By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser
Isn’t it true that sometimes the obvious is just so, well, obvious? A study reported upon in the New York Times found that test scores are declining because kids are spending less time reading for pleasure.
Oh, you mean the whole teaching to the test might not be the right approach to obtaining better test scores? Really?
I think this is worth writing about for a few reasons: one, we’re so revved up, so filled with buttons and gadgets that do things we can do without buttons and gadgets that we forget—old-fashioned or just plain old as I may sound—the beauty of the simpler, quieter, more time-consuming ways. Why do we have games and movies on telephones anyway? But more to the point, why do we give our kids unfettered access to these gadgets and then wonder why they aren’t reading more? We could be giving them more books!
Think I’m just being paranoid? Here are some stats from a Henry J.Kaiser Foundation study: “Children six and under spend an average of two hours a day using screen media (1:58), about the same amount of time they spend playing outside (2:01), and well over the amount they spend reading or being read to (39 minutes). Forty-three percent of those under two watch TV every day, and 26% have a TV in their bedroom (the American Academy of Pediatrics “urges parents to avoid television for children under 2 years old”). In any given day, two-thirds (68%) of children under two will use a screen media, for an average of just over two hours (2:05) According to the study, children who have a TV in their bedroom or who live in “heavy” TV households spend significantly more time watching than other children do, and less time reading or playing outside. Those with a TV in their room spend an average of 22 minutes more a day watching TV and videos than other children do. Those living in “heavy” TV households are more likely to watch every day (77% v. 56%), and to watch for longer when they do watch (an average of 34 minutes more a day). They are also less likely to read every day (59% v. 68%), and spend less time reading when they do read (6 minutes less a day). In fact, they are less likely than other children to be able to read at all (34% of children ages 4-6 from “heavy” TV households can read, compared to 56% of other children that age).”
Reassuringly, reading does continue to factor into young children’s lives significantly, the study finds, with nearly eight in ten children six and under reading or being read to in a given day; those, who read spend an average of 49 minutes doing so (although 83% will use screen media, for an average of 2 hours 22 minutes).
There is nothing better than having your child not want to put a book down. Okay, when it’s bedtime, that’s not always so fun. But in general, it’s a great thing to love to read. Maybe, these studies just remind us that we want to encourage—assist, seduce, provide models for—our children to become deliciously lost in books on a regular basis and we want to demand that our schools, day care centers, after school programs pay attention to the power of reading.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Thursday, November 01, 2007
The Feminie Critique
Women are perceived differently than men in the workforce. Shocking, I know.
p.s.
Does anyone else really like the illustration with this article?
p.s.
Does anyone else really like the illustration with this article?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Paid Maternity Leave? Forget it!
Get a load of this article from the New York Times about how the United States is NOT one of the 170 countries that offer a paid maternity leave. GET WITH THE PROGRAM ALREADY!
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Katha Pollitt
There's an interview with feminist author Katha Pollitt in today's New York Times. I have some mixed feelings about it, but here is a highlight:
Are you a Hillary supporter?
In this country we have a real problem with women and power. If people don’t stop saying incredibly sexist things about Hillary Clinton, I may just have to vote for her.
Are you a Hillary supporter?
In this country we have a real problem with women and power. If people don’t stop saying incredibly sexist things about Hillary Clinton, I may just have to vote for her.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Bill Maher Was Obviously Not Breastfed
If the post below didn't rile you up, I bring you the always-so-charming Bill Maher on the subject:
Another Blanket (Yawn)
By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser
Latest from the nursing-mothers-are-legally-protected-to-breastfeed-in-public front:
this law is unfamiliar to the manager of a Kentucky Applebee’s. A story that ran in the Lexington Herald describes the dispute between a breastfeeding mom and the restaurant manager. Asked to cover up and offered a blanket to do so, little separates this seemingly ubiquitous story from being like the others. (And maybe that’s the point: even once protected by law, it’s such a hidden one that no one feels compelled to follow it). The nursing mom, Brooke Ryan, however, had a copy of the law in hand, pointing out to those in charge that she was within her rights to breastfeed in public—and without a blanket. In going public, Ryan compared her situation to Rosa Parks’ on the bus, except with a blanket.
A discreet breastfeeding mom (and we who have done it for years believe women if they say they are discreet) isn’t a public eyesore. Whether Ryan’s actions were staged, it matters not. While the nod to Parks might seem extreme, an articulate woman like Ryan demanded a simple, and I think fitting thing from Applebee’s: an apology.
Meantime, the June story is resurfacing now because on September 8th, a series of Nurse-Ins are being scheduled at Applebee’s restaurants around the country.
These stories don’t make big headlines necessarily beyond the local angles. Perhaps, though, on a national stage, it’s our duty in supporting women’s experiences from being invisible to keep taking note.
Latest from the nursing-mothers-are-legally-protected-to-breastfeed-in-public front:
this law is unfamiliar to the manager of a Kentucky Applebee’s. A story that ran in the Lexington Herald describes the dispute between a breastfeeding mom and the restaurant manager. Asked to cover up and offered a blanket to do so, little separates this seemingly ubiquitous story from being like the others. (And maybe that’s the point: even once protected by law, it’s such a hidden one that no one feels compelled to follow it). The nursing mom, Brooke Ryan, however, had a copy of the law in hand, pointing out to those in charge that she was within her rights to breastfeed in public—and without a blanket. In going public, Ryan compared her situation to Rosa Parks’ on the bus, except with a blanket.
A discreet breastfeeding mom (and we who have done it for years believe women if they say they are discreet) isn’t a public eyesore. Whether Ryan’s actions were staged, it matters not. While the nod to Parks might seem extreme, an articulate woman like Ryan demanded a simple, and I think fitting thing from Applebee’s: an apology.
Meantime, the June story is resurfacing now because on September 8th, a series of Nurse-Ins are being scheduled at Applebee’s restaurants around the country.
