MaMa-Feminista

Kitty Heaven?

2006-10-26T11:21:00.001-04:00

How do you explain the concepts of heaven and hell to your child when you don't believe in organized religion or Christian dogma? I was listening to a mother explain to her daughter why their cat had died and where the cat went when it died. The mother told the child that when we bury the cat in the earth trees, flowers, and grass spring up and create new life. I was drawn to this concept because I personally do not detact the human body nor mind from the natural world around us. I do not believe humans to be above nature, in a position to control and exploit the earth but think we are part of nature no different when it comes to birth, death, and evolution then any other species on this earth. When my child asks me I'm not to sure what I plan on saying but I do know that religious ideology that posits binary oppositions as natural -- good/evil, nature/nurture, or black/white will not enter into the equation. Clearly, this is not the only way of believing and I do plan on educating my child regarding the vast number of belief systems out there trying hard to make possible an equal level playing field for dialogue and questions. I guess then you leave it up to them?

Where Does The Time Go?

2006-10-19T08:41:00.000-04:00

I can't believe the month of October has almost come to a close and I haven't completed the second chapter of my thesis. It seems as if I'll never quite get it done along with chasing a ten month old, editing papers for publication, and trying to make a little cash. A colleague of mine suggested I start waking at 5 am to get two hours of work in before the entire house becomes over run with activity. I'm finding this extremely hard to accomplish and on the days that I can work, I work from home and seem continually bombarded with daddy duty uncertainties. The bottom line is, I'm still seen as available because I work upstairs instead of out of the house. I tell myself everyday, today I will get this done or that done and it never seems to happen. The little one won't nap, or there are some bills to pay, or phone calls to make. There is always something within the domestic sphere that seizes my attention.
I'm sure many moms have issues similar to these where juggling the many different componants of daily life with larger endeavors becomes extremely stressful and difficult. The babysitter helps out but that costs money, and daddy helps out but with limited ability, why I don't know. So alas the battle continues and I just want to say we will all make it through. We will all find a away that works for us individually because we have always just figured it out and done it. I tell myself to keep my head up, keep progressing foward, and take one day at a time. Look for pockets of positivity instead of what I forgot today or didn't get to and cut yourself some slack. We do the best we can and it is humanly impossible, in contradiction to what the new heroic cultural icon represents, to be all things to everyone 100 percent of the time. Ice cream sandwiches help to.

Manipulative Food Packaging

2006-10-11T10:29:00.000-04:00

An article in the New York Times today is a must read for any mom trying to eat healthy, trying to teach their kids to make healthy choices, or just attempting to battle obesity. The article presents a overview of the work of Professor Brian Wasink who's experiments prove that consumers really aren't aware of how much packaging, environment, and food size effect how much and what we eat.

“To a person, people will swear they aren’t influenced by the size of a package or how much variety there is on a buffet or the fancy name on a can of beans, but they are,” Dr. Wansink said. “Every time.”

Dr. Wasink holds a doctoral degree in marketing from Stanford University and directs the Cornell University food and brand lab. His interesting experiments examine the cues that make us eat what we do. I can think of a number of moments after a meal when I said to myself, "why the hell did I just eat that?" Clearly, we all have choices but it's interesting to contemplate that our choices may be manipulated within carefully constructed environments based on benefiting a capitalist society.

College and Prescription Meds

2006-10-04T09:05:00.000-04:00

If anyone remembers what it was like to enter your freshman year of college, the memories would most likely be reflective of stress, sleepless nights, trying desperately to prioritize and somehow always getting it wrong, high anxiety, attempting to juggle social life with school life, learning to self motivate or learning that you have to self motivate, drinking too much then flunking a test the next day, creating expectations for yourself and then not reaching those expectations, and many more I'm sure are fresh in the mind. My cousin who just entered her first year at the University of Georgia is currently experiencing all of these and I'm sure some more. After flunking a math test of which she studied for five hours to prepare, she was devastated. Because she has been plagued with anxiety and thus getting an upset stomach, headaches, sleeplessness, etc.... she decided to go and see a doctor at the college clinic which is available to all students seven days a week. She told the doctor what she had been experiencing and asked if there was something that might help her stomach problems as she was having trouble eating. Well, the doctor wrote her two prescriptions, one for valium and second for prozac.
I almost fell off my chair when I was told of this situation. The doctor asked no questions about any past medication use. The doctor had no complete medical history. The doctor didn't even try to suggest something in the way of a student support group before handing out the old pill remedy. The doctor didn't ask for any family medical history or if she had any allergies to medications.
Fortunately, my cousin has a very open relationship with her mother and called her right away. She didn't take any of the medications and ended up flushing them down the toilet after a few students had come into her dorm room and said I'll buy those from you. She knew that it was not the best idea for this doctor to have prescribed her these medications under these circumstances.
Unfortunately, many college students would jump at a chance to get some valium or prozac. Not only to sell it but also as a suppliment to drinking as it increases the effects at a faster rate. This reminds me of a situation in which my brother was wrestling at a college in Iowa. He had hurt his knee and another team member had hurt his rib. The coach handed out valium like it was candy and wanted to shoot cortizone in my brothers knee. My brother and his team mates didn't feel like they had a choice when the coach gave all the injured wrestlers valium to take before a match but lucky for him the cortizone shot was handled by the trainers and he said no thanks.
Seems to be an easy thing to access prescription meds while in college which remains largely invisible in the public debate about drug company's responsibility to the public. As more highschool and middleschool aged kids become addicted to prescription medication the move to college creates an environment where access is very easy. The evidence is there that this is a growing problem and lack of public visiblity undermines parent's ability to teach their kids to make responsible choices and undermines any college programs that work to help students with drug abuse.

What Are We Teaching Boys

2006-10-02T09:51:00.000-04:00

As more highschool sporting events begin to be broadcast on national television the line between sports in highschool as an extracurricular activity and serious profit making capacity starts to disappear. Now highschool athletes are being recruited by the highschools themselves, are considering longterm athletic careers early on in age placing academic standing as a secondary priority, and are currently being exploitated by a sporting industry waiting to sign the next big celebrity sports star.
Much has been said about the problems that will inevitably arise out of this situation but no words have been uttered in regards to the now even larger gap between girl's and boy's sports. With value clearly placed on male athletes this broadcasting of male dominated sports continues to push girl athletes into relative invisibility except in the event of children's spelling bees or cheerleading. Girls basketball and soccer remain the only sports with visibility and limited at that.
If we start to glorify highschool male athletes at such an early age what does that teach young males? Isn't it giving them a false sense of reality? What does it say to our culture's young girls? Value and asset remain a battleground issue for individuals interested in gender and this issue only pushes the solution farther from reality.

The Second Hand Smoke Crisis

2006-09-27T09:30:00.000-04:00

I wrote earlier on an issue regarding second hand smoke and children. Now the issue for me personally has become a family crisis. I spoke to my sister-in-law on the two choices I believe are best for my situation. One, just give my in-laws the print out that my child's doctor gave to me or just start restricting his time over at their house little by little so when the subject comes up then I have a platform to discuss the issue. She flat out said that if I was to just hand them the information then all hell would break lose and my mother-in-law is notorious for holding non-forgiving grudges.
So, I gave the information to my husband and said that his time was going to be restricted and that they could come to our house anytime they wanted. Well, this was interpreted as an attack on the parents and he did not think it fair to restrict our child's time over at their house just because they smoke and that they would be devastated. It did not end good. How does one deal with family members that believe 'a little' exposure is not going to hurt a child. Do you restrict it to once a week? Do you continue to reinforce the idea that the smoke is not an issue at all? Basically, I'm all alone on this one and run the risk of being labled the wacked out daughter-in-law when in reality my sister-in-law and brother-in-law both stay at another place if the situation can present itself that way. It just remains a silent issue. Of course the differences are that they reside in North Carolina and I reside 15 minutes away.
The things that bother me the most are when my in-laws get lazy. When there is a family gathering say during Christmas or Thanksgiving, my mother-in-law will just go and smoke in the bathroom with the door closed and my father-in-law will just go into his office and smoke which is right beside the living room. He will even sometimes go through the kitchen into the den while everyone else is in the living room as if they can keep the smoke away from the kids, all six of them mind you like they don't run all over the house and the smoke will magically disappear into the air, if they just step a few feet away. They also believe if they refrain from smoking in the house or the main areas, should I say, for a couple of days before family visits this will clear the air. This breaking of boundaries is what concerns me. I don't trust that they will smoke outside the house 100% of the time because they clearly do not believe that the smoke is harmful if it is not blown directly into the face of a child.
So, I'm at a standstill. Just waiting for the discussion to open the floodgates. They smoke a huge amount of cigarettes. They smoke in their beds while watching T.V. They smoke in their cars, the kitchen, the den, the office, everywhere. They even smoked after dinner right in the kitchen when I was over there and pregnant. They will even smoke outside the hospital and come into the room and pick up a newborn as if the smoke is not directly on their clothing. I have a really hard time understanding how one can ignore their own actions. How these things can be justified and how I need to handle them. I'm ready to stand strong and stick to my guns if that's what needs to happen. I'd of course rather have my husbands support but what do you do? What would you do?

Elmo Evil?

2006-09-21T09:48:00.000-04:00

Joel Stein has recently written an opinion piece in the LA Times regarding Elmo, a much loved Sesame Street character. He contends that the newer Sesame Street characters are much different than the older more adult based muppets that teach lessons through interaction with real people. He also takes note that Sesame Street has just added its first female character in 13 years thus as television show known for reflecting diversity may be ignoring gender equality.

World of Toxins

2006-09-20T09:15:00.000-04:00

As most of us know the toxins circulating in our everyday environment and placed in our foods is most likely more serious than we'd like to imagine. Science writer David Ewing Duncan decided to find out exactly what was in his body. He had 14 vials of his blood examined for traces of 360 different toxins such as DDT and PCBs and writes about the results in the October issue of National Geographic. Below is an excerpt from the article that I found extremely scary and thought provoking. Read with caution!

My journalist-as-guinea-pig experiment is taking a disturbing turn. A Swedish chemist is on the phone, talking about flame retardants, chemicals added for safety to just about any product that can burn. Found in mattresses, carpets, the plastic casing of televisions, electronic circuit boards, and automobiles, flame retardants save hundreds of lives a year in the United States alone. These, however, are where they should not be: inside my body.

Åke Bergman of Stockholm University tells me he has received the results of a chemical analysis of my blood, which measured levels of flame-retarding compounds called polybrominated diphenyl ethers. In mice and rats, high doses of PBDEs interfere with thyroid function, cause reproductive and neurological problems, and hamper neurological development. Little is known about their impact on human health.

"I hope you are not nervous, but this concentration is very high," Bergman says with a light Swedish accent. My blood level of one particularly toxic PBDE, found primarily in U.S.-made products, is 10 times the average found in a small study of U.S. residents and more than 200 times the average in Sweden. The news about another PBDE variant—also toxic to animals—is nearly as bad. My levels would be high even if I were a worker in a factory making the stuff, Bergman says.

In fact I'm a writer engaged in a journey of chemical self-discovery. Last fall I had myself tested for 320 chemicals I might have picked up from food, drink, the air I breathe, and the products that touch my skin—my own secret stash of compounds acquired by merely living. It includes older chemicals that I might have been exposed to decades ago, such as DDT and PCBs; pollutants like lead, mercury, and dioxins; newer pesticides and plastic ingredients; and the near-miraculous compounds that lurk just beneath the surface of modern life, making shampoos fragrant, pans nonstick, and fabrics water-resistant and fire-safe.

The tests are too expensive for most individuals—National Geographic paid for mine, which would normally cost around $15,000—and only a few labs have the technical expertise to detect the trace amounts involved. I ran the tests to learn what substances build up in a typical American over a lifetime, and where they might come from. I was also searching for a way to think about risks, benefits, and uncertainty—the complex trade-offs embodied in the chemical "body burden" that swirls around inside all of us.

Now I'm learning more than I really want to know.

Bergman wants to get to the bottom of my flame-retardant mystery. Have I recently bought new furniture or rugs? No. Do I spend a lot of time around computer monitors? No, I use a titanium laptop. Do I live near a factory making flame retardants? Nope, the closest one is over a thousand miles (1,600 kilometers) away. Then I come up with an idea.

"What about airplanes?" I ask.

"Yah," he says, "do you fly a lot?"

"I flew almost 200,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) last year," I say. In fact, as I spoke to Bergman, I was sitting in an airport waiting for a flight from my hometown of San Francisco to London.

"Interesting," Bergman says, telling me that he has long been curious about PBDE exposure inside airplanes, whose plastic and fabric interiors are drenched in flame retardants to meet safety standards set by the Federal Aviation Administration and its counterparts overseas. "I have been wanting to apply for a grant to test pilots and flight attendants for PBDEs," Bergman says as I hear my flight announced overhead. But for now the airplane connection is only a hypothesis. Where I picked up this chemical that I had not even heard of until a few weeks ago remains a mystery. And there's the bigger question: How worried should I be?

The same can be asked of other chemicals I've absorbed from air, water, the nonstick pan I used to scramble my eggs this morning, my faintly scented shampoo, the sleek curve of my cell phone. I'm healthy, and as far as I know have no symptoms associated with chemical exposure. In large doses, some of these substances, from mercury to PCBs and dioxins, the notorious contaminants in Agent Orange, have horrific effects. But many toxicologists—and not just those who have ties to the chemical industry—insist that the minuscule smidgens of chemicals inside us are mostly nothing to worry about.

"In toxicology, dose is everything," says Karl Rozman, a toxicologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center, "and these doses are too low to be dangerous." One part per billion (ppb), a standard unit for measuring most chemicals inside us, is like putting half a teaspoon (two milliliters) of red dye into an Olympic-size swimming pool. What's more, some of the most feared substances, such as mercury, dissipate within days or weeks—or would if we weren't constantly re-exposed.

Yet even though many health statistics have been improving over the past few decades, a few illnesses are rising mysteriously. From the early 1980s through the late 1990s, autism increased tenfold; from the early 1970s through the mid-1990s, one type of leukemia was up 62 percent, male birth defects doubled, and childhood brain cancer was up 40 percent. Some experts suspect a link to the man-made chemicals that pervade our food, water, and air. There's little firm evidence. But over the years, one chemical after another that was thought to be harmless turned out otherwise once the facts were in.

The classic example is lead. In 1971 the U.S. Surgeon General declared that lead levels of 40 micrograms per deciliter of blood were safe. It's now known that any detectable lead can cause neurological damage in children, shaving off IQ points. From DDT to PCBs, the chemical industry has released compounds first and discovered damaging health effects later. Regulators have often allowed a standard of innocent until proven guilty in what Leo Trasande, a pediatrician and environmental health specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, calls "an uncontrolled experiment on America's children."

Each year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews an average of 1,700 new compounds that industry is seeking to introduce. Yet the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act requires that they be tested for any ill effects before approval only if evidence of potential harm exists—which is seldom the case for new chemicals. The agency approves about 90 percent of the new compounds without restrictions. Only a quarter of the 82,000 chemicals in use in the U.S. have ever been tested for toxicity.

Until recently, no one had even measured average levels of exposure among large numbers of Americans. No regulations required it, the tests are expensive, and technology sensitive enough to measure the tiniest levels didn't exist.

Last year the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) took a step toward closing that gap when it released data on 148 substances, from DDT and other pesticides to metals, PCBs, and plastic ingredients, measured in the blood and urine of several thousand people. The study said little about health impacts on the people tested or how they might have encountered the chemicals. "The good news is that we are getting real data about exposure levels," says James Pirkle, the study's lead author. "This gives us a place to start."

