Double Standard, Double Foul

Lots of fussing in the US -- and rightly so -- over a planned ad for the upcoming Super Olympics of Commercialism and Cholestrol-loaded Snacks Bowl XLIV bought to you by James Dobson's right-wing, anti-choice, anti-same sex marriage, super Christian Focus on the Family.

The spot, which advocates against choice, features college football star and minister Tim Tebow and his missionary mother in what is obviously a heartwrenching story.

But American women -- whose reproductive choices are already under attack by other religious groups, plus their own Congress -- are objecting, claiming that the ad is divisive and doesn't belong on the highest-rated show of the year.

The ad - paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family - is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two BCS championships.

The controversy over the ad was raised Sunday when Tebow met with reporters in Mobile, Ala., before beginning preparations for next weekend's Senior Bowl.

"I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe," Tebow said. "I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it."

Thirty-second commercials during the Super Bowl are selling for $2.5 million to $2.8 million. Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, said funds for the Tebow ad were donated by a few "very generous friends" and did not come from the group's general fund.

Now, believe it or not, I have no problem with advocacy groups buying airtime on the publicly-owned airwaves, even if I don't agree with their cause. I see pitches for all sorts of issues, religions and, of course, during elections, politicians I loathe. 

I just think it's fair that the sources of funding for the ads be revealed.

I also feel that the policy should apply across the board. If you can buy an ad that is against choice, then you should be able to buy an ad that promotes choice or any other idea, as long as it's legal. No?

In recent years, there's been one Super Bowl ad controversy after another -- and all of them are ''resolved'' by CBS kowtowing to the (religious) right.

In 2004, the network did not see fit to air an ad by Move.on advocating against George W. Bush.

In 2006, it rejected a United Church of Jesus ad promoting its open arms policy towards gays and lesbians.

At the time, CBS claimed it had a policy of refusing advertising that "touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance".

Last year, it was a PETA ad that didn't get by the network censors. Okay, so it was sexist but it isn't much different from much of what airs in prime time already.

Now, once again, the network appeases the right by offending those who believe that a woman 's rights trumps those of the fetus in her body. Nothing like drop-kicking women.

But wait!

Before we Canadians get that smug, superior look on our mugs, know that Vancouver-based AdBusters, an anti-corporate advocacy group, has repeatedly tried -- and failed -- to get its non-commercial commercials (eg. the vodka ''ad'' above) on the networks. Not even the public broadcaster CBC will give it access. Not at any price.

And, as two readers have informed me, guess what's been airing in primetime Toronto, on the CTV-owned CP24?

Yup.

You guessed it.

 

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: Give it up for Shakespeare Sister Melissa in yesterday's Guardian!

... such ads make no effort to appeal to women's reason. Implicit, and not very subtly so, is the narrative that a pregnant woman should prostrate herself at the feet of the Fates because of the possibility that she may give birth to A Great Man.

And let us not mince words: It is no coincidence that we are meant to "imagine" the snuffing out of a man's potential via abortion, forestalling as it does our "imagining" the protagonist's potential come to a screeching, shuddering halt in the shadow of an unwanted pregnancy that cannot be terminated.

WAY UP THERE WOMAN DATE: Wow. Luna, our favourite Feminist Christian Socialist and frequent commenter, posted this awesome commentary.

How did Pam Tebow do it? How did she have four kids, and spend the last part of her pregnancy in hospital? Did she have AWESOME health insurance? No... she was in the Philippines where her medical needs were taken care of. Focus on the Family is AGAINST the health care bill. Again, they are proving that they don't have a second thought for women, or even for the babies, once they are born.

And who looked after her other kids? Obviously, she had a support system. What would I do in her situation? I have two kids at home who need constant care. I don't have family in town. The women at my church, while awesome, are not capable of looking after Crackle, his meltdowns and his extremely restricted diet. If I'm incapacitated, we're screwed. The Tebow's had more than just luck and God's blessing. They had resources. It's amazing how that sort of thing is just brushed under the rug. How we're all lumped into the same category.

On the way to the pub after today's NoProrogue Rally ...

The toys. Think of the toys ...

Turns out this billboard goes up every year around Christmas -- at least that's what the server at the Imperial Pub told me. I know I have blogged it before, back in early 2008.

So ... Is the Niagara Region Right to Life Group in the toy biz? Own Mattel stock? Work for Santa?

Well gee, maybe some of those poor lonely and idle toys could be sent to Haiti, hmm?

Big Idea

Well, since we're on a body image jag tonight ...

Here's a sane idea from Spain, via Ad Age:

LONDON (AdAge.com) -- Marketers in Spain could be banned from advertising certain beauty products and services before 10 p.m., as the government attempts to stamp out the growing number of eating disorders and improve the mental health of young women fixated on their weight and appearance.

<SNIP>

Ads for diet products, some beauty treatments and plastic surgery are now officially considered more dangerous for young people than commercials for alcohol, which can be advertised from 9 p.m.

The lower chamber of Spain's parliament has passed the law, and the upper chamber is expected to ratify it within weeks. It's unclear when the ban will go into effect.

The new law states: "Broadcasters cannot carry advertisements for things that encourage the cult of the body and have a negative impact on self-image -- such as slimming products, surgical procedures and beauty treatments -- which are based on ideas of social rejection as a result of one's physical image or that success is dependent on factors such as weight or looks."

"The ban is about product function rather than the content of the communication," said Alex Pallete, chief strategic officer at Lowe Group's Lola Madrid. "The goal is that no under-18s will be affected by mental issues like anorexia and bulimia. In Spain, people tend to go for non-surgical methods of slimming, like not eating or vomiting, but we have had a lot of immigration from Latin America, where plastic surgery is much more common, and their culture has influenced our culture."

Mr. Pallete said that in 2008, 7,000 ads were broadcast that now fall into the banned "body worship" categories. The beauty and hygiene segment is the third-biggest TV spender in Spain, accounting for $708 million in airtime in 2008.

While debating the 10 pm watershed for slimming products and plastic surgery, the government considered -- but eventually rejected -- a far more drastic ban that would have included all products advertised as "lite," potentially banning ads for a wide range of food and drinks like Coke Lite and light beer.

<SNIP>

Mr. Pallete predicts that advertisers will follow the example of cigarettes and alcohol, maintaining their budgets but diverting the money to sponsorships, events and online. Or they may just advertise late at night...

Spain, you might recall, has been ahead of the curve, so to speak, on body image issues. In 2006, after the starvation deaths of some models in South America, it banned ultra-thin girls from the catwalks of Madrid. A year later, it got major retailers such as the international Zara chain, to agree not to use display mannequins smaller than a size 6.

Which is all well and good.

But Spanish girls have access to media from all over Europe and the rest of the world. Unless every fashion editor and designer stops pushing skeletal teenagers onto the runways and into editorial pages, anorexia, bulimia and emotional disorders will continue to plague women.

Wish this idea could spread around the world.

Stretching the truth

The Gothamist spotted this huge bit of digital manipulation, which no doubt helped to fat shame women even more than it already does.

It shows Mad Men bombshell Christina Hendricks at Sunday's Golden Globes.

On the right, the original. On the left, as published.

Everybody knows Hendricks' globes and everything else about her are golden. She works them all as part of her role on the incredibly successful series about the ad bizz in the 1960s.

But in this big fat lie of a photo -- Gothamist has a screen grab of the original -- she's distorted, ostensibly to make the writer's point that Hendricks made a fashion faux pas:

... pretty Christina Hendricks in Christian Siriano’s exploding ruffle dress. (As one stylist said, 'You don’t put a big girl in a big dress.')"

Now, if this was performed by some celebrity trash tab or bitchy gossip site, it would be one thing. But no. It was in the New York Times.

All the news re-sized to print.

H/T Dammit Janet!

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: One of my Tweeps suggested this may have been the result of some clumsy page lay-out. Maybe. A very interesting one, no?

Reproductive Rights Round-Up Redux

So while I was away, I missed lots of anti-choice choice bits. Here's a quick summary:

Two more men have turned in their Order of Canada medals in protest of the over pro-choice activist and hero Dr. Henry Morgentaler getting the award in 2008.

I can't imagine what too them so long.

From the back of the turnip truck, the latest from one of our favourite punching bags, the one, the only Conservative member for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin Maurice Vellacott. Turns out that the delight of the forced-birther brigade managed to dig up one credible source for his medically-dismissed claim that having an abortion gives a woman breast cancer.

Except that, when you trace the source back to its source, it all falls apart.

The relationship between induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk has been the subject of extensive research beginning in the late 1950s. Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.

Now I would love to just have another laugh at Mr. Vellacott's expense but what really galls me is how quickly right-wingers, feigning concern over women's health, jump on the turnip truck to scare and score points against us. You'd think that, if they cared so much about women's lives, they'd ensure we have access to safe and legal abortion.

That's one reason why I agree with this statement, issued two weeks ago:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper must disavow Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott’s false and misleading statements about abortion, Liberal Status of Women Critic Anita Neville said today.

“Mr. Vellacott persists in spreading propaganda about abortion that is not based in any scientific fact – adding to his history of denigrating women and their rights and freedoms,” said Ms. Neville. “This misinformation is highly damaging to women – yet the prime minister continues to be silent on the matter.”

Silent but deadly.

That's because, as Emily deftly outlines in various posts, which you can find in her links here, Harper's government has repeatedly proposed legislation or enforced policies that have threatened not only women's abortion rights but all their rights. This post in particular is most revealing of the Cons ultra-conservative roots, and their attitudes towards women. Read this one too.

If these guys get a majority, we might turn into the Republic of Gilead.

Which brings us to what's happening in the US, where women's abortion and contraception rights are being eroded.

(Today, NARAL Pro-Choice America released its annual report, complete with an interactive map showing each state's record and stance on aboerion.)

Looks like Florida has joined the joined the list of states that has declared Walking Incubator Units as subject to government oversight, giving new meaning to the term ''confinement.''

Last March, Florida resident Samantha Burton was in week 25 of her pregnancy when she paid a visit to her doctor. Burton was showing signs of potential miscarriage, so her physician ordered bed rest. Burton explained that, as a working mother of two toddlers, bed rest simply wasn't a viable option and then proceeded to ask