, even if the information disclosed about your subject is completely true. It is here that we run into the law of unintended consequences, namely when dealing with defamation. Defamation is more commonly known as libel or slander, and it is the publication of a false, damaging statement about someone else to a third party. Traditionally, truth has been a complete defense against a claim of slander, which makes sense: why would we punish someone for merely stating the truth?
Furthermore, the law doesn’t define exactly what constitutes “harm” to another person – so, are we talking physical injury? Financial injury? Hurt feelings? I’ve absolutely no idea, and something tells me that the bill’s drafters don’t either. And as a matter of public policy, it’s a horrid idea to criminalize behavior in such vague terms. As stated by the CATO Institute’s Timothy Sandefur:
There’s probably nothing more dangerous to individual rights than vaguely written laws. They give prosecutors and judges undue power to decide whether or not to punish conduct that people did not know was illegal at the time. Vagueness turns the law into a sword dangling over citizens’ heads — and because government officials can choose when and how to enforce their own interpretations of the law, vagueness gives them power to make their decisions from unfair or discriminatory motives.
I couldn’t agree more. Long ago, our society made a decision that the government shouldn’t have the power to arbitrarily detain the citizenry. An essential building block in that foundation is the prohibition against vaguely-written penal laws. If we can’t understand what is illegal, then how is it fair to punish us when we break those statutes? Such practices are incompatible with our modern notions of due process, and on that basis alone, the law should have been voted down.
And even if SB 1411 was unconstitutional, do we really want to criminalize anti-social behavior? Clearly, existing laws protect people whose identities have been stolen. Likewise for those unfortunate souls who have been defamed by people on the internet. Seriously, it’s difficult even to decipher exactly what kind of harm this law will actually prevent on its own – maybe a few high-schoolers will get put in jail for starting a rumor about a classmate.
But the question remains: at what cost?
—- Barrick Arnold
Dr. Laura Ends Show Over Racism Flap
Radio talk show host, occasional author and always moral proselytizer Laura Schlessinger has encouraged her fair share of tirades in her three decades as a public figure. Feminists especially have been quick to dismiss the brash, regressive diatribes that have ranged from blatant misogyny to frank hypocrisy (for example, she published In Praise of Stay-at-Home Moms last year, despite the fact she has always maintained a career inside the non-domestic work force) and unapologetic homophobia.
But “Dr. Laura,” as the radio wave Phyllis Schlafly is more colloquially known, achieved astonishing new lows this week when she decided to inform listeners that strong reactions to racism are the result of people being “hypersensitive.” To prove her point, Schlessinger threw in plenty of n-bombs for good measure, encouraging the caller on the other end of her rant “not to NAACP” her. To top it off, Schlessinger also asserts that “a lot of blacks” only voted for Barack Obama in the most recent presidential election due to his heritage.
Not surprisingly, Schlessinger’s recent dose of ignorance has ignited a media firestorm, culminating in her announcement that she would be leaving her radio show at the end of the year to find a platform that won’t infringe on her First Amendment rights.
“Schlessinger, like so many of her conservative compatriots, has a tenuous grasp on what the First Amendment actually promises (hint: it doesn’t promise that radio hosts can say whatever offensive bullshit they want and people need to be cool with it), and, like Don Imus before her, also doesn’t seem to realize that just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do,” Andi Zeisler, co-founder of bitch magazine writes.
Zeisler goes on to acknowledge that far more troubling than Schlessinger’s thin understanding of free speech is the idea that she “needed” to express bigoted notions to begin with. Even before the caller identified the actual episodes of racism, Schlessinger had decided that the caller couldn’t possibly have experienced actual racism, because racism is simply the product of two things: hysterical reaction to people refusing to be politically correct, and a double-standard that allows marginalized groups to use certain words while simultaneously denying that permission to dominant others. Never mind, of course, that such words and phrases emerged when those dominant others wanted to perpetuate the oppression of those marginalized groups.
In a nutshell, of course she doesn’t “get it;” and it isn’t because the issue itself is confusing. A privileged white woman, Schlessinger cannot possibly hope to understand the complicated history of racial slurs that leave most persons of color feeling conflicted about their use. While it’s true a lot of African-Americans subscribe to the school of thought in “taking back the power” of racial slurs through their frequent use, it’s not a characteristic of all African-Americans, just as not every Feminist agrees the way to avoid being degraded by the term “cunt” or “bitch” is by using it in a complimentary or empowering fashion. Until the debate over the power of certain charged words is fully resolved, it’s best for communities not impacted by their use to avoid them altogether.