I began my own chemical journey on an October morning at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, where I gave urine and had blood drawn under the supervision of Leo Trasande. Trasande specializes in childhood exposures to mercury and other brain toxins. He had agreed to be one of several expert advisers on this project, which began as a Sinai phlebotomist extracted 14 vials of blood—so much that at vial 12 I felt woozy and went into a cold sweat. At vial 13 Trasande grabbed smelling salts, which hit my nostrils like a whiff of fire and allowed me to finish.

From New York my samples were shipped to Axys Analytical Services on Vancouver Island in Canada, one of a handful of state-of-the-art labs specializing in subtle chemical detection, analyzing everything from eagle eggs to human tissue for researchers and government agencies. A few weeks later, I followed my samples to Canada to see how Axys teased out the tiny loads of compounds inside me.

I watched the specimens go through multiple stages of processing, which slowly separated sets of target chemicals from the thousands of other compounds, natural and unnatural, in my blood and urine. The extracts then went into a high-tech clean room containing mass spectrometers, sleek, freezer-size devices that work by flinging the components of a sample through a vacuum, down a long tube. Along the way, a magnetic field deflects the molecules, with lighter molecules swerving the most. The exact amount of deflection indicates each molecule's size and identity.

A few weeks later, Axys sent me my results—a grid of numbers in parts per billion or trillion—and I set out to learn, as best I could, where those toxic traces came from.

Some of them date back to my time in the womb, when my mother downloaded part of her own chemical burden through the placenta and the umbilical cord. More came after I was born, in her breast milk.

Once weaned, I began collecting my own chemicals as I grew up in northeastern Kansas, a few miles outside Kansas City. There I spent countless hot, muggy summer days playing in a dump near the Kansas River. Situated on a high limestone bluff above the fast brown water lined by cottonwoods and railroad tracks, the dump was a mother lode of old bottles, broken machines, steering wheels, and other items only boys can fully appreciate.

This was the late 1960s, and my friends and I had no way of knowing that this dump would later be declared an EPA superfund site, on the National Priority List for hazardous places. It turned out that for years, companies and individuals in this corner of Johnson County had dumped thousands of pounds of material contaminated with toxic chemicals here. "It was started as a landfill before there were any rules and regulations on how landfills were done," says Denise Jordan-Izaguirre, the regional representative for the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. "There were metal tailings and heavy metals dumped in there. It was unfenced, unrestricted, so kids had access to it."

Kids like me.

Now capped, sealed, and closely monitored, the dump, called the Doepke-Holliday Site, also happens to be half a mile upriver from a county water intake that supplied drinking water for my family and 45,000 other households. "From what we can gather, there were contaminants going into the river," says Shelley Brodie, the EPA Remedial Project Manager for Doepke. In the 1960s, the county treated water drawn from the river, but not for all contaminants. Drinking water also came from 21 wells that tapped the aquifer near Doepke.

When I was a boy, my corner of Kansas was filthy, and the dump wasn't the only source of toxins. Industry lined the river a few miles away—factories making cars, soap, and fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals—and a power plant belched fumes. When we drove past the plants toward downtown Kansas City, we plunged into a noxious cloud that engulfed the car with smoke and an awful chemical stench. Flames rose from fertilizer plant stacks, burning off mustard-yellow plumes of sodium, and animal waste poured into the river. In the nearby farmland, trucks and crop dusters sprayed DDT and other pesticides in great, puffy clouds that we kids sometimes rode our bikes through, holding our breath and feeling very brave.

Today the air is clear, and the river free of effluents—a visible testament to the success of the U.S. environmental cleanup, spurred by the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the 1970s. But my Axys test results read like a chemical diary from 40 years ago. My blood contains traces of several chemicals now banned or restricted, including DDT (in the form of DDE, one of its breakdown products) and other pesticides such as the termite-killers chlordane and heptachlor. The levels are about what you would expect decades after exposure, says Rozman, the toxicologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center. My childhood playing in the dump, drinking the water, and breathing the polluted air could also explain some of the lead and dioxins in my blood, he says.

I went to college at a place and time that put me at the height of exposure for another set of substances found inside me—PCBs, once used as electrical insulators and heat-exchange fluids in transformers and other products. PCBs can lurk in the soil anywhere there's a dump or an old factory. But some of the largest releases took place along New York's Hudson River from the 1940s to the 1970s, when General Electric used PCBs at factories in the towns of Hudson Falls and Fort Edward. About 140 miles (225 kilometers) downstream is the city of Poughkeepsie, where I attended Vassar College in the late 1970s.

PCBs, oily liquids or solids, can persist in the environment for decades. In animals, they impair liver function, raise blood lipids, and cause cancers. Some of the 209 different PCBs chemically resemble dioxins and cause other mischief in lab animals: reproductive and nervous system damage, as well as developmental problems. By 1976, the toxicity of PCBs was unmistakable; the United States banned them, and GE stopped using them. But until then, GE legally dumped excess PCBs into the Hudson, which swept them all the way downriver to Poughkeepsie, one of eight cities that draw their drinking water from the Hudson.

In 1984, a 200-mile (300 kilometers) stretch of the Hudson, from Hudson Falls to New York City, was declared a superfund site, and plans to rid the river of PCBs were set in motion. GE has spent 300 million dollars on the cleanup so far, dredging up and disposing of PCBs in the river sediment under the supervision of the EPA. It is also working to stop the seepage of PCBs into the river from the factories.

Birds and other wildlife along the Hudson are thought to have suffered from the pollution, but its impact on humans is less definitive. One study in Hudson River communities found a 20 percent increase in the rate of hospitalization for respiratory diseases, while another, more reassuringly, found no increase in cancer deaths in the contaminated region. But among many of the locals, the fear is palpable.

"I grew up a block from the Fort Edward plant," says Dennis Prevost, a retired Army officer and public health advocate, who blames PCBs for the brain cancers that killed his brother at age 46 and a neighbor in her 20s. "The PCBs have migrated under the parking lot and into the community aquifer," which Prevost says was the source of Fort Edward's drinking water until municipal water replaced wells in 1984.

Ed Fitzgerald of the State University of New York at Albany, a former staff scientist at the state department of health, is conducting the most thorough study yet of the health effects of PCBs in the area. He says he has explained to Prevost and other residents that the risk from the wells was probably small because PCBs tend to settle to the bottom of an aquifer. Eating contaminated fish caught in the Hudson is a more likely exposure route, he says.

I didn't eat much Hudson River fish during my college days in the 1970s, but the drinking water in my dorm could have contained traces of the PCBs pouring into the river far upstream. That may be how I picked up my PCB body burden, which was about average for an American. Or maybe not. "PCBs are everywhere," says Leo Rosales, a local EPA official, "so who knows where you got it."

Back home in San Francisco, I encounter a newer generation of industrial chemicals—compounds that are not banned, and, like flame retardants, are increasing year by year in the environment and in my body. Sipping water after a workout, I could be exposing myself to bisphenol A, an ingredient in rigid plastics from water bottles to safety goggles. Bisphenol A causes reproductive system abnormalities in animals. My levels were so low they were undetectable—a rare moment of relief in my toxic odyssey.

And that faint lavender scent as I shampoo my hair? Credit it to phthalates, molecules that dissolve fragrances, thicken lotions, and add flexibility to PVC, vinyl, and some intravenous tubes in hospitals. The dashboards of most cars are loaded with phthalates, and so is some plastic food wrap. Heat and wear can release phthalate molecules, and humans swallow them or absorb them through the skin. Because they dissipate after a few minutes to a few hours in the body, most people's levels fluctuate during the day.

Like bisphenol A, phthalates disrupt reproductive development in mice. An expert panel convened by the National Toxicology Program recently concluded that although the evidence so far doesn't prove that phthalates pose any risk to people, it does raise "concern," especially about potential effects on infants. "We don't have the data in humans to know if the current levels are safe," says Antonia Calafat, a CDC phthalates expert. I scored higher than the mean in five out of seven phthalates tested. One of them, monomethyl phthalate, came in at 34.8 ppb, in the top 5 percent for Americans. Leo Trasande speculates that some of my phthalate levels were high because I gave my urine sample in the morning, just after I had showered and washed my hair.

My inventory of household chemicals also includes perfluorinated acids (PFAs)—tough, chemically resistant compounds that go into making nonstick and stain-resistant coatings. 3M also used them in its Scotchgard protector products until it found that the specific PFA compounds in Scotchgard were escaping into the environment and phased them out. In animals these chemicals damage the liver, affect thyroid hormones, and cause birth defects and perhaps cancer, but not much is known about their toxicity in humans.

Long-range pollution left its mark on my results as well: My blood contained low, probably harmless, levels of dioxins, which escape from paper mills, certain chemical plants, and incinerators. In the environment, dioxins settle on soil and in the water, then pass into the food chain. They build up in animal fat, and most people pick them up from meat and dairy products.

And then there is mercury, a neurotoxin that can permanently impair memory, learning centers, and behavior. Coal-burning power plants are a major source of mercury, sending it out their stacks into the atmosphere, where it disperses in the wind, falls in rain, and eventually washes into lakes, streams, or oceans. There bacteria transform it into a compound called methylmercury, which moves up the food chain after plankton absorb it from the water and are eaten by small fish. Large predatory fish at the top of the marine food chain, like tuna and swordfish, accumulate the highest concentrations of methylmercury—and pass it on to seafood lovers.

For people in northern California, mercury exposure is also a legacy of the gold rush 150 years ago, when miners used quicksilver, or liquid mercury, to separate the gold from other ores in the hodgepodge of mines in the Sierra Nevada. Over the decades, streams and groundwater washed mercury-laden sediment out of the old mine tailings and swept it into San Francisco Bay.

I don't eat much fish, and the levels of mercury in my blood were modest. But I wondered what would happen if I gorged on large fish for a meal or two. So one afternoon I bought some halibut and swordfish at a fish market in the old Ferry Building on San Francisco Bay. Both were caught in the ocean just outside the Golden Gate, where they might have picked up mercury from the old mines. That night I ate the halibut with basil and a dash of soy sauce; I downed the swordfish for breakfast with eggs (cooked in my nonstick pan).

Twenty-four hours later I had my blood drawn and retested. My level of mercury had more than doubled, from 5 micrograms per liter to a higher-than-recommended 12. Mercury at 70 or 80 micrograms per liter is dangerous for adults, says Leo Trasande, and much lower levels can affect children. "Children have suffered losses in IQ at 5.8 micrograms." He advises me to avoid repeating the gorge experiment.

It's a lot harder to dodge the PBDE flame retardants responsible for the most worrisome of my test results. My world—and yours—has become saturated with them since they were introduced about 30 years ago.

Scientists have found the compounds planetwide, in polar bears in the Arctic, cormorants in England, and killer whales in the Pacific. Bergman, the Swedish chemist, and his colleagues first called attention to potential health risks in 1998 when they reported an alarming increase in PBDEs in human breast milk, from none in milk preserved in 1972 to an average of four ppb in 1997.

The compounds escape from treated plastic and fabrics in dust particles or as gases that cling to dust. People inhale the dust; infants crawling on the floor get an especially high dose. Bergman describes a family, tested in Oakland, California, by the Oakland Tribune, whose two small children had blood levels even higher than mine. When he and his colleagues summed up the test results for six different PBDEs, they found total levels of 390 ppb in the five-year-old girl and 650 ppb—twice my total—in the 18-month-old boy.

In 2001, researchers in Sweden fed young mice a PBDE mixture similar to one used in furniture and found that they did poorly on tests of learning, memory, and behavior. Last year, scientists at Berlin's Charité University Medical School reported that pregnant female rats with PBDE levels no higher than mine gave birth to male pups with impaired reproductive health.

Linda Birnbaum, an EPA expert on these flame retardants, says that researchers will have to identify many more people with high PBDE exposures, like the Oakland family and me, before they will be able to detect any human effects. Bergman says that in a pregnant woman my levels would be of concern. "Any level above a hundred parts per billion is a risk to newborns," he guesses. No one knows for sure.

Any margin of safety may be narrowing. In a review of several studies, Ronald Hites of Indiana University found an exponential rise in people and animals, with the levels doubling every three to five years. Now the CDC is putting a comprehensive study of PBDE levels in the U.S. on a fast track, with results due out late this year. Pirkle, who is running the study, says my seemingly extreme levels may no longer be out of the ordinary. "We'll let you know," he says.

Given the stakes, why take a chance on these chemicals? Why not immediately ban them? In 2004, Europe did just that for the penta- and octa-BDEs, which animal tests suggest are the most toxic of the compounds. California will also ban these forms by 2008, and in 2004 Chemtura, an Indiana company that is the only U.S. maker of pentas and octas, agreed to phase them out. Currently, there are no plans to ban the much more prevalent deca-BDEs. They reportedly break down more quickly in the environment and in people, although their breakdown products may include the same old pentas and octas.

Nor is it clear that banning a suspect chemical is always the best option. Flaming beds and airplane seats are not an inviting prospect either. The University of Surrey in England recently assessed the risks and benefits of flame retardants in consumer products. The report concluded: "The benefits of many flame retardants in reducing the risk from fire outweigh the risks to human health."

Except for some pollutants, after all, every industrial chemical was created for a purpose. Even DDT, the archvillain of Rachel Carson's 1962 classic book Silent Spring, which launched the modern environmental movement, was once hailed as a miracle substance because it killed the mosquitoes that carry malaria, yellow fever, and other scourges. It saved countless lives before it was banned in much of the world because of its toxicity to wildlife. "Chemicals are not all bad," says Scott Phillips, a medical toxicologist in Denver. "While we have seen some cancer rates rise," he says, "we also have seen a doubling of the human life span in the past century."

The key is knowing more about these substances, so we are not blindsided by unexpected hazards, says California State Senator Deborah Ortiz, chair of the Senate Health Committee and the author of a bill to monitor chemical exposure. "We benefit from these chemicals, but there are consequences, and we need to understand these consequences much better than we do now." Sarah Brozena of the industry-supported American Chemistry Council thinks safeguards are adequate now, but she concedes: "That's not to say this process was done right in the past."

The European Union last year gave initial approval to a measure called REACH—Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals—which would require companies to prove the substances they market or use are safe, or that the benefits outweigh any risks. The bill, which the chemical industry and the U.S. government oppose, would also encourage companies to find safer alternatives to suspect flame retardants, pesticides, solvents, and other chemicals. That would give a boost to the so-called green chemistry movement, a search for alternatives that is already under way in laboratories on both sides of the Atlantic.

As unsettling as my journey down chemical lane was, it left out thousands of compounds, among them pesticides, plastics, solvents, and a rocket-fuel ingredient called perchlorate that is polluting groundwater in many regions of the country. Nor was I tested for chemical cocktails—mixtures of chemicals that may do little harm on their own but act together to damage human cells. Mixed together, pesticides, PCBs, phthalates, and others "might have additive effects, or they might be antagonistic," says James Pirkle of the CDC, "or they may do nothing. We don't know."

Soon after I receive my results, I show them to my internist, who admits that he too knows little about these chemicals, other than lead and mercury. But he confirms that I am healthy, as far as he can tell. He tells me not to worry. So I'll keep flying, and scrambling my eggs on Teflon, and using that scented shampoo. But I'll never feel quite the same about the chemicals that make life better in so many ways.

