Make Chaste

There's a mini-trend spotted by the Education Life section of the New York Times today. Seems that some students at Ive League campuses (Harvard, Princeton, M.I.T.) have started up chastity clubs. Brings new meaning to abstinence-only education.

Aside from the fact that this idea sets women back a few hundred years, I take issue with the article that describes these campuses as liberal. Liberal compared to what? Some Christian college in the mid-West? Does anyone remember Harvard's last president being quoted as saying women weren't as good as men in math? And what about Princeton's eating clubs (mentioned in another story in the same section), which only started admitting women in 1991?

While feeling the need to bond over trite, moralistic pap and discussing mutual abstinence is misguided but relatively harmless, the idea that all of this is quietly veiled in religious zealotry that is bubbling up in campus life in mainstream collges is worrisome. Two of the campus societies are named for Elizabeth Anscombe, a Roman Catholic who, according to the Times "condemned contraception." Not sure, as the Princeton anti-sex club promises, that forswearing contraception helps with empowerment or dignity. Fewer choices are exactly the opposite of empowering, sex or no sex.

Still No Condom Ads on Fox or CBS

Check out my pitch to The Simpsons that combines both their love of pigs and subverting Fox on my post for Women in Media and News. Hey, it beats another story on Lindsay Lohan.

More Boobs from New York

So Ms. Magazine is getting in on Cleavage-Gate. They're asking people who want substance, not support stories, to write in to the Post and give them the what for. Turns out, Clinton hasn't just gotten flack for showing a little flesh. She's been hounded by the media in a pretty pervy way. Her hair style, her suits, her supposed Botoxed skin have all been points for pundits. Now, I have my problems with Hill. But let's face it: we'd all be better off if the media spent half as much energy focusing on policy statements as fashion statements.

You can speak your mind to the Post here.

The D from New York

It really does take a major media outlet like the Washington Post to state the obvious: women, they have breasts. But that's what readers who happened on their site got to learn today with an article on Hillary Clinton giving us a --very small -- peek at her endowment. Check out my post on the WorkingForChange blog.

Cowabunga, Dude

I admit it: I'm a fan of the Simpsons, the yellow TV-sitcom family who refuses to age or change. I've been counting down the days till The Simpsons movie opens at the end of the month. To get me in the mood, my local 7-11 is becoming a Quik-E Mart. (With signs like They're Not Called Don't Nuts. And squishees.) And I even have my own Simpons alter-ego -- courtesy of the Simpsonmaker. Take a look.



Cool, huh. Of course, I always considered Lisa Simpson a suitable representative, because let's face it, she does represent. She's the smart girl, the top of her class, the top of her town, really, the one who can be forgiven to occasionally Vassar-bash. Who was the first female-cartoon president, at least. It does drive me bananas that this irreverent, subversive show is on the most Orwellian of networks.

So I have a pitch for the show: Hey, Simpsons writers, since your network won't air the Trojan condom ad, why don't you run a cartoon condom ad on an upcoming episode. I won't even charge for the idea. Don't like it: eat my shorts.

Why Abstinence-Only Education Sucks and Blows

I really don't know why they bother. The Republican party -- the ones who sleep with prostitutes, children and other people's wives -- really blather on about abstinence-only education. They wouldn't dream of funding anything that had, um, science, involved.

No. They prefer the kind of "education" the way they take their "science," with neither, pleasantly divorced from fact. The New York Times today put a damn good story on its front page today all about lack-of-sex-ed classes in high school. Abstinence-only gets $17 million in funding in Texas alone. A class that does not discuss sex or contraception. To teenagers. So, what's happened despite this stupid waste-of-time class that probably most kids skip anyway? Well, teen pregnancy rates have been on the decrease, that is, going down, since 1991. Before abstinence-only education. Before Monica. While everyone hates to say it, I'll just go ahead and point out the obvious: contraception.

Because, when all else fails, a condom usually does the trick.

Fox and CBS Don't Have Protection

The drama continues for the Trojan condom ad spurned by the TV networks Fox and CBS. This time, according to the New York Times, it's the affiliate networks in cities like Pittsburgh and Seattle who want a say. In Pittsburgh, they're saying no. In Seattle, they're rolling out the welcome mat.

Maybe Trojan really knows what it's doing: the ad is getting plenty of play on YouTube, with 100,00 hits, and 400,000 hits to the Trojan ad's Web site. Planned Parenthood sent out 44,000 e-mails to the network chiefs in protest. Everybody seems to get that it makes no sense, as I've said before, for ads to run about Viagra, but not to run about condoms. We see plenty of sex on your networks, people. But here's the reality: next year 4 million people will get an STD, according to Planned Parenthood. But what exactly is it about this condom ad that has these two networks running the other way? I think it's the frank discussion of sex -- use a condom every time. It seems that fantasy is fine, and reality programming about salacious issues, also OK. But suggesting that you be safe while partaking in any of these activities. Well, that's just downright subversive.

Inconceivable

I just finished reading Peggy Orenstein's New York Times magazine story about the increasing use of donor eggs for infertile couples. And I know that I probably shouldn't do this, but I can't help it. I judge. Why? Maybe because I recoil at the idea of harvesting eggs from younger women so that older women can have babies out of their own bodies. Maybe because even in Orenstein's piece, the egg donors are pretty much nameless, faceless egg givers, irrelevant except for their behind-the-scenes role. The story wasn't about them, but about the agony the infertile woman goes through in going through an egg donation.

The infertility industry is a multi-billion-dollar business. If you're willing and able to plunk down $25-$35,000, you too can have some 20-something's eggs put into your 40-something body. I see ads to recruit egg donors in the BART train on my commute to work. To me, it's like we're in this strange, new world where an older woman is reduced to her uterus. And a younger woman is reduced to her young, healthy eggs. A few shots here, an AIDS test there, a Web site to scope out the young, mainly blond, (Ivy League and Jewish? even better) mainly high SAT-scoring Bettys, and you've got yourself an insta-family.

But just because modern medicine can give you this option, does not mean you should take it. Women over 40 can stall the inevitable aging process with botox, breast lifts and lipsuction. And now they can add to that list birthing babies. Orenstein's argument is that by keeping the egg donor detail under wraps only adds to the stigma of having an egg donor baby. Bust this out in the open, she says, and just make it one more option for couples who want kids. After all, she tried it, and she wrote a book about it.

But once again, the New York Times is showcasing an procedure that is not universal and is not without controversy. It is an option for couples who can afford it and aren't saddled with ethical dilemmas that science has created before philosophy has caught up. In this area, we're barren.

Manulary

What is up with all the man words these days? A male nanny is a manny. A man's sandals are mandals. And let's not forget the word that started it all, mimbo, a male bimbo. It's not like we were lacking in words for men. But I mean, what's next -- a male geisha could be a guysha. A man gynecologist, a mancologist. And a male manicurist, oh, wait, that's kind of taken care of.

It's not enough that professions or possessions associated as femme get de-girled to be more suitable for men. We've worked hard to de-gender words (waitron, anyone?) and now they've come back cute. Why? Because no man in a ghettoized female role wants to be stuck with the girls. He wants his own title, and maybe even a promotion and a raise.

Maybe the ultimate test will be if -- when -- the next president can change her title to Madame. Which makes her husband First Man. Let's see how manly that role can be.