Not that that completely resolves the issue with Schlessinger’s tirade. Racism is far from a phenomena of the past, and the election of Obama has certainly polarized the country in a way that has never been seen before. Many of the criticisms lauded at him, particularly by the neoconservatives of the right, are tinged with de facto or overt racism because they would never be voiced against a Caucasian Commander-in-Chief. John McCain, for example, was actually born outside of the country, but had he won the election, would the Birther Movement be just as adamant in demanding he prove his Constitutional legitimacy to lead the country? Probably not, and that’s not even getting into “Is he or isn’t he” debate about Obama’s standing as a Muslim.
Pertinent to Schlessinger, however, would be the idea that people of color overwhelmingly voted for Obama because of his heritage. It’s beyond dispute that Obama fared well with the African-American voters in 2008, but not inconsistently compared to the previous presidential elections. In fact, 90 percent of African-Americans voted for Al Gore in the 2000 election and 88 percent voted for John Kerry in the 2004 election. In other words, if Schlessinger is right and African-Americans were motivated to vote for Obama solely on the basis of his race, it would still only apply to about five percent of the voters he won. It’s worth wondering what percentage of voters likewise cast their ballot for any candidate who wasn’t Obama, simply on the basis that his heritage is partially African.
Of course, Schlessinger typifies the approach much of America tends to favor towards race and identity politics, and has for as long as she’s been on the air. Immediately following her tirade, Schlessinger remarked, “we’ve got a black man as president and we’ve got more complaining about racism than ever. I think that’s hilarious.” What’s really hilarious is the idea that just because the American people voted Obama into office, racism isn’t an issue, or that the election somehow coincides with the explosion of race-motivated dialogs. It’s worth pointing out that the caller in question was seeking advice on a personal experience, which Schlessinger was apparently bent on turning into a political one. Twice during the call she steered the discussion to Obama, suggesting that even her contempt for the marrying of the two is shallow at best. It’s okay for her to do it, in her prerogative, because she’s not part of the problem; she’s merely bringing it to light. As if to cement this view, Schlessinger never officially apologized for her racial epitaph, but rather expressed regret that she lost the point she’d be trying to make.
Though many of us who have watched Schlessinger make a career out of berating minority groups are glad to see the end of her reign over the airwaves, it’s obvious she’s shopping around for some other options. While most people weren’t familiar with radio host Imus until the 2007 NCAA Women’s Basketball Championship, the radio host had a long history of racist, sexist and otherwise prejudiced remarks. Despite this, the Fox Business Network gave him his own show, suggesting that patterns of bigotry won’t disqualify a potential air jockey and, indeed, can provide ratings security.
In other words, Schlessinger’s latest faux pas may very well guarantee her continued presence in the media (it helps she’s already had Sarah Palin begging her to “reload”) where marginalized groups in this country can continue being told their sensitivity to the exploitation of that marginalized status is the result of “hypersensitivity” complicated by their blanket loyalty to the president they mindlessly voted for because he looks just like them.
Muslim Woman’s Pork Refusal Results in Foster Rejection
While the religion makes headlines and faces criticism for potentially building a mosque near Ground Zero, Tashima Crudup seems a recent victim of an anti-Islamic sentiment. After the former foster care child completed 50 hours of training and cleared the initial screening process with Maryland’s Contemporary Family Services, her application to become a foster parent was denied. Why? Because the practicing Muslim refused to serve pork in her home.
Some are concerned that the dietary issue was an excuse to deny Crudup a foster care license based on her religion.
“I have a hard time believing [the company] denies every vegetarian or Orthodox Jewish person a foster care license,” said an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a discrimination complaint on her behalf. “But I do believe Mrs. Crudup was picked out here … and it has led us to believe an anti-Muslim bias is playing a role in the decision.”
