Barnmaven

Internet, I cringe

I must start by making one thing...no, TWO things clear:

1.  I am a half-assed copyeditor.  I type fast, and make typing errors that I very often don't catch until well after I've hit the "Publish Now" button.  Just one more reason I'll never be a "brand."  Sue me.  HOWEVER:  Typos are not spelling errors.

2.  When I rant about spelling & grammatical errors I'm not talking about your Facebook updates or personal emails.  I'm not even really that concerned about personal pages and blogs.  What sends me into apoplexy are the errors I find crawling through "professional" websites like ants at a picnic, the kind that seem to regularly make it past copyeditors on major internationally-read news sites and web magazines.  So unless you write for or copy edit for one of them you are not the subject of this post and I love you dearly even if you do murder the written word on a daily basis. 

 

I've considered making one day a week an official "Rant & Rave" day here at Barnmaven.com, but one of the many things I've discovered I lack as a blogger is the ability to maintain a regular (or coherent) schedule. 

If, however, today were Rant & Rave Monday, it would be the perfect day to talk about words and what they mean and how words that sound the same mean very different things and how important it is to your audience that you use words in the proper context.

I read once that avid readers make better spellers, since the frequency with which we see words naturally increases our familiarity with the proper spelling and meaning of them.  I can only apply this anecdotally to myself, since I fell in love with the printed word at the tender age of three and have only narrowly managed to escape reading my way into poverty by garnering incrementally better-paying employment every step of my career.  If I didn't make what I make today, books & horses would have me filing bankruptcy a thousand times a thousand (Except they don't let you file that often, in which case I'd just be sitting under a mountain of debt and scrounging family dinners out of restauarant garbage cans or begging for change on freeway off-ramps).

If the digital media outlets I read are any indicator, the proofreading and copyediting professions are dying a very painful and slow death.  Is it simply that the proliferation of written media has created an amplified venue for such errors, or is it an even worse situation in which the lack of professional editing creates a compounded situation where people read works with mistakes and proliferate those mistakes honestly because they trusted websites like The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal to present professionally written and edited articles?  I mean, if the WSJ can't spell "depository" correctly, can ANYONE?  Or when CNN's front page article says that "Conversationalists" aren't concerned about the environmental impact of golf balls in Loch Ness, should we  dismiss it with a "hey, its a mistake anyone can make"?  Sure, anyone can make that mistake; NOT everyone is writing headliness for one of the largest news outlets in the first world.

Is the deterioration of the ability to properly spell and to use words properly a natural phenomena?  Am I simply unwilling to let go of an art that was doomed from its infancy?  Maybe someone with a masters in linguistics could enlighten me, but until then, I vow to go down swinging.

Personally, I think that blogging itself and the mass proliferation of bloggers into media outlets has something to do with the problem.  Many legitimate news outlets have recognized the value and power of the blogger's voice; however many also seem to be taking a pass at doing more than eyeballing submissions for spelling and grammatical errors.  Hint:  Huffpo, if you want your writers to be taken seriously, help them with their words.  Please.  When one of your bloggers writes about the "hoards of visitors" that came to see her new baby, I don't think she meant that she's hoarding the people who came by and perhaps saving them for a rainy day.  I think you might have kindly told her that the word she was looking for was "hordes" and that one word is something that TLC has a regular show about and the other is the pillaging throng she probably thought she was referring to.

To another writer who was recently touched by a story in the news:  It didn't strike a 'cord' with you unless you meant it hit the thing you pull your drapes with.   The phrase you are reaching for is "struck a chord," because the metaphor is a musical reference.

And while I'm at it, Huffpo, please fire whoever is writing your front page top news story headlines.  They make you sound like the National Enquirer.  Half the time I wonder if you haven't been hacked by Anonymous and set up to sound like a third-rate gossip rag.

Writers, you really do have a reponsibility, if you are submitting work for consideration or writing because you are paid to, to ensure the clarity and accuracy of your words.  Don't assume the media outlet is going to do a good job of editing your work; if you want to come across to your audience as a professional and a subject matter expert, you only help yourself by making sure your work is correct in its substance and its form.  If you are not strong on spelling and grammar, do yourself a favor and hire a copyeditor who is.  Pay them a few bucks per piece to make you look and sound as good as you'd like to. 

What I do for a living, what I'm paid for, I must do well.  I was hired for my expertise and experience in my field, and the people who pay me expect me to be the subject matter expert in my skillset.  The same goes for those of you who make a living crafting with your words.  Writers in digital and print media not only carry the responsibility of producing good work; you have an additional and not-small task to be the arbiters of our language.  The words you produce will influence those who read them now and in the future.  You are either helping to preserve good spelling and form or you are helping to destroy them.

I remember being young and reading so many words I'd never heard spoken aloud.  On many occasions I would attempt to use them in conversation.  Sometimes I'd get laughed at, but I truly appreciated those who made the effort to correct me.  They saved me from much future embarassment.   In the same spirit, I leave comments when I can for those writers who have erred, not to embarass you, but to save you from imprecision; may you now go forth and do the same for others. 

 

And in Other News, Being Born causes DEATH

A newly released study has determined a link between influenza and high fevers during pregnancy to children with autism.

As if we needed another theory.

A since-debunked but long-held theory supposed that autism was caused by distant mothers.  Since then, we've managed to link autism to:

• Genetics
• Vaccines
• Diseases
• PCB's
• Solvents
• Diesel exhaust
• Pthalates
• Phenols
• Pesticides
• Flame retardants
• Alcohol
• Smoking
• Prenatal Stress

And now?  The flu.