Fox and CBS Still Abstaining

Remember the Trojan ad with the pigs in a bar? Well, no pigs are seeing air time on CBS and Fox networks, which still contend that a bunch of pigs wearing condoms to pick up chicks is not a public health message, but a pregnancy prevention message, therefore, does not fly with these holier-than-thou network execs. And yes, seems that they'll air the damn things when pigs fly. That would actually be fine, as long as they weren't wearing protection.

Planned Parenthood is asking us what the next step should be, since their letter-writing campaign seems to leave those at the top unmoved. You can suggest an idea here. My idea: giant billboards of condom ads across from network headquarters. What's yours?

Feel Like Dancin'
So I just got back from L.A. and let me tell you there is nothing like dancing with my fellow Smith alums to make me feel like it's 1989 again. It's the healing power of dancing, or maybe it was the wine, or maybe it was Justin Timberlake. (Say what you will about the guy, you cannot listen to his tunes without busting out.) So what if we're all on the high end of our 30s, one of us has a kid, one of us is divorced and all of us can't seem to let a few details like that get in our way of showing our moves. There is nothing like good friends, good music and lots and lots of dancing.

The Princess Diaries

I have a confession. I just bought the July issue of Vanity Fair, the one Bono guest edited. And the first article I read wasn't about Kenya, or orphans in Malawi. It was about Princess Diana, an excerpt from Tina Brown's new book, The Diana Chronicles, on a hardly new subject: the Princess of people's hearts.

At first the placement seemed odd and even in poor taste. But then I realized that the whole issue was chock-full of celebrity humanitarians -- and that entire category was essentially created by Diana herself. Without Diana, there could be no Angelina Jolie.

Sure, the chapter is full of juicy bits, like how Di was so mad about losing her H.R.H. title after the divorce from Prince Charles; how she leaned on her son Prince William more than a mother should. And how she used the press to hide and flaunt her lovers. But it also reminded me of the good she did: publicizing the horror of landmines, humanizing children with AIDS.

I'm not sure what the Diana Chronicles will do to pump up the rep of the princess; her life and death are hardly a secret. But the book is certainly doing wonders for the career of Tina Brown. Another win for the princess.

Remembering Carolla

There are lots of dates that stick in our brains: birthdays, anniversaries, national holidays. But the one I hate to acknowledge but can't ever forget is the night my sister died. It stays with me the way I can't shake a bad dream. Three years is a long time and not very long at all.

I ate a fortune cookie today that chided me: time heals all wounds. But it's not true. Grief and loss are non-linear. I wish it weren't so. But I can tell you from experience, it is.

My sister didn't want to be remembered as the one whose life was cut tragically short by cancer. If I can just get past losing her, I can pick up and help the world remember her the way she'd want it. Not starting at the end, but at the beginning.

Carolla, I'm trying.

State of Our Unions

It is so fitting that the Style section of the New York Times, the one on Sunday that features the Vows column and the paid wedding announcements, would also be tracking how well these marriages turn out. A front-page article trumpeted a Pew Research survey that the wedding bells are ringing far shorter than you may think. The length of your happy nuptials after all that wedding business is three quick years. The reason? Women's economic independence, for one. That's what the Times said, and I think they even meant it as a compliment. But it's not really. It means that women don't have to be married, so we split if things don't work out our way. We only stay if we're happy, see.

Another reason: women and men are actually not getting married, or getting married later. Or having kids out of wedlock.

My favorite wedding advice has always been: wait 10 years. It's what Larry and I did. And hey, our fifth anniversary is coming up, so my theory must be working.

That's No Woman. That's Hillary Clinton.
My alma mater -- Smith College -- boasted two first ladies as alum. We even had a T-shirt showing Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan that read: there must be a better way to get a Smithie in the White House.

Well, we don't have a Smithie yet. But we do have a Wellesley grad running for highest office. But, when faced with the cocktail conversation question, Hillary or Obama? I have to say I go with the Big O every time.

Ellen Goodman, the feminist columnist for The Boston Globe, addressed this at her keynote speech in March at the Women, Action and Media conference. She called Hillary's run for office a "de-gendered" candidacy, as she was running as the establishment candidate, not the woman candidate. In many ways, this is very good news for women. That we have someone who has the name, the experience and the money to get to the top of the heap is lightyears ahead of where women candidates have been in the past.

In other ways, this makes her less accessible. She's not one of the marginalized. She's one of them.

As I've said in other posts, Hillary Clinton is not someone who I'm behind. But that's right now, when the primaries haven't happened and others seem a little less blow dried and speak in a less canned way. I cringe when I hear Hillary Clinton trying to girl it up on an entertainment show -- please. This woman is about power and I can't take it when she starts gushing about somebody's shoes.

A piece on AlterNet today about the unrelenting criticism from liberals and feminists about Clinton is all about gender, and then sometimes not at all about gender. Take the CodePink antiwar group's obsession with Hillary and her vote to give Bush authorization to go to war:

Clinton's supporters also argue that women candidates are unfairly subjected to higher standards, especially by women themselves. It's why antiwar feminist organizations like CodePink are less likely to give her a pass for her Iraq vote than they would, say, John Edwards. Explaining the reasoning behind their "bird-dog Hillary" campaign to The Nation, founder Medea Benjamin wore her double standard on her sleeve: "You expect more of a woman."

Ouch. Well, as Clarence Thomas can show us, just being black doesn't mean you're going to support affirmative action. As Ann Coulter proves, being a successful woman doesn't make you a feminist, or a peace-nik. And being Hillary Clinton demonstrates what we should have known all along: that being an ambitious, mainstream candidate with a legacy doesn't mean she'll be a terrible president. It just might not mean she'll be great for women. The question is, can we feminists live with that.

Walk a Mile in These Shoes

I was on the hunt for the perfect pair of summer shoes, an elusive quest at that. But as I trolled through the many shoe Web sites, I noticed something adorning the shoes that caught my eye: a peace symbol. Now, I'm not one to judge another person's footwear. I thought it was cute, at first, on a pair of Michael Kors moccasins. But then I noticed them on a dressy high-heeled sandals from Donald J Pliner. So, what's up with this trend? Of course, peace symbols have been worn on clothing, sure, but as a sign of counter-culture rebellion. But this is high-end foot fashion. Is it simply a commodity, a continuing commercialization of a recognized logo? Or is it a way of the designers to slyly speak out against the war through women's footwear? You decide. These shoes are actually pretty cute.

The Big 3-5

Title IX is 35 years old -- you know, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination. Meaning athletic scholarships don't just go for the football players, and maybe some of those football players are women, anyway. Why is Title IX still important when there are more women than men in school these days? Exactly for that reason. Keeps things even. When I think of Title IX, I think of Bill Jean King, the star tennis player who challenged Bobby Riggs -- ranked number 1 in his day -- to a tennis match in a "Battle of the Sexes," and then beat the pants off him. Now we have Venus and Serena Williams. I think of the term "male chauvinist pig," which was really big to say 35 years ago. Now we say O'Reilly. Anniversaries are good for re-telling the good stories. Let's just make sure we keep telling them.

Interview with a Dame

More shameless promotion: check out my interview with the new site, BlogInterviewer. It's a cool new way to get to know your favorite blogs. You can rate my blog and leave a comment!

Flip to the B-Side

And now a shameless plug for the radio show, B-Side. First of all, check out the new site. And, if you haven't seen how easy it is to download or stream our shows, enjoy them with a click of the mouse. The Father's Day show, which at last count aired on three public radio stations across the country, is online now.