These stories don’t make big headlines necessarily beyond the local angles. Perhaps, though, on a national stage, it’s our duty in supporting women’s experiences from being invisible to keep taking note.
Watching the Post Reveal a Breastfeeding Campaign Gone Lame
By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser
It’s only a conspiracy theory if they’re NOT out to get you.
This could apply to breastfeeding advocates. A recent story in the Washington Post revealed that with help from a former head to the Republican National Committee turned lobbyist, formula companies were successful in getting political appointees from the Department of Health and Human Services to tone down their pro-breastfeeding campaigns. Rather than depict the ills of formula with asthma inhalers and insulin syringes, the ads instead showed more “friendly” images of
dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops to show how breastfeeding can help stem childhood obesity.
Representative Henry Waxman, investigating the matter in the wake of former Surgeon General Richard Carmona’s claims that the White House pressured him to make certain policies, called the softening of the breastfeeding campaign ads a “credible allegation of public interference” with potential “serious health consequences.” The US breastfeeding rate did not increase with the kinder, gentler ad campaign and lags well behind Europe. While the original ads were to scare women into breastfeeding, the final product became ads that tried to encourage women into breastfeeding by extolling its benefits, an approach the company hired to consult on the campaign predicted would be unsuccessful, and, not incidentally, was unsuccessful.
The Post article chronicles how formula companies were able to assert themselves such that HHS officials tried to “be fair” to the companies, rather than press hard for public health concerns. This story has made its way across the blogosphere. While some newspapers, including the Kansas City Star, picked up the Post story, other outlets have yet toreport upon it. Breaking just before Labor Day (no pun intended), the jury’s out about whether the story will travel further. Its narrative echoes other complaints about public health, but also management writ larger (think, Katrina, Iraq, oil drilling). My question: will the story follow in those footsteps of mismanagement due to pandering to big business or will the story not be as prominently featured because breastfeeding seems to be shunted to “women’s” issues rather than a national concern (even if the public health implications might loom
large).
It’s only a conspiracy theory if they’re NOT out to get you.
This could apply to breastfeeding advocates. A recent story in the Washington Post revealed that with help from a former head to the Republican National Committee turned lobbyist, formula companies were successful in getting political appointees from the Department of Health and Human Services to tone down their pro-breastfeeding campaigns. Rather than depict the ills of formula with asthma inhalers and insulin syringes, the ads instead showed more “friendly” images of
dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops to show how breastfeeding can help stem childhood obesity.
Representative Henry Waxman, investigating the matter in the wake of former Surgeon General Richard Carmona’s claims that the White House pressured him to make certain policies, called the softening of the breastfeeding campaign ads a “credible allegation of public interference” with potential “serious health consequences.” The US breastfeeding rate did not increase with the kinder, gentler ad campaign and lags well behind Europe. While the original ads were to scare women into breastfeeding, the final product became ads that tried to encourage women into breastfeeding by extolling its benefits, an approach the company hired to consult on the campaign predicted would be unsuccessful, and, not incidentally, was unsuccessful.
The Post article chronicles how formula companies were able to assert themselves such that HHS officials tried to “be fair” to the companies, rather than press hard for public health concerns. This story has made its way across the blogosphere. While some newspapers, including the Kansas City Star, picked up the Post story, other outlets have yet toreport upon it. Breaking just before Labor Day (no pun intended), the jury’s out about whether the story will travel further. Its narrative echoes other complaints about public health, but also management writ larger (think, Katrina, Iraq, oil drilling). My question: will the story follow in those footsteps of mismanagement due to pandering to big business or will the story not be as prominently featured because breastfeeding seems to be shunted to “women’s” issues rather than a national concern (even if the public health implications might loom
large).
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
What?
This is just too bizarre for me...
I'm sorry to rip directly from Feministing, but sometimes it's too good to pass up.
I'm sorry to rip directly from Feministing, but sometimes it's too good to pass up.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Full Frontal Feminism
Ok, I somehow missed Jessica Valenti promoting her book Full Frontal Feminism on Colbert this summer (how?!?!?) In case you did as well:
I haven´t read FFF yet, but I am a big fan of Feministing so I can´t wait to get my hands on a copy. Just one question, Jessica, why the back-breaking heels when talking about unattainable beauty?
I haven´t read FFF yet, but I am a big fan of Feministing so I can´t wait to get my hands on a copy. Just one question, Jessica, why the back-breaking heels when talking about unattainable beauty?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
(Real) Kids Really Do Say the Darndest Things
By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser
Sometimes, the beauty of how children’s minds work (at least brilliant ones like those belonging to my kids) is just perfect. Case in point: my nine-year-old son Lucien told my husband this fact (well, this construction of truth): Don Imus is gay. “Where’d you get that?” asked Hosie (my spouse/his dad).
“Don Imus hates women,” replied Lucien. “So he must be gay.”
Okay, I know, I know, hating women does not equal loving men, etc. However... Well, just pass it on.
Sometimes, the beauty of how children’s minds work (at least brilliant ones like those belonging to my kids) is just perfect. Case in point: my nine-year-old son Lucien told my husband this fact (well, this construction of truth): Don Imus is gay. “Where’d you get that?” asked Hosie (my spouse/his dad).
“Don Imus hates women,” replied Lucien. “So he must be gay.”
Okay, I know, I know, hating women does not equal loving men, etc. However... Well, just pass it on.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
This is just charming:
Then, on a radio talk show the next day, Richardson apparently excused his response by saying, "that he didn't understand the question because of jet lag." Quipped Jon Stewart on last night's 'The Daily Show,' "yes, apparently the governor had just flown in... from the 1950s."
Then, on a radio talk show the next day, Richardson apparently excused his response by saying, "that he didn't understand the question because of jet lag." Quipped Jon Stewart on last night's 'The Daily Show,' "yes, apparently the governor had just flown in... from the 1950s."