I'm left to wonder what doesn't cause autism.

Predictably, the internet is going insane with rampant conspiracy theory and in-fighting between the anti/pro vaccine crowd. 

I'll clarify that I do not have a foot in the anti-vaccine camp.  I am supportive of parents who choose not to vaccinate or to selectively vaccinate their children, but I hope that those parents understand clearly the risk of not having certain vaccines administered to their children.  Thanks to research, many diseases which used to have incredibly high fatality rates are now a distant memory.  However, bacteria and viruses like to evolve, requiring the scientific community to continue to study and to stay ahead of potential outbreaks with newer vaccines. 

I'm a parent who believes that exposure to lots of things helps to limit the number of things that will actually make us sick.  I think there's "good" dirt and there's "bad" dirt.  "Good" dirt has any normal number of bacteria and allergens in it.  For the average child or adult, contact with "good" dirt exposes them to just enough of what's out there for them to develop an immune response.  For healthy adults, this acquired immunity is enough to keep them mostly healthy.  Children, who are more susceptible to viral and bacterial outbreaks, will develop enough of an immunity to either keep them healthy or at least keep their active stage minimal. 

What's "bad" dirt?  Dirt that's got measurably high amounts of toxins, environmental or man-made.  Fertilizer.  The manure pile. Anything on the property of a manufacturing plant.  DON'T EAT THAT SHIT, KIDS.

Vaccinations recommended for children today cover a wide range of potential diseases.  While they are all truly optional, there is plenty of evidence to support administering them to as much of the population as possible, particularly to children.  The current standards recommend childhood vaccines for:

• Hepatits A
• Hepatitis B
• Diptheria
• Tetanus
• Pertussis
• Meningitis
• Polio
• Pneumococcal disease
• Measles
• Mumps
• Rubella
• Influenza

Newer guidelines recommend inoculating girls against Human Papilloma Virus at age 11.

Now I'm not going to tell you which of these disesases you oughtto vaccinate against.  Presumably you're all adults and presumably you either already know what these diseases do and what they affect and what the case-mortality rates are, and even if you don't you surely know how to use Google and Wikipedia.  I simply wish to illustrate that though there is theory that vaccines cause harm, what gets lost in that argument is what amazing things vaccines have done, such as pretty much eradicating smallpox, which killed about 30% of the Native American population on the West Coast in the 1700's, and killed somewhere between 300 and 500 million peopleduring the 20th century.  Today the only known smallpox viruses in the world are in petri dishes in labs somewhere.  We hope, anyway.  The important thing to know, though, is that inoculations do an incredible amount of good. 

Do drug companies have a responsibility to do everything possible to insure their procucts are safe?  Absolutely. 

There are those that believe that vaccines cause autism and there are those that don't.  I fall into the category of "it hasn't been proven but it could be possible but at the same time there are big risks and small risks and I don't want my kid to get polio" camp.  There was a time when vaccines were stabilized using a mercury based substance known as Thimerosal, and this is the most often cited reason why "vaccines are bad."  Now, my son has autism, and none of his vaccines were stabilized with Thimerosal.  In fact, Thimerosal is being phased out of most vaccine programs in the US and Europe simply because people do not really want to have microsopic amounts of mercury being shot into them along with their vaccines.  The vaccines my children received were stabilized with egg protein.    The thing is, vaccines DO need to be protected against infection growth.  In 1928, 21 children recieved vaccines that had been placed in a preservative and of those 21 children, 12 died of a staph infection. 

Do we really need vaccines?  I think so, but only you can decide that for yourself and your children.    But vaccines aren't the only thing being blamed for autism.  If you really want to prevent autism, so far as I can tell, you pretty much need to stop breathing, eating, drinking, driving, walking outside and living in your home, because all of these things/environments have been linked to autism at some point.

So here's my point and its one I've made before but God knows I love repeating myself (just ask my husband and children):

To all the people who are now going to send me articles about how my prenatal influenza (which I didn't have, by the way) or the chemicals in the chewing gum or the vaccines or the WHATEVERTHEFUCKANYTHING caused my son's autism?  Please JUST DON'T.

Let the science community work on finding the causes of autism and begin to form programs to help prevent it. 

MY interest is not in the why of autism, but in the how,  as in, how to support my child with autism.  How to make sure he gets all the classroom- and home-based assistance possible in order to be the best self that he can possibly be.  To do all of the possible interventions to help drive down the likelihood that he will become dependent on alcohol or drugs to cope with his condition.  To normalize autism for the rest of the world so that they see my son as a person, not as a thing.  To advocate for children and adults with autism and spread awareness that there are many, many people among us whose behaviors we might not understand but who have amazing minds and amazing abilities.  To help others recognize the breathtaking beauty in the simplest of developmental gains for people who are affected with autism.   To be a support system for other parents who are coping with autism in their lives. 

That's the important stuff, right there, folks.

War? or Distraction? Part 2

This is a continuation of my post from yesterday.  Read that first, if you hadn't already, then come back here.  I'll wait.

Caught up?

OK.

Now. Let's talk for a minute about this godawful mess.