So a Pig Walks Into a Bar . . .

Tell me if you've heard this one. Trojan has a new ad campaign out -- "Evolve" -- that CBS and Fox refused to air. Why? Because the message is about pregnancy prevention, not disease prevention. Doesn't one result in the other?

The ad, which you can see here on YouTube opens to a scene of pigs in a bar trying to pick up babes (pun not intended) when one rejected pig swaggers up to the condom machine in the bathroom and is transformed into a hot guy who now gets the attention of the hot woman who had no time for pigs without protection.

So why is it OK for a Viagra ad to be about sex but not a condom ad, you might wonder? You might pose this question to CBS and Fox, who are making this a moral issue. Ads about sex? Shocking! Sadly, the condom industry lags far behind Viagra in sales. An ad selling condoms as a sexy product might just be the boost condoms need to, um, lift sales.

Nancy Drew, Where Are You?

I thought it was a nice coincidence that on my birthday the new Nancy Drew movie would be opening. Imagine, a character that had captured my imagination growing up, even though she was already ancient history (created in the 30s) would be discovered by a new group of fans. Her roadster. Her crime fighting, independent ways, so cool. So smart. So, cute.

Not this Nancy Drew. According to the reviews, she's been re-invented for the iPod age as a sort of time-machine misfit who has stepped out of the 50s suburbs into Hollywood, and even the cool Nancy Drew can barely survive the cynical millenials of today. Ick.

Kids, take it from your elder: skip the movie and read the books.

Feminist Smack Down

The author of Sisterhood Interrupted wants us to know why feminists fight. What I want to know is, what's wrong with fighting? I think feminism is made of fairly solid stuff, and can take it.

Evidently, the publishing industry agrees, churning out critiques like The Feminine Mistake and Sisterhood Interrupted. Well, this isn't an issue just with feminism. After all, you could argue that a lot of us got pretty comfortable during the Clinton years (Bill) with our status. Not that the gains were so amazing, and there was the whole ending of welfare as we knew it thing. But choice was safe. The Supreme Court wasn't so scary. And clearly, everyone relaxed just a little bit.

Here's how Deborah Siegel, the book's author, lays it out in an interview with Alternet on the idea behind "personal as political."

Siegel: The idea behind this truly brilliant slogan transformed the way Americans thought of the politics of private life. In the book I write about how these words launched a movement, then quickly morphed into a philosophy and a blueprint for action that meant different things depending on where you sat.

Today, we're smack dab in the middle of those conversations -- whether we realize it or not. But there's a new hitch. In the absence of a visible, organized, and powerful mass movement and in an era that's far more conservative and individualistic, younger women are less inclined to see our problems as shared.

The thing is, just like in all movements and especially on the left, women don't fall into lockstep, and it's ridiculous to expect that just because we're women, we have the same agenda. As Jessica Valenti said recently, feminism makes your life better. Feminism is the best self-help guide a woman could have. But somewhere after women's lib of my mother's generation and pigs like Rush Limbaugh, the ideals of feminism came under attack. But while the academics were sniping from inside, the power drain came from the outside.

Well, it's a convenient time to look back, if not in anger, then in understanding. After all, on the surface, many of us are doing pretty well, especially when compared to the 70s. Frankly, when I speak to women in my mother's generation, they look at me like I'm crazy. "It was hard" they say, of working, raising kids, running a household and the PTA, "but we did it." Point being, why do women of my generation complain so much? My mom pointed out to me that when she was my age, she was raising a 14 year old and a 10 year old, as a single mom, and working, too.

I'll be 38 on Friday, and am responsible for myself, my husband, a very needy cat and a large shoe collection. What is my problem? Do I really think that having a family is so untenable in this day and age that it's not worth trying?

The problem is, and this is the premise of my book on my Smith Class (Whatever Happened to the Feminine Mystique) is that the path in the sand left from the second wave of feminism is hard to follow. Each woman must make her own way. Who has time to join together in anger when we can watch the Sopranos do it so much better on TV?

Now, we have parental leave, paid. It is actually illegal to pay women less than men (but oh, don't get me started on that one, coz it sure got a lot harder to prove that women aren't paid equally) and women make up the majority of college students on campus. Do the math: in the next 20 years, women are going to be running most everything, whether men like it or not.

But here's the thing: if feminism really wants to re-charge, things are going to have to get a lot worse. And heck, with Bush in the White House we are getting there. But it's going to take more than a book.

Pro-choice? Not in the Movies.

There's a little trend in movie-making these days that the New York Times helpfully pointed out in this Sunday's Style section: abortion is a no-show in movie plots. Two movies, especially that deal with pregnancy skip the topic entirely: Waitress -- about a cute woman with a no-good husband who goes through with the pregnancy even though she's plotting to leave the guy -- and Knocked Up, about a woman who ends up pregnant after a signal encounter with -- from what I read in the reviews -- a comically unsuitable mate. Keeping the man is the quandary of this movie plot, not whether to terminate the pregnancy.

The last time I remember abortion being front and center in a movie was Dirty Dancing, and the woman almost dies as a result. And it's a side-plot that tangentially affects the heroine. No, the message definitely is: nice girls don't have abortions in the movies. The Style section piece points out that abortion is treated more realistically on the independent film scene, according to Geoffrey Gilmore, the director of the Sundance Film Festival,

as do other difficult themes like drug addiction, incest, even infanticide, most recently in “Stephanie Daley,” about a teenager accused of murdering her newborn.

Ouch. Abortion being equated to infanticide and incest? And yah, I get that if the topic of the movie is pregnancy, having an abortion ends the plot pretty fast. But it's a pretty sad thing when the so-called values of the religious right have so permeated our culture we can't even have abortion as a side note in a plot device.

Myth Makers

As I've documented on my blog many times, the myth that working moms are opting out is just that. Lisa Belkin -- who started the whole opt-out controversy with her New York Times magazine story on elite moms forsaking plum careers for motherhood, recently recanted this (in the New York Times style section, of all places) by saying that everyone was heading back to work. Neither picture was ever true.

Heather Boushey at AlterNet does a good job of taking us through why these media myths keep being recycled.

One reason is that even if it's not true, it feels true. It is hard to be both an employee and a mother. But the media often jumps on anecdotes or mini-trends to explain this away. The larger implication seems to be: feminism doesn't work. You wanted it all, you can't handle it all. Your mom vibes are stronger than your work vibes.

It's a strange message. After all, wouldn't we all -- men and women -- be better served if companies were flexible with our time, understanding of families' needs? Instead, the focus is on an individual -- and that way, no one will ever join together to demand that there be a general change in policy. It's better that way for the media, but it does moms and families a huge disservice, and for that matter, readers, too.

No Pies But Good Dish

If you missed Jessica Valenti on The Colbert Report last night shilling her book Full Frontal Feminism, let me tell you Jessica was in top form. She looked good and she spoke well. And turns out, I'm not the only one who thinks Stephen Colbert is the best tool in the feminist tool kit. Jessica presented him with a "feminists dig me" T-shirt at the start of the interview, made him promise she wouldn't make her bake, like he did when Gloria Steinem was on the show, and had Colbert waving Full Frontal Feminism at the camera with the command: Buy it.

But don't take my word for it: Watch for yourself.