Second Hand Smoke

2006-09-13T15:46:00.000-04:00

We went for a recent visit to the pediatrician and because I'm involved in an ongoing battle over my child's exposure to second hand smoke, I enlisted the help of my child's doctor in handling this sensitive issue. I say sensitive because my husband's parents smoke...........quite a large amount and they smoke in their house and in their cars. They believe or they are in denial that if the smoke is not directly blown in the location of the child then its harmless. We have never had this discussion as of yet, which is my fault, but I feel if they thought differently they would not step away from him and smoke when outdoors or just refrain from smoking in the house when the kids are there. My sister-in-law also has issues with this as her two children were plagued with ear infections early on. I had heard that second hand smoke was a leading cause of ear infections in children so I asked our pediatrician if a child that was not already suceptable to them would get them from second hand smoke alone or would the smoke exacerbate an issue already dormant? She stated to me that it could be both so I spoke to her about how to approach this issue with my in-laws. As of now I have to restrict his time there and he is not allowed or never will be allowed to spend the night over there. The house is a smoke factory and all of us smell like it when we leave. Everyone in the family takes issue but no one says anything about it, and continues to let their kids spend nights and weekends over there at the expense of their health. Our doctor gave me a print out that is easy to read that I could give to them. It evolved from the Surgeon General's report on second hand smoke and I find it very informative without being too jargony. I believe the first step is to submit this information to my husband so we can come to an agreement on how to handle the situation. If anyone has any suggestions on how to handle this issue please share as surprisingly enough issues such as this are family sensitive.

September 11th

2006-09-11T11:34:00.000-04:00

I have chosen not to watch any television today or listen to any radio stations as I take in for another year the tragedy of September 11th. The television and radio will undoubtedly be riddled with stories and images replaying one of the most horrible times in American history. This may sound insensitive but I have instead decided to internally contemplate what the global environment is currently like and to give thought to how families and working people just like me live in a culture of violence every single day. I am grateful today because my family and I do not face the everyday endeavors of a family in Darfur, Israel, Lebanon, etc... I am grateful today because I can walk in public in relative safety. Remembering is always essential but how about we contemplate what the world needs at this moment? How about we make the world a safer place?

Check Biology and Change the Text!

2006-09-07T09:27:00.000-04:00

Wording in the New York Times article yesterday regarding the new baby boy born to Princess Kiko of the Japanese Imperial family raised my eyebrows on a few core points. Apparently this baby is the first boy to be born to the royal family in 41 years raising concerns and debate within Japanese government with respect to allowing women to ascend the royal throne. Apparently that issue is temporarily shelved due to the boy now born who is number three in line for the throne.

The birth of a male heir will shelve for the foreseeable future a politically explosive debate over whether women should be allowed to ascend the throne. It has solved for now a succession crisis that had taken its most direct human toll on Crown Princess Masako, 42, the Harvard-educated former diplomat whose failure to bear a son contributed to her depression and withdrawal from the public.

I find this wording extremely interesting; "failure to bear a son"......... How has it remained her responsibility and hers alone to "bear" a son, as if it is her egg that determines such things. Shouldn't it really take on a slightly different tone? How is it her "failure"?

Purchasing A Car

2006-09-05T08:42:00.000-04:00

My husband and I are making the final arrangements to purchase a car today. Let me say one thing.....there is not much else that I hate more that purchasing a car. This is the first car I have purchased with a male in tow but in the past I've run into blatent discrimination and had to walk out on many deals.

Things that I've learned:
1) know the blue book value of the car you want before you even bid and make sure you have all the information on the car you need to get an accurate blue book price.
2) wear sunglasses.
3) always ask for the Carfax report on the car before you bid.
4) when you know exactly how much you want to pay for the car, write it on a piece of paper along with your name and phone number and slide it over to the salesperson, when the person responds then you have the power to say, "well you have my number call me if you change your mind."
5) ALWAYS BE WILLING TO WALK AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Shopping Cart TV?

2006-08-31T09:41:00.000-04:00

Are you kidding me? A television inside a shopping cart for children? This thing rents for a dollar and will show your child videos while you shop. Doesn't take a genius to figure out what kind of videos are available as if they are not faced with technologies on an hourly basis. I was under the impression that getting your kids out of the house was to get them away from the television and computer screens to perhaps participate in a bit of social interaction and a display of decent behavior. Just give up on teaching your children patience and manners and strap them into a shopping cart where they will be even more targeted by the vast advertising machine that we as parents work so hard to control. Sounds like a great idea. I'm sure the stores that are testing these things have been garanteed some kind of benefit, most likely in the form of revenue. Just another thing for parents to have to battle.

Teachers and Gender

2006-08-29T13:50:00.001-04:00

Does the gender of a teacher effect the learning of either boys or girls? According to a recent study, girls learn more from female teachers and boys learn more from male teachers. Hopefully we will hear more about this in the future.

Teachers and Gender

2006-08-29T13:50:00.000-04:00

Plan B

2006-08-25T10:23:00.000-04:00

I'm sure everyone is giddy with excitement over the new access to plan B. The 18 year cut off is a bit unrealistic but hey we will I'm sure hear more about that in the near future. Here is a wonderful website for anyone needing information regarding plan B. Circulate to all!

Federal Money and Heteronormativity.

2006-08-23T08:50:00.000-04:00

Great.....one million dollars in federal grant money has paid for more heteronormative marriage behavior. Couples living in poverty, overwhelmingly African American, in Baltimore have spent five months in a relationship class that teaches the benefits of a healthy relationship and more specifically marriage. The premise asserts that a marriage is the best place for the children emotionally and financially. The data is out on whether or not this program is showing significant positive changes but any positive outcomes could be used to undermind gay and lesbian parent's rights to adopt or have children of their own. Just marry off the poor people, give them a five month class on how to be in a relationship (based on a stereotypical model), and assume that these couples will pool their income and miraculously emerge unscathed out of poverty. Wow........what an imagination our government has!

No, Sleep Is Good!

2006-08-17T10:11:00.000-04:00

We were doing so good with a sleep schedule but currently my eight month old is fighting me tooth and nail when he goes down for his naps. Lucky for us the seven o'clock bed time remains uncontested. The first four months of his life were spent snuggled up next to me in bed. This was the best situation due to a daily work schedule and his desire to nurse every two hours. I needed sleep so everytime he woke up and started to root around I would just switch sides. As a first time mom I researched till I was blue in the face. Some experts said no co-sleeping; it's dangerous. Some said co-sleeping was most beneficial for mom and baby and even shows signs of decreasing the event of SIDS because the the baby is close to mom and more aware/alert. Older women would say...tisk...tisk...you are never going to get him to sleep alone and what if you roll on him. I have to say one would have to be really drugged up or had preceeded to drink too much in order for them to roll over their kid; unless of course you have one of those weird sleep disorders. So we cleared the bed of any extra pillows and such and everything was fine. At four months we decided it was time to move him into his crib. I started by putting him down only in his crib for naps and I have to admit I didn't want him to sleep away from me. I got very used to his cuddly little body and missed him when he wasn't there. But I realized it wasn't fair to him. We needed to implement some kind of sleeping schedule that was exactly the same each and everytime.
So I started asking around. A friend told me about a book called Secrets of the Baby Whisperer which advocated a set ritual, self soothing, and certain hand positions to calm baby and lend support. As a derivitive of the Ferber method which a colleague of mine relayed, this particular method suggests that you do not pick up the baby out of the crib. After a night time ritual you place the baby in his or her crib awake and leave the room. The crying starts and you wait. Five minutes go by and you enter the room. Ferber says just put them back down, give them a soothy and leave the room again. The Baby Whisperer says place one hand on their head and the other on their bottom and talk to them in a soft soothing voice until they calm down, then leave the room. The point is to get the baby to put themselves to sleep so they do not become dependent on being rocked or nursed. In the event that your child needs an extra feeding, The Baby Whisperer suggests something called dream feeding. Dream feeding is a set schedule of nursings that enable the baby to sleep through the night without needing to nurse. This method suggests that babies can make it thought the night but as with my experience some just can't. Mine really needed an extra feeding so as with any method or advice some works well and some has to be adjusted. After dinner I would go up and pick him up while he was still asleep and nurse him at eight, nine, and ten thirty then put him right back. This was suppose to aleviate a three in the morning wake up call but it just didn't work for me. So we spent hell week sleeping in guest room next to the nursery until our little one got the hang of it. He eventually did but there were times when he would work himself up so horribly that we had to pick him up.
That brings me to Moxie, a mom who helps parents trouble shoot their concerns on her blog. The debate between letting them cry it out and picking them up continues to trive because all kids are different. She differentiates by suggesting that if the crying is releasing tension as some babies need then don't pick them up, if the crying is causing a rise in tension then pick them up. This makes complete sense from my personal experience. I can tell is my baby is crying a certain way or not, if he needs to be picked up and soothed or not. The bottom line is get to know your kids and take what works from each person who gives you advice and make your own method. No method can be taught if the baby is not ready and it's up to the parents to realize their little one is their own person with separate needs and emotions. Off the subject but still relevant, I hate when in-laws try to decide who my little one looks like or acts like. He's himself for craps sake! It is nice to be able to put my little one in his crib and he goes right off to sleep all by himself but he is not perfect and will have a hard time on occasion. I think the most important thing is to stay as consistent as possible with bed time rituals as it clears up an confusion the child might have as to what you expect of them.
This week has been a bit rough when it comes to naps but I have a feeling it's the Object Permanence kicking in and his new found mobility. There is just too much to see and do so why sleep?

Who's Breasts?

2006-08-15T13:11:00.000-04:00

I can't believe people write this stuff:

In the end, there are two effects of breast-feeding that we often refuse to acknowledge. One is the de-eroticization of a woman's body, as her husband witnesses one of the most attractive parts of her body serving a utilitarian rather than romantic purpose. This is not to say that breast-feeding isn't sexy. Indeed, the maternal dimension is a central part of womanliness. But public breast-feeding is profoundly de-eroticizing, and I believe that wives should cover up, even when they nurse their babies in their husband's presence.

This particular individual; as pointed out by Pandagon and Feminsting continues to reduce the female body to a sexual figure used for the purpose of male pleasure. The kicker is if the 'erotic nature' of the woman's/wife's body is ruined by the witnessing of breastfeeding or childbirth the marriage runs the risk of falling to crap.

This is not to say that breast-feeding should not be practiced. It is instead to say that it should always remain subordinate to the romantic and passionate needs of a marriage.

This guy should be flogged.

Blowing Hot Air Out The Wrong Ass!

2006-08-11T14:35:00.000-04:00

A panel, established by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, on higher education issued a report intended to stop the increase of rising college tuition or at least make the increase level with median household income, implement standardized testing for college students as a way to assess student competency, increase Pell grant funding, and make colleges more accountable for students that graduate without the proper skills needed to survive in todays global job market. One panel member even suggested that private student loans be expanded as a way to fund tuition.
Well, that sounds like a great idea. Let's wait until college to address the discrepencies instead of targeting poverty stricken school districts, the No Child Left Behind Act that is not funded properly in the first place, and the fact that elementary schools don't prepare kids for middle school and middle schools don't prepare kids for highschool and highschool sure as hell doesn't prepare kids for college so yes....of course......lets fix it when they are in college....that makes more sense.

Who Would You Choose?

2006-08-09T07:57:00.000-04:00

I hate thinking, what if something happened to me and my husband? During the Terry Schiavo situation my husband and I both said, if that were either one of us please just let us die peacefully. Both of us agreed that neither one of us wanted to stay alive by machines and did not think it was in our children's best interest to see us like that. In the event of a horrible tragedy who would assume guardian responsibilities of our children? Below are some legal tips from an article on NPR discusing what parents must do to assure that their children are taken care of by the individuals they choose.

12 Ways to Protect Your Children's Future

by Alexis Neely

Alexis Neely is a personal family attorney based in Redondo Beach, Calif. Below is a checklist of things to consider when planning for the future for your children and your estate:

A family’s most precious assets are always their children. And yet, many parents have not been educated on these 12 Steps that all parents can take to protect the future of their children.

Step #1: Designate first responders -- What would happen if you died or became incapacitated while your children were in the care of someone else? Somebody would eventually call the police, right? Unfortunately, if your children were in the care of a person without documented and legal authority to have custody of them, the police would have no choice but to call in Child Protective Services. Your children could be taken into foster care until one of two things happened: someone with clear legal authority arrives to take custody of your children; or the courts determined who would have clear legal authority through the guardianship process.

Step #2: Provide clear guidance to your first responders -- You absolutely want to inform the people that are your first responders of their role and how important that role is to you. Your first responders must be prepared to go to your children during a time of crisis with the appropriate documentation giving them the authority to stay with your children.

Step #3: Ensure that caregivers and babysitters have clear instructions -- If you are like me, the last thing you want to happen is for the police to show up at your house and find your children with a caregiver who does not have legal authority to stay with them, and does not have any idea how to contact someone who does have such authority. In the event that happens, the police have no choice but to call in Child Protective Services.

Step #4: Define guardians for long-term care -- Parents regularly tell me that they have discussed and agreed upon a guardian for their children, and have even made their wishes known to their families. However, verbal communication itself is not enough, and can lead to significant internal family conflict. It can also result in your wishes not being followed when it is too late. If you fail to communicate your wishes in a legally binding, written document, you are placing your children in a situation in which every family member has equal priority of guardianship. The state will ultimately decide who raises your children. Legal documentation is particularly important if you intend for a friend to care for your children, as courts will almost always choose a family member over a friend.

Step #5: Plan even if you are uncertain who should be guardian -- I’ve heard many parents say, "we have not made a plan because we can’t decide who should be guardian." Regardless of whether you make a plan, the State has a plan for you and your children. In many cases, the State’s plan is not the plan you would choose. As I discussed in Step #1, your children would likely be placed in Child Protective Services if you do not have local family to serve as First Responders. Someone would then have to petition the court to be appointed the official guardian of your children. Almost everyone has a family member they know they would NOT want to raise their children. Imagine if that was the person the Court appointed to raise your children! And, even if you would be okay with any member of your family raising your children, imagine the strife that could occur when more than one family member comes forward insisting they are the right person. Don't let your reluctance to make a decision turn into a decision that you don't want. Download a free article that will give you a proven method on How to Choose the Right Guardian at http://www.choosetherightguardian.com.

Step #6: Let those designated as guardians know how you want your children raised -- As a mom, I know that there are certain things that are critical to me when it comes to the way my children are raised, such as the spiritual foundation I want them to have, the sense of financial responsibility I want imparted to them, and the educational path I want them to take. Just by way of the fact that you are reading this, I know that these (and other) issues are critical to you as well. The only way to ensure that your children will be raised with your values is to make them clear to the people you’ve named as Guardians if they are ever called on to serve.

Step #7: Document your plan, regardless of your assets -- Many people jeopardize their children’s future by thinking they do not have assets and therefore do not need to plan. Regardless of whether you have significant financial assets, if you have minor children, you need to consider who would raise them if you could not. If you have any assets at all, you need a plan to ensure that the right thing happens to your assets in the event of your death. Consider the following two situations that recently came across my desk -- both families who hadn’t done any planning because they probably thought they didn’t have enough wealth to plan. First there was an aunt willing to take her four nieces and nephews into her care after tragedy struck and the children were left without parents. The aunt lacked financial resources -- she didn’t even have money to hire a lawyer to help carry out the guardianship proceedings. The parents left only $50,000 behind in assets, money the aunt desperately needs to help raise the children. Sadly, the aunt spent well over a year trying to convince the bank to release the funds and ultimately had to find a lawyer and go to court to get access to the funds. There's also the case of a janitor hit by a car and severely injured, left unable to communicate or sign documents. He had only $10,000 in a bank account in his own name, which no one can access it without a court order. This was $10,000 that his family desperately needed, but the court process usually proves to be expensive and confusing. Planning would have avoided both of these unfortunate situations.

Step #8: Provide enough financial resources -- Too many families consider insurance a waste of money, but do not have enough in savings to care for their children in the event of an emergency. Do you want your children to attend college? What kind of lifestyle do you want your children to have if you can’t be there to financially support them? Remember, you are responsible for ensuring sufficient financial resources to support your children upon your death.