According to Crudup, Contemporary Family Services placed no emphasis on the type of food she served in her home, and she explained to them during the interview that she would allow children to eat the meat elsewhere. She was happy to be sensitive to any religious preferences of the children that would be staying with her.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Human Resources told the Baltimore Sun that it was against the law to reject an application based on the type of food served in a home.
Naturally, Contemporary Family Services says they respect Crudup’s beliefs and that her religion had nothing to do with the denial of her application. A statement from the company specifically cites “concerns raised by statements made during the home study interview, specifically your explicit request to prohibit pork products within your home environment.”
Yet what if someone was vegetarian or vegan, or even gluten free (like me)? Would they not be allowed to foster a child? Denying pork seems such a small part of what would make a good foster home. Religious discrimination, therefore, seems blatant.
It’s extremely unfortunate that Crudup would be denied something she is passionate about for something like her religion, and it seems unfortunate that the foster care system may miss out on a good parent. What do you think about Crudup’s story? Does the company seem to be against her religion, or is refusal to serve pork truly enough to deny someone foster care parenting? Leave a comment with your thoughts.
Cost of Birth Becomes Personal
In a matter of days, I’ll hit my 37th week of pregnancy. Professionals in the field of obstetric and gynecological medicine will tell you that this is a time of considerable growth and importance for pregnant women and their developing fetuses, because it’s generally accepted that a baby born in this window will survive, barring any substantial medical issues.
Yet despite this reassurance of viability, I find myself more afraid than I have been at any other point during the last eight months. Early into my pregnancy, I selected the Women’s Health and Birth Center of Sonoma County to not only provide prenatal care, but to serve as the place where I intended to deliver my baby. This came about after weeks of careful consideration of what kind of birthing experience I wanted.
Once it became clear that this pregnancy would not be going the way of the dinosaurs, I spent a fair amount of time evaluating how to make the experience with the Birth Center as empowering as possible. This should be of no great surprise to any of my long-term readers, as the Feminist angle is my primary motivator for both my career and ongoing personal ideology. Couple that with being a survivor of sexual violence (and, tragically, how the experience of childbirth can re-traumatize those who have been victimized) and you have all the reasoning for why I felt it necessary to create a pregnancy based on empowerment rather than submission.
Choosing the Birth Center was critical to obtaining a peace of mind so that I wasn’t afraid of the journey I was embarking on. Upon my first meeting with Roseanne Gephardt, the head midwife, I laid my frank concerns out on the table. Most importantly, I wanted it understood that a Cesarean section would be permitted strictly as a last resort, and only if it was irrevocably clear that not to have one would mean certain death for me or my child.
Perhaps, even to those who have been pregnant before, these stances sound extreme. But they really aren’t. Within weeks of discovering I was pregnant, an explosive and comprehensive report about California blew the whistle on so-called maternal health care, finding that the maternal mortality rate is higher than that of Bosnia or Kuwait. That’s correct: mothers are more likely to die in childbirth in the Golden State than in two countries still recovering from brutal civil wars. Adding insult to injury, many of the deaths are preventable with routine postpartum screenings. The growing favor toward C-sections is cited as a major instigator of this climbing statistic.
Across the country, the rate of C-sections is more than on the rise. In many areas, it’s becoming the standard of care rather than a last resort. The World Health Organization suggests the best outcomes for mothers and babies appear to occur with Cesarean section rates of five to 10 percent, while rates above 15 percent seem to do more harm than good. While the US initially met this number in 1967 — the first year such numbers were tabulated — those rates have more than tripled. By 2007, one in every three mothers could expect to have her birth complicated by a C-section, and the other figures aren’t substantiating that each is an absolute medical necessity.
Whether the average American chooses to believe the real culprits are “C-sections on demand” or obstetric surgeons who simply want to get paid, there is a pervasive bias against natural birth options. This explains why, of all the fingers in the small pie that is California’s state-sponsored health care system, birth centers like Santa Rosa’s are being left empty-handed.
When I went into the Birth Center last week for a routine check-up, I was informed that Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, would no longer cover my prenatal visits. I would need to receive services from another clinic nearby, a clinic connected to a hospital that I had already researched and concluded was not a place in which wanted to give birth. And I wasn’t the only one.
“The state’s action is a severe blow to the center, where 85 percent of its patients are covered by the state’s health program for those who cannot afford medical care,” The Press Democrat reports on July 28. “Since last week, Gephart said she’s been forced to lay off four employees and put two others on extended vacation.”