Full Frontal Feminism

One more reason that Stephen Colbert is my most fave feminist: he actually has feminists on his show. Tonight Jessica Valenti, Feministing blogger and author of Full Frontal Feminism, is on his show.

Valenti is the it-girl of the now-feminist movement. She wants to bring feminism to Gen Y and beyond, to show how it's relevant for the next generation. So be sure to Tivo tonight's Colbert Report, right after The Daily Show to catch her and Stephen mixing it up. Or watch it live if you're a night-owl.

What are the Dems Thinking?

With the ridiculous war vote Congress recently passed, I am reminded that the Dems are if nothing more, politicians. But why push through war funding with no benchmarks for the war? Why does the war funding get a free pass? Really, maybe the IRS or the NEA should take over the war budget. The IRS has no problem with paperwork. And the federal education guidelines make kids take more tests than TB patients to track their status. Anyway, with a vote that goes against the majority of the country, the Dems seem to be acting like they have a constituent of one: President Bush. Here's Jen Sorensen's take.

Let Justice Be Heard

Check out my post on the WorkingForChange blog today on how Ruth Bader Ginsburg is getting her groove on over at the Supreme Court. She's not taking to the Alito-Roberts axis of evil silently. She's speaking out. It won't change the bad decisions the court is making that reverse decades of progress for women, but it may at least get the attention of Congress. A girl can hope.

The L Word

You've probably already heard that the FDA approved a new birth control pill (you gotta love the FDA -- women may not have that many great choices of birth control, but they have a gazillion different pills to choose from). This pill completely suppresses the menstrual cycle for as long as you take it. It's called, wait for it, Lybrel. And liberated from your period is as good as it gets.

Critics of this pill say the period shouldn't be marketed as an inconvenience. OK, but then, marketed as what, a beautiful thing, like in the film strips from health class tried to trick us into believing? I mean, really, what woman in her right mind would buy any kind of marketing telling her a period is great, cramps are lovely, blood is fun. Sure, there's a nice ritual to becoming a woman the first time you get it, but that thrill is gone really fast. And anyway, when you're on the pill, you're not really getting your period, even on the standard 21-day cycle with the 7-day flow. It's all fake to make you feel like you're getting it. But really, you're not. So why go through the pretending?

Women have known for years they can skip the sugar pills of any oral contraceptive and go straight to the next pack, creating their own Lybrel pill without the marketing or expense of a new pill.

And anyway, it's been acknowledged for some time that what isn't normal is getting your period every month, every year, for decades on end. Our ancestors did not get their periods as much as we do. So please, let us all be Lybrels, and embrace the L word.

Sex Work

If you had any doubt that the Supreme Court was setting out to redefine what's it like to be a woman in America, this latest case should settle that argument: yesterday, the court ruled to limit workers' right to sue for pay discrimination to 180 days. The New York Times quotes the National Women's Law Center on the ruling:

“The ruling is clearly a very important setback in the ability to eliminate discriminatory pay,” said Marcia Greenberger, a co-president of the National Women’s Law Center. “It puts people in a terrible bind.

“On one hand,” Ms. Greenberger continued, “it requires individuals to file a complaint within 180 days of being concerned that their pay may be discriminatory in nature. But having to file that quickly could be counterproductive because people might still be trying to make sure that there really is discrimination and because they still might be trying to work things out in a conciliatory way.”

I didn't think I could be more angry and depressed over a legal decision since the late-term abortion ruling. But whaddya know, I was wrong. It's great to know that with one case, the Supreme Court can reverse the enormous gains women workers have made over the last 40 years. Really, this is an impressive, monumental setback. Um, checks and balances anyone?

Here's a question: if a woman is Speaker of the House, and doesn't do anything about this egregious decision, does it at all matter? If the underwhelming way the Dems have acted on the war front is any indication, I fear for my rights at home.

The War Not at Home

Today I slept til 10 a.m. Ate breakfast. Got in the car with my husband and headed to Home Depot. The cashier chided us, "Don't work too hard today." I promised not to.

Today is Memorial Day, when we remember our war dead, but most of the country seems to have already forgotten about the war we are fighting, and losing, right now.

I hope the Dems we put into power to put a stop to the war won't roll over and play dead. We don't need to add to the 3,400 and growing list of sacrifices from this country. We're going to need another day.

Dems Abstain from Abstinence

Looks like commonsense has finally penetrated the Democratic Party. The Dems voted down money earmarked for abstinence only sex ed after a Congressional study, of all things, concluded that whaddya know, it doesn't stop teens from having sex.

Here's the skinny from Women's eNews:

Cheers

Democratic leaders plan to let $50 million drop from the Title V federal funding stream earmarked for abstinence-only education programs after a recent study released to Congress reported the programs did not dissuade teens from having sex. Congressional Quarterly reported May 15 that lawmakers, who say they would rather see funding focused toward comprehensive sex education that includes abstinence, will not reauthorize the funding when it expires on June 30.

"Abstinence-only seems to be a colossal failure," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which controls the earmark, adding that the deficit and the war were also factors.

Abstinence supporters said the move would only embolden their efforts to maintain abstinence-only education.

Architect of Peace?

While this whole Paul Wolfowitz scandal was going down -- guy meets girl, guy heads the World Bank, guy helps girl get better job at State Department while saying he's against corruption, guy resigns from bank after kerfuffle over corrupt actions for girl -- all I kept wondering was -- why he is always described as an architect?

You see, before Wolfowitz went over to banking, he was in the business of making war for Bush & co. Search Google for architect of war and it comes up nearly 5 million times. Since my husband is an architect of the building kind, I kind of take the abuse of the word personally.

But now that Wolfie is off the stage, maybe we'll go back to remembering that architects can build good things, too.

Belkin's Boo Boo

One more thought on Lisa Belkin's reversal on the opt-out "trend." Would it be too much to ask to acknowledge what she created by her story? The more I think about it, the more I'm peeved by her only passing reference to the major maelstrom she created by her story that was wrong, wrong, wrong. Now she's jumping into the conversation started back up by The Feminist Mistake. Too little, too late.

Lisa Belkin Opts In

The woman who launched a real media frenzy over a fake trend, opting out, has decided that there's a new trend: opting in. Oh, really. Lisa Belkin. Who wrote the New York Times magazine cover story back in 2003 that trumpeted that women were not leading the pack but instead packing lunch for their kids. The ones who she was quick to put in their place as non-working moms even if they said they weren't permanently staying out of the work force. Even when no numbers backed Belkin up.

So Belkin is back. But the media myth she created in the respected Times magazine is debunked in the silly Style section. Thanks, New York Times. I'm sure a lot of people will notice and take the placement really seriously. Right next to the piece on age-appropriate dressing and meeting Mr. Right in tennis camp.

The Mayor of Central Park


Did I ever tell you about the time I met the mayor of Central Park? That's right, the mayor. Of Central Park.

It wasn't the first time. Back w hen I lived in NYC in the 80s, it was a grittier time. A woman had been gang raped at the 102nd st. park transverse by a group of boys who said they were "wilding" -- and while who attacked her has since been disputed, a dense fog of fear fell over the park that year. I was a runner. I ran at night. In the summer, the park is closed to cars and the light doesn't fade till almost 9 p.m. Despite the ozone alerts, the threat of violent assault and the thick air, I ran daily through the park.