Its pretty straightforward, really.  TIME's circulation numbers are declining.  The sensationalizing of a mother nursing a toddler was about nothing more than selling magazines by using a racy cover and getting women all fired up about attachment parenting and breastfeeding.  Breastfeeding's a hot topic, we all know that.  How better to stop the heavy bleeding than to boost your popularity with a Mommy War? 

Not to be out-wankered by TIME, Dell gave IT professionals in Copenhagen a remarkably transparent view of its company's disregard for women.  Christiane Vejlo's article in Elektronista provides a compelling narrative of a professional event where the invited speaker provided delightful entertainment with such cutting-edge statements as, "The IT business is one of the last frontiers that manages to keep women out. The quota of women to men in your business is sound and healthy” and "We can thank women for the rolling pin."  He closed his speech by encouraging the men in the room to go home and employ the phrase "shut up bitch."

(Not that I'd buy a crappy Dell or that I was even thinking about buying a crappy Dell, but any potential prospect of me purchasing a Dell product has now dwindled from "improbable" to "over my dead, menstruating body.")

Why Dell would consider having Mads Christensen, a so-called "inspirational speaker" who is apparently infamous for his misogynistic views on women a) give a keynote at a conference sure to be attended by both men and women and b) not have any potential keynote address vetted for suitability? If they were trying to lend credibility to the notion that Dell is s corporation without a clue.  Or perhaps they're hoping to pick up some sales from US Senators and employees at TIME?

Two of these recent stories illustrate rather well how women continue to be marginalized and disregarded by our government, by corporations and by society in general.  I don't believe for one second, though, that we are in immediate danger of being shoved back into the kitchen with bare feet, at least unwillingly.  Maybe in our current economic situation we don't have as much choice about our careers and our families as we would like to, but in contrast with women who lived in a world where they were considered to be the property of men, our choices are vast and endless.  What's important is that we don't allow ourselves to be distracted from our long and diligent assault on the barriers that patriarchal and religious leaders have erected to prevent us from taking power. 

But the other two stories, these stories and the aftermath of them represent an enormous problem. 

Women, what the hell is wrong with us?  We are smarter than this and yet we are still allowing ourselves to be pulled into competition with other women over which of our choices as women and mothers are the right choices.

Why are we so eager to criticize and judge each others parenting choices?  Why do we even for one moment buy in to the notion that the Mommy Wars must exist?   Are we so defensive about our individual parenting choices that we must react every time the media attempts to tell us we're "not good enough?"

We are letting ridiculous conversations about how long we should be nursing our babies to drown out the conversation we should be having about how we make sure that our choices as women and as mothers are respected and upheld in society.  We should be talking about how over 50% of the middle managers in corporate America are women and how great it is that corporate America finally figured out what families have known forever, that women are terrific at herding cats.  (Kids, cats, administrative assistants, what's the difference?)  We should be talking about how we support families and children in this economy, when the line between eating and starving is growing wafer-thin.  We should be talking about how to ensure that our children are healthy and educated, in an environment where our politicians are taking money away from schools and children's services.  We should be talking about how to make sure our young men and women have an opportunity to have an affordable college or trade school opportunity.

If you look at the media these days, we're not having any of these conversations.  We're standing on either side of dividing lines that, relative to the actual problems we have, don't really mean anything.

Does it hurt you if Jamie Grumet nurses her three year old?

Does it hurt you if one mom goes to work and one mom doesn't?

No.

Change has been happening for a long time when it comes to respecting and acknowledging the rights of women and the contributions that women make in our world.  Not all change comes fast, and sometimes we see the archaic remnants of old and irrelevant attitudes tottering around and trying to get people to believe they're still in the game.  They're not. 

Unless we let them, which is exactly what happens when we  allow ourselves to mindlessly engage in finger pointing at other women because of invented controversies crafted by in increasingly irresponsible media.

If you really want to waste your precious time being mad about something, be mad at the media that manipulates us with their garbage.  Because being mad at other women just because they aren't being the women you think they should be is about as useful as an umbrella to a duck.

War or distraction, Part I.

First it was the national conversation around birth control, which brought us the absurd photographs of a mostly male, mostly white group of senators debating contraception was a necessary part of insurance coverage.  Next it was the Ann Romney/working moms vs stay at home moms debate.

 

 

This week we've got the gratuitously sensational TIME cover of Jamie Lynne Grumet breastfeeding the largest three year old I've ever seen, and an outcry over Dell's choice of Mads Christensen, a notoriously misogynist "inspirational" speaker to give a speech at a partner event in Copenhagen.

It seems no matter where you look these days, we are being drawn into a discussion about women's choices, women's work, women's parenting, women's competence. 

What's difficult to discern, though, is whether we are looking at an escalating war on women or whether we are looking at some major confluence of interests attempting to distract us from the very real problems facing us as the international financial crisis deepens and governments, corporations and families find themselves in a desperate struggle to pay the bills.

I made a new friend this last week.  She just moved here from Arizona.  She remarked today how nice it was to talk to people here in the Tri-Cities because so many people were bottom-line happier than people in Arizona.  "People up here have jobs.  They have income.  They're not, as a whole, struggling the way people down in Arizona are doing.  Its horrible down there, and everybody is depressed and miserable.  Its so bad you don't even want to talk to anyone there."

Is there a conspiracy to sidetrack us from some of the most important national conversations we will have in the last thirty years in this country or are we really so on the rails about women and their roles as parents and workers that we feel compelled to engage in this type of debate?  Are these conversations about women being started by women?  Because they are certainly being carried on by women.