Step #9: Help your family avoid probate -- If you have assets that need to go through the court process called probate upon your death, you might want to put your assets in a living trust. Probate is expensive, complex, time consuming and inconvenient -- probate will cost your estate approximately 5 percent of your gross assets, and will take a minimum of 12-16 months in the state of California (other states may vary.) Also, the information in a will is open to the public. While the general public likely does not care about the value of your estate, predators care if your children are to receive substantial assets when they turn 18.

Step #10: Protect your children’s inheritance until they are old enough -- Many young adults who receive an inheritance often use the money less that wisely, buying fancy cars or taking friends on vacations. If your estate goes through probate, you control neither the age at which your children receive their inheritance nor how they spend it. At the end of probate, your funds should be held in a guardianship estate account for the benefit of your children until they turn 18, at which time all the remaining funds would be distributed to them outright.

Step #11: Protect your children’s inheritance from lawsuits and future spouses -- Many families leave their children’s inheritance unprotected from creditors, predators, spouses and estate taxes, assuming that only wealthy families create lifetime trusts for their children. In fact, lifetime trusts are more beneficial for the average family, who would be penniless if they had to fight a lawsuit, a money judgment or a divorce. You can create a lifetime asset protection trust for your children that will allow them to control the assets at the time that you deem appropriate.

Step #12: Consider the impact of estate taxes -- It's a little-known fact: For the vast majority of families, estate taxes are voluntary. But ignorance of the impact of estate taxes on your family can cost up to $960,000. Add up your own taxable estate: the equity in your home, the value of your personal property, bank and brokerage accounts, your retirement accounts and life insurance. Estates exceeding $2 million could be subject to estate tax at a rate of 46 percent. For example, if you have a $3-million taxable estate, your family could pay 46 percent tax on the $1 million exceeding the threshold. In other words, your family would pay $460,000 in estate taxes.

Parental Responsibility?

2006-08-08T09:07:00.000-04:00

Just when you thought Joe Francis, the cre-a-tor of "Girls Gone Wild", could not perpetuate the over exposure of exploitative coersive female sexuality any stronger, an article in the LA Times makes me as a mom want to puke! The public is very aware of the explicit content on these soft porn videos that gross approximately 4 billion a year in sales, and Francis has been arrested, sued, indicted, and cleared of the majority of charges which cover racketeering, drug trafficing, and promoting the sexual performance of a child. While I consider myself a pro-pornography or anti-censorship feminist I question whether or not insinuations, such as the quote below, that suggest the performers/women/girls are empowered by such acts?

I call Vicki Mayer, a sociologist and Tulane University assistant professor, for guidance. Mayer teaches a class on the nudity rituals that take place on New Orleans' infamous Bourbon Street. She has studied and written about "Girls Gone Wild," and she contends that it's simplistic to say that Mantra takes advantage of women. "For some women this is liberating, for some women this is something they do on a goof or for a lark to show friends they can, for some it's a way of flirting with the cameramen," Mayer says.

Where in this senario is the free booze and drugs calculated into the equation? Joe Francis and his team set up 'parties' as they are called and club promoters pay 10,000 dollars a night to have his team set up shop in their clubs. Girls drink for free and are usually very young around 18 to 25 years of age. If a girl is at a party and is sexually assaulted we contend that she is not capable of giving proper consent, so how does a team of young men go around a party where heavy drinking is in play and get girls to sign concent forms? How is this situation different from a young college student going to a party with a guy she likes, drinks, gets physically involved with, but only intends on a few things and ends up having sexual intercourse when she didn't want to?

Francis argues 1st Ammendment rights and that he just loves women, but seems to me to just have a misogynistic shroud of righteousness. It reminds me of the artist Tom Wesselman who painted faceless naked women during the sexual revolution of the 60's and felt that his images were a reflection of the sexual revolution empowering women when we all know the so called sexual revolution was really more about male access. Feminists fought for birth control, female sexual autonomy, and the freedom of to choose, but the culture still ascribed the same roles. Men do the looking and women are the ones being looked at; Gaze Theory. Which points us right back to "Girls Gone Wild."

"My favorite is explaining to dumb chicks why the qwerty keyboard is called a qwerty keyboard, and why the letters aren't in order," he tells me. "They're, like, 18 years old, and they're, like, 'Wait a minute, there were typewriters?' And you got to start there."

Where is our culture's age of womanhood? When did an 18 year old girl become a full fledged woman with complete adult autonomy? 18 to around 22 is a transition for most kids, hence why they are in college, or at least most of them. This age is where they live with a sense of independence away from home and are faced with the firsts of many adult responsibilites. Joe Francis is one media entity that takes advantage. It also brings into question female responsibility and parental responsibility. This reminds me of an episode of the Dr. Phil show. Dr. Phil had his son go down to Padre Island and film spring break. The three girls that drank, did drugs, and participated in exploitative sexual acts on camera were on the show and in deep regret. These teens even felt violated, manipulated, and vunerable. Dr. Phil questioned their actions, their parent's actions, but continued to show video clips of large groups of boys chanting and participating in the girl's exhibitionism. Not one male was questioned for his role in these behaviors. The conclusion was the parents should refrain from sending their daughters on spring break and that the girls should not have participated in substance abuse that put them in that particular situation in the first place. Male sexuality was never questions, only the girl's self esteem.

My role as a parent is to protect my kids, so no I would not let my daughter (if I had one) go on spring break, but I would also not let my son go either. I refuse as a parent to raise a son who believes that his masculinity must conform to these standards in order for him to be authentic.

As the argument proceeds; it is too simplistic to say all the females exposing themselves and participating in sexual acts on camera are victims and being exploitated. Isn't it too simplistic to assume that this is an empowering act for femininity as well? The cultural forces that drive such things are so entrenched in how we view female and male sexuality. It's great that we are teaching girls to have physical autonomy and respect their bodies, but when are boys going to be taught differently and how can such ideologies be persuasive when cultural forces like MTV and Paris Hilton are contradicting those messages?

Commercials and Kids

2006-08-02T09:50:00.000-04:00

What is wrong with this quote by the president of Nickelodeon in an article on NPR regarding the negative consequences of marketing to children?

"But ultimately, Zarghami acknowledges, Nickelodeon believes that by putting characters on products, they are serving their real customers: kids."

When did my kid become a 'customer'? He doesn't pay for anything! He is not a consumer in the Capitalist sense of the word! My child consumes what I give him, since I'm the real 'customer', which consists of breastmilk, organic baby food, cereal, organic O's, and organic Lucky Duckies among other things and none of what I purchase has any cartoon characters on the packaging nor is associated with any television personalities. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that children under the age of two not be exposed to any television what so ever and after age two only two hours of programming a day is recommended. We know how realistic this is. With the majority of two income earner house holds a children's video can be a drastic time saver in the mornings. I personally like Noggin as the programming is educational and free of commercials. This of course doesn't mean I drop him in front of the television and just go about my day, but in the event of a morning with two adults and one infant needing to leave the house at the same time, it can come in handy. Oh yeah, and since I'm the real 'customer' I don't have to consume what I don't choose to consume. I have a choice, one of the positives of Capitalism. Parents should not feel powerless against this advertising machine but gain as much information as possible to fight the forces. I know some will say, easier said than done, but crap so what if the kid throws a tantrum, it's not the end of the world and they can't have everything they want. So we, as parents reside in between this difficult advertising machine and parental responsibility. I say, easier said than done if the machine would let up a bit! Parental responsibility is only half of the story. Kids have to branch out into the world and eventually make decisions for themselves. If they would put Dora on a bag of organic apples all would be great but they don't. They put a bunny on the Trix box, and a friendly tiger on the Frosted Flakes box and create commercials that air on children's time slots that look just like cartoons themselves. What the hell is a parent to do? Blindfold their kid?

Vicky Rideout says about one-third of young children live in homes where parents leave the television on almost all the time, regardless of whether anyone is watching.
"They think that, leaving the TV on in the background, the kids are mostly ignoring it," Rideout says.

But Broughton says that children take in a lot, even if they are only occasionally exposed to programming intended for general audiences. A colleague recently told him about a father whose 4-year-old son raised the topic of Levitra while on a doctor's visit for an earache. He notes that children are attentive to messages that aren't necessarily intended for them, and that they may not be equipped to process the information, even with ads on age-appropriate programs.

I do agree with this. I don't think leaving an adult show on during the day while your child plays is the best idea. Children are so receptive; for the most odd reason my child turns his head and smiles everytime he hears Dr. Phil's voice which I personally dispise; Dr. Phil that is. My husband is addictive to those horrible court shows that only reinforce the worst stereotypes in our culture so I don't let him watch them when our child is awake and playing. I've included an exert from a great book by Susan Linn. The advertising industry is much more complex than we think and their aim is to create brand loyalty by introducing products at an early age. Children's programming gets caught trying to make a buck as federal funds for stations like PBS and after school programs fall to the waist side or are used to buy more bombs. It's important to be informed as a parent, that way one can better have the tools to anticipate such situations before they become out of control.

Excerpt: Consuming Kids

by Susan Linn

NPR.org, July 28, 2006 · I don't absolve parents of responsibility for their children's well being in a commercially driven world, but most of the parents I talk to are doing their best in what often feels like an unending and overwhelming struggle. In the face of well-funded, brilliantly strategized, and relentless commercial assaults on their children, parents are expected to be unyielding gatekeepers and their children's sole protectors.

"I think it's all the parents' fault," an older woman comments during a call-in radio show about marketing to kids. "They are too indulgent these days. They need to learn to say no." I often hear comments like this when I talk about children and the marketplace. I don't agree. After years of exploring advertising and advertising practices as they affect children, I've come to the conclusion that telling parents to "just say no" to every marketing-related request that they feel is unsafe, unaffordable, unreasonable, or contrary to family values is about as simplistic as telling a drug addict to "just say no" to drugs.

The phrase "It takes a village to raise a child" may have been overused during the past decade, but it's still an evocative metaphor for the argument that caring for our children is a collective effort that has to extend beyond the immediate family. It also reminds us that children's experiences beyond their own households—in the neighborhood, in school, or in the larger community -- can have a powerful impact on their growth and development.

As I listen to parents and think about my own experiences, I am reminded of a conversation I had with a colleague of mine who works with families in a neighborhood saturated with gangs. He talked about the anguish of parents who find that -- despite their best efforts -- they can't compete with the seductive offerings of a toxic street culture. The culture of marketing that pervades all our communities, from the poorest to the richest, is similar in that it competes with parental values for children's hearts, minds, and souls. These days, the village raising our children has been transformed by electronic media, a ubiquitous, commercially driven force in all our lives. What this means is that children are bombarded from morning to night by messages designed not to make their lives better but to sell them something.

Most of the studies on media marketing to children have focused on the products advertised, not the process of the marketing or the consequences of that process. But there are consequences, and among the most insidious of these is marketing's effect on family life. Parents may hold the line and refuse to buy, they may overindulge children by acquiescing to every request, or they may strain their finances by buying more than they can really afford. Conflict about stuff marketed to kids is a cause of stress in families,1 and marketers are well aware of that fact. Advertising clearly influences the things children ask for -- if it didn't, of course, companies wouldn't be spending so much money doing it.

A 1999 article in Advertising Age begins, "Mothers are known for instructing children not to play with their food. But increasingly marketers are encouraging them to." On grocery and toy store shelves, this has translated into a rash of such nutritional "necessities" as green catsup, chocolate-flavored French fries, and battery-operated lollipop holders that twirl around by themselves. In chapter 6, I discuss marketing's impact on nutrition, obesity, and eating disorders; here I want to explore the attitudes and philosophies behind the creation of such products and the campaigns to sell them, as well as the impact of those attitudes and philosophies on families.

Starting with the simple example cited from Advertising Age, it's certainly true that children like to play with food. For babies, being able to eat with their fingers and explore the textures of food is a valuable tactile experience, but the fact that children like playing with food is not enough justification for encouraging them to continue to do so long after babyhood and against their parents' wishes.

Our job as parents, in addition to nurturing and protecting our children, is to help them learn to live in a civil society by transmitting positive values and standards of behavior. One of the more relentless aspects of this task is to sort out, sometimes on a daily or hourly basis, those things that are harmless or even beneficial to children from those things they like to do that may cause them harm, cause harm to others, or cross our own personal threshold for irritating behavior.

In the grand scheme of things, playing with food against a parent's wishes seems like a small transgression. In and of itself, it is, though that's not the point. By targeting children with ads designed to entice them to play with food, marketers are willfully encouraging children to do something that they acknowledge is contrary to most parents' expectations and values. In fact, the marketing industry purposely comes between children and parents in many instances, potentially wreaking all sorts of havoc in family life. One of the most egregious examples of evidence that they do this comes from a 1998 study on nagging. Conducted not to help parents prevent nagging but rather to help retailers exploit nagging to boost sales, the study, called "The Nag Factor," was conducted by Western Media International (now Initiative Media Worldwide) and Lieberman Research Worldwide.

According to a press release from Western Media International headlined "The Fine Art of Whining: Why Nagging Is a Kid's Best Friend," the study identifies which kinds of parents are most likely to give in to nagging. Not surprisingly, divorced parents and those with teenagers or very young children ranked highest. The study identifies some things children often nag for, estimating for each how often nagging was successful: in four out of ten trips to "entertainment establishments like the Discovery Zone and Chuck E. Cheese," in one out of every three trips to a fast-food restaurant, and in three out of every ten home video sales.

Since research conducted by marketing companies is proprietary, which means that researchers' methods are not usually made available to the public, these firms sell their reports for a great deal of money. I don't know how much the Nag Factor study sold for, but in 2003, for instance, a publication called The U.S. Market for Infant, Toddler and Preschool Products: Vols. 1–3, second edition, cost $6,000.

Perhaps because it found that "the impact of children's nagging is assessed as up to 46 percent of sales in key business that target children," the Nag Factor study attracted a great deal of attention in the marketing world, and several publications described the study and how it was conducted in various amounts of detail. In a story headlined "The Old Nagging Game Can Pay Off for Marketers," Selling to Kids (a marketing newsletter, not an advocacy group) reported that in the study, researchers asked 150 mothers of children aged three to eight to keep a diary recording their kids' purchase requests over a period of two weeks. The moms reported a total of 10,000 nags—an average of about 66 nags per mother, or about 4.7 nags per day. The study identified two different kinds of nagging. The first was "persistence nagging," or repeated requests for a product. The second was "importance nagging," when kids gave a reason for why they wanted a product. To use the example cited by Western Media executives: "Mommy, I need the Barbie Dreamhouse so Barbie and Ken can live together and have children and have their own family."

The persistence with which children nag seems to increase as they get older. A recent survey of 750 kids between the ages of twelve and seventeen produced the finding that, on average, they may ask nine times before their parents give in and let them have what they want. Nagging seems to peak in early adolescence. Of the twelve- and thirteen-year-olds surveyed, 11 percent reported nagging parents more than fifty times for one specific product or another -- and all of these were products they had seen advertised.

To help corporations fine-tune their strategies for encouraging nagging, the researchers at Western International Media divided parents into different categories:

"Indulgers" are parents who basically give in to their kids' every whim.

"Kids' Pals" are parents who want to have fun, too, just like their kids.

"Conflicted" describes single and/or divorced parents, whose purchasing behavior is often influenced by guilt.

"Bare Necessities" are parents who seem able to fend off their kids' pleas and ultimately make all of the purchasing decisions on their own.

"Marketers need to understand," the Selling to Kids article reminds them, "that a single marketing or advertising message may not resonate with different kinds of families." (I've added the italics.)

And who are the "Bare Necessities," the parents who cope so well with nagging? According to the people who did the survey, they are the parents whose lives are the least stressed -- they are the most affluent and the least likely to have babies or toddlers in the house.