One day I noticed an older man with a white handle bar moustache and white hair, walking around the reservoir the wrong way. He waved. I didn't wave back. Then I saw him the next day. He waved. This time, I waved, too. No matter what time of day, or how often I ran, he was always there, a sort of safe harbor during a rough time for the park.

I moved away. I ran in San Francisco. But when I came back to see my mother, I would run to the reservoir. The reservoir run is as long as you want it to be. It's a 1.3 mile loop. In my younger years, I would run around the loop five or six times. Now I run around once or twice. The run is around the reservoir, counter clockwise on a dirt track. In rain, the track is soggy. In summer it's fast and dry. There are no dogs allowed, no strollers, no distractions from the pure act of running. Or walking.

It wasn't always like this. Alberto Arroyo started the runs around the reservoir. He was the first one. He used to be a boxer, years ago. He ran for exercise around the park. Supposedly, he ran with Jackie O and even Madonna.

For his service of making the park safe for running, he was given a medal and declared the Mayor of Central Park. He wears that medal around his neck; you can see it when he walks. If you want the full story, it's up on the east side of the reservoir, near the water fountains. The newspaper story, and a picture of Alberto Arroyo, getting his medal.

About a year ago I was back in NYC and went for a run in the afternoon. There was Alberto. I stopped him and shook his hand. "Where have you been?" he asked. I explained I now lived on the other coast. He smiled and kept on walking.

Bridal-Industrial Complex

If you are applying your cultural lens, as Rebecca Mead does for The New Yorker, and train it on the industry around weddings, and you write a book about it, what exactly does that make you?

I'm not really sure who Rebecca Mead's audience is for her book, One Perfect Day, the Selling of the American Wedding. Buyer beware? Cultural critique? All you have to do is walk to a newsstand to see an entire section devoted to wedding magazines to know that the selling of the wedding, not marriage, has become an institution itself. But so has the stuff around babies, tweens, Gen Y, cats, Hispanic 16-year-olds, I could go on. We are, after all, a logo nation. So I'm curious to know what Mead can say that hasn't already been said.

I'm skeptical that readers of Mead's book will be surprised to learn that when you plan your wedding there are -- you may want to sit down -- people who will try to sell you stuff. Heck, they may even try to rip you off.

I won't bore you with the details of my wedding. But you can always find ways to save -- and ways to spend. We went the morning of the wedding to the flower market and bought our buds wholesale. And got friends to arrange them. We bought cupcakes instead of wedding cake from a local bakery. We hired a really, really expensive band. And it was so worth it.

But if you step carefully, do your research and avoid the cheesy temptations of the wedding paraphernalia that will try to whip you into a spending frenzy (we turned down the "fable cable" limo, complete open bar and party favors), you should be OK. Even if you're not, you'll still end up married.

What Is the Thing?

To find out, you'll have to listen to this month's edition of B-Side, all about clues, mysteries and, well, things.

So sit yourself down with a nice cup of cocoa or whatever it is you drink when you sit by the Real Player to hear your stories, and enjoy.

It's Not a Hallmark Holiday

It's not all about flowers and cards. But don't tell my mom that. The original Mother's Day was apparently conceived as a call for peace back in 1870. Gee, how that message has gotten lost in translation.

What's cool is that there is an effort to bring the Mother's Day message back to its roots. You can see a video about it starring Felicity Huffman here.

Our Better Half

Harvard didn't just make history when it selected a woman to lead the institution. It now means that half of the Ivy League schools are now run by women. This is a nice little postscript to the scuff up started by ex-Harvard prez Lawrence Summers, who made the now infamous comment that gender differences may explain why women don't succeed in these fields as much as men. Obviously, this made the women at the conference, especially the science and math profs, hopping mad.

While having a woman running the show at Harvard or Brown or U. Penn certainly doesn't guarantee against pig-headed gaffes, it's a good bet that these leaders, who have experienced gender and race-based bias on their way to the top, know a thing or two more than Lawrence Summers about what it means to succeed as a woman.

Happy Birthday, Golda Meir!

Yes, should Hillary Clinton make to president of the United States, it would be a milestone. But she'd be following in some pretty nice shoes. Golda Meir's, for one, who became Prime Minister of Israel in 1969 -- and was the "iron lady" long before Margaret Thatcher.

Here is a Goldaism, which also makes me wonder: will we ever again see such wit in our leaders?

"Whether women are better than men I cannot say - but I can say they are certainly no worse."

- Golda Meir, 1898 - 1978

Words Can Hurt
When I was reading about the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the abortion ban, I was struck that Justice Kennedy used the term partial-birth abortion in his decision. Even though it's not a medical term, but was created by the anti-choice movement as a sort of touchstone. The term is graphic, horrific, and, it turns out, effective.

Cynthia Gorney, my professor at the UC Berkeley Journalism School, writes in The American Prospect about the decision and a history of the procedure, in a way that I did not see in the mainstream press. She has written about the politics of abortion for years. It's well worth a read.

Feminism: the Sequel

So there's a debate that's been exploding in recent days around differing views of the work-family balance. One camp says women are leaving the workforce to stay home with the kids. (Bad.) The other says this is an overblown media myth that focuses on an elite minority and scares women about the choices they're making. (Also bad.)

So, who's right?

Both sides have incredibly well respected researchers making their cases. There's the blame the women who don't work side: Linda Hirshman, a former researcher at Brandeis, and Leslie Bennetts, who just wrote The Feminine Mistake. And of course, Lisa Belkin, who wrote the NYT magazine piece about the "opt-out revolution" about women who choose to give up their professions and power. Taking the media myth argument are Claudia Goldin, a Harvard economist and E.J. Graff, a current researcher at Brandeis, along with Caryl Rivers.

As Rosie O'Donnell said to Meg Ryan in Sleepless in Seattle when disputing the media myth that more woman are likely to be struck by lightening than married over 40: It's not true, but it feels true.

Juggling work and family is hard. Tiring. Challenging. But does that mean women have decided to choose one over the other? For the majority of working moms, it isn't. Most are sticking it out. Even though the numbers are trending down, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor stats, there's no clear evidence that women will continue to leave the workforce to stay home with young kids. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The few women I know who have traded the office for the nursery have done so to initially focus on raising young children, and are now working flexible, part-time hours. It's a workable solution. Finding good childcare and a good job that's understanding of families is really hard. Much harder, frankly, than it should be, four decades after feminism got us so many gains.

But to spend so much energy decrying women who stay home with children is not only a pretty much pointless exercise, it negates what we should be discussing, which is how working mothers are faring in the workplace, and how it can be made better.

John Edwards Hair Don't

Thanks, Jen Sorensen, for crunching the numbers on Edwards' hair cuts. Maybe I should call it hair-gate. If you want to know the real cost, click here.

Wage Matters

Adding to the challenge of balancing work and family: women still make less, much less, than men. Even right out of college.

According to women's enews:

The American Association of University Women, the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, released a report today that finds that one year after college graduation, women make 80 percent of what their male counterparts earn. As women's age increases they fall further behind men. Ten years out of school, women earn 69 percent of what their male peers do.

Women with the same degrees, coming from the same college, still make out worse.

Working My Last Nerve

I am getting a little tired of being told about the mass exodus of working women from the workforce. Linda Hirshman's piece in the NY Times yesterday tells moms to get back to work.