Golden Girls Gone Wild
In hopes of returning to the blogging world with a bang, I bring you Golden Girls Gone Wild! You heard right. Art curator Lenora Claire bought a nude oil painting of Bea Arthur by Chris Zimmerman and was inspired to create an art show with the (mostly erotic) theme. There's a small review and a bunch of photos of the opening in Hollywood here. Thank you for being a friend!
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Buying In
Alex Williams' article in today's New York Times, "Buying Into the Green Movement" does an excellent job of describing a phenomenon (or should I say trend) of the "light green" movement. That is to say, a pervasive trend of heavy, "green" consumerism. I especially love the fact that the author points out how absurd it is to have raspberries in the winter at Whole Foods!
It’s as though the millions of people whom environmentalists have successfully prodded to be concerned about climate change are experiencing a SnackWell’s moment: confronted with a box of fat-free devil’s food chocolate cookies, which seem deliciously guilt-free, they consume the entire box, avoiding any fats but loading up on calories. -Alex Williams
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Malalai Joya is Suspended from Parliament
Malalai Joya has been suspended from Parliament in Afghanistan. Please click here to read this important article.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Let's Talk About Sex
"Let's Talk About Sex" by Atul Gawande, published in the New York Times on May 19th is an informative read, and since it's in TimeSelect and I'm not supposed to re-publish it, I will link to it here.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
My Humps
Better late than never...
This is the (unbelievable) video by the Black Eyed Peas of the song "My Humps"
And this is a really great/sad parody of said video by Alanis Morissette
I think it speaks for itself!
This is the (unbelievable) video by the Black Eyed Peas of the song "My Humps"
And this is a really great/sad parody of said video by Alanis Morissette
I think it speaks for itself!
Monday, April 23, 2007
A Hot Squabble (And Getting Warmer)
As it's been awhile since I posted, I think that this priceless confrontation is a good way to get the blog-ball rolling.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
A Post-Valentine’s Reflection
By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser
Winter, in Northampton, Massachusetts, really started on Valentine’s morning with a snowy, sleety dump. That same morning, a man dropped off an arrangement of flowers just inside our mudroom door. Now, this is not an unexpected occurrence on this particular day, especially given that my dear husband is out of town for work. So, I stepped into the mudroom and bent down to pick up the flowers. What was unexpected was the background noise. My kids were protesting, quite loudly: “Don’t touch that! We don’t know that man! What if it’s a bomb?”
It took many assurances from me—papa always sends flowers on Valentine’s Day if he’s gone, we get flowers there all the time, Harrison’s mom works at that store and probably made the arrangement—to quell their fears. For just a moment after the scare, they did literally stop and smell the roses.
What ran through my mind was this: the incalculably high number of hidden costs exacted by this so-called “War on Terror.” I felt like shaking a hand toward those who have lead the charge to twist horrific acts of violence on 9-11 into a larger conspiracy that has wrought so much more bloodshed and violence and fear than those who dreamed up the hijack suicide missions could ever have imagined possible. Some observers now deem civil war too simplistic and even too mild a term to describe the seemingly intractable violence in Iraq (and beyond). From the reality on the ground to the palpable sense of unease experienced by those at a very, very far remove from any actual violence, assurances from our leaders that our actions are rendering the world a safer place—for Iraqi or American citizens—seem nothing short of magical thinking, and that’s a generous interpretation.
Meantime, by Cupid’s big day, smack in the middle of February, the sun was already shining longer—on sunny days—and in so doing, nudging our minds toward spring. Winter barely began at the point we often first believe it’ll soon be over. The recent report issued by the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change constitutes as definitive a declaration as scientists ever make that the earth is
warming and that humans are responsible for this detrimental development. Their urging that we humans reform our habits and reprioritize so that we save our species and other species and the planet could not be more clearly exhorted or more simply put. If we wanted something to fear, we’ve got it. And yet, without bloodshed, we
can—as many already are—start to repair these wrongs, and thus slowly allay these fears.
My middle son, Lucien, sees the connection clearly: saving the environment and peace do go together, hand-in-hand. He often draws posters about saving the earth. If not invariably then frequently a peace sign or a phrase about stopping the war makes its way to the same page. His desires for a clean earth and a friendly one are rooted in
love. He’s funny and warm and eager to relish what is good in this world. Although he thinks, more than most eight-year-olds perhaps, about the world’s hardships, such as war or poverty or pollution, what’s clear when he’s drawing is that hope trumps fear. His desire to make change comes from the simple fact that he trusts most people are
good and want the best for each other. Save for potential bombs, that is. Certainly, when I experience my own waves of fear—about the terrible toll of war or degradation to our planet—I try to remember that hope is more durable than fear and if love doesn’t quite conquer all, it certainly conquers much more than hate or revenge ever could.
Winter, in Northampton, Massachusetts, really started on Valentine’s morning with a snowy, sleety dump. That same morning, a man dropped off an arrangement of flowers just inside our mudroom door. Now, this is not an unexpected occurrence on this particular day, especially given that my dear husband is out of town for work. So, I stepped into the mudroom and bent down to pick up the flowers. What was unexpected was the background noise. My kids were protesting, quite loudly: “Don’t touch that! We don’t know that man! What if it’s a bomb?”
It took many assurances from me—papa always sends flowers on Valentine’s Day if he’s gone, we get flowers there all the time, Harrison’s mom works at that store and probably made the arrangement—to quell their fears. For just a moment after the scare, they did literally stop and smell the roses.
What ran through my mind was this: the incalculably high number of hidden costs exacted by this so-called “War on Terror.” I felt like shaking a hand toward those who have lead the charge to twist horrific acts of violence on 9-11 into a larger conspiracy that has wrought so much more bloodshed and violence and fear than those who dreamed up the hijack suicide missions could ever have imagined possible. Some observers now deem civil war too simplistic and even too mild a term to describe the seemingly intractable violence in Iraq (and beyond). From the reality on the ground to the palpable sense of unease experienced by those at a very, very far remove from any actual violence, assurances from our leaders that our actions are rendering the world a safer place—for Iraqi or American citizens—seem nothing short of magical thinking, and that’s a generous interpretation.