I tried, as best I could, to understand how any bureaucracy could think such a move was possibly a good idea, but could not understand the state’s reasoning. As best as one of the other midwives could pontificate, the state simply doesn’t understand what birthing centers do. Such isn’t a foreign concept to me — even my fairly granola in-laws reacted with concern when I dismissed the possibility of a hospital birth and discussed my hope of an empowering water-birth at the Birth Center.
However, there are a few irrefutable facts. First and foremost, natural birthing institutions like the Birth Center save the taxpayers money. Because pregnant women will always disproportionately make up the numbers of dependents of state-run health care, childbirth will continue to be a major expense taxpayers have to consume. It makes sense, then, to cover low-cost options as equally as those of higher-cost. Natural birth centers, due to their low level of intervention such as C-sections, save an average of $10,000 per birth.
More than the emotions that accompany such a situation, one can only wonder if this state is in any position to refuse options to relieve the financial pressure citizens are under. This week, the Obama administration announced a new initiative to spend somewhere around $63 billion on a “women-centered” global health care solution, but I’m of the opinion that there are plenty of women domestically, specifically in the Golden State, who could benefit from such an initiative, including me.
While the resolution of this particular situation hasn’t played out yet, it’s unlikely to happen before my scheduled due date of September 21, and I remain unclear as to whether I’ll ultimately have the birth experience that I want. What is clear is that the long patriarchal practice of constructing women’s social preferences so that they appear to be freely chosen has once again launched a moderately successful campaign against what ought to be the most empowering moments of a woman’s life.
With all of the costs, both tangible and not, involved, is that really a price we should have to pay?
Want To Highlight Your Issue? Change Your Name!
A man from Zion, Illinois recently changed his name to “One Nation Under God” to call attention to the old Christian “unity” the nation had in the 1950s — a unity now eroded by the “loss of religious freedoms,” including school prayer.
Whatever you say Mr.Under God.
Yet ironically, though his name is borrowed from the Pledge of Allegiance (arguably one of the last bastions of prayer left in schools), he refuses to recite it because “Christ said pledge no oaths.” It’s unclear if anyone has suggested he just skip the “I pledge allegiance” part.
Originally christened Steven Kreuscher, One Nation Under God has been actively name-protesting since 2008, when he completed his first name-change operation to “In God We Trust.” Most people just called him Steve, though his boss did address him as In God (which I’m sure helped his self-esteem). One Nation is an artist — you can check out his work here and the picture for this post; they’re pretty trippy and awesome! He is quite open with his views, and includes the following statement on his website about Rob Sherman, an Atheist he admires for his similar ideals despite their religious differences:
I realized that he is a man just like me in composition and character and that we both very strongly believe in fairness, equal rights for all, freedom for all, justice for all and lastly, that we both are very strongly against unconstitutional government political shopping sprees with our hard earned tax money.
This won’t be the last we’ll hear of Mr. Under God; his next name-change is said to be to 777 (which has some religious significance, despite the reference to organized gambling), followed by What Would Jesus Do, No Cross No Crown, Thermado Zattersof and, finally, Angelico Zioneero. Whether or not you agree with him, he offers some interesting ideas for taking advantage of our (apparently lax) name-changing laws. And, overall, it’s inspiring to live in a country where this kind of free-speech artistic tomfoolery is not only openly allowed, but subsequently embraced or mocked as seen fit by the individual. I think I would fall in the embraced category for sure. I look forward to the day when I meet Ms. Free-Healthcare Worldpeace.
[Artist's Bio] via [Chicago Breaking News]
Lutheran Church Reinstates Bay Area Seven
After two decades of social progress, political activism and legal wrangling, defrocked Lutheran pastors known as the Bay Area Seven were reinstated on July 25. Jeff Johnson, Megan Rohrer, Paul Brenner, Craig Minich, Dawn Roginski, Sharon Stalkfleet and Ross Merkel were previously stripped of their clergy duties for identifying as either gay or transgendered.
The pastors were reinstated almost a year after the national assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to allow gay men and women with partners to serve as clergy members. The denomination appointed a task force to study the issue in 2001, and concluded debate after eight long years. In the end, the proposal to permit openly gay clergy members won just two-thirds of the vote — the minimum required for passage.