Well, hello: the percentage may have slipped, but the majority of mothers are still very much at work. I will quote from the actual study:

In 2005, the participation rate of married mothers with preschoolers was 60 percent, about 4 percentage points lower than its peak in 1997 and 1998. Married mothers with children under a year old (infants) showed the most dramatic changes. After reaching a peak of 59.2 percent in 1997, the participation rate for married mothers of infants fell by about 6 percentage points to 53.3 percent in 2000 and has shown no clear trend since then. In comparison, the participation rate of married mothers of school-age children (aged 6 to 17) fell by just 2 percentage points, from 77 percent in 1997 to about 75 percent in 2005.

OK, I'm going to make some radical intuitive leaps. So bear with me.

1. In 1997 and 1998 we were experiencing a major economic expansion. Everyone was working more. I am willing to bet (and will do more research on this) that all these numbers were at a high during those boom years.

2. Women with infants are participating less in the workforce since 2000. Women with infants are also having children at a later age. I would like to overlay this stat with age groups. Since if women are slightly older with an infant, they're not exactly leaving the workforce since they've been in it for some time.

The report notes: "From 1997 to 2000, the participation rate of mothers aged 16-24 fell by 2 percentage points, and the rate of those aged 25-34 fell by 6 percentage points, while the rate of older mothers (aged 35-44) fell by 7 percentage points. "

3. Despite the trend down, the article notes there is "no clear trend" since then. That makes sense: mothers who are working are still in the majority.

Halberstam's Last Stand

I read back my notes from author David Halberstam's alumni key note address on Saturday night, two days before he was killed in a car crash during his visit to the Bay Area. It was a good speech, and took on so much added meaning since it was his last speech.

At first it seemed that there was no recording of it, since Halberstam was notoriously difficult to work with, and no one dared broach the subject with him, according to someone who helped plan the event.

An enterprising alum managed to record his speech on the sly, and you can read the transcript of the last speech he ever gave here.

Here's an excerpt:

I think the most important question, as you go towards being a historian, is why. Why do things happen? Why do they not happen? What are the forces at play? And that’s really, I think, what put me out of the routine of daily journalism. This is not just a book you do. This is part of your own education. This is a great, great gift you get from this life. And that is the chance to be paid to learn. I mean, what defines your life at the end of it when you hit 70 or even a few years more is love and friendship and family and things you’ve done. But I think it’s the education and the ability to spend, what is now 52 years, learning every day.

Going out every day and asking questions and coming away with just a little bit more knowledge. What a blessing. And each book was really like a graduate school. I’d enter graduate school for four years and learn this and go on to the next one and learn something more. And so I got to study the rise of modern media, a book about the industrial challenge of the Japanese, a book about the Civil Rights movement, a book on the impact of technology on the society of the 50s, the conflict of the Cold War, the rise of the China lobby in the Korean War – that’s a great education. That’s more than any person really has a right to expect.

Now Hear This

My good buddy Tamara Keith -- who is also the hostess with the mostess for our show, B-Side Radio, has taken on a new challenge. She's entered the American Idol style Public Radio Talent Quest for the next big radio star. It's for people who dream not of being the next Jennifer Hudson but Ira Glass. With better hair and glasses. Sorry, I love ya, Ira, but you know, your look could use some updating and hey, you're pushing 50. Not really the new voice in radio anymore. Time to hand that mantle to the next big thing. Like Tamara. (P.S. I would totally say this to his face and guess what, I think he agrees because he's one of the promoters of the contest and he's on the PRX Web site encouraging everyone to try out. So there.)

OK, so it's American Idol style, so you vote on host entries, and people get cut and move on to the next round. The winner gets $10,000 and a pilot radio show. That's right, Tamara could take B-Side all the way. She really deserves your vote, too. Because she's fun and a natural and sounds actually not half dead, like your basic NPR host. So give a listen to this great quickie story about her encounter with the Governator. And then give her your vote.

The Best and Brightest

Everything I learned about journalism, the media, the 60s, even rowing, I first learned about from David Halberstam.

Starting from high school when I first discovered The Best and the Brightest, I consumed all of his books. How could one man have so much to say on such a wide swath of topics? But he did.

And how he's dead.

I spent Saturday at the Berkeley school of journalism, for an alumni weekend session on journalism and history. David Halberstam's talk was a natural culmination to the day. Just like his books, he was smart, witty and expansive. Especially about the stupidity of the Iraq war.

The world will be less bright without him.

The Mommy Myth

Surveying my Smith class of 1991, one thing is clear: each woman must be a pioneer, navigating her path of work and family as if it's never been done before. The media doesn't help -- presenting case after case of upper-middle-class women -- like my Smith alum -- who "choose" to stay home with their kids. And even if it's not true that women are mass exiting work life for home life, it's easy enough to believe because, well, it is hard to balance work and family.

Lisa Belkin's 2003 New York Times magazine article on fellow Princeton graduates who on the face of it were "choosing" to leave their killer careers because of the killer hours were forming an "opt-out revolution" to stay home with the kids instead.

To pile on the guilt for this miniscule demographic (although no doubt making up a large number of readers of The New York Times) these very overeducated stay-at-home moms are being chastised by the book "The Feminine Mistake," which warns that women who stay home put themselves at finaicial risk by staking their homemaker claim on rich husbands who will not divorce them.

Of course, balancing career and family is a huge problem for many women to work out -- but that doesn't mean women aren't working. On the contrary, a majority of mothers in the U.S. are working. And if they "opt out," they're having kids later in life, after they've been working for some time. Which isn't exactly opting out.

E. J. Graff, who spoke at the Women, Action and Media conference I attended last month in Cambridge, MA, wrote a piece for the Columbia Journalism Review that sheds some light on the history of this media myth of the stay-at-home mom, which will not die.

Graff writes,

The opt-out stories have a more subtle, but equally serious, flaw: their premise is entirely ahistorical. Their opening lines often suggest that a generation of women is flouting feminist expectations and heading back home. At the simplest factual level, that’s false. Census numbers show no increase in mothers exiting the work force, and according to Heather Boushey, the maternity leaves women do take have gotten shorter. Furthermore, college-educated women are having their children later, in their thirties—after they’ve established themselves on the job, rather than before. Those maternity leaves thus come in mid-career, rather than pre-career. Calling that “opting out” is misleading. As Alice Kessler-Harris, a labor historian at Columbia University, put it, “I define that as redistributing household labor to adequately take care of one’s family.” She adds that even while at home, most married women keep bringing in family income, as women traditionally have. Today, women with children are selling real estate, answering phone banks, or doing office work at night when the kids are in bed. Early in the twentieth century, they might have done piecework, taken in laundry, or fed the boarders. Centuries earlier, they would have been the business partners who took goods to market, kept the shop’s accounts, and oversaw the adolescent labor (once called housemaids and dairymaids, now called nannies and daycare workers).

I hope the media starts getting the word out. But I doubt it. It's easier to believe the myth then have to deal with the reality.

Freedom of Choice Act

It's being re-introduced in Congress today, and not a moment too soon. At least we don't have to sit helplessly by while our rights are taken away. Call and write your congresspeople and demand they pass this legislation that would reverse the Supreme Court's abortion ban.

Trust Us, We're Helping You

Father knows best. That's the idea behind Justice Kennedy's argument for knocking down the right to a later-trimester abortion. Not facts. Not actual case histories, which are truly horrific, of why women in these tragic situations need this procedure done.