Meantime, by Cupid’s big day, smack in the middle of February, the sun was already shining longer—on sunny days—and in so doing, nudging our minds toward spring. Winter barely began at the point we often first believe it’ll soon be over. The recent report issued by the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change constitutes as definitive a declaration as scientists ever make that the earth is
warming and that humans are responsible for this detrimental development. Their urging that we humans reform our habits and reprioritize so that we save our species and other species and the planet could not be more clearly exhorted or more simply put. If we wanted something to fear, we’ve got it. And yet, without bloodshed, we
can—as many already are—start to repair these wrongs, and thus slowly allay these fears.
My middle son, Lucien, sees the connection clearly: saving the environment and peace do go together, hand-in-hand. He often draws posters about saving the earth. If not invariably then frequently a peace sign or a phrase about stopping the war makes its way to the same page. His desires for a clean earth and a friendly one are rooted in
love. He’s funny and warm and eager to relish what is good in this world. Although he thinks, more than most eight-year-olds perhaps, about the world’s hardships, such as war or poverty or pollution, what’s clear when he’s drawing is that hope trumps fear. His desire to make change comes from the simple fact that he trusts most people are
good and want the best for each other. Save for potential bombs, that is. Certainly, when I experience my own waves of fear—about the terrible toll of war or degradation to our planet—I try to remember that hope is more durable than fear and if love doesn’t quite conquer all, it certainly conquers much more than hate or revenge ever could.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Watch Yer Mouth
From the folks at Watch Yer Mouth:
calling all feminists, queers, people of color, women, radicals, and all you other rad folks out there--
Watch Yer Mouth is a new publication brought you by three burning bodies trying to get their minds and mouths involved... we are looking for poetry, essays, short stories (true or fiction or anywhere in between), drawings, photographs, and any other two-dimensional art you can think of.
our first issue is coming out april 21; submissions are due by april 1, 2007. start writing, thinking, dreaming, drawing, and collecting your work now! we will continue collecting submissions on a rolling basis after our first issue comes out.
know of any radical-minded bodies that might be interested? pass this along to them!
unfortunately our ability to support you monetarily for your thoughts and art is impossible right now; but you will receive a free copy of the zine and a warm welcome into a community of bad asses.
for more information, or to connect to other burning bodies out there in the universe, email watchyermouth@gmail.com
watch yer mouth. watch yer words. watch em rip the world apart and put it back together again...
calling all feminists, queers, people of color, women, radicals, and all you other rad folks out there--
Watch Yer Mouth is a new publication brought you by three burning bodies trying to get their minds and mouths involved... we are looking for poetry, essays, short stories (true or fiction or anywhere in between), drawings, photographs, and any other two-dimensional art you can think of.
our first issue is coming out april 21; submissions are due by april 1, 2007. start writing, thinking, dreaming, drawing, and collecting your work now! we will continue collecting submissions on a rolling basis after our first issue comes out.
know of any radical-minded bodies that might be interested? pass this along to them!
unfortunately our ability to support you monetarily for your thoughts and art is impossible right now; but you will receive a free copy of the zine and a warm welcome into a community of bad asses.
for more information, or to connect to other burning bodies out there in the universe, email watchyermouth@gmail.com
watch yer mouth. watch yer words. watch em rip the world apart and put it back together again...
Monday, February 26, 2007
YouDoit
By Ilana Panich-Linsman
Time Magazine named You the person of 2006. With the already enormous and ever-growing popularity of user-created content sites like YouTube, MySpace, Wikipedia, etc., we are entering into a more democratic state of media -- with infinite possibilities.
With these modern tools of communication come certain responsibilities. There is no longer an excuse to ignore racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance in main-stream culture. YOU have the power to write about it, respond to it and do something about it at your fingertips.
Take a look at how Beau Sia, a poet in New York, has used the power of YouTube to get his response to a racist event in the media heard. This is the 18th most viewed video this week:
Mr. Sia clearly explains that it is not simply the racist comment that was offensive to so many of us, but mostly Rosie's ignorant and defensive response to her critics.
Beau Sia has taken it upon himself to start a dialogue with the YouTube community, (who is, let's face it, a lot of us: Beau's video currently has 332,892 views and about 4,500 comments), and with the popularity of the video, elicited this response from Rosie:
And while Rosie could have taken a little more time to say, compose a more thoughtful letter or use a spellchecker, she obviously understood the gravity of her racist remark and defensive response to that remark, and apologized for it.
So, can we, as individuals that comprise this online community, take it upon ourselves to make it our RESPONSIBILITY and our priority to use the tools of modern communication be critical, analytical and to challenge the main-stream norm? Let's see to it that we all employ the resources available to us, as Beau Sia has done, in order to earn our Person of the Year title.
Time Magazine named You the person of 2006. With the already enormous and ever-growing popularity of user-created content sites like YouTube, MySpace, Wikipedia, etc., we are entering into a more democratic state of media -- with infinite possibilities.
With these modern tools of communication come certain responsibilities. There is no longer an excuse to ignore racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance in main-stream culture. YOU have the power to write about it, respond to it and do something about it at your fingertips.
Take a look at how Beau Sia, a poet in New York, has used the power of YouTube to get his response to a racist event in the media heard. This is the 18th most viewed video this week:
Mr. Sia clearly explains that it is not simply the racist comment that was offensive to so many of us, but mostly Rosie's ignorant and defensive response to her critics.