As the largest Lutheran denomination in the country, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America represents and reaches a substantial amount of followers throughout the United States. However, it is only the latest Protestant church to begin the process of ending discrimination against homosexuals and transfolk.
“It’s been a long and hard journey for a lot of people, and it feels like this is a new beginning in the history of the [Evangelical Lutheran Church in America] E.L.C.A,” Amalia Vagts, executive director of Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries, tells The New York Times.
Rohrer, who serves in four churches and as a missionary for the homeless, tells The San Francisco Chronicle that she did not feel Sunday was the day she became a pastor, but the day “the church gets to receive me as a pastor.”
Indeed, the history of persecution against gay and trans individuals is a detailed one. While individuals who were gay or trans could serve as reverends, they were often subject to a unique set of rules that didn’t apply to heterosexual clergy member, including celibacy vows.
“Lesbian couple Ruth Frost and Phyllis Zillhart served as assistant pastors at the gay-friendly church back in the 90s and refused to take vows of celibacy,” Justine Quart writes for The San Francisco Appeal. “Up until recently, the E.L.C.A. mandated that gay women and men were only allowed to become Lutheran pastors if they took “the vow.”
Though the Lutheran church continued to ordain individuals that identified as gay or trans, they were relegated to lower duties as associate pastors, or kept from exercising any clergy duties altogether. Keeping gay and trans individuals on the sidelines allowed Lutheran churches to strike a delicate compromise among their ranks, particularly in light of the strong sentiment against gays and trans folk.
It’s a sentiment that isn’t likely to end any time soon. The E.L.C.A., with 4.6 million members, is now the largest Protestant church in the United States to permit non-celibate gay ministers to serve in the ranks of its clergy. But the issue has long been one of contention within the different synods of the Lutheran faith, and promoted wrenching divisions for it as well as for many other denominations. Since the E.L.C.A. voted last year to remove restrictions on gay and trans reverends, 185 congregations have taken the two votes necessary to leave the denomination.
Some former members of the E.L.C.A. aren’t stopping at merely leaving the denomination. The Rev. Mark Chavez, director of Lutheran CORE, a coalition of theologically conservative Lutheran churches, said his group expected to form a new denomination, the North American Lutheran Church, in August.
“It’s just another steady step taken by the E.L.C.A. to move the denomination further and further away from most Lutheran churches around the world and from the whole Christian church, unfortunately,” he tells The New York Times on July 25.
Some churches, on the other hand, are being invited back into the fold with the Bay Area Seven. First United and St. Francis were two of the churches involved with ordaining gay and trans ministers, including Johnson, and not enforcing the vow of celibacy. When Johnson and the others were defrocked, St. Francis also chose to leave the denomination. Following the Sunday ceremony marking reconciliation between the national Lutheran church and the Bay Area Seven, the congregation of St. Francis voted overwhelmingly to rejoin the E.L.C.A.
The move to have the Bay Area Seven reinstated is just the latest indication that the tide is finally turning in favor of rights for gay and transfolk, a victory going beyond the confines of any particular church or temple. While 2010 will be made memorable due in no small part to the number of policies enacted protecting the rights of these marginalized groups as opposed to retracting them, winning recognition from a major religious power is one step closer to permanently ending the discrepancies in the status quo. For as long as homosexuality has been presented as a population, politicians have used religion as an excuse to justify policies of discrimination and exclusion. As religious institutions and leaders become less likely to be the lambs to the slaughter, politicians will now have to either find other red herrings to justify the ongoing assault against civil rights or get with the program.
For the Bay Area Seven, they hope for the ladder.
“It’s an invitation,” Rohrer tells The New York Times, “to join us in the pews every single Sunday, where not a single one of these pastors will care if you agree with us or if you think our families are appropriate. We’ll serve you communion, we’ll pray with you and we’ll visit you in the hospital.”
UN Recognizes Gay Rights Group, Conservatives Oppose
Another win for gay rights took place last week when the United Nations gave accreditation to the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. On July 19, the UN approved the group’s application; voting 23 to 13 with 13 countries abstaining. While this is an obvious victory for gay rights, not everyone is celebrating the accomplishment of the IGLHRC.