We might hope that "The Nag Factor" was an aberration. It's alarming to think that people would actually want to wreak havoc in families just to make a buck, but exploiting the nag factor -- or "pester power," as it is also called in the industry -- continues to be a perfectly acceptable tool from the marketers' point of view. Kelly Stitt, senior brands manager for Heinz's catsup division, had this to say in The Wall Street Journal: "All our advertising is targeted to kids. You want that nag factor so that seven-year-old Sarah is nagging Mom in the grocery store to buy Funky Purple. We're not sure Mom would reach out for it on her own."

This excerpt has been reprinted with permission from the publisher. Footnotes have been removed.

America's Perspective on Education

2006-08-01T18:30:00.000-04:00

I have to say Oprah has hit the nail on the head. I don't consider myself an avid Oprah watcher but since the object permanence kicked in the days have been very difficult. Yesterday afternoon, the Oprah show tackled the long silent issue of American schools. American schools are clearly in crisis. Perhaps not all American schools but the vast majority of students that graduate if they graduate at all are not prepared for college nor the professional environment. State averages are held up by schools located in upper-middle class areas veiling those schools that are ridiculously in need.

Here in South Carolina, public education is run like a corporation. All schools in the state receive the same amount of money from the federal government. The state funds schools based on property tax. If you can afford to purchase or rent in a upper-middle class area then your school district will most likely be well off in the financial department as well as staffed with decent teachers. If you live out in some of the agricultural communities or in lower income areas then your district has schools with no text books, over populated class rooms, a high crime rate, low test scores, high drop out rates, out of date technology in the class room, no computer education, you get the picture.

I was under the impression that education should be the equalizer. Investing in education and not just a single notion of education but many diverse ways in which education is offered will cement our economy, reduce crime rates and prison populations, create more industry, development, and better environments for future generations. It seems that American politicans are more concerned with controlling natural resources than educating it's youth. After all who benefits from keeping people uneducated? Education is power.

The reason Oprah was so important is that the show brought to light the work Bill and Melinda Gates, former basketball star and education advocate Kevin Johnson, and others who are creating new and experimental schools that are working. The most compelling story came from a woman who oversees the only highschool within a state prison in San Francisco. She noted that the city had identified five "feeder" schools that account for 75% of the inmates at her prison. A second startling statistic; 80% of prison inmates in America are highschool dropouts and 600,000 inmates get released each year. The cycle is quite clear.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Kevin Johnson have started Stand Up, an organization working to change the perspective America has regarding education. Stand Up is a national campaign that recognizes the struggles, road blocks, and disparities that fester in America's educational system and is currently working to change the overall environment by empowering parents, educators, and students; the perspective being, power to change lives in the hands of the public. Their mentality in regards the the American educational perspective is that we as parents, students and educators need to work together and demand better quality and higher standards from public policy makers.

Links:
www.schoolmatters.com

To Sleep or Not To Sleep?

2006-07-31T10:42:00.000-04:00

On Saturday mornings we take our eight month old to a My Gym class. He loves it and we love it. Usually during circle time the group director will ask each parent a question upon introduction of their child. This past Saturday the question was; how is your little one sleeping? We were first in line so we said, "this is Teague, and he doesn't sleep." As each and every child was introduced the following statement followed; "this is so and so, he/she sleeps great and has since two month of age." I'm like, are they lying? How could that possibly be? My child is the only one who takes two one hour naps a day and still wakes up two times on average every night.

Going to sleep is not the problem. We implimented a sleeping schedule at four months when we moved him out of our bed into his own crib. The first three nights using a derivative of the Ferber Method was absolute hell but now he knows exactly what we expect of him. We put him in his crib at specific times and he goes off.....but not for long. It's staying asleep that's the problem.

So I decided to check out some websites with tips on sleep habits for infants. Interestingly enough each website stated that newborns sleep 17 to 18 hours a day for the first few weeks and 15 hours a day until they are three months old. I don't think so! Another site states that baby's sleep patterns are erratic which somewhat contradicts the previous information. Why can't they just say, all babies are different and any expectation you have regarding your own will inevitably be shot down, as they are their own persons with their own quarks and special personalities. Sleep is over-rated anyway!

It's The Small Instances That Piss Me Off!

2006-07-26T14:50:00.000-04:00

A Lovely, incident was published on The Raw Story regarding an emergency room doctor's refusal to give a rape survivor the morning after pill. The story does not disclose whether or not a rape kit was done on the survivor or not, but considering the birth control and other medications are included in such kits the doctor clearly decided to withhold one part of that kit based on religious beliefs. I can't even contain my discontent at this particular senario which most likely happens more often than we are aware and continues to fly under the radar on a regular basis.

The Far-Reaching Tentacles of Reproductive Control

2006-07-24T09:35:00.000-04:00

The New York Times published an article yesterday reflecting the far-reaching consequences of eradicating a woman's right to choose. Maria, a recovering crack addict, has been battling the state's DCF department in order to regain custody of her children who have since been placed in foster care. The department has also petitioned the court to permanently exculpate Maria's parental rights including the baby now growing in her stomach. They plan to take the baby right after delivery. This particular story is important for reasons that affect the reproductive rights movement. How much control does the government have when deciding who is an appropriate mother?

Feministe provides a glimpse into yet another instance of control, with a detailed complete write-up regarding Barbara Harris's CRACK campaign.

Issues of reproductive choice have been influenced by race, economic status, and geographical locale. Women and girls in lower income areas have been overwhelmingly effected by governmental cuts in education and drug treatment programs, access to safe effective health care, opportunities to achieve, and access to birth control. In New York Gov. Pataki's veto of a bill that would have made the morning after pill available over the counter was a blatent step to ensure his chances of a republican presidental nomination. As in this example government has prioritized power over the majority of people's needs and the larger interests of the New York public.
Susan F. Wood the assistant FDA Commissioner for Women's Health quit over the government's rejection of the morning after pill. She stated;
"I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled," she wrote in an e-mail to her staff and FDA colleagues."

The political environment is clearly a contradiction. Political figures in bed with right wing religious fundamentalists block any access to the morning after pill or education regarding safe effective birth control methods, but yet campaigns to give drug addicted mothers 300 bucks for sterilization of their reproductive capacity and the government's ability to separate children from mothers seems a bit counter productive.
The country bitches about the welfare system which is designed to keep women and children below the poverty line, and presents an image of the welfare mother that is stereotypical and misleading. The government decides they have a right to separate children from family in the best interest of the children but then complains about the over population of jevenile detention centers, drug addicted teens, teenage pregnancy, and the prision system. The reproductive rights movement is much larger than the right to abortion. The reproductive rights movement encompasses issues affecting all women and girls and their rights to safe health care, education regarding their own bodies, and autonomous, private, decision making regarding their own well being. Most importantly the right to decide when and where and with whom a women will become a mother. The governement can not decide who gets to be an appropriate mother. This issue is all too real at a moment in pop culture when the press decides which celebrity mother as botched up motherhood on any given day. This issue effects the breastfeeding controversy and stay home or work debate. All of the these current areas of contention divide women making it difficult to mobilze and work together for the greater larger idea of the freedom to choose how to mother and when to mother without critical or judgmental messages stating one is not fit.
When is the government going to figure out, you can not place the needs of a child away from the mother. Separation is just as tramatic as a parent's death so to heal, one must provide programs for drug addicted mothers to overcome, provide real opportunities to acheive a decent job, and change a welfare system that penalizes women for making too much money. If the government would create safe educational programs and provide access to birth control and the morning after pill surgical abortion rates would drastically decrease (in theory of course).
The fact that these programs are inherently contradictory makes one conclude that the larger issue is control of women's bodies and some women; black, inner city, lower economic status deserve more control than white middle class women.
The feminist stance on abortion and more broadly reproductive choice has since been directed at defending what the right has thrown at them. We as women need to mobilize to encapsulate the larger over arching issue of control. Control over our own health care, children, ways in which we choose to mother, when we concieve, how we birth, right to protect ourselves, and our rights to make decisions privatly regarding our own bodies. Women's bodies need to stop being the map for political war zones fighting over the country's moral fiber.

Recommended reading:
The Abortion Myth
Feminism, Morality, and the Hard Choices Women Make
Cannold, Leslie. Rene Denfeld, fwd.

"The feminist position on abortion is little changed from thirty years ago, argues Leslie Cannold. Mired in the rhetoric of "rights," feminists have failed to appreciate women's actual experience of abortion and have ceded the debate on the morality of abortion to the anti-choice contingent. In order to counter the current erosion of abortion rights and appeal to women of Generation X, who don't remember a time when abortion wasn't safe and legal, feminism must evolve a richer, more nuanced understanding of abortion, she says, one that is premised on the right to choose, yet sensitive to the value of the fetus and the serious responsibilities of motherhood."

Teaching For Change

2006-07-21T09:17:00.000-04:00

Teaching for Change is a DC based organization providing resources for parents and teachers that create a more multi-cultural, equitable, anti-biased, and socially conscious educational environment for children. Included on the website are a list of links to publishers and distributors that sell anti-biased children's books and a list of critieria assisting parents in how to determine if some of the books your child has are culturally biased. The critiera listed help parents analyze the many components of a children's book that may seem simple on the facade but in fact is littered with gender bias, racist imagery, and sexual mores. I've pasted the critiera below:

CRITERIA

This is a classic list of criteria by the Council on Interracial Children's Books for Children.

10 Quick Ways to Analyze Children's Books for Racism and Sexism by the Council on Interracial Books for Children

Both in school and out children are exposed to racist and sexist attitudes. These attitudes - expressed over and over in books and other media - gradually distort their perceptions until stereotypes and myths about minorities and women are accepted as reality. It is difficult for a librarian or teacher to convince children to question society's attitudes. But if a child can be shown how to detect racism and sexism in a book, the child can proceed to transfer the perception to wider areas. The following ten guidelines are offered as a starting point in evaluation children's books from this perspective.

1. Check the Illustrations

Look for Stereotypes. A stereotype is an over-simplified generalization about a particular group, race or sex, which usually carries derogatory implications. Some infamous (overt) stereotypes of blacks are the happy-go-lucky, watermelon-eating Sambo and the fat, eye-rolling "mammy"; of Chicanos, the sombrero-wearing peon or fiesta-loving, macho bandito; of Asian Americans, the inscrutable, slant-eyed "Oriental"; of Native Americans, the naked savage or "primitive brave" and his "squaw"; of Puerto Ricans, the switchblade-toting teenage gang member; of women, the completely domesticated mother, the demure, doll-loving little girl or the wicked stepmother. While you may not always find stereotypes in the blatant forms described, look for variations which in any way demean or ridicule characters because of their race or sex.

Look for Tokenism. If there are racial minority characters in the illustrations, do they look just like whites except for being tinted or colored in? Do all minority faces look stereotypically alike, or are they depicted as genuine individuals with distinctive features?

Who's Doing What? Do the illustrations depict minorities in subservient and passive roles or in leadership and action roles? Are males the active "doers" and females the inactive observers?

2. Check the Story Line

Liberation movements have led publishers to weed out many insulting passages, particularly from stories with Black themes and from books depicting female characters; however, racist and sexist attitudes still find expression in less obvious ways. The following checklist suggests some of the subtle (covert) form of bias to watch for.

Standards for Success. Does it take "white" behavior standards for a minority person to "get ahead"? Is "making it" in the dominant white society projected as the only ideal? To gain acceptance and approval, do persons of color have to exhibit extraordinary qualities - excel in sports, get As, etc.? In friendships between white and non-white children, is it the child of color who does most of the understanding and forgiving?

Resolution of Problems. How are problems presented, conceived and resolved in the story? Are minority people considered to be "the problem"? Are the oppressions faced by minorities and women represented as related to social injustice? Are the reasons for poverty and oppression explained, or are they accepted as inevitable? Does the story line encourage passive acceptance or active resistance? Is a particular problem that is faced by a racial minority person or female resolved through the benevolent intervention of a white person or male?

Role of Women. Are the achievements of girls and women based on their own initiative and intelligence, or are they due to their good looks or to their relationship with boys? Are sex roles incidental or critical to characterization and plot? could the same story be told if the sex roles were reversed?

3. Look at the Lifestyles

Are minority persons and their setting depicted in such a way that they contrast unfavorably with the unstated norm of white middle-class suburbia? If the minority group in question is depicted as "different", are negative value judgments implied? Are minorities depicted exclusively in ghettos, barrios, or migrant camps? If the illustrations and text attempt to depict another culture, do they go beyond over-simplifications and offer genuine insight into another lifestyle? Look for inaccuracy and inappropriateness in the depiction of other cultures. Watch for instances of the "quaint-natives-in-costume" syndrome (most noticeable in areas like clothing and custom, but extending to behavior and personality traits as well).

4. Weigh the Relationships Between People

Do the whites in the story possess the power, take the leadership, and make the important decisions? Do racial minorities and females of all races function is essentially supporting roles?

How are family relationships depicted? In Black families, is the mother always dominant? In Hispanic families, are there always lots of children? If the family is separated, are societal conditions - unemployment, poverty, for example - cited among the reasons for the separation?

5. Note the Heroes

For many years, books showed only "safe" minority heroes - those who avoided serious conflict with the white establishment of their time. Minority groups today are insisting on the right to define their own heroes (of both sexes) based on their own concepts and struggles for justice.

When minority heroes do appear, are they admired for the same qualities that have made white heroes famous or because what they have done has benefited white people? Ask this question: "Whose interest is a particular hero really serving?"

6. Consider the Effect on a Child's Self-Image

Are norms established which limit any child's aspirations and self-concept? What effect can it have on images of the color white as the ultimate in beauty, cleanliness, virtue, etc., and the color black as evil, dirty, menacing, etc.? Does the book counteract or reinforce this positive association with the color white and negative association with black?

What happens to a girl's self-image when she reads that boys perform all of the brave and important deeds? What about a girl's self-esteem if she is not "fair" of skin and slim of body?

In a particular story, is there one or more persons with whom a minority child can readily identify to a positive and constructive end?

7. Consider the Author's or Illustrator's Background

Analyze the biographical material on the jacket flap or the back of the book. If a story deals with a minority theme, what qualifies the author or illustrator to deal with the subject? If the author and illustrator are not members of the minority being written about, is there anything in their background that would specifically recommend them as the creators of this book?

8. Check Out the Author's Perspective

No author can be wholly objective. All authors write out of a cultural, as well as a personal context. Children's books in the past have traditionally come from authors who were white and who were members of the middle class, with one result being that a single ethnocentric perspective has dominated children's literature in the United States. With any book in question, read carefully to determine whether the direction of the author's perspective substantially weakens or strengthens the value of his/her written work. Is the perspective patriarchal or feminist? is it solely eurocentric, or do minority cultural perspectives also appear?

9. Watch for Loaded Words

A word is loaded when it has insulting overtones. Examples of loaded adjectives (usually racist) are "savage," "primitive," "lazy," "superstitious," "treacherous," "wily," "crafty," "inscrutable," "docile," and "backward"."

Look for sexist language and adjectives that exclude or ridicule women. Look for use of the male pronoun to refer to both males and females. While the generic use of the word "man" was accepted in the past, its use today is outmoded. The following examples show how sexist language can be avoided: ancestors instead of forefathers; chairperson instead of chairman; community instead of brotherhood; firefighters instead of firemen; manufactured instead of manmade; the human family instead of the family of man.

10. Look at the Copyright Date

Books on minority themes - usually hastily conceived - suddenly began appearing in the mid-1960s. There followed a growing number of 'minority experience" books to meet the new market demand, but most of these were still written by the white authors, edited by white editors and published by white publishers. They therefore reflected a white point of view. Not until the early 1970s has the children's book world begun to even remotely reflect the realities of a multiracial society. The new direction resulted from the emergence of minority authors writing about their own experiences. Unfortunately, this trend has been reversing, as publishers have cut back on such books. Non-sexist books, with rare exceptions, were not published before 1973.