Beau Sia has taken it upon himself to start a dialogue with the YouTube community, (who is, let's face it, a lot of us: Beau's video currently has 332,892 views and about 4,500 comments), and with the popularity of the video, elicited this response from Rosie:
2 day i found
beau sia
poet
on you tube
with great delivery
wonderful editing
set in a school room
he spoke
an open letter to all the rosie o’donnells
“ching chong ching chong
is not an accent
it is a racist interpretation of a language
often associated with
being buried alive in a mine shaft”
“i would never make fun of who u r
and then make u feel wrong
for just trying to inform u
of y i shouldn’t say
whatever it is i am about to say
about plus sized lesbians”
“so listen 2 me
because i dont think ur evil
i dont care if ur mean”
“learn from this rosie
apologize darling
tap into the humanity
i know that u posses”
2 beau
an open response
to ur informative creative
and quite beautiful video
i apologize
for any and all pain
caused to any and all
by my comments
ignorance
lack of compassion - empathy
understanding
u r right
i didnt get it
i know
my intent
was not to harm
yet obviously i did
there ya have it
and beau
before u refrain from all observations
comments or comedy
in any context or capacity
about the queer community
in all it variations
arttst 2 artist beau
say whatever it is u need
i trust
after seeing u 4 all of 3 minutes -
ur soul is in the right place
ur aim is 2 enlighten
not debase
as is mine
peace out
rosie o’donnell - plus sized lesbian
And while Rosie could have taken a little more time to say, compose a more thoughtful letter or use a spellchecker, she obviously understood the gravity of her racist remark and defensive response to that remark, and apologized for it.
So, can we, as individuals that comprise this online community, take it upon ourselves to make it our RESPONSIBILITY and our priority to use the tools of modern communication be critical, analytical and to challenge the main-stream norm? Let's see to it that we all employ the resources available to us, as Beau Sia has done, in order to earn our Person of the Year title.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Bad Guy and the Good ‘Ol Boys Who Love to Hate Them
Check out Bad Guy and the Good ‘Ol Boys Who Love to Hate Them In Memory of Molly Ivins in the Berkeley Daily Planet by (our very own) Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Honoring Molly
By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser
If someone asked me when I was a little girl what I wanted to be when I grew up, I wouldn’t have answered “kick-ass op-ed writer.” In fact, I wanted to teach deaf people, and my grandmother, Helen Buttenwieser, herself a pioneering lawyer, told me I was too young to know what I wanted to do. Given that she’d done something outrageous in terms of career, you’d think she’d have wanted to encourage her granddaughters (in fact, although liberal, she didn’t consider herself a feminist). I
must have been about eight at the time. I’d read all about Helen Keller, and darn it, I knew. It turned out that a couple of years later I learned sign language and that I spent much of middle school and high school volunteering at the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf. I think I actually did what I set out to do.
A couple of years back, a flurry of media frenzy over the paucity of female op-ed writers kicked up. By then, I’d begun to write some opinion pieces of my own, and I took those columns—and the numbers themselves, which were in the first two months of 2005, 19.5 percent of op-ed pieces at the Los Angeles Times written by women, 16.9 percent at the New York Times and 10.4 percent at The Washington Post—as a
challenge, a call to pen-mightier-than-sword arms. That, I thought to myself, is what I want to do; I want to do my part to raise the number of women op-ed writers, at least by one.
I came to this goal honestly. Besides wanting to teach the deaf, as a child I loved to make up stories and to read stories. Writer flitted in and out of favor as potential work. And political activism was in my blood. I organized from forever: shows with the cousins, children’s rights initiatives in elementary school, everything from protests to a support group for children of divorce to blood drives in high school, reproductive rights work in college and throughout my twenties, and on... The writer and the organizer/activist come together into one when writing opinion pieces.
The opinionated women writers I most admire are those who bring themselves into their work, melding belief and voice and life experience, including Anna Quindlen, Ellen Goodman, Katha Pollitt, and of course Molly Ivins.
Losing Molly Ivins is to hear only silence where once was a booming voice, one that championed women and peace and justice and common sense and salty wisdom and never ignored the power of humor to help call it like you see it. The world’s just not as good without her. But she inspired many of us, and with our unique voices—mine’s less salty—I believe that she encouraged us to assert our strong female voices. I certainly feel additional urgency to use mine.
If someone asked me when I was a little girl what I wanted to be when I grew up, I wouldn’t have answered “kick-ass op-ed writer.” In fact, I wanted to teach deaf people, and my grandmother, Helen Buttenwieser, herself a pioneering lawyer, told me I was too young to know what I wanted to do. Given that she’d done something outrageous in terms of career, you’d think she’d have wanted to encourage her granddaughters (in fact, although liberal, she didn’t consider herself a feminist). I
must have been about eight at the time. I’d read all about Helen Keller, and darn it, I knew. It turned out that a couple of years later I learned sign language and that I spent much of middle school and high school volunteering at the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf. I think I actually did what I set out to do.
A couple of years back, a flurry of media frenzy over the paucity of female op-ed writers kicked up. By then, I’d begun to write some opinion pieces of my own, and I took those columns—and the numbers themselves, which were in the first two months of 2005, 19.5 percent of op-ed pieces at the Los Angeles Times written by women, 16.9 percent at the New York Times and 10.4 percent at The Washington Post—as a
challenge, a call to pen-mightier-than-sword arms. That, I thought to myself, is what I want to do; I want to do my part to raise the number of women op-ed writers, at least by one.
I came to this goal honestly. Besides wanting to teach the deaf, as a child I loved to make up stories and to read stories. Writer flitted in and out of favor as potential work. And political activism was in my blood. I organized from forever: shows with the cousins, children’s rights initiatives in elementary school, everything from protests to a support group for children of divorce to blood drives in high school, reproductive rights work in college and throughout my twenties, and on... The writer and the organizer/activist come together into one when writing opinion pieces.
The opinionated women writers I most admire are those who bring themselves into their work, melding belief and voice and life experience, including Anna Quindlen, Ellen Goodman, Katha Pollitt, and of course Molly Ivins.
Losing Molly Ivins is to hear only silence where once was a booming voice, one that championed women and peace and justice and common sense and salty wisdom and never ignored the power of humor to help call it like you see it. The world’s just not as good without her. But she inspired many of us, and with our unique voices—mine’s less salty—I believe that she encouraged us to assert our strong female voices. I certainly feel additional urgency to use mine.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Molly Ivins
''We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, 'Stop it, now!'' -Molly Ivins in her January 11th column.