According to Talking Points Memo, a political news blog, at least two Congressional representatives, Trent Franks of Arizona and Chris Smith of New Jersey, pressured the other countries on the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council to vote against the application of the New York group. Franks and Smith, both Republicans, insisted that questions remain about the IGLHRC’s support for “internationally recognized rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression,” and approving the group’s application would potentially undermine those rights.
That’s right. Franks and Smith, in a joint effort to appeal to other countries to deny legitimacy to a gay rights advocacy group, evoked the sacred rhetoric of rights based on guaranteed freedoms, which they assert are international in nature. Except it’s worth noting that the countries they petitioned include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Vatican, three countries that are certainly not known for being strongholds of either the freedom of expression or religion.
“Let’s just say, Egypt doesn’t have a sterling human rights record,” Joe Sudbay writes for AMERICAblog’s gay news section on July 22. “And, the Vatican is enmeshed in the ongoing child rape scandal that continues to spread — and reaches the highest levels of the Catholic Church.”
In other words, Franks and Smith chose strange bedfellows under the banner of freedom. Fortresses of freedom they are not. They are, however, bastions of anti-gay sentiment, so Franks and Smith chose their allies wisely, even if the argument likely fell on deaf ears. In fact, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have played a role in the languishing identity crisis of the IGLHRC for the last three years. The group initially applied for “consultative status” in 2007, but the application has been stagnated in the Non-Governmental Organization Committee ever since.
The anti-gay sentiment within the U.N., particularly the NGO Committee, is well-established. Just last month, Jerry Matjila, South Africa’s representative at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, commented that extending protection to gay and homosexual Africans “demeans the legitimate plight of the victims of racism.” And some of the most well-respected and industrious of nations blocked earlier attempts of the IGLHRC to receive recognition through the U.N.
Which is accomplished through consultative status. The designation would allow the IGLHRC to have a stronger presence around the U.N., including a more formal voice in debates. However, the Committee balked at approving the IGLHRC’s application earlier this year, voting to take “no action,” threatening to effectively destroy the group’s involvement with the U.N. until Ambassador Susan Rice offered a resolution to allow the Council to vote on the application directly, circumventing the traditional protocol.
“Behind the scenes, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice and her team quietly informed key governments, including African states, of the importance Obama and his administration placed on this issue,” Colum Lynch writes for Turtle Bay, the official blog of the magazine “Foreign Policy.” Jessica Stern, a policy adviser for IGLHRC, said the diplomacy was critical in persuading African states that might have voted against the measure to abstain or to not show up.”
While Conservatives have long exercised the predominant influence over the U.N., the campaign started by Franks and Smith spearheaded an equally powerful movement of Democratic leaders. Over a dozen representatives, including Barney Frank, Kristen Gilbrand and John Kerry responded to the letter, throwing their support behind the IGLHRC and urging an end to the delays.
“It is a tactic that should not be allowed to stand,” Kerry writes in a July 16 letter to U.N. members. “It would be very difficult if this procedural mechanism or other unjustifiable opposition were to be used to prevent an NGO that’s highly regarded by the US Department of States and the human rights community from being fully considered for consultative status.”
Kerry’s letter is certainly right-on. In the relatively brief history of the NGO Committee, the only applications for consultative status that have ever been rejected were those that carried out actions against a member state or that have been connected to terrorist activities. Despite what conservative forces might want to portray, extending equal rights to homosexuals is not akin to terrorism. To reject an organization which seeks to safeguard those rights only demonstrates how absolutely necessary the IGLHRC is.
The recognition of the IGLHRC comes at a critical time. The Obama administration has been weathering criticism for months over their hesitation to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and accusations of forgetting the agenda of the gay community in favor of a more moderate one. Playing a critical role in securing legitimacy for the IGLHRC is one way to reaffirm his commitment to the same gay community which overwhelmingly helped the senator from Illinois get elected.
Additionally, violence against homosexuals is on the rise, and it’s reaching the proportions of an epidemic both domestically and abroad. The fact that individuals face systematic, state-sanctioned murder due to their sexual orientation makes this not, according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, an issue of gay rights, but of human rights.
In light of this, we can only hope that IGLHRC’s success within the U.N. is a signal of the global shift to come.
