"I love feministing.com and always learn from it." Katha Pollitt, The Nation
"Many people need a morning "fix." For some, it's coffee. For others, it's "SportsCenter." For me, it's Feministing.com." Katie Stone, The Denver Post
"Feminism is fun again! Every bit as edifying as your women's studies books from college, but with a biting sense of humor that keeps things punchy, not preachy." Marie Claire, December 2006
After successfully triggering a backlash against the movement for universal HPV vaccination, right wingers are working hard on the health-scare angle. The conservative group Judicial Watch has made public the FDA's records on adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine:
Three deaths were related to the vaccine. One physician's assistant reported that a female patient "died of a blood clot three hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine." Two other reports, on girls 12 and 19, reported deaths relating to heart problems and/or blood clotting.
As of May 11, 2007, the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 371 serious reactions. Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities.
Yikes, right? Well, maybe some stuff to be concerned about, and some not. After all, 77% of the "adverse reactions" were typical vaccination side effects -- itching, dizziness, etc. Kaiser reports:
CDC, FDA and Merck have said that the adverse events likely were unrelated to the vaccine and were caused by underlying health problems or other factors, the Journal reports. According to CDC, two of the three women who died were taking oral contraceptives and died of blood clots, which are associated with oral contraceptives. The third, a 12-year-old girl, had heart disease and died of a heart inflammation triggered by the flu.
I read the same reports the Judicial Watch people did. One of the women died of a blood clot two weeks after receiving the vaccine. And the 12-year-old also had chicken pox and Hepatitis A vaccines on the same day. Granted, I'm not a medical professional. But nothing I read made me feel uneasy about getting the vaccine. This isn't exactly like three women and girls have received the shot and then dropped dead on the spot -- it seems like they had other health issues. I have yet to read an evaluation from an apolitical medical professional who believes these reports are an indication that the vaccine is dangerous.
All vaccines carry a certain level of risk. All come with warnings that if you have certain conditions you should probably choose not to be vaccinated. During 2003 and the first half of 2004, there were eight reported deaths related to the chicken pox vaccine. Three deaths in the past year -- which may or may not be attributable to the HPV vaccine -- doesn't exactly seem like a "catalog of horrors" to me.
That said, the deaths potentially caused by oral-contraceptive-related blood clots are troubling. I'm guessing that a lot of women in the "catch-up" age range for HPV vaccination -- ages 18 to 26 -- are on the Pill or other hormonal contraception. And it sounds like you should just hold off on the vaccine if you're pregnant.
This is a good time to issue a reminder about conservative hypocrisy on this issue. It's a right-wing group that's ringing alarm bells over reactions to the vaccine. But for years, uber-conservative groups sounded some of the loudest warnings about the dangers of HPV. (From the American Family Association, in 2003: "HPV, a Bigger Killer, Takes Back Seat to Agenda-Driven Issue of AIDS.") But of course they wouldn't celebrate a vaccine gaining wide acceptance, because HPV is of great use to the abstinence movement. It's one of the few STI's that condoms don't effectively protect against, meaning HPV-related cervical cancer was proof of the "grim cost of sexual promiscuity" and "100 percent preventable with proper sexual behavior." So now that there's a vaccine for HPV, they have to catalog the "horrors!" of the adverse reactions in order to keep up their "SEX KILLS" talking point.
I just attended an amazing panel called Prisons as Agents of Reproductive Oppression. I had a hell of a time deciding which of the 13 awesome-sounding workshops to go to (a problem that's only going to get worse as the conference goes on), so I went with the subject I felt I knew least about.
But the words were clearly her own, and they were both passionate and pointed. In the abortion case, in which the court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act seven years after having struck down a similar state law, she noted that the court was now “differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation.” In the latest case, she summoned Congress to overturn what she called the majority’s “parsimonious reading” of the federal law against discrimination in the workplace.
...The oral dissent has not been, until now, Justice Ginsburg’s style. She has gone years without delivering one, and never before in her 15 years on the court has she delivered two in one term. In her past dissents, both oral and written, she has been reluctant to breach the court’s collegial norms. “What she is saying is that this is not law, it’s politics,” Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, said of Justice Ginsburg’s comment linking the outcome in the abortion case to the fact of the court’s changed membership. “She is accusing the other side of making political claims, not legal claims.”
Gee, I wonder why.
A friend of Ginsburg's, Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, says "shehas always been regarded as sort of a white-glove person, and she’s achieved a lot that way...Now she is seeing that basic issues she’s fought so hard for are in jeopardy, and she is less bound by what have been the conventions of the court.” Thank goodness. Now let's just hope people will listen.
NOTE: I was supposed to post this for Kate last night, so pretend you're reading it in the wee hours.
All right, I'm truly exhausted now, and writing up some odds and ends a couple hours after beer-thirty is not so much "liveblogging," but here are a few final notes on the Causes in Common Meeting.