Lets start with birth control.  The real debate isn't over whether women should have access to birth control, because let's face it, we really DO want to live in a world where families do better economically, and statistically they do when women have easy and affordable ways to manage their fertility.  The real debate, the one that the contraception issue effectively distracted us from, is over how health care should be managed in this country.

I want everyone to have access to affordable health services and to affordable insurance, if that's what they want.  But what we've ended up doing is giving even more power to the big insurance agencies, requiring everyone to carry health coverage on plans that are broad-based rather than a la carte, and the only people who are going to profit from this are the insurers.  Health care reform should have begun with removing insurance conglomerates and their power over our health care choices from the playing field entirely.  Medical services cost far more than they ought to for a variety of reasons having to do with liability coverage and mandates from insurers. 

Patients ought to have the ability ot choose medical coverage that provides benefits for the services they need, and basic preventive health care should be so affordable that people don't need to have an insurance plan to obtain it.  

Drug prices should be based on what the competitive market will sustain, not what prescription drug plans will cover.  The price of birth control pills, particularly generics, would decline pretty immediately in such a market, as would the cost of other methods of controlling fertility, such as IUD's and implants.

I don't even feel like I should have to discuss whether its better to be a mom who has a job outside the home or a mom who manages her home and family or has a job that she can perform from her home.  Most women don't have a choice in this regard, and most families who make the decision to have one parent stay at home make great sacrifices financially to do so.  The majority of families don't have the easy luxury of having one parent not work.  Even so, a man or woman who spends their days managing a household isn't separated from the economics of the real world and real business. 

A mother homeschooling her children and performing most of the tedious chores involved in keeping a house running is a busy woman.  She is engaged, she is productive, she has to manage her family's time and finances.  A mother who is working a job outside the home also has to manage time and finances.  Lets not even get into the plight of single parents, shall we?   Because single parenting is its own special hell at times.

Yes, some people have a greater income and therefore a real choice about whether or not one spouse becomes a full-time household manager.  And?  Life's not fair.  I'm not going to waste time worrying about what my reality is not, and I'm not going to waste time debating with you on who is a better mother or what you think a stay-at-home mom does or doesn't have to add to debate on the national debt.  WE ALL LIVE HERE, PEOPLE.  This problem belongs to all of us, and if this economy fails, we are all going to suffer.  It won't help much to be a billionaire if your billion dollars will buy you nothing more than a six-pack and a pack of hamburger buns when the dollar has imploded.

To be continued.

 

 

 

 

Hollwood is grossed out by Kelly Preston's boobs.

But only because they're full of milk.

Kelly Preston's name has been cropping up this week in articles with her comments about how much she loves breastfeeding her 16 month old son Benjamin.  Most of the articles have simply presented her interview statementswithout much editorializing, but leave it to the Hollywood snarkbags to react with shock and horror.

Bruna Nessif's article yesterday at E! Online suggests Preston should be added to E!s TMI Mom's Club.  Nessif writes, "Preston has been openly expressing how much she still enjoys breastfeeding her - wait for it - 16 month old son Benjamin, who shares a bed with her and hubby John Travolta."

Wait for what, exactly?  I'm not sure which Nessif, who describes herself in her Twitter profile as "surprisingly smart and witty," (really??) feels is more egregious - the fact that the Preston/Travolta family co-sleeps or that Preston's still nursing her kid.

Interestingly, a quick peruse of the comments to the article reassured me that the majority of people who are paying attention to this story fully have Preston's back when it comes to extended nursing.

More than one commenter (by which I mean something like five or six of them) referred to the W.H.O. standard, which recommends women nurse their infants for at least two years. 

The shrinking and highly vocal contingent that still finds nursing repugnant isn't going to go away anytime soon, but they're being met toe to toe consistently and (mostly) calmly by an increasingly educated public.  And for the most part, I like tenor of how people are expressing themselves about this issue.  Not always, but mostly.

The Mommy Psychologist has recently begun a series of postsabout Attachment Parenting.  Like a lot of people, TMP has an inborn resistance to being preached at.  She shares her experience of being sat down and lectured to ad nauseaum by her husband's best friend and his wife on all of the things they MUST do when their baby was born.  Let's be honest, a lot of the Dr. Sears crowd can come across as, well, overzealous. 

There has to be a middle ground between "If you don't cloth diaper, breastfeed for 6 years, feed your child only whole, organic foods, never spank, never CIO and homeschool then you're a terrible parents" and "Breastfeeding is gross, if formula/plastic diapers/spanking/Ferberizing was good enough for me then its good enough for my baby." 

Isn't there?

Personally I don't get the whole visceral reaction to breastfeeding.  Breasts were making food for babies thousands of years before some premodern dude figured out that drawing pictures of them on the cave wall gave him and his buddies a little stiffie.  And it wasn't that many generations ago that most babies in even modern society received their primary nutrition from breastmilk.   Modern technology has brought us a lot of amazing things, but it still hasn't created an equal replacement for that magic liquid mama makes.  

And nursing in public?  For crying out loud, you see more exposed flesh on an Abercrombie & Fitch billboard than you do when a nursing mama pops her little one on for a nice spot of lunch.  I remember being really offended by the people who insisted on glaring at me when I nursed my children.  Hell, its not like I was getting up and squirting them in the eye with my boob juice!