Molly Ivins, activist, columnist and Smith alumna died today at age 62. Read her obituary in the New York Times.
The Berkley Daily Planet is compiling a collection of columns and articles that are critical of Bush and our current war in Iraq as a tribute to the late Molly Ivins called the Molly Ivins Tribute Project. You can also read about it here.
Monday, January 29, 2007
More Contraception, Fewer Abortions
by Carol Towarnicky
From the Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2007 issue of the Philadelphia Daily News. Click here to see the original article.
PLANNING parenthood is the right thing, the moral thing to do. Most Americans, whatever their faith or lack of it, believe this. Eighty-nine percent of women of childbearing age use some form of contraception.
It is such a given that some of our fellow citizens are quick to judge those they assume have had children they didn't plan for.
Writing sympathetically of mothers who struggle to feed or house their children is sure to prompt letters or e-mails calling them irresponsible for having kids in the first place.
At the same time, a Harris poll last spring found that support for Roe v. Wade, which decriminalized abortion, is at its lowest point ever - 49 percent in favor, 47 percent against. They are ambivalent about abortion in part because of a brilliant framing of the issue by anti-choice forces. Perhaps they are troubled by the fact that there are 1.3 million abortions in the United States each year, the highest rate in the developed world.
(Note to those who shy away from calling abortion "sad" or "tragic" for fear of adding to the ambivalence: Can't we agree it's better not to have an unintended pregnancy in the first place?)
Thousands of people took part in the March for Life marking the 34th anniversary of Roe on Monday. What I want to know is why they weren't examining their collective conscience to acknowledge their own contribution to the number of abortions?
No pro-life organization I know of actually supports increased access to contraception. The farthest they go is neutrality on the subject. In fact, many anti-abortion activists do their best to make birth control harder to get.
Few people outside these movements realize this. Anti-birth-control people don't dare come out and say that contraception is a sin - that would be a surefire way to turn off the overwhelming majority of Americans who use it. Instead, they bear false witness about the safety and effectiveness of birth control.
They claim that government funding for contraception for poor women is used to provide abortions, which simply isn't true. In fact, family planning funding is subject to strict regulation and auditing - oversight missing on government-funded abstinence-only and "alternatives to abortion" programs.
Pressure from religious-right investment funds have scared away pharmaceutical companies from doing research on better and more convenient contraceptive methods. Under the Bush administration, government-funded abstinence-only programs withhold the truth about contraception and even pass on false claims of health dangers.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has included false information on its Web site suggesting that condoms are not effective in preventing the spread of the HIV virus that causes AIDS.
The FDA was also complicit in a transparent attempt to delay making emergency contraception available over the counter for more than two years, even though it met all the requirements.
The campaign against planned parenthood culminated a few days after November's election when President Bush appointed Dr. Eric Keroack as director of the program that oversees 4,600 clinics providing family-planning services to low income women.
Keroack turns out to be a crackpot who maintains that people who engage in premarital sex use up a hormone, oxytocin, that prevents them from forging strong marriages. On top of that, Keroack headed a group that refused to provide contraception even to married couples.
AFTER SIX years of this insanity, finally there's a smart response: Legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate this month would increase family-planning funding to the level it would be if it had kept up with inflation. And - get this - the "Prevention First" legislation would ensure that the information given out by our own government about birth control is medically accurate.
Truth and responsibility is the right thing, the moral thing.
Praying With the News: On C-Span last week, Wisconsin Rep. Tammy Baldwin was filling in at the speaker's chair, occasionally pounding the gavel for order. An out lesbian presiding over the House. Thank you, God, for allowing us to reach this moment. Amen.
From the Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2007 issue of the Philadelphia Daily News. Click here to see the original article.
PLANNING parenthood is the right thing, the moral thing to do. Most Americans, whatever their faith or lack of it, believe this. Eighty-nine percent of women of childbearing age use some form of contraception.
It is such a given that some of our fellow citizens are quick to judge those they assume have had children they didn't plan for.
Writing sympathetically of mothers who struggle to feed or house their children is sure to prompt letters or e-mails calling them irresponsible for having kids in the first place.
At the same time, a Harris poll last spring found that support for Roe v. Wade, which decriminalized abortion, is at its lowest point ever - 49 percent in favor, 47 percent against. They are ambivalent about abortion in part because of a brilliant framing of the issue by anti-choice forces. Perhaps they are troubled by the fact that there are 1.3 million abortions in the United States each year, the highest rate in the developed world.
(Note to those who shy away from calling abortion "sad" or "tragic" for fear of adding to the ambivalence: Can't we agree it's better not to have an unintended pregnancy in the first place?)
Thousands of people took part in the March for Life marking the 34th anniversary of Roe on Monday. What I want to know is why they weren't examining their collective conscience to acknowledge their own contribution to the number of abortions?
No pro-life organization I know of actually supports increased access to contraception. The farthest they go is neutrality on the subject. In fact, many anti-abortion activists do their best to make birth control harder to get.
Few people outside these movements realize this. Anti-birth-control people don't dare come out and say that contraception is a sin - that would be a surefire way to turn off the overwhelming majority of Americans who use it. Instead, they bear false witness about the safety and effectiveness of birth control.
They claim that government funding for contraception for poor women is used to provide abortions, which simply isn't true. In fact, family planning funding is subject to strict regulation and auditing - oversight missing on government-funded abstinence-only and "alternatives to abortion" programs.
Pressure from religious-right investment funds have scared away pharmaceutical companies from doing research on better and more convenient contraceptive methods. Under the Bush administration, government-funded abstinence-only programs withhold the truth about contraception and even pass on false claims of health dangers.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has included false information on its Web site suggesting that condoms are not effective in preventing the spread of the HIV virus that causes AIDS.
The FDA was also complicit in a transparent attempt to delay making emergency contraception available over the counter for more than two years, even though it met all the requirements.