In a news analysis for the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse writes:

Justice Kennedy conceded that “we find no reliable data” on whether abortion in general, or the procedure prohibited by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, causes women emotional harm. But he said it was nonetheless “self-evident” and “unexceptional to conclude” that “some women” who choose to terminate their pregnancies suffer “regret,” “severe depression,” “loss of esteem” and other ills.

Consequently, he said, the government has a legitimate interest in banning a particularly problematic abortion procedure to prevent women from casually or ill-advisedly making “so grave a choice.”

That may be his opinion, but god knows that doesn't make it true. But guess what, it's now the law of the fucking land because he said so.

And you know what else he did, and those 5 majority votes did -- they just made it OK for every wingnut in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, North Dakota and fill in crazy red state here, to put up anti-abortion legislation they feel like because, guess what: the whole idea that extreme anti-abortion legislation is unconstitutional doesn't fly any more. Because it just might be legit. Sonograms for women seeking abortions? Why not? Harsher murder sentences for the murder of a pregnant woman? You bet. A no-access pass for any kind of abortion? Heck, worth a try, because it sure does seem like the highest court of the land would be amenable to such a thing.

These are surreal times.

Choice-Less


Here's what's really making me mad today. Bush says he promotes a culture of life. Is the war in Iraq promoting a culture of life? Is dying in childbirth promoting a culture of life? Is carrying to term a still-born fetus promoting a culture of life?

The Supreme Court may be taking away our choice, but not our voice. There's a protest going on with Planned Parenthood Golden Gate tonight at the steps of City Hall in San Francisco at 5 p.m. Check with your local Planned Parenthood for protests around the country. If you can't come tonight, there will surely be more opportunities. Many more.

More Bad News

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the late-term abortion ban. This is a terrible sign of the new Alito-Roberts court. It is an awful sign about the future of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. And it is a grim sign for women, our health, and the future of our right to make those decisions.

Justice Ginsburg, according to Reuters, called the decision alarming.

She took the rare step of reading parts of her dissent from the bench.

"In candor, the Partial Birth Abortion Act and the court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives," she said.

Bush may be gone in 2008, but his legacy through these two anti-woman court appointees, will live on, a very long time. For those who voted for Nader in 2000 because they thought there was no difference between Bush and Gore, I give you: the criminalization of abortion.

Brace Yourselves

You know something's up when you turn on the TV at 10 at night and there's Brian Williams, in a raincoat, standing outside on a cold, windy night like he's reporting on a hurricane.

When the adrenaline flows to Nightly News making them all-night news, things are bad.

The death of over 30 students and teachers at Virginia Tech today is horrific. But here's the other awful part: we're going to have to hear about it 24-7 for a long time coming. I for one, do not look forward to that.

Matt Lauer said to Brian Williams in his stand-up that when he went on to campus (surprisingly easy!) students seemed surprised to see him there. They have no idea that this event that took place today, he said, was historic.

Imagine that. After surviving the unimaginable, I only hope the students can withstand the media storm.

This is Your Brain on Fairy Tales

I remember this ad campaign back maybe in the 70s or 80s with little girls saying things like: When I grow up, I want to be a princess.

Then the payoff: Girls who dream like this end up on welfare.

Fast-forward to the so-called opt-out revolution -- women choosing to stay home with their kids instead of climbing the corporate ladder. While the numbers to this "trend" definitely do not pan out (majority of mothers are working, not staying home), there's a new book out detailing just why staying home with the kids is such a bad idea, The Feminine Mistake, by Leslie Bennetts.

While I think someone should be pointing out the economic dangers of leaving one's career behind, since happily ever after is yet another fairy tale wish that doesn't always come true.

But again, agree or disagree with staying home with children, we're still not talking about the majority of Americans. Heck, most moms I know are dealing with economic vulnerability because they're paying for childcare and working. However, even if working pays just for childcare, the payoff is an investment in your career long-term.

Sure, it's not easy working and raising children, but guess what: most people with kids do it and make it work.

Wouldn't the national discussion be better served if we took a long, hard look on why our country's priorities aren't making it easier for working families? Good childcare and flexible working conditions -- that seems to be the real fairy tale here.

Check out Bennetts's post re-posted on Alternet today about her new book, The Feminine Mistake.

Imus Is Out

The shock jock is gone. Caput. Done. The amazing girls of Rutgers sunk the loose lips of radio.

So what's up with that? Well, for one thing, our little old blog-o-sphere wouldn't let the comment die. The 24-hour news cycle sometimes does have an upside.

But the nasty language Don Imus spewed to describe the team that he maybe would have gotten away with, was upended by the press conference with the actual team . They showed up and showed him down.

"No Damn Cat, No Damn Cradle."

When my sister was diagnosed with cancer and our world got turned upside down, we'd sometimes look over at each other and say, "no damn cat, no damn cradle."

Kurt Vonnegut, who died yesterday, had a perfect way of summarizing the absurdity of life.

He rocked my world when I read his books starting at age 13, as my political self was just developing. He had a genius way of speaking that was brilliant and accessible at the same time.

Through the Reagan years, the first Bush (and even compared to his son, he still was really scary) through the latest Iraq war. And through my sister's cancer.

No damn cat, no damn cradle.

Notes from Down There

A friend writes in from Pasadena to let me know that the vaccine against the HPV virus, Gardasil, is now being offered at the college where she teaches.

Which got her thinking: why is it just offered to women?

She has a point. After all, women are not directly spreading HPV -- the virus that causes genital warts and can lead to cervical cancer -- to each other. Men are spreading it. In fact, the only way to get HPV is by having sex. With men.

Gardasil was approved by the FDA for use on women. According to their own stats, HPV is the most common STD in the U.S. with 6.2 million infections per year, and over half of all sexually active men and women become infected at some time in their lives.

Here's what the FDA says about Gardasil's use on men:

Gardasil is not approved for use in males, but the manufacturer currently has a study underway to see if it is safe and effective for them. Once the study is complete and submitted to FDA, the agency will review the data and decide whether to approve Gardasil for males.

As far as I know, most of the drugs I take have ONLY been tested on men. Why the hesitation now not to give men something that's been shown, so far, to be safe for young women? Granted, there are plenty of question marks about the long-term side effects of the drug. But if only girls get vaccinated, only half the problem is being solved.

More on Childbirth

I have been getting schooled by women who know more than me on this subject. Turns out, there are reasons that maybe going au nautral with labor is preferable. And this is all fine and good. Really, who I am to judge on what way you want your babies to come out. Upside down, hands and knees, at the hands of a surgeon.

What I guess I was trying to get at is this: I think we're in an odd place now where we have made such medical advances with birth that women feel they have failed, or not had an optimal birth if it turns out not that way it was planned. From what I hear, very few go that way anyway.

And really, who among us does want a hangover from drugs. Who does want a needle stuck in their spine. Even if it is to kill the pain. Yikes. Who does want surgery with all its complications.

In the end, all these choices come down to what you want, and what must happen. I dunno, maybe they're teaching it wrong. But in the end, ain't it grand when everyone comes out healthy and willing to do it all over again.

Update: Money does really talk. MSNBC announced they're dumping the Imus show simulcast. While the NBC head made it sound like he was shocked, shocked that Don Imus could say such things, I'm sure he was more shocked when major advertisers General Motors, GlaxoSmithKline and Procter & Gamble decided to pull their ad dollars from the show. - April 12, 2007

Radio Show Down

First of all, their hair isn't nappy.