The copyright dates, therefore, can be a clue as to how likely the book is to be overtly racist or sexist, although a recent copyright date, of course, is no guarantee of a book's relevance or sensitivity. The copyright date only means the year the book was published. It usually takes about two years from the time a manuscript is submitted to the publisher to the time it is actually printed and put on the market. This time lag meant very little in the past, but in a time of rapid change and changing consciousness, when children's book publishing is attempting to be "relevant," it is becoming increasingly significant.

HOME
Teaching for Change PO Box 73038, Washington, DC 20056
Toll-free 800-763-9131 | DC Area 202-588-7204 | Fax 202-238-0109
Web Site by Akadis | Copyright © 1999, Teaching for Change | Legal Notice
Illustration by James O’Brien

Ghetto Tax

2006-07-19T10:12:00.000-04:00

A new study out from the Brookings Institute brings to light the hundreds of extra dollars low income families pay for everyday items in comparison to middle class families. The article in the New York Times today discusses the study's findings and addresses the disparity between those living in poverty stricken areas and others living in middle class areas of cities. It's bad enough that this country's welfare system works against those in poverty to ever have a chance to rise above the poverty line given the vast limitations and strategic rules that keep people from making a certain amount of income, but counting the "ghetto tax" piles on extreme limits to anyone trying to make it. Considering that the majority of people in poverty are women and children these regulations and practices hender a mother's ability to care for her children which again is sad in a country that claims to be so pro-mother and completely pro-child......No child left behind.......right?

The Brookings Institute has advised that doing away with such financial loop holes would be a step forward in the fight against poverty. I wonder how much government investment goes into the 'fight against poverty'? The capitalist culture we live in demands poverty as a means of control and clearly a means of consumption, so I don't believe the government has much investment in eradicating poverty as much as 'fighting the war on terror' which has it's finanical benefits as well. A bit contradictory considering a fight against poverty would in the long run create a better more educated consumer culture and if there was an investment in long term self reliance on natural fuel sources the war on terror would cease to be the front for control of natural resources.

Urban Baby Link

2006-07-18T11:38:00.000-04:00

(Photo: Gail Albert Halaban/Courtesy of Robert Mann Gallery)

Thanks to Jennifer over at Toxic Shock for the link to New York Magazine's article on the Urban Baby trend. Interesting and very telling article!

It's Cool to be a Mom?

2006-07-14T10:26:00.000-04:00

Standing in the line at the grocery store one can't help but notice all the celebrity baby boom hipe. It seems as if celebrity moms are the new trend for the droves of media entities that report to the public. Another trend in motherhood is the Hot Mom's Club. Now, the Hot Mom's Club claims to redefine motherhood and I can't quite decide yet if these parameters will have a negative effect on motherhood in general or perhaps a positive effect pushing mothers and their issues into mainstream media. The Hot Mom's Handbook proclaims that moms should have fun, take time out for themselves as an unhappy woman is an unhappy mom, and can find their inner sexy self.

The Hot Mom's Handbook is the official guide to the "Hot Mom" movement and the ultimate resource for any mom who refuses to check her sense of style and sexuality at the white picket fence! This handbook tosses all those mom? stereotypes right out the minivan window and reveals the eight secrets guaranteed to transform every mom into a Hot Mom!

Seems to me that these mantras read a bit like a Cosmo for moms with a concentration on visual facade. The perception that there is some 'movement' is perpetuated by the trend of celebrity moms going everywhere with their kids in tow dressed in the coolest gear and looking oh so fresh. The kicker is that celebrity moms go places with their kids just like other moms do but now that a media trend has kicked in they are just photographed and published more. So it's cool to be a mom now or is it cool to be a certain kind of mom? Isn't this kind of thing insinuating that moms need to transform themselves into a highlighted hair, lipgloss wearing, fit and trim, style savy, Denali driving, sexually alluring woman/mom? Let's face it moms are already worked to the bone but now popular culture has set in place, icons that can afford nannies while they shower, shave, and get themselves ready to go as the basis for 'transformation'? Geeeeeeeeezzzzzzz what other idealizations will be placed on moms. We are expected to do many things well and now we are expected to look good doing it? Oh I forgot this little doozy is packaged like its 'taking time out for yourself' which I agree with completely. Moms should have time for themselves to relax or take on projects that are pertinent to their interests outside of the family environment but I don't think this concentration on looks and being sexual and hot is nessessarly reaching in the right direction. It's pretty clear that consistent notions of female visual expectations are now flowing over into motherhood. The expectation and concentration on women's bodies is a common issue and women are free to look how they wish as are mothers. Being a mother is about freedom to choose who and what you want to be, what your priorities are, and what kind of path you wish to take. This notion does proclaim that moms should take time for themselves but I'm not so sure that concentration on visual appeal is the way to reach all moms and take into account their issues. The message is good but the path is misdirected.

Going to Charleston

2006-07-09T21:00:00.000-04:00

I'm heading to Charleston until Thursday but will try to hit a computer at some point, though I'll try to stay relegated to the beach! It's my birthday Monday so I deserve it!
Ciao!

Starting to Get a Little Suspicious

2006-07-09T10:17:00.000-04:00

Here we go again and again until there is nothing more to say???? Or so, one would assume that eventually the press would shut up already and write about more pressing issues. Alas, another new book and still no conclusion to this tiresome myth!

I'm starting to get a bit suspicious that perhaps even writers claiming to be pro-mother are perhaps cashing in on this merry-go-round by perpetuating the continuing debate on this issue. I mean crap, if we all really came to that almighty conclusion.........All mothers work very hard regardless of whether they are in the paid workforce or not and no, the ones at work are not endangering their children and no, the ones who choose to stay home for whatever reason are not unmotivated and uneducated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So as to not perpetuate this issue futher I'm not going to talk about again!!!!!! I hope!!!!!!!

Things That Make Me Go Hmmmm!

2006-07-07T08:44:00.000-04:00

There are a couple of items today that have made me squint my eyes and go hmmmm. There is a new word that has been added to the Merriam Webster dictionary. "Himbo" is the masculine counterpart to "Bimbo" and is defined as "an attractive but vaucuous man." I clearly did not get the memo that "Bimbo" was an actual term denoting an actual person, and not a reference to a specific stereotype of female. I guess the bimbos of the world would be pleased now that they have a male counterpart so the discription is less gender biased, right? Instead of deconstucting the stereotype and realizing the stereotype's purpose, we have now legitmized it. Great!

Good to know as well that Brittney isn't the only mom who makes mistakes. Gee that's a shocker. Moms make mistakes? That word 'mistake' is so interesting. If anyone has the check list for proper mothering could you please send it to me, I am without and thus making 'mistakes'.

My third and final question of the day is; why do men at the gym have to look at my crotch when I'm stretching? I don't get this. I prefer to wear sweat pants to the gym so it's not like you can catch a glimpes of anything but nevertheless, I bend over to stretch and any man within a eight to ten foot radius must look at my crotch. Is it involuntary? Do they know they are doing it? I've battled various methods on handling such glances and none work. I guess I don't understand the enchantment of a clothed anonymous crotch.

2006-07-06T09:10:00.000-04:00

I decided for my 31st birthday that I wanted to trash all my old make-up and start new. Even though any primping has become a far distant fantasy, on occasion I actually like to dry my hair instead of pulling it back wet, and put on a bit of war paint. So my husband and I headed to the mall where the only M.A.C and Benefit counter exists in the entire city. I could only dream of a Sephora! Unlike Los Angeles where I've spent the last ten years of life, South Carolina operates on a different level when it comes to facade obsession. Still, the twenty something, running around L.A, eating sushi on Sunset Blvd., looking a certain way woman remains somewhere buried in my body, but is consistently put in check by forces that are spontanious, invisible, and confusing.
As I was looking at the eyeshadows I heard a voice say, "I'm looking for more conservative shades; taupes, creams, and light earthy tones........I'm turning 31 and I'm a mom now so I have to tone it down." I was like where the hell did that come from? I felt like I had developed multiple personalities; one saying I was a mom now, the other saying why the hell do you have to 'tone it down?', and the other analyzing what just happened. Removing my belly button ring that was part of my body since I was 19 was nessessary due to an expanding waist line but when my little one entered the world that voice was there in my head. "Moms don't where belly button jewelry!"
Clearly, some preconceived notion of what a mom should look like has seeped into my brain. I was trying to decide where it came from. As a feminist mom it seems that these forces of conversion would be something of which I'm completely against. I haven't quite decided if these things have anything to do with motherhood at all but moving from the twenty something mentality into a time of life where priorties change. I've read the Mommy Myth, and I get that our culture defines roles by behavior and exterior image. The problem is I miss some of that person or perhaps a bit of the freedom that comes along with being twenty something and somewhat selfish. There has to be a way to carry some of that identity over, I just haven't found a way to integrate them as of yet!

Protest in Action!

2006-07-03T07:53:00.000-04:00

Go Moms! Read the article about moms protesting at Victoria's Secret.

Protest Victoria's Secret

2006-07-01T11:28:00.000-04:00

Support the nursing sit-in!!!!! Victoria's Secret has yet again decided that image is everything at the expense of nursing moms. An article in the Boston Herald has mommy bloggers up on arms and rightly so. This is also not the only incident by the store. Check out the press release for the sit-in and sign the letter that is being circulated by a mother's group.

I also have to give credit to Boston Mommy for posting on this issue. Spread the word!!!!!!!!

Athletics: A Corporation

2006-06-29T09:33:00.000-04:00

An article in the New York Times today reveals how much investment some parents have in raising stellar athletes. An exceedingly large amount of early age preparation, including a hefty financial investment, goes into the child's athletic career. That 'career' of which starts with making the high-school team, is deemed by some as the kid's only chance at long-term success. To be completely honest this seems like an unrealistic concept that only has detrimental effects on the child. Playing a professional sport and making a huge salary doing it is relatively rare when compared to the amount of high-school and college athletes there are in this nation. Only the select chosen few rise to that kind of level. Sports camps and private sports training gyms are making a killing off these parental notions. Understandably, the rising cost of education is creating a more competitive landscape for athletic scholarships but this notion of the rising child athlete places misconceptions in the mind of the child as if educational performance is second in line when clearly a good all-encompassing educational experience is the best indicator for long-term success in college. Granted all kids develop at different stages and perform in many diverse ways, but many of the athletes I see at the university where I teach get a much better deal than other students. Plus the majority of scholarship money goes to male athletic sports and only those sports deemed as money making events for the university. Sports like wrestling get shoved off to the side as do sports like swimming. Girl athletes do not receive near the amount of athletic scholarships that males do. Perhaps, that is why more women now are graduating with degrees and are more often than males seeking higher academic degrees at alarming rates. Educators are questioning this discrepancy but not looking at the investment our culture has in male athleticism. 95% of the athletes on the football team are on scholarship but only 30% actually graduate with a degree. They are excused from class more often and are given separate make up exams according to their schedule. Some perform at expected levels academically but the vast majority just barely get by and are nothing but paid athletes for the university's team and do not even possess the bare minimum of academic skills to write a research paper. So.......your kid got a full ride to school but no degree......nice, how's that working long-term?

Second Hand Smoke

2006-06-28T08:44:00.000-04:00

A new and improved report is out from the Surgeon General reiterating the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke. Having family members who smoke, even in their home, I have to remain obsessively strong when explaining why I don't want my seven month old over at their house. Of course I can not avoid visits completely but as it stands there has been no effort to eradicate the smoking from inside the house. My sister-in-law also takes her kids to another family member's home when in town, if she can, but still has to endure the situation more often than not. What I don't understand is the complete lack of logical thought going into this problem. You would think that adults would want to create a clean, smoke free environment, but they believe that if they air out the house for a few days, and only smoke in selected rooms with the doors closed then it's fine and not harmful. Clearly, this does not work and reflects the priority or the addictive behavior being overwhelmingly stronger than the mass amounts of information regarding smoking and second-hand smoke that is available. In true family format, relatively no communication has been exchanged regarding this problem and in true family format it will eventually come up....so I guess I will have to come across as the bitch when the time comes.

A New Masculinity

2006-06-26T07:55:00.000-04:00

This week has been extremely busy as evidence of my neglect of this blog. Nevertheless, it was a productive week so I can't really complain. We hung ceiling fans, installed dimmers, hung a porch swing, layed down fire-ant killer in the yard, cut two more teeth, bumped our head a number of times pulling up on furniture, worked on feeding ourselves with cheerios, found the catfood, discovered the fireplace exists, and offended a family member who purchased a particular book for my child. Actually, there were two books and though I'm all for books I screen each and every book my child comes into contact with. One book was about firemen which sounds all gender appropriate and all (which is a second battle), but the book only had white men as the firemen. The other book was more subtle. Animals in the jungle; now how could that perpetuate gender bias and give kids a lesson on appropriate gender behavior? Well, all the typically aggressive animals or carnivores are referred to as 'he' like the tiger, lion, crocodile, monkey, gorilla, and rhino, and the more typically less assertive animals are referred to as 'she' such as the elephant, giraffe, fish, and hippo with the frog, butterflies, snake, and zebra having no referrence to either. When the masculine pronoun is used the phrase goes like this; "Gorilla beats his chest. He is king of the apes." or "Tiger hides in the long grass. He's ready to pounce." When the feminine pronoun is used the phrase goes like this; "Giraffe uses her long neck to reach the leafy green treetops." or "Hippo chills out, she wallows in the cool river." Call me crazy but there are some significant issues here. The family member in question does not see how things like this strengthen gender stereotypes and teach children appropriate gender behavior. Let us re-phrase; the family member in question does not believe appropriate gender behavior is a negitive aspect of a child's life. Thus, the family member in question subscribes to tradional gender roles. This family member freaked out because of a clothing incident where little brother decided to try on big sister's Tinkerbell halloween costume and run around the house with a spatula. Clearly, something like that could potentially tarnish the child's masculine potential. That's rational thinking for you. Interesting that if the gender roles were reversed there most likely would not have been a 'crisis'. That's all fine but I, with the stress on 'I', do not subscribe to traditional gender roles and my husband does not either. We do disagree on the boyscout thing of which I think is a bit problematic but overall we do not believe kids should be 'molded' into little appropriate men and women. I don't allow people to say sissy, or crybaby and I don't allow people to use derogatory language in front of him. Clearly, you can not keep your child away from the world or from seeing television but you can parent and hope your child internalizes the knowledge you have put forth and shared with them allowing them to form their own ways of seeing. There are of course no guarantees. Boys are molded so aggressively and have less fluidity than girls. We have since changed our expectations of what's deemed appropriate for girls and that should remain in constant consideration, but I don't think many have attributed the same way of thinking to boys. The rules and regulations for appropriate masculine behavior are still going strong. Until we change both sides of the coin the machine will still function quite productively.

"Shattering Stereotypes: Courageous Girls, Ballet-Loving Boys"

"Gender and Culture in Picture Books"

"Gender Representation in Notable Children's Picture Books: 1995-1999"

Shamen Drum Bookshop, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Crib Escape

2006-06-17T11:05:00.000-04:00

T-Bone, as my good friend loves to call him, managed to climb out of his crib this morning. He will be officially seven months old on June 29th. My husband and I were watching him during a nap on Friday and decided we should probably drop his crib mattress down to the lowest level, due to a new discovery. Just standing in his crib was clearly not enough, he had to figure out there was a way to get over the edge and escape. I put socks on him last night so he couldn't get any traction and the bar comes up to his chest anyway. We thought we had at least one more day. Alas, I walked upstairs to get him this morning and there he was crawling around the landing, laughing and smiling, so utterly proud of himself.