The campaign against planned parenthood culminated a few days after November's election when President Bush appointed Dr. Eric Keroack as director of the program that oversees 4,600 clinics providing family-planning services to low income women.
Keroack turns out to be a crackpot who maintains that people who engage in premarital sex use up a hormone, oxytocin, that prevents them from forging strong marriages. On top of that, Keroack headed a group that refused to provide contraception even to married couples.
AFTER SIX years of this insanity, finally there's a smart response: Legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate this month would increase family-planning funding to the level it would be if it had kept up with inflation. And - get this - the "Prevention First" legislation would ensure that the information given out by our own government about birth control is medically accurate.
Truth and responsibility is the right thing, the moral thing.
Praying With the News: On C-Span last week, Wisconsin Rep. Tammy Baldwin was filling in at the speaker's chair, occasionally pounding the gavel for order. An out lesbian presiding over the House. Thank you, God, for allowing us to reach this moment. Amen.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Real “Women?”
By C. Bradford
Upon graduating from Scripps College, an all women’s liberal arts college, this past May, I had idealized thoughts of what the “real world” would be like. True, I already knew that many of my imaginings could not come to pass anytime soon. For example, seeing President Bush step down and a woman step up would make my political dreams come true, (which are already on the way with Nancy Pelosi now in power!) At the same time, I could not help but make what I thought to be “realistic expectations” for what lay in store. What follows is an example from the real world about how real women do not support each other, and instead tear themselves (and each other) down in their attempts to gain a competitive edge.
In June, I began a postbaccalaureate program at a competitive school in the Pacific Northwest in order to enter a master’s program. I am thrilled to finally be studying what I am really passionate about, and living in the Northwest (one of the most laid-back, liberal places on the West coast, complete with people walking around in Birkenstocks and socks) is very refreshing compared to the stuffy Southern California attitude. I was ready for a change, and I knew that I could not have chosen a better place to begin my life-after-Scripps.
At the orientation meeting, I was excited to find out that twenty out of twenty-two people in my program were women. After all, I had just graduated from a powerful women’s college, and my four years there had reinforced my opinions about valuing and respecting women in all aspects of life. After going through one-by-one and hearing a brief synopsis of my classmates’ backgrounds, education, why they love the field, and their middle name, I was proud to be part of this group of amazing women (and two men) and was excited to begin classes.
But things are not always as they seem. I first began to doubt my expectations soon after the introductions were made and people were milling around eating and drinking, when I realized that everyone was keeping track of how much everyone else was eating. One girl practically yelled across the room at me, “Oh my God, you’ve had like a thousand Teddy Grahams! How are you so skinny?” as if she expected me to gain all that weight right before her very eyes. Or maybe she expected me to blow up like Violet from Willy Wonka once she started chewing three-course-meal gum. She then proceeded to impersonate a fat person by puffing out her checks and extending her arms at her sides, saying that that is what she would like if she had eaten all those Teddy Grahams, (like a thousand). I was shocked that she would venture to do something that stupid in front of everyone, especially since we had just met. It was even more disturbing that she had been monitoring my vast consumption of the free food provided (true to form of any Scrippsie), and would judge me for it.
Throughout the next few weeks, similar instances like this happened with the other women in the program. They were not limited to food and eating, for example, all of the women would dote on the few men in the program, acting flirty and touchy-feely with them. I felt like I was constantly up against a jury that never ceased to make judgments about me and each other. I did not understand; I was accustomed to being surrounded by women, but these were a very different sort than I was used to.
The structure of the program does not easily provide for real, meaningful relationships, either. The courses were lecture-based, and grades were almost completely derived on scores from three standardized tests. After the tests were scored by a computer, they would post all the scores corresponding to our seven digit ID number. This way, everyone could guess what number matched what person, and how she did on the test. This, along with the occasional “group” projects, where people would form cliques at the first mention and then remain attached at the hip, dictated our grades. The whole situation seemed to foster competitiveness, and before I knew it, people started paying attention to all the extracurricular activities outside of school that we were engaging in. It was a giant contest to see who could be the best, and who would “take your spot” in graduate school.
It was every woman for herself, and I felt like I could not do anything without receiving some sort of scrutiny from the firing squad. Eventually, my roommate Shannon, who is also in the program, and I started to isolate ourselves from the group because we did not enjoy the constant judgment which seemed to be attached to all friendships among the postbacs. This separation from the group caused some rumors to go around, including one that Shannon and I were lesbians. We laughed because that seemed to be their only reason, and poor explanation, for why two women would be such close friends. After that rumor died, another one started that explained our lack of interest in bonding with the group by assuming we were snobs. Now, there is another that we are too dorky for the group. All in all, we do not fit in, and it seems as though we never will.
Then I got to thinking about the women in my program and women in general (that is, outside of Scripps), and I decided that we are practically two different species: one type encourages feminism and equal opportunities, recognizing that it is important to support all women because we are all in it together. The other type is fake, and likes to pretend that they are in it for the same reasons, yet at the same time, they work behind your back, constantly judging and putting down other women to make themselves feel better and to get ahead in the game. Given this situation, my species seems to be endangered, which is something that I never expected to find.
At a pre-grad school Q & A session with one of my favorite professors, the topic was raised of women in the field. To my relief, she started off on a tangent about how women in the field need to stick together and support each other. Oftentimes dealing with the doctors in related fields, mostly men, our opinions get put to the wayside and discarded, even though they are just as valid, relevant, and possibly more knowledgeable given the circumstance and reason for diagnosis and treatment. Her tangent was greeted with inky skepticism and vacant stares. That was so depressing. How could they not be aware of our potential as a field of educated women? Was I the only one who was reassured and comforted about this epiphany? That yes, a Scripps view on life and womanhood can exist in the real world? No one else said a thing, and as I looked around, I tried not to let the others affect my giddy excitement and rediscovered meaning of the word “woman.”