At the same time, those well-meaning but overbearing Boob Nazis need to back off on moms who feed formula.  I don't need a PhD in anything to know that the happiest and healthiest families are those that make informed and educated decisions about what works best for them.  Sometimes nursing doesn't work the way its supposed to.  Sometimes work schedules make it hard and stressful to have a successful go at breastfeeding.  And you know, sometimes formula is just what a particular parent is comfortable with.  Nobody ever learned much of anything from someone who insisted on standing there screaming at them about how wrong they are.    As I said in my comment on The Mommy Psychologist's blog, I don’t think you should have to preach to anyone about something whether it is parenting or religion. If the style of parenting you follow is so amazing and awesome then you shouldn’t have to “convert” anyone.  

About eight years ago I found a small online community of moms where I found I could fit in.  We varied in lots of ways, and not just geographically.  We have members across oceans and continents, we have made a lot of different choices about feeding, vaccinating, diapering, schooling and disciplining our kids.  To this day we are a solid community and we rally round our own when any one of us needs support.  I can't talk about the lovely box I got in the mail after I lost my brother from my moms-in-the-box without starting to tear up. 

The reason - the ONLY reason - that we have stayed together so long and that our little community works for us is that none of insists that OUR way is the ONLY way.  Every bit of advice comes with a disclaimer:  your mileage may vary.  Unless my kid is bleeding to death, these moms are the first place I go to for parenting advice.

It is really unfortunate that articles like Nessif's continue to widen the gulf and misinform people about breastfeeding and attachment parenting in general.  I have faith that the ever-growing public understanding about breastfeeding and its benefits will eventually take over until the squeamish amongst us find something else to freak out about.  I also have faith that we can, as a whole, understand that when it comes to parenting, no one "method" but the one that works for each of us and our families is the "right" one.   There's no need for such polarization amongst parents.  How we feed, sleep, clothe, educate and discipline our children is up to each of us to determine.  Sharing what worked for you is terrific; berating another family because they make different choices than you did is simply asinine.

Rant over.

Carry on.

Dear Karen, a geography lesson for you. **UPDATED**

To Karen Handel and the Susan G. Komen Foundation:

Just in case you missed the basic human anatomy lesson they gave you in your junior high sex education class, here's a useful little fact about the female body:

MY BREASTS ARE NOT LOCATED IN MY UTERUS.

No, really.  Its true.  Pinky swear.

I haven't been too thrilled in the past years over the flood of pink (PINK!  OMG PINK!  BUYING PINK THINGS CURES CANCER!) and the clear contempt for consumers that the whole pink ribbon fiasco has displayed.  You trained us well.  We see a pink ribbon and our little brains automatically start processing. "Must. Buy. Pink. Spatula.  Save. Women."  How many of the advertising dollars for the damn pink ribbon actually went to fund research?  How many went to executive salaries?  How many (the bigger question, really) just went straight into the pockets of the people smart enough to stick pink shit on their products?

After more than a quarter century, no one doubts that the Komen Foundation has the most brand name recognition and political power of any of a number of charities focused on raising public awareness, providing screening and education and funding research for a cure for breast cancer.  But as time has gone by and you've grown bigger, there have been plenty of questions raised about just how much you're actually doing to cure cancer and how much you're doing to line your own pockets. 

Still, though, I've donated to friends who took part in your Race for the Cure events.  I'm not a breast cancer survivor, it doesn't run in my family, but I had my own lump scare and I take getting my annual mammograms pretty seriously.  

In 2009-10, Planned Parenthood provided almost 750,000 breast exams through its 840 health centers.  Karen, thats a LOT OF BOOBS.  Did you know that fully 14.5% of Planned Parenthood services provided were for cancer screening and prevention?  And did you know that a mere 3% of services provided by Planned Parenthood are for abortions?  Yep.  Just 3%  Planned Parenthood, in case you weren't aware, does a hell of a lot more than provide parking lots for anti-abortion protesters to carry signs and yell chants and places for pro-life wingnuts to hold shoot-a-baby-killer parties.  Planned Parenthood is seriously involved in the business of improving health, not just for women but for people everywhere.  They provide prenatal services, colonoscopies, STD screenings and treatment.  They do adoption referrals. 

I also take women's health as an overall issue pretty damn seriously.  Yesterday, you cited a federal probe (which you know damned good and well was probably politically motivated) to pull funding that provided mammogram screening from Planned Parenthood.   I'm not certain how it helps prevent or cure breast cancer by pulling funding from an organization that provides low-cost screenings to women, but there you go.  I'm sure you have a really, really good reason, because otherwise I'm sure you're getting my breasts confused with the politics surrounding my uterus.  WHICH IS NOT WHERE MY BREASTS ARE.

Picture by Lian Maris

****UPDATED 2/3/2012  The Susan G. Komen foundation announced today that it has reversed its decision on funding cuts and will continue to fund Planned Parenthood's existing grants as well as continue PP's eligibility for future grants.  Now lets everyone get back to the business of preventing and curing cancer. 

 

 

Most DEFINITELY in my backyard!

Its about damn time.

Washington State is poised to pass a bill establishing marriage equality.  Senator Mary Margaret Haugen announced her support of the bill this afternoon, providing the last vote needed for a majority in the state Senate.

I'm trying to find the right words to express my joy and delight without being too far on either side of emotional/rational.  I am thrilled for my friends and family and for every couple in my home state who will now be able to enjoy the same freedoms and protections in their relationship as straight folk.   Its for damn sure they'll show a lot more respect for the institution than a few right-wing conservative politicians we could name.