Regarding Assisted Reproductive Genetic Technologies, Miriam Yeung says at this point, we're still figuring out the questions more than the answers. Three key ones for both LGBT and reproductive freedom activists are:
1) Just because we can, should we?
2) Is it fair?
3) Who makes the decisions?
The crucial thing right now, she suggested, is for "smart people to get thinking about it." Aaand.... go!
The later afternoon panel on Coalition Building was moderated by Alisa Wellek of the LGBT Community Center and featured Marlene Pray of Planned Parenthood Association of Bucks County and The Rainbow Room (a community center for LGBT youth, partnered with PPABC), Patrick Flaherty of the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center, Moof Mayeda of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and Aimee Thorne-Thomsen of the Pro-Choice Public Education Project. I'm too tired to do any of the speakers justice, but here's a taste:
Weekly Hungover Feminist Report - You don't have to think you're racist to say racist things Edition
Samhita's post about gentrification and "ghetto fabulousness" has, not shockingly, turned into quite a conversation about race and privilege. I think it's an important conversation to have, so let's do it. The whole thing is really getting to me for four reasons.
First, my back hurts.
Second, just last week a bunch of us were sitting at a ceremony celebrating the future of reproductive rights and justice - a diverse group of young women I am proud to be counted among. And now this. Good thing all of those women were young and tough. There's a lot that needs doing.
And fourth, because as the headline says, you don't have to mean to be racist to say racist things. And I understand that most of the readers here don't want to be called racist. Fine. Then don't say racist things. I'm not sugar coating this one, folks. The following comments on Samhita's thread are either racist, or positively drowning in privilege. Regardless of how you meant it. Read them, and please take a moment to think about why I say this. Just like I assume we'd like well-meaning sexist people to think about why we respond the way we do to things they say.
I stopped writing this post and came back to it later. Now I'm not angry, I'm curious. I'd really like to hear from some of the folks whose comments I include. Thoughtfully, not just angry because you think I'm an asshole and calling you racist. I'm so rarely earnest, but I really mean it.
For female cheetahs in the Serengeti, the call of the wild is just too hard to resist as new research shows nearly half of their litters are made up of cubs with different fathers.
And while the serial infidelities of the females does ensure a broader genetic mix to help the survival of the endangered species, it comes at a cost, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) said on Wednesday.
"Mating with more than one male poses a serious threat to females, increasing the risk of exposure to parasites and diseases," said Dada Gottelli, ZSL's lead scientist for the research.
"Females also have to travel over large distances to find new males, making them more vulnerable to predation, so infidelity is a heavy burden."
Is it just me, or do those arguments sound like abstinence-ed for cheetahs? (I'm sick. Give me a break.)
We're a little tardy in writing about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. The court ruled that employees must make their discrimination complaints within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” In other words, the discrimination occurs at the time a woman is given a salary that is significantly lower than her male counterparts. If she doesn't catch on to the pay disparity within 180 days, she's screwed. Which is why Ledbetter's attorneys had argued that she was discriminated against every time she was handed a paycheck for less money than her male equivalent on the job -- not simply when her salary was determined. According to the Times:
Ms. Ledbetter’s salary was initially the same as that of her male colleagues. But over time, as she received smaller raises, a substantial disparity grew. By the time she brought suit in 1998, her salary fell short by as much as 40 percent; she was making $3,727 a month, while the lowest-paid man was making $4,286.
So 180 days isn't much time to figure out a pay disparity exists. How many people -- especially, for example, women in nontraditional professions -- talk openly with their coworkers about how much they're earning?
This is likely to have a chilling effect on employment discrimination suits. As Scott says,
Republicans don't have to modify or repeal civil rights legislation, and the Court's needn't strike it down; the courts and/or the executive branch can just gut the legislation by making it difficult to enforce in ways that don't attract public attention.
This decision is an even greater incentive to get behind the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would require employers to make employee salaries public so women will know sooner if they're getting paid less for equal (or more) work.
UPDATE: In comments, Jill Zimon points out that Congressional Dems have responded to the ruling by pledging to pass a law that eliminates the time restriction.
Yesterday I got an e-mail informing me that Feministing's Jen had thrown out her back and couldn't attend the first ever Causes in Common Meeting today and the SisterSong Conference over the next few days as planned. Having the extensive qualifications of being a Chicago blogger who was available to do it, I was asked to fill in for her. I'm so sorry Jen's in pain, but so grateful to have this opportunity -- both to write for Feministing and to attend these gatherings, the first of which is already shaping up to be fantastic.
For those of you who aren't familiar with Causes in Common, it's an organization devoted to making connections between activists for reproductive justice and the LGBT community. Their FAQs explains more about this too-often overlooked intersection of equality and self-determination issues.