The more I think about the women in my program, the more I realize how different I am. It seems to me that they all get along very well with the men in our program, and yet refuse to get close to another woman except on some sort of superficial and phony level. If the women in this “ranked number two in the nation” program act this way towards each other, then think of how other women must behave toward one another. I am not one of these women who seem to feel that it’s somehow necessary to become a man in order to survive, and if that defines what being a woman in the “real world” really is, then I don’t want any part of it.
Upon graduating from Scripps College, an all women’s liberal arts college, this past May, I had idealized thoughts of what the “real world” would be like. True, I already knew that many of my imaginings could not come to pass anytime soon. For example, seeing President Bush step down and a woman step up would make my political dreams come true, (which are already on the way with Nancy Pelosi now in power!) At the same time, I could not help but make what I thought to be “realistic expectations” for what lay in store. What follows is an example from the real world about how real women do not support each other, and instead tear themselves (and each other) down in their attempts to gain a competitive edge.
In June, I began a postbaccalaureate program at a competitive school in the Pacific Northwest in order to enter a master’s program. I am thrilled to finally be studying what I am really passionate about, and living in the Northwest (one of the most laid-back, liberal places on the West coast, complete with people walking around in Birkenstocks and socks) is very refreshing compared to the stuffy Southern California attitude. I was ready for a change, and I knew that I could not have chosen a better place to begin my life-after-Scripps.
At the orientation meeting, I was excited to find out that twenty out of twenty-two people in my program were women. After all, I had just graduated from a powerful women’s college, and my four years there had reinforced my opinions about valuing and respecting women in all aspects of life. After going through one-by-one and hearing a brief synopsis of my classmates’ backgrounds, education, why they love the field, and their middle name, I was proud to be part of this group of amazing women (and two men) and was excited to begin classes.
But things are not always as they seem. I first began to doubt my expectations soon after the introductions were made and people were milling around eating and drinking, when I realized that everyone was keeping track of how much everyone else was eating. One girl practically yelled across the room at me, “Oh my God, you’ve had like a thousand Teddy Grahams! How are you so skinny?” as if she expected me to gain all that weight right before her very eyes. Or maybe she expected me to blow up like Violet from Willy Wonka once she started chewing three-course-meal gum. She then proceeded to impersonate a fat person by puffing out her checks and extending her arms at her sides, saying that that is what she would like if she had eaten all those Teddy Grahams, (like a thousand). I was shocked that she would venture to do something that stupid in front of everyone, especially since we had just met. It was even more disturbing that she had been monitoring my vast consumption of the free food provided (true to form of any Scrippsie), and would judge me for it.
Throughout the next few weeks, similar instances like this happened with the other women in the program. They were not limited to food and eating, for example, all of the women would dote on the few men in the program, acting flirty and touchy-feely with them. I felt like I was constantly up against a jury that never ceased to make judgments about me and each other. I did not understand; I was accustomed to being surrounded by women, but these were a very different sort than I was used to.
The structure of the program does not easily provide for real, meaningful relationships, either. The courses were lecture-based, and grades were almost completely derived on scores from three standardized tests. After the tests were scored by a computer, they would post all the scores corresponding to our seven digit ID number. This way, everyone could guess what number matched what person, and how she did on the test. This, along with the occasional “group” projects, where people would form cliques at the first mention and then remain attached at the hip, dictated our grades. The whole situation seemed to foster competitiveness, and before I knew it, people started paying attention to all the extracurricular activities outside of school that we were engaging in. It was a giant contest to see who could be the best, and who would “take your spot” in graduate school.
It was every woman for herself, and I felt like I could not do anything without receiving some sort of scrutiny from the firing squad. Eventually, my roommate Shannon, who is also in the program, and I started to isolate ourselves from the group because we did not enjoy the constant judgment which seemed to be attached to all friendships among the postbacs. This separation from the group caused some rumors to go around, including one that Shannon and I were lesbians. We laughed because that seemed to be their only reason, and poor explanation, for why two women would be such close friends. After that rumor died, another one started that explained our lack of interest in bonding with the group by assuming we were snobs. Now, there is another that we are too dorky for the group. All in all, we do not fit in, and it seems as though we never will.
Then I got to thinking about the women in my program and women in general (that is, outside of Scripps), and I decided that we are practically two different species: one type encourages feminism and equal opportunities, recognizing that it is important to support all women because we are all in it together. The other type is fake, and likes to pretend that they are in it for the same reasons, yet at the same time, they work behind your back, constantly judging and putting down other women to make themselves feel better and to get ahead in the game. Given this situation, my species seems to be endangered, which is something that I never expected to find.
At a pre-grad school Q & A session with one of my favorite professors, the topic was raised of women in the field. To my relief, she started off on a tangent about how women in the field need to stick together and support each other. Oftentimes dealing with the doctors in related fields, mostly men, our opinions get put to the wayside and discarded, even though they are just as valid, relevant, and possibly more knowledgeable given the circumstance and reason for diagnosis and treatment. Her tangent was greeted with inky skepticism and vacant stares. That was so depressing. How could they not be aware of our potential as a field of educated women? Was I the only one who was reassured and comforted about this epiphany? That yes, a Scripps view on life and womanhood can exist in the real world? No one else said a thing, and as I looked around, I tried not to let the others affect my giddy excitement and rediscovered meaning of the word “woman.”
The more I think about the women in my program, the more I realize how different I am. It seems to me that they all get along very well with the men in our program, and yet refuse to get close to another woman except on some sort of superficial and phony level. If the women in this “ranked number two in the nation” program act this way towards each other, then think of how other women must behave toward one another. I am not one of these women who seem to feel that it’s somehow necessary to become a man in order to survive, and if that defines what being a woman in the “real world” really is, then I don’t want any part of it.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Resolutions That Matter
"Thanks, Al Gore" collage by Ilana Panich-LinsmanWhat are your energy-saving resolutions for the new year? Check out 2006 Top Green Tech Ideas by Kelpie Wilson, t r u t h o u t's environment columnist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)