I'm proud that my state is laying grounds for true liberty and equality for ALL of its citizens by structuring this bill to protect the rights of all people to marry without restricting the freedom of religious organizations to determine who they will or won't perform weddings for (even if think that's pretty bigoted and completely antithetical to the way God asks us to love one another, not to mention DUMB).

There are going to be many churches who will be delighted to open their doors and their blessings to gay couples who want to finally have that church wedding they've always dreamed of. 

Its so exciting!  Wedding registries!  Invitations!  Printed napkins!  Balloons!  Gowns!  Tuxedos!  CAKE!!!

I just hope someone remembers to invite me.  Man, I love wedding cake. 

 

Do what it takes?

The Interwebs are abuzz over Catherine Hakim's new book Erotic Capital.  Hakim, a British sociologist,  is best known for authoring books and articles centered around women in the workplace and gender equality.  A self-described feminist, Hakim has made a career of attempting to understand and iterate the social, political and economic impact woman have in the workplace and how pressures of conformity and patriarchal values create challenges for women.

Given her background, many feminists are perplexed by the assertion she makes in her latest book, that a woman's best bet in the workplace is to leverage her sexuality in order to even the odds.

Yep, that's right.  A feminist telling us to use our looks to get ahead. 

Not only that, Hakim asserts that women who don't take the time to maximize their sex appeal via diet, makeup, wardrobe and options like Botox are being are simply lazy and counter-productive.

To be fair, I haven't read the book yet.  Its sitting in my Kindle account, waiting for my droid to have a 3G signal to download it.  However, the salient points Hakim makes via her interview with The Daily Beast, are worth discussion and don't require the finer points of the book to be open to debate.

"Anyone, even quite an ugly person, can be attractive if they just have the right kind of hairstyle, clothes, and present themselves to the best effect...This isn't a frivolous spending of money.  It has real benefits."

In and of itself, nothing about this statement is truly offensive.  I remember attending a seminar geared toward women in business back in the late 1980's where we were advised to pay attention to how the senior executives in our company dressed.  If we wanted to succeed, an easy way to demonstrate our "acceptability" was to dress the same way.  If the men wore suits and ties, women should wear suits and low heels.  If everyone wore solid colors - black, blue, etc - so should you.  If the environment was casual, be the best-casually-dressed worker in the office.   I don't think its such a stretch to encourage people to look their best at work, it demonstrates a level of attention and ambition that assures higher-ups that you are someone who's not just marking time at your job, you're in the game. 

Social research doesn't lie; people make assumptions about other people all of the time based simply on how they look.  It stands to reason that a competent employee who dresses like a slob is going to be less favored than an equally competent employee who dresses well, all else being equal. 

Hakim asserts that "Everybody should use all the assets they've got, and this is one asset that women have often been told is inappropriate to use.   I think women need to stop having a chip on their shoulder, or feel uncomfortable investing in erotic capital.  Attractiveness and beauty has real value."   She claims that things such as Exercise, tanning, coloring your hair and even plastic surgery are necessary evils for career success.   She identifies social skills as another invaluable asset.

Its disconcerting to have someone with Hakim's considerable research behind them to bluntly advise us that we must look better in order to compete.  But is it true?

I wonder if the reaction to this book would be different if the title were less threatening.  Looking good doesn't necessarily convey "erotic" appeal.  Dressing nicely and maintaining one's looks don't necessarily insinuate that a woman is exuding sex appeal.  Utilizing a word loaded with not-so-subtle visual imagery as part of her hypothesis is certainly one way to create controversy and ensure a greater number of book sales.  But then, without having read it, I have no idea whether Hakim is simply advising women to make sure they look good at work and not telling us to show off our boobs in low-cut tops and wear stiletto's to maximize the draw power of our legs and asses.  Because truly, those are completely different concepts.

I've met plenty of women in the business place that easily fall into stereotypical categories.  I've worked with women who were gorgeous and marginally competent, who slept with or sucked off whichever man was required in order to get a better salary, a better bonus or a promotion.  I've worked with women who were incredibly good at their jobs but who were challenged either by less-than-stellar looks or a timid personality or both, and heard them degraded behind their backs by coworkers and higher-ups based simply on the scale of their physical attractiveness.  I've heard people say things like "Oh yeah, she's really good at what she does, but..." 

Then there are those women - the ones who have it all.  Either blessed genetically with good looks or having earned them via a lot of time in the gym or under the scalpel, these women also have the brains and the personality to boot.  And frankly, they blow the competition out of the water.  They work hard, they get things done, and they look good doing it.  That's pretty hard to compete with. 

I can see it from both sides, honestly.  I value a person's ability over their looks, and as a manager I know that I want to hire people who will get the job done.  But as a woman in the workplace who is also interested in cultivating my own success, I often must consider how my physical appearance might benefit or harm me.  One button too low?  Does this make me look too casual?  Am I over- or under-doing the hair and makeup?  What is it I want to accomplish today and what meetings do I have where I may need to generate a better impression?