On a complete digression, check out the article in the New York Times today.......According to this article it doesn't matter if you breastfeed your son because genetically they are predisposed to all kinds of illness and disease, solely due to their sex. Always nature verses nurture!

Zoo Day!

2006-06-16T08:38:00.000-04:00

Since this past week I have been unbelievably swamped with powerpoint presentations on Ancient Art to Post-Impressionism, getting several t-shirt orders completed, chapter two of my masters thesis, and supporting my husband who had decided to do this workout program called "Body for Life," which is great because he cooked dinner all week, I think I deserve a day off! We've decided to take Teague to the zoo today. At six months old we wonder if he will care at all for the animals but I guess we will see. So alas, we trek out into the smoldering South Carolina sun and hope we don't get any monkey poop thrown at us.

Child Endangerment Through Lack of Breastmilk?

2006-06-14T07:36:00.000-04:00

The Today Show is running a segment regarding breastfeeding and the government's latest campaign to insinuate that breastfeeding is the only healthy way to feed babies, and that babies who are not breastfed are in danger of all kinds of health related problems as they grow older. When is this critical stance on the choices mothers make going to stop? Clearly, breastmilk can not be duplicated but one surely can't say that all breastfed babies are completely free of illness and all formula fed babies stay sick all of the time. My niece and nephew were both breastfed and were plagued with ear infections which is one of the illnesses breastmilk is suppose to eradicate. I know moms who choose not to breastfeed and their babies are healthy and completely fee of illness. Most kids no matter if they were breastfed, formula fed, or both get sick upon entering daycare or school because they are now in contact with new bacteria.
Some women have trouble breastfeeding and some have a very easy time. Breastfeeding was very easy for me on many levels and also much cheaper. I'm a graduate student, run a small business, and teach night classes at a small university so the majority of my work is done at home. On those occasions when I have to be out of the house I have been very successful at pumping and storing milk. Even though breast pumps have become better, pumping milk takes time and requires a mom to organize her milk schedule and make sure there is extra to pump. It's basically a science.
So what are women suppose to do? If they have to return to work and can only breastfeed for three months then some might switch to formula and some might choose to continue pumping. What if the mother can't breastfeed for medical reasons? What if the baby just refuses to latch? Anything can happen. Essentialist campaigns such as this one make it seem that every woman on earth is capable of breastfeeding successfully, thus making the women who can't and/or choose not to feel like complete shit. What's next, these women will be procecuted for endangering their children; for hurling them in front of the dilbilitating illness truck?
Perhaps it results from a conservative push back to traditional gender roles. Lets face it. Breastfeeding every two hours for the first four months puts a damper on mobility. Its just plain easier to stay in the house no matter how insane you become. I personally have stopped the car on many of occasion just to get out and about. The outside public envoironment is not conducive to breastfeeding mothers. The public doesn't want to see it but yet the public space does not make even the smallest accomadations. There is one department store in the mall that provides sitting areas for moms, otherwise you have to find a dressing room. How hard would it be to place a chair of some sort in the bathrooms at restaurants? Mothers should not have to navigate these tricky cultural hangups. Geographical locales around the nation are different but here in the South if I was to breastfeed in public people would stare or avoid me like the plague but there is no where to go in most public places, so what the hell are you suppose to do? Given our current political climate on morals, values, and the obsession with same-sex marriage it does not surprise me that such advertising is out there. Just another way to keep the backlash against women and mothers in the public sphere going strong. I've said it before and I'll say it again......This culture is anti-mother which subtextually translates into anti-child and anti-family.

"If Men Could Have Babies"

2006-06-12T07:30:00.000-04:00

An article in The Observer on Sunday, June 11th has facilitated some interesting dialogue. The writer, Rafael Behr places fathers in the same position as mothers attempting to juggle parenthood with career. An expectant father himself, Behr relays the divergent attitudes that pervade the male psyche upon entering into the realm of fatherhood; punishment and/or complete and utter amore. Clearly, I don't have much patience for the individual who conceptualizes fatherhood as punishment as those particular individuals should most likely refrain from becoming parents, as best they can, until they are ready, but I do welcome a more complete investigation of self-sacrifice that both parents will inevitably make upon the birth of a child. Acknowledging that our culture's strict investment in traditional gender roles is no longer realistic and affects women, men, and children is a decent start. Behr's article balances the conflicts that women have always faced with that of the ones men are currently up against.

"Our society still prefers to define parenting by traditional gender roles. It has become marginally less taboo for men to stay at home, but usually they have made a straight swap in status with bread-winning women. Both parties are made to feel slightly freakish. Even after all the battles won by feminism the career/parent equation is still a zero-sum game - as if there is a finite amount of commitment a person can muster, and if they spend it on their work, they must be depriving their kids. Working mums have wrestled with that problem for decades. But only now, a couple of generations into the revolution, men are starting to enter the fray. Why, we are asking, does it have to be a choice? Why can't we have it all?

Unfortunately the workplace is putting up a fight hence why the Family and Medical Leave Act is utilized as a protectent for both moms and dads who choose to take time off. Women have battled discrimination in the workplace for decades and now men who choose to prioritize their children and families over their careers continually face antidiluvian foundations of backlash.

"It is also a risky idea. The evidence from women's experience of trying to integrate a bit of full-time parenting into a life of work is not encouraging. According to the Equal Opportunities Commission, a woman who has worked part-time for just a year suffers, on average, a 10 per cent long-term reduction in earnings compared to a woman who has stayed in continuous full-time employment. Having sent a signal that work might not come first, employees are penalised for life."

Recently a debate ensued on ABC News regarding issues related to the Family and Medical Leave Act. The host was arguing that employers should be able to ask women during an interview if they planned on having children in the near future. His premise was that men's job committments are not as affected by the birth of a child as are women's given that traditional gender roles still pervade our culture. Caller after caller disagreed with the host stating both parties should be asked and that men also shift their priorities and change focus when becoming a parent. Even though this particular show had a conservative tint, as I don't think anyone male or female should be grilled about their personal choices during a job interview, the dialect affirming men's changing attitudes towards their jobs was telling.
The ironic issue here is when men are considerably affected by social policy in a negitive way, you bet that change will occur much quicker. It's like the funny little book I came across at a gift store, "If Men Could Have Babies." The author concludes that if men could have babies there would be coin opperated breast pumps at every gas station in America, birth control would be free for all, and health insurance would cover the cost of time off after birth. Though this is on the comedic side there is some truth buried there. It's all tied up in privilege. The bottom line is men enjoy certain privledges and women do not. While parenthood is being contested for both genders I wonder if these issues will just end up perpetuating the binary. Men will be revered for their family focused action and women will still be caught up in that old song and dance; The Mommy Wars.
And by the way, all the "battles feminism won," insinuates that feminism achieved its goals, if it did we would perhaps not be having this discussion.........Feminism is still battling and will continue to battle.........Do not get complacent!

An NYT Misrepresentation

2006-06-11T09:28:00.000-04:00

An article in the New York Times this morning is headlined "Hamas Fires Rockets Into Israel Ending 16-Month Truce." I find this headline extremely misconstrued if not down right manipulative regarding the play of events that created the situation in the first place. As young children were killed in this horrible atrocity I can not even fathom what it must be like to live in such a situation. Here in the United States we live with a false sense of security that became somewhat eroded on 911 but others in the world live daily, wondering what the next hour will bring. I hope for the sake of our kids that a dialogue can be opened up and various perspectives can shed light on the volatile confrontations that continue to erupt on a daily basis around the world.

Ferber Don't Work When Your On Vacation!

2006-06-10T14:23:00.000-04:00

When people recount tales from their family vacations one usually hears how they relaxed by the pool, ate out most of the time, took long bathes in the jacuzzi tub, went to the spa, layed out on the beach with a pina-collata, or even got some much needed rest. Going on vacation with your six month old can be difficult at worse and pleasant at best. Lets just cut to the chase and say ours was difficult and somewhat frustrating with moments of enchantment located in between. I envisioned myself lounging on the beach, limonata in hand, with my son in his beach tent snoozing contently and playing in the little pools of water that are created when the tide moves back out to sea. I covered his body in sunscreen, dressed him in his cute little boardshorts, and made sure he had his hat, toys, and anything else he might find interesting......I had planned! Instead, we had a screaming infant who wanted to do nothing but eat sand and then get pissed off because it was in his eyes. He didn't want to be held and he didn't want to sit down. He didn't want to nurse and he didn't want any juice. He was just pissed we had even considered bringing him to this beach place. After his initial interest in the waves and sand he was over it! I envisioned my husband and I taking long romantic bathes in the gigantic jacuzzi tub that was in our villa. Instead we made it into the tub once at 8:30 in the morning due to our child's inability to take any naps. I envisioned us walking around, shopping, eating lunch and breakfast as we took in the scenery. Instead we stepped out for two hours at a time and rushed back trying desperatly to achieve a successful nap. He also decided to master pulling up so he could stand up in his pack and play and preceeded to hang his arms over the side crying each and every time we put him down for a nap or put him to bed for the night. There should be a disclaimer; Ferber doesn't work when your on vacation. Each night we were awakened at 9:00 pm, 12:30 am, and 2:30 am. We were really lucky to keep him asleep until 6:30 am, thus that sleeping in thing doesn't apply. Our sleep structure that we worked so hard to impliment and home went to shit, and the little one was not happy about it. So, as for being rested; lets just say I came back exhausted. Enveloped in these moments of discontent were also moments of calmness and serenity. His little facial expressions when the waves washed over his legs were priceless and our long walks before bedtime, meant as a calming device, ended up providing some great family time. We even had dinner out once with no catastrophies and the last evening we managed to get him in bed at 8:00 pm, an hour after his usual bedtime which we counted as a success, and cooked dinner on the grill.
As parents you get to know your child a little more each and every day. This vacation brought to light some personality traits that I suspected existed, but had chalked up to age. My child is a creature of habit. He thrives on stability, continuity, predictablity, and interspersed moments of intense action. He is most comfortable at home taking a nap approximately every two hours and eating every three. He likes to sit in the same chair to eat his breakfast and dinner, and likes to take a bath in his bathroom with his toys. He likes his face to be free of food remnants and prefers to sleep peacefully in his own bed with his silky, cookie monster, and sometimes the cat by his side. Spontaneous experiences of which he is not ready for and that cut into his time managment are not welcome and only perpetuate aggravated sleep and annoying car rides. He will not accept being strapped down so the car seat is not a happy place accept when it's time for a nap, then he will sleep in it. His patience is thin, his fuse short, and his intellect sharp. He knows what he wants and wants it yesterday. His curious mind works quick and his intense focus on whatever he is doing allows him to acheive goals with little or no problems.
A parenting magazine I read recently told me I had a difficult child. I wonder how many parents interpret their child's personality traits to be those of a difficult child and then encounter those traits in an adult or maybe themselves and not think anything of it? One can not expect a child to remain one way: easy to parent, and then aquire certain traits that make them active go-getters when the time is right: say when they enter school. I think the trick to parenting is learning how to explore new and inventive ways to participate in your child's way of doing things; to see the world through your child's eyes. It may be a rocky road, but balance of discipline and autonomy can be reached.
As for the family vacation, it will always exist in the memory books and will improve with time. We didn't get sunburned and got to experience our child's first time in the ocean; a moment that can never be repeated!

Family Vacation

2006-06-01T11:38:00.000-04:00

My husband, sixth month old son, and I are heading to the beach today for our first family vacation. Traveling with an infant presents its own set of complicated matters, but going to the beach for a week with a husband who is a self professed sand hater is another entire issue. As I embark on my two days of preparation I can only fixate on the piles of research just sitting on my office desk. The clorox is permeating my nose and the dogs are spending a play day outside in the hot southern sun. As many mothers do, whether they consider themselves feminists or not, I have the same conflict on a regular basis. My desire to have things in their place before I can resume work on my masters thesis has been a slight hinderance and a justifing model of procrastination. How do you as a mother balance all those responsibilities that become part of a daily routine of childcare, house organization, day to day needs like what to get out for dinner, paying the bills, feeding the dogs, feeding yourself, showering, answering the phone, and checking e-mail with finding time to sit down read, write, and think? The answer is simple and has been voiced on a number of occasions by a number of people. Get the men to pick up more slack! Thank goodness for me, my husband is a teacher and has the summers off. One would assume this means he has more time to "pick up the slack." Unfortunately, these things do not occur to him on a daily basis so between making to-do lists and requesting a stretch of time each day to sit at my computer while daddy duty takes over, runs smoothly at times and not so smoothly other times. On occasion I will be faced with a crying infant who doesn't want to play on his play mat anylonger and a daddy who believes in a fit of frustration that he just wants his mommy or sometimes daddy will get bored and bring the little one up to the office to say hi. What is this disparity? I've tried to analyze, conceptualize, and logistically determine the ways in which this dynamic plays out. I awake each day committing myself to at least two hours of work time, and each day I get nothing done. So this vacation at the beach..........I packed a bag full of books and legal pads in which to make notes thinking that there will be no distractions around the house and daddy will having no lawn to mow. I'll report back and let you know if I completed my goal.

Oh Capitalism!

2006-05-25T10:14:00.000-04:00

Installing new bedroom furniture and painting the walls presented some interesting obstacles this past weekend. Let's just say the Baby Einsteine was in full throttle. Placing your child in front of the T.V is considered by some horrendous. Some child development 'experts' denounce any television until the child is two years old while companies like Sesame Street and Baby Einstein produce videos and toys that also cater to young children and babies ages zero to three months. While I think it is entirely unrealistic to expect the television and multimedia world to not assist in some capacity I also see the other side which concludes that any audio visual activities should most likely not act as the primary activity that your child is partaking in and is not as benefical as good ole fashion parent child interaction.
Currently, information is transferred via a multitude of venues. The old school parenting publications are becoming obsolete as many mothers are creating a world wide parenting forum on the internet (see mommy blogs). This allows for mother-to-mother communication in contradiction to consumer/mother-to-publication communication. The topics up for investigation vary widely and include diverse opinions and alternative dialogue in regards to parenting. In a society where the how-to advice is overwhelming and entrenched in the idealization of motherhood and consumer culture, it isn't surprising that one would get a bit overcome with confusion, guilt, anger, and or indecisivness. Passages such as the one below are reminescent of the abstract warnings of terror that pervade our nightly news.

"Do You have a child from newborn to aged six? If yes, this web site is probably one of the most important web sites that you have reached. Do you know that early childhood experiences are critical to the emotional and intellectual development of a child? During these early years, 75% of brain growth is completed. Did you seize this opportunity to nurture your most precious one? Most importantly, do you know how?"

Did you buy your gas masks and/or stock your pantry with canned goods and bottled water?