The women of the Rutgers basketball team are anything but "nappy-headed hos," as they
were despicably labeled by radio shock jock Don Imus. From the news conference pics I saw, they all had really sleek, well-groomed dos.

Look, I'm as much for free speech as anyone else. And speech that shows what everyone
knows, that Don Imus is an ass, is fine with me. But what gets me is, he's getting fired at in every direction by people who fall over themselves to get on his show.

And even though the talk-show host with the nasty racial and sex slurs about a bad-ass Rutgers women's basketball team is being publicly chastened, with his mea culpa to the media, money talks. I mean, the guy's radio show has 2 million listeners daily. And he makes these offensive remarks and then has the biggest players in the political scene on his show. It's like he's channeling his inner frat boy with an inner desire to play interviewer.

And the guests play along. Until Mr. Imus goes and does something really dumb.

Not that these classy, angry women ever asked to be thrown into a media maelstrom from a mouthpiece that gets his jollies off by picking on some college athletes who did nothing to deserve his invective but play really well. He says this stuff for radio play. His audience eats it up, advertisers make their money, everyone goes home happy.

But Imus slurred the wrong bunch of women. They're talking back to the talking head. This greasy-headed old white guy is headed for a fall.

Childbirth, Part Deux

Someone in comments asked what I would call unmedicated, vaginal childbirth. How about unfun?

Seriously, I just think that calling one kind of birth natural over all others just doesn't seem right. Do we have "natural" wisdom-tooth removal, "natural" open-heart surgery?

Yes, childbirth without drugs certainly harks back to a certain way-back time when women just dropped children in the fields. But they also died in labor, naturally.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: it's all natural.

Childbirth, Natch

I need to say something about childbirth. Here's what you should know: I have never had a child. But I think we need to change the term for "natural" childbirth.

After all, what exactly is "unnatural childbirth"? Until we have, say, robot-assisted childbirth (and ooh, I cannot wait for that day, sign me up) I'm just going to put it out there that all childbirths are natural. Yes, some may be using drugs, or Ceasar style in a brightly lit hospital with muzak. And others may be on someone's sorry futon at home with a bunch of earth-mothers looking on.

There are many ways for this elemental act to happen. Women may experience insane amounts of pain, take days to deliver and yell till glass breaks. They may schedule a C-section. They may induce labor with drugs. They may do all these things at once. But still, I say to you, it is all
very, very natural.

But like everything else in women's lives, childbirth is something to be judged on.

The ideal in the Bay Area, from hearing my friends and coworkers talk, is an unmedicated, vaginal birth with no complications. In Brazil, the ideal is a scheduled C-section. Isn't labor hard enough without adding on the pressure to have the right sort of delivery? When really the ideal is that the mother doesn't die, which used to happen all the time during, um, natural childbirth.

And really, hats off to all the women who make this miracle of life happen all the time, and then, just days later, get up and walk around as if it's nothing but a thing. Naturally.

I Heart Feminist Art

There are two huge feminist art retrospectives opening on opposite coasts -- and I can't choose what I like about them more: that they are called Feminist Art (I mean, really, when was the last time anyone used that term for something really positive in a mainstream kind of way?) or that vagina art has made a come-back. Alternet has a great write-up of the two shows. I am going to New York this spring and can't wait to see the Judy Chicago Dinner Party. Here's a close-up of some of the vagina-patterned place settings. Gorgeous! I wish I could have registered for those when I got married.

I am always of two minds when I think of shows dedicated to women artists -- marginalized or celebrated? But then I think of all the shows that are all about art by men, and I think I shouldn't be so concerned that one show sets apart artists for their gender. Because it's not just about that. I sure would like to see all museums with a feminist art component. As the Guerrilla Girls said back in the day -- do women have to be naked to get into the Met? But it's a good first step.

Keroack's Term Ended

In the continuing world of Bush double-speak (mission accomplished, clear skies rules, healthy forests legislation, etc.) we got an anti-choice zealot in charge of family planning over at Health and Human Services. Huh? I hate to be a stickler, but abortion is still actually legal. Anyway, in a very brief and unbrilliant career, Dr. Eric Keroack abruptly resigned his post this past weekend.

From the get-go, women's rights organizations, especially Planned Parenthood, protested this appointment relentlessly. And they -- we -- were heard. As Women's eNews reported,

In his federal position, Keroack oversaw $283 million in family planning grants used to provide contraception to low-income women, but his opposition to contraception provoked 107 House Democrats and three Republicans to call for his resignation in December.

It's Passover, Pass the Bread

So, I know the Jews have had it bad for the last 5,000 years. And I know that Passover is a really cool way to remember when the Jews were at the Egyptians' last nerve and so the Pharaoh was like enough, already, so go. And the Jews left, but so quickly they forgot to pack stuff like flour. And I mean, I know that matzoh is just a symbol of crossing the desert without a nice crusty croissant, but I mean, do I have to suffer again, just because they did?

Work with me here.

I guess what I'm saying is, wouldn't it be a better idea to eat more leavened bread the week of Passover, to celebrate that we got it good now?

OK, it was just a suggestion. Happy Passover.

p.s. I didn't forget to post yesterday -- Blogger seems to be having technical difficulties.

Is the New York Times on Glue?

If not, what would possess them to run a front-page story, not at all fact based, featuring a couple of upscale high school students from a Boston suburb trying to get into the most competitive schools in the country? Who admit that being smart is cool, but being hot is still better than being smart. OOOh, stop the presses! Young women feel pressured to look good!

OK, NY Times, when you start bashing Smith, you go too far.

The story centered around a woman, presumably a good student, whose mother attended Smith College, someone who was a role model to the daughter. She was rejected from many of her first-choice schools, but was admitted to Smith, not her first, second or even her third choice. And why not? The article doesn't say. Smith is a top school, and a name brand. What's the problem? The implication is that the same-sex school is not a draw.

While all-women’s colleges are not for everyone, and women of this girl’s mother’s age had less of a choice of schools to attend, it is still a worthy competitive option for students considering the best colleges in the country.

I recently attended my 15-year college reunion. I conducted a survey of my class, which showed that almost everyone who responded would recommend the school to their daughters, their neighbors, their local high schools. It is a school that is not stuck in its past, but continues to evolve in order to give women the most competitive edge upon graduation.

In an environment where women make up the majority of students and feel pushed out by smaller elite schools worried about gender balance, Smith is not saddled with this issue. Students aren’t isolated by their single-sex education. On the contrary, students take advantage of a 5-college exchange, a lively offering of arts and cultural activities, and yes, even parties where men are invited.

Don’t believe me? Go visit. You’ll be impressed with the multimillion dollar, state of the art student center, the engineering program, the newly renovated art museum. But most of all, you’ll feel the energy of all those smart young women, who continue to make the campus as lively and extraordinary as the days when students like Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and heck, even my class, roamed the quad.

Women’s colleges are not an anachronism. They inspired the women's movement, and may be the stomping grounds of not just the first ladies of Bush and Reagan, but the first woman president. (Hillary Clinton is a graduate of Wellesley.)

I would urge all promising young women to give these campuses a second look. It’s better than you think.

It's time to school the NY Times that these microcosm story presented like a kind of universal experience, or anything new, is not just annoying. It's not good journalism.