I have had the (mis?)fortune in the past of supervising stereotypical office bimbos. Women that reported to me but who were also sleeping with other managers in the company or getting massive boob jobs and distracting the entire office with their low-cut shirts, I can tell you quite honestly I'd rather have someone who is a lot more discreet in their clothing choices, regardless of the quality of their work.  Its not that I resent another women for being pretty or sexy, I don't.  We come in all shapes and sizes, and just because someone looks different from me or is younger than I am doesn't mean I'm competing with her.  However,  in my experience, a woman who openly flaunts her sexuality in the work environment becomes a distraction, breeds jealousy and resentment in her coworkers.  Even if she isn't sleeping her way up the ladder, if she's wearing micro-minis and being obviously sexual in her behavior, everyone will believe that she is.  

When you're managing people, you need teamwork from your people, and the pockets of overt hostility that such a woman engenders, unless she is staggeringly brilliant at her job, aren't worth it.  On that basis alone, I'm going to assume that Hakim isn't telling us to "whore it up" to get ahead, but that she rather means to look and act our best and that success will naturally follow.

I'm inclined to follow my natural instinct that the inclusion of the term "Erotic" in the book's title and the somewhat inflammatory nature of Hakim's comments in her Daily Beast interview are deliberate and designed to increase interest in the book itself, and that what she's actually proposing to her readers is something other than what the book's title suggests.   And if I'm wrong, and that's what she's actually suggesting, I will less-than gently opine that she's got it all wrong.  Crossing a certain line when it comes to what you wear and how you act at work will do you more harm than good.   And the more women that cross that line, the harder they make it for the rest of us to remind the corporate patriarchy that we are competent, we are personable, we are capable of success without using our lady parts to get there.

 Edited and added:  There is no question that our concepts of attractiveness are largely culturally defined.  There has always been an existing conundrum for the career woman who is also a conscious feminist:  How do I work to change cultural concepts while also surviving within them?  If I attempt to change the culture yet still conform to it, am I damaging my message?  Hakim's new book does little, if anything, to solve this dilemma.

Talking to my daughter about race

Mr. C has had a belly ache the past two days.  We're not sure what's going on there, but it appears he may have a deepening milk allergy.  I dread the thought of doing an elimination diet with a six year old who already has a limited appetite and sensory processing disorder to boot, but I guess it can't be helped.  Hold my hand, yes? 

He got to stay home with SG today, and as SG called to inform me that they found a surprise batch of baby chicks in the rafters of the barn, I expect they are having a great time.

Because her brother stayed home, A and I had a nice long ride to work together today.  She's been having some trouble sleeping lately.  Talking about that led to talking about her dad and I, and that led to talking about relationships and being in love.  Thinking of SG and I, I offered her some of my thoughts on what I find to be important in relationships, such as choosing someone that you really like and enjoy beyond that sensational feeling of floating you get whenever you're around them, and choosing someone who really cares about you and who is kind and sweet.  We talked about what people look like and what makes someone attractive to you and how that's a really individual and subjective thing that changes with time and with deeper knowing.

And she says to me, Mom, there is someone that I really like. 

O.   RLY?

My little baby girl likes somebody.  Not the same way she likes her buddy from class that she hangs out with at recess, but the way you like someone when just thinking about them is better than eating ice cream.  Or at least, almost as good as that.  Because, Ice Cream.  Duh.

And I want to know who is this person who has snared the attention of this beautiful child who says EWWWWWW, that's gross! everytime SG plants a smooch on me and who says that boys are yucky.  So I ask some questions, like What is this person's name? which she tells me, and what does he look like? and she hesitates. 

Ummm, he's brown.

And I'm thinking to myself immediately that the time/space continuum must be really working in my direction, because there's this amazing conversation going on over at Kelly Wickham's blog.  When I read her first post on the subject I wanted to comment but didn't, then went back a few more times and commented yesterday, and today there's a great followup post that I expect will lead to more followup conversation.  We are talking about something important, here. 

I have white privilege.  I'm a middle-aged middle-class white woman who has never experienced a drop of racism directed toward me (that I was aware of) in my entire life.  I've been treated differently by others in business and in my daily life because of my gender, but to assume that I can as a result of that understand what it's like to be black or brown or golden-skinned would be utterly wrong.  I can never understand because I lack context. 

But that doesn't mean I don't care.  

So back to my daughter.

He's brown.  OK.  Is there a reason you are uncomfortable with that?

I don't know, mom.  I didn't know if you would mind.  He's not dark brown, like black people.  He's brown like Mexican people.  And he speaks Spanish.

And here is where white privilege comes into play and this is where we as human beings must learn to check our perceptions and learn to channel our conscious thought in new ways.  I live and work in an agricultural community where many of my neighbors are first or second-generation immigrants.  But my immediate assumption should not be that my daughter likes a boy who (poor thing) has a family who is toiling today picking onions in the hot sun.  And if it is?  Smack me in the face and send me back to remedial humanity class right now.  

For all I know his dad owns the crop circles that other people are working on and they live in a house three times the size of mine.  Or his mom is an administrator at the bank where I have my mortgage, or is a teacher at my daughter's school.    Yes, we make assumptions about people all the time based on what they look like, how they speak, what they do.  Part of overcoming the insidiousness of racism is to put our assumptions in check.  To hear ourselves.  To learn to think differently.   To hear the ways we minimize others and their experiences and to replace those thoughts with something better, something that doesn't pigeonhole people into other people's stereotypes.

How do we do that?  Expand your cultural reach.  Read books about black people that were written by black people.  Enjoy a community event in your town that isn't one born of your culture but of someone else's.  Recognize and appreciate how you are different, but seek the ways in which you are similar.  Listen.

I don't think I'm some hip white woman who is way ahead of the game when it comes to solving the intricate difficulties racism presents.  I'm only able to speak for myself and say that there are things I do not know and do not understand and there are thousands of small ways that my privilege has impacted my thinking and I need to be aware of that.  I need to be open to hearing what someone who IS black or brown or golden has to say about it and not be afraid to hear criticism from them about the way I think or react.  If I can do that, I can be part of the solution and stop being part of the problem.

Step one. My daughter likes a boy.  And until I meet him and I learn more about him, the only things I know about him are that:

My daughter thinks he's handsome

He speaks more languages than I do.

Its neither cool nor is it awful, except that oh god, my little girl likes a BOY and I'm not ready for this!

 

All mixed up

You can't listen to the radio or turn on the TV or look at Twitter or Facebook and not be aware of what happened in Pakistan yesterday.  Few people aren't talking about the death of Bin Laden, and the range of response is...what's the word I'm looking for?  Fascinating?  Curious?  Expected?  I don't know.  I don't know how I feel today.

Like so many Americans I remember vividly the events of 9/11, being hugely pregnant with my daughter and working not very far from New York City.  Everyone I worked with and socialized with knew someone who was in the towers, we were all affected.  My manager's husband was one of a very small number of people who was on the 104th floor of the South Tower who actually survived the attack, fire and collapse of the building. 

I remember how stunned we were, all of us, even our then-president.  I remember the drawing together as a country, in the way that groups will do when they have been attacked.  I loved the feeling of solidarity between us and the other voices around the world that lifted to inform us of their love, their outrage, their sorrow.  Being overwhelmed when I thought of the victims and their families, the responders who lost their lives saving others. 

In the years since, memory has dulled.  A coast away from where I was, the Twin Towers and the loss that was experienced that day is not as big a topic of conversation as I am sure it still is  back in Jersey.  A decade, two wars, a recession, and the minutiae of life have the cumulative effect of allowing the past to be...well, the past.

From the time that I turned on the news last night, after receiving a call from a friend back East, until now, as I type this post, I continue to experience a range of emotional reaction that leaves me still undecided as to what I feel about Osama Bin Laden and his death.

Of course there is a sense of grim satisfaction, the kind where your eyes narrow and you snarl in triumph.  We got you, you sonofabitch.  Finally.  A hot flash in my gut, some long-forgotten desire for revenge filled.  Paybacks are a bitch.  Not just for 9/11, either.  I remember the 17 sailors who were killed in 2000 aboard the USS Cole, and let us also not forget the 6 victims of the 1993 bomb attack on the World Trade Center.  Bin Laden was a man whose ideology was to wage war against America.   He would not see you or I as individuals with lives of value, he would see us only as his enemies.  And so in that context, a part of me grins savagely at the thought of his demise.

I am proud, of our President and his succinct, to-the-point speech last night.  Whatever else he is or is not, I think we can all agree the man is a spectacular orator.  I am reminded again of why I cast my ballot for him, when in a field of candidates marked by rancor, idiocy, hatred and paranoia, he stood out to me as a man of great conviction and great ideas. More so, though, I am proud of our military and the precision and professionalism with which this operation was carried out.  I imagine there are some men who are celebrating quietly today, even though their names will likely never be made public. 

And because I feel some satisfaction and some pride, I also feel ashamed.  Ashamed because I do not believe in violence as a solution.  I believe in loving people, even when they act in ways that are unlovable.  I can't just abandon my belief that we were all created by the same God, regardless of our nationality, culture or ideology.  I cannot join those who are celebrating death today.  I agree that this is a major, remarkable event, but I don't think it is cause for celebration, flag-waving or fireworks.  Killing Osama Bin Laden will not likely prevent future deaths by terrorism, nor will it bring back those whom we have already lost.  It is at best an act of revenge.

I feel sorrow as well.  Sadness for the victims of the USS Cole bombing and of 9/11, people who survived or family members of those who did not, for whom the events of yesterady - even if they bring some measure of relief - will dredge up memories of horror and tragedy.  Sorrow at the reminder of the terrible waste of human life, human potential inflicted in those events and in other acts of terrorism carried out by Al Quaeda and its operatives.  Sorrow that we live in a world where war and hatred will seemingly always be part of our present and our future, not just part of our past.  Sorrow for all the loss, all the pain, for the children being taught to hate by their parents and their peers - not just children of terrorists, but children of everyday people who because of fear and intolerance are being taught to hate anyone who is part of a particular religion or culture, or simply happened to be born in the wrong country.  Sorrow for the divisiveness that has grown here in our own country because we could not agree on the right response, because our leaders took us to wars that so many of us felt did nothing to avenge the past or prevent future attacks. 

And that leads to frustration.  Frustration over the endless violence begetting violence begetting violence.  A violent end to a man who promoted violence as a way of life; deserved? Maybe.  Maybe not. I don't know.  I'm not God.  I'm not willing to pretend I know the answer.  Frustration because I know that this death will not end the war in Afghanistan any time soon.  Frustration because even when we do eventually leave Afghanistan that we will probably still be engaged in Libya or anywhere else in the world that our government feels that they can protect American interests under the guise of "preserving democracy." 

I don't know why I lack the certainty so many others feel about this, but there it is.  I don't know if that makes me a bad American, a bad Christian, a bad parent or a bad example.  I suppose I can hold some measure of relief that at least I'm still really, really good at writing run-on sentences and being overly parenthetical.