There is SO MUCH to say about the morning's panel on the National Legislative Landscape and Statewide Ballot Initiatives -- not to mention a few enlightening conversations with other attendees-- but I have to get back soon for the afternoon panel on Assisted Reproductive Genetic Technologies. Right now, I'll just pass along the Quote of the Morning, from Jackie Payne, Director of Government Relations for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, with regard to politicians who campaign on homophobic and anti-choice platforms:
"I want to spank these people, and I want them to know that if they go against us, we will go against them."
More later.
Kate Harding is a Chicago-based writer who blogs about feminism and fat acceptance at Shapely Prose and about books at The Bibliophilistines.
Just so you know: Seems the Colors of Domestic Violence campaign may not be an official Benetton thing. Broadsheet reports that a senior fashion public relations manager for the company says that Benetton has never heard of the campaign. So where in the world did this thing come from?
In perhaps the best titled article ever, "Crying Over Spilled Semen,"Psychology Today reports on a study that basically says women are addicted to semen. Hilarious.
The finding that women who do not use condoms during sex are less depressed and less likely to attempt suicide than are women who have sex with condoms and women who are not sexually active, leads one researcher to conclude that semen contains powerful—and potentially addictive—mood-altering chemicals.
Study author Gordon G. Gallup, Ph.D., a psychologist at the State University of New York in Albany, also found that women who routinely had intercourse without condoms became increasingly depressed as more time elapsed since their last sexual encounter. There was no such correlation for women whose partners regularly used condoms.
Gallup also found that women who did not use condoms were most likely to initiate sex and to seek out new partners as soon as a relationship ended: "These women are more vulnerable to the rebound effect, which suggests that there is a chemical dependency."
Gallup also says he's planning on examining whether "semen withdrawal" places women at an increased risk for depression. Yeah. Well I guess the best way to avoid semen addiction is to never get started. I'm sure that will go over well.
This post by Wendy Muse on Racialicious just about sums up (really well) what I have been feeling about the hipsters all up in "our hoodz stealin all our fashionz." I also feel old as I wore door knockers the first time around (NY in the 80's) eeek.
Muse is discussing all her personal negotiations and some of the political stakes involved with "ghetto chic." She says,
For one, it’s a matter of nomenclature. The term “ghetto” is evocative of “negative” images (poverty, housing projects, crime, drug use, lack of education), and remains racialized by the media. Ghettoes and poverty are typically associated with blacks and Latinos, even though as a result of the racial demographics of the United States, there are technically more poor whites. According to a U.S. Census Bureau Press Release from 2003, though “non-Hispanic whites had a lower poverty rate than other racial groups, [they] accounted for 44 percent of the people in poverty,” which makes me wonder why whites are virtually ignored in discussions of class and blacks and Latinos are always assumed to make up the majority of the poor population in this country. . . but that’s another article.
A few months ago I was sitting in a coffee shop in my neighborhood, a coffee shop I can no longer go to as I may fight somebody, and this white "hipster" boy sat down across from me wearing a red bandana tied on the front of his head, Tupac style. That's right, he was "GANGSTA." I am not laughing. I shot him the nastiest look and freaked him out so he didn't want to share the table with me, but I was raging inside.
I worked in the schools in and around San Francisco's Mission District for about 5 years and am very familiar with the problems that are tearing our schools apart and our communities. Our kids didn't wear red. And I thought about how this kid, moved into the Mission and was just walking around wearing a flag, like he is on some shit. I thought that god forbid if he got shot (which is highly unlikely, I don't want to further sensationalize gang violence the way the media does) how the media would cover it. They wouldn't say anything about his ignorance of any of the local politics or any of the racist ways that these people just move on in and visually violate these communities. To move into a community, uninformed, taking from it, not giving back and flaunting your expensive Ipod and "ghetto chic" accessories, is a form of violence.
I may be sounding like a hater, and maybe I am just too old to get it, but I AM FED UP WITH THESE KIDS. I hate Vice Magazine and I hate this attitude that pretty much says, "I am so passed racist, I can act like this." Wake up asshole, look around you, you are part of the problem.
This is much less articulate than Wendy's post, lol. I wrote about this a few years ago, when I had heard about the "Kill Whitey," parties in Brooklyn. I had hoped that the trend was dying out, but I was oh so wrong. I am so moving back to Oakland (although I hear they are invading there as well).
Dove's Real Beauty Campaign has had its fair share of successes and critiques, yet while they have been pushing this idea of "real beauty," it seems that they also think that should exclude your armpits. Like we don't have enough body parts to obsess over.
The slogan, "Are you sleeveless ready?" says enough about what they're trying to pitch, but I've heard the commercial is pretty irritating, more or less saying that their newest deodorant will make your underarms look soft and gorgeous (as opposed to their gross existence before). The website says:
"Every woman can have softer, smoother underams and show them off in sleeveless styles that make her feel beautiful."
Because seriously, who likes a girl with dry and not soft-as-a-baby's-ass underarms?