All of this contemplation stemmed from the encumbering Christmas holiday season. Of course it's only the end of May, but in our family some like to shop all year around compiling rooms full of gifts for the marathon family Christmas that takes hours on end, is dicated by the family patriarch in a somewhat organized fashion, but then always ends up a free for all with the patriarch escaping to the front porch for a smoke. As a precaution I have learned to search websites for the things I would like my child to have, and this proves a daunting task. The endless amounts of educational toys and learning apparatuses has become insane, partially because each item claims to enhance or increase your child's cognitive/intellectual/emotional development. I don't think I've ever come into contact with what I would label a stupid, unintelligent child but nevertheless we believe that these toys, which my six month old is enchanted by for a total of thirty minutes max, will somehow make them smarter, well adjusted, responsible adults later in life.
Whatever happened to the old fashioned big wheel, or the walker that did just that assist a child who was not quite mobil yet to get around at lightening speed? Now, every walker I find has an array of crazy dangling objects that play music, vibrate, blink, and rattle all at the same time. They are virtually surrounded by battery operated stimuli. Whatever happened to those cardboard blocks I remember so well from kindergarden. I'll tell you what happened to them; they became demoted to the on-line order only catagory at Toys-R-Us, perhaps due to the fact that people rarely buy them. On the flip side I was happy to find toys that spoke in Spanish and/or French. Even those toys were deemed on-line order only as well, but nevertheless they exist. I certainly don't expect my child to be fluent in three languages before he enters highschool, but I think children that are exposed to different languages and cultures early on will "hopefully" develop a more tolerant disposition toward difference.
Clearly not all parenting situations are the same and different ideals will facilitate different parenting tactics. Personally, I'm speaking from an area of the United States that is predominently white, conservative, middle class, religous, and heterosexual; so for me having those choices becomes important when compiling a Christmas list for my child. Capitalism is therefore a blessing and a burden. It constructs a money-centric culture but on the flip side makes and resources available if one has the money. I can afford to purchase my child all those crazy toys that will magically turn him into the CEO of a Fortune 500 company (if he's left handed of course) and I choose not too for in the long term I would rather him develop his own sense of desire, imagination, and consequence. It might be an unrealistic utopian fantasy but perhaps in the future we can all support diverse parenting choices eradicating the judgemental and critical messages that only place pressure and stress on all parents and children. I can have my fantasies can't I?

Mommy's Status=Baby's Status

2006-05-09T14:20:00.000-04:00

An interesting finding emerged today showing a direct link between the status of mothers and that of their children. How is it possible that the United States is located at the bottom of the list for infant mortality rates? Well, considering that the infant mortality rate is on the rise in the US, it is telling that the majority of deaths disporportionately affect minority women. For example, of all US births 17% are to African American women and 33% of all low-birthwieght babies are born to African American women. Now ignorance would drive an individual to conclude that it is somehow the mother's fault, but clearly there is a deeper issue; institutionalized racism. The study noted that "Japan was among a number of nations highly ranked mainly because they offer free health services for pregnant women and babies, while the United States suffers from disparities in access to health care." The agendas of some are morally driven with a focus on family and the progress of our nation's children, but I guess it's easier to place blame on the mother for the death of her child than to look closely at public policy, the corporate world of health care, and racism.

Moms Rise Up!

2006-05-08T09:41:00.000-04:00

In American culture today a large amount of ink and lip service is paid to the issue of motherhood; this blog not excluded. The Today Show just this morning reported on yet another book "This Is How We Do It: The Working Mother's Manifesto," by Carol Evans, all while running conflicting perspectives from stay-at-home and working mothers which interestingly enough has no relevance to the book's premise that helps working mothers organize by providing tips; alas the media driven mythological divide continues. Even though text and visual representations through interviews and opinionated journalism pieces get seen and heard they rarely ever facilitate actual policy change.
MomsRising.org is working to bring attention to the issues mothers and fathers face in general and when entering the workforce. Individuals can go to their website and sign a petition promoting family-friendly policies and get information on maternity and paternity leave, open flexible work, t.v. and after school programs, health care for all kids, excellent childcare, and realistic and fair living wages.
It is estimated that over 70% of mothers work in some capacity either part-time or full-time outside the home with the estimate excluding those mothers who work from home. These statistics are relevant but also reflect the notion that mothering is not work. Mothers work 100% of the time whether they are working outside of the home or in the home as a stay-at-home mom. The media, with this never ending idealization of specific kinds of mothers and maternal behavior, including the ceaseless advice, suggest that there exists agreed upon norms. Even if we as individual mothers believe these iconic representations to be proposterous, we assume we will be judged and criticized harshly by not abiding by them. Currently the dialogue remains situated around mothers. Family-friendly policies insinuates that parenting is a partnership and brings much needed attention to the benefits of eradicating stigmas attached to both stay-at-home and working mothers by approaching parenting in a new dimension.
Please go to MomsRising.org and give your support for the implimentation of family-friendly policies.

Cut the "Mommy War" Crap!

2006-04-27T09:24:00.000-04:00

The public discourse on this cultural construct is getting exhausting. "The Mommy Wars," as the phenomena is known, continues to pervade the media's mythological formation of motherhood. The false divide that places working mothers on one side and stay-at-home moms on the other, in fact does not reflect women's realities. Books like "To Hell With All That: Loving and Loathing Our Inner House Wife," by Caitlin Flanagan gives the issue increasing amounts of fuel even though other women have written extensively regarding the investment the media has in contructing femininity within these two contradictory spheres. Flanagan was on Comedy Central's, The Colbert Report recently plugging the book. Since she believes that women should stay home, let their husbands be the bread winners, have dinner on the table at precisely the correct time each and every night, give it up in the sack even if your not into it, and that feminism gave women impossible expectations of themselves; it's nice to see she is upper-middle class, white, publishing a book, writing regularly for New York Magazine, and traveling to promote the book, all while being this fabulous stay-at-home wife/mother who has been so completely shortchanged by the feminist movement. Clearly, even Dr. Phil prefers this illusory conflict to those women who have written alternative literature illuminating the media's pervasive insistance that a catfight is still brewing.
Why books like, "The Truth Behind the Mommy Wars: Who Decides What Makes a Good Mother," by Miriam Peskowitz are not getting any consideration in this insuing debate is beyond me. Peskowitz and others have noted that the majority of mothers enter and exit the workforce in fluxuation, working at times and staying home at times. Many moms do work from home but labor statistics do not count these women as 'working,' so any statistics reported do not represent actual working behaviors. The conflict is produced as if women 'choose' to work or not to work 100% of the time when in fact some do 'choose,' but other do not have a choice. Nevertheless, the word 'choice' is a misrepresentation as all mothers are providing detrimental labor for their families.
The entire construction of the "Mommy Wars" is anti-mother on both sides. One, it formulates preconceived notions regarding work, perpetuating mothering as an internal manifestation of femininity, and work/labor as masculine. Therefore, mothering is not conceived of as being analogous to labor, which is in contradiction to what the majority of indivduals know and acknowledge. Two, it places unnessessary psychological burdens on mothers who do choose or have to work as these repeated messages attempt to insinuate that while women are working their children are suffering. Three, it leaves the roles of fathers completely out of the debate and stresses the tradition that women are the 'bodies' responsible for transfering and illuminating the moral fiber of our culture. Women remain the focus of judgment and fatherhood becomes entrenched in that stereotypical ideal which connects masculitity to financial support and neglects the father/child relationship. Four, it completely neglects homosexual couples who wish to become parents as it perpetuates the tradition of heterosexual parenthood. In today's capitalist culture very few couples, heterosexual or homosexual, can afford to live with only one wage earner. So, if the majority of women are participating in some form of 'work' in addition to the 'work' of mothering, where is this conflict residing? I have yet to have a relationship with a stay-at-home mom who has been judgemental of my choices. My sister-in-law is a stay-at-home mom and I'm a graduate student seeking a masters degree in Art History and Women's Studies, a small business owner, a teacher for a small college, and a mom. Though we have drastically different lives due to our different choices, we never judge one another nor have any conflicts. In fact, we have much in common as we are both mothers, and support each other in every endeavor. The false divide constructs a backlash against all women, placing us in compartmental spaces pitted against one another instead of working collectively for social change like, better education funding, government supported childcare, welfare reform, and the end to poverty, as the majority of people in poverty are women and children. Obsessing on a divide that does not exist inevitably hurts our children as they internalize messages around them. We as women exist in a multi-dimensional, complex, and, personal way of life, but I believe we can and do relate collectively. The more dialogue is created regarding this fabricated conflict, the more we can concentrate on parenting as a partnership and create an environment of tolerance for our children where they feel they are loved to the fullest extent regardless of the personal choice of whether to work or not.

Contemplative Nostalgia

2006-04-24T20:46:00.002-04:00

Considerable time has passed since I was pregnant, if you consider five months substantial, and recently I encountered an essay in my graduate studies class that directed me to revisit some of the aspects of pregnancy that become intertwined with medicine, outside personal perceptions, and my own expectations. As I look back, my pregnancy altered my own embodiment; I was not just a woman but I had become a pregnant woman. Currently, I’m no longer a pregnant woman. I’m a woman/feminist/student/teacher/entrepreneur who was at one time pregnant, and a mother who constantly reminds the individuals around her that she is also a woman/feminist/student/teacher/entrepreneur, who happens to have a child. During my pregnancy people treated me differently, looked at me differently, assumed certain things about me, and talked to me differently, all based on one specific aspect of the female body. Even my husband became extensively enchanted with my growing breasts, increasingly rounded bottom and hips, and my protruding belly. His day to day behaviors became centered on these particular features and the habits that evolved created a body that became fragmented into puzzle pieces, illuminating certain attributes as identifiably connected with carrying a child. Combined with active behaviors the language in which family, friends, and strangers used to address me changed dramatically to include investigations centered on extracting as much information as possible regarding those specific bodily functions ascribed to pregnancy. When is your due date? Is it a boy or a girl? Are you having extravagant cravings? Are you getting morning sickness? Have you had an ultrasound? Have you had that really cool 3D ultrasound? How much weight have you gained? Are you going to get an epidural? My friend -- insert name here -- went to the hospital at -- insert time here – was -- insert diameter here -- dilated and the baby popped out -- insert days/hours/minutes/seconds -- later….etc…etc…etc.
One evening my husband and I attended a party at a friend’s house where I was having a glass of wine. Every woman there confided in me that their doctor said it was completely fine to have a glass of red wine on occasion so they did it all the time. Why the wine had to be red was beyond me, but I had a sneaking suspicion the reason was connected to the preconceived notion that there are positive health benefits to red wine of which supposed medical studies have proven. Interestingly, I never asked their opinion, or brought the subject up. By virtue of my rounded belly and the glass in my hand, certain assumptions about pregnancy were inevitably visited. It was almost as it they needed the justification because I was breaking preconceived rules as they had done before me. Those rules are utterly embedded in our knowledge and a break requires the necessary medical language that surrounded the oppositional view in the first place.
The language used, in the majority of situations, to approach a pregnant woman is resuscitated from the already existing medical language surrounding pregnancy. As most of the conversations occur between women or about a related woman, the language asserts that by virtue of a shared connection via gender and/or pregnancy individuals have a right to make inquiries and a right to that private information. As that information is up for grabs, the body of a pregnant woman becomes up for grabs. I was amazed at how many strangers invaded my private space by touching my stomach. Pregnancy as an internal embodiment manifest on the outside of the body alters the public’s perception of what is acceptable behavior toward a pregnant woman. As I was shopping for maternity clothes with my mother the sales person just came over as if she had known me all her life and reached right out like she was picking herself a great big watermelon from the fruit stand. I never once was asked permission nor did she read my reaction. She was so entirely focused on the pregnancy she completely ignored that there was a woman attached to it who deserved not to be touched by strangers.
Privacy regarding your own body, personal information, and feelings are policed as each and every person who inquires has some form of “suggestion.” Family members tell you to refrain from traveling three hours out of town, for you are too far away from your doctors as if there are not other doctors in other states. I entered into my very first email argument with my mother’s sister over a trip I wanted to take with my husband to a family reunion. I was thirty-six weeks pregnant and had asked my midwife what she suggested. I was told that traveling long distances was not recommended but in the event I chose to go they prepared me with a copy of my medical records. My entire family received notification by means of other family members and felt it their duty to warn me via email that it was not a good idea. My aunt was especially adamant because of the tragic experience of her first pregnancy. I explained to her that I had made certain choices regarding my pregnancy and birth and did not entirely need for my relatives to bombard me with judgments. This of course set off a tidal wave of opinions that I did not really want to hear and led her to determine my negative mood toward her ‘suggestions’ were hormonal. “I can’t believe you are not allowing your mother in the room during the birth?” “I would be entirely devastated if my daughter did not want me in the room.” “I’m sure she is very upset over this, after all she has done so much for you.” “You think you’re just going to pop out the kid and breastfeed like its no problem, well some things are not that easy.” Recently, I encountered my aunt over Easter weekend and honestly I still harbor some resentment for those comments that seemed to me passive aggressive and most likely revealed more about her own fears than my upcoming birth experience. Perhaps the anger is directed at her inadvertently as I ended up just acquiescing and canceling our trip.
My family and strangers created myths surrounding breastfeeding and birth based on their own experiences. Clearly the agenda is enforced out of love with the result being a rational level of rescue for myself and other women from what they experienced. Of course sharing experiences is a wonderful thing between individuals but using those situations to tell another what they should and should not do is problematic and all entrenched in the medical nomenclature of suspicion; suspicion that every woman could be part of that 0.1 percent. Speaking at an individual is entirely different than speaking with an individual and the continued infantalization produced cavernous mounds of frustration deep in my soul.
I assumed I was strong enough to fight the establishment. I trained hard through research acquiring knowledge so I was prepared for the barrage of cultural norms and fear latent advice from doctors and peers, but I only realized that certain behaviors surrounding what is appropriate for a pregnant woman had seeped into my mind as a slow leak drips intermittently from a basement pipe. I felt guilty when I skipped a prenatal vitamin, enjoyed a Diet Coke, or consumed jumbo hotdogs with chili and slaw for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I was appallingly engrossed with the montage of television shows on birth and babies. My rational mind told me that they were television shows but I could not tear myself away from them. I somehow conceived of them as precursors and watched with paranoia that they retained information that I might have needed. I had unwittingly internalized certain norms that caused me to question myself and my choices, and now looking back I wished I had fought harder.
Clearly, the majority of these conflicts arose when my expectations regarding my own pregnancy and birth expectations were in contradiction to those expressed by outsiders and family members or in opposition to the language made so normative by the medical establishment. I chose a midwife, and wanted the least amount of medical intervention as possible. I chose a doula because I felt the advocacy is helpful and necessary within the walls of a hospital. I would have chosen a birth center if that option was available in the state of South Carolina but interestingly enough would have ended up at the hospital anyway because within the establishment I was in need of medical intervention.
The first sentence of the essay I read remains completely essential for understanding the intersection of technology and pregnancy. Rayna Rapp notes that, “[l]ate twentieth-century reproductive medicine offers both benefits and burdens.”[1] As I look back I can not deny that the medical technology assisted me in having a safe birth with an unproblematic outcome. I wanted very much to believe in this somewhat utopian view that the female body remained substantially connected to the earth as Ana Mendietta’s earth art silhouettes work to convey. I wanted very much to remain faithful that the female body was utterly structured in this mythological way as to evade surveillance and medicinal controls. As I look back on my expectations regarding the female body I see that I was running into a web of essentialism. I bought into the perception that women as a comprehensive group retained this inclusive omnipresent bodily power. My body as it contained ovaries, fallopian tubes, a uterus, and a vagina was perfectly capable of giving birth, thus completing what nature intended. There is no denying that language structures society’s perceptions but the important point is that there should be room for personal choice based on personal experiences and expectations. Even the terminology of ‘natural birth’ as descriptive of a birth with no pain medication places psychological burdens on women as if anything other is unnatural. There should be alternative dialogue that is in opposition to medical structures that people can engage in. Hopefully, with an increase in additional birthing choices, the public will have to develop alternative encounters with pregnancy and larger more holistic sets of dialogue can be brought to light. Instead of being pregnant women and mothers, we could perhaps exist as women, within the multiple, complex, and personal dimensions that contextualize femininity, who happen to be pregnant or women who happen to have children and partake in the act of mothering in various spaces, times, and ways.
[1] Rapp, Rayna. “The Power of ‘Positive’ Diagnosis: Medical and Maternal Discourses on Amniocentesis,” in Karen L. Michaelson, ed. Childbirth in America: Anthropological Perspectives (South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin & Garvey, 1988): 103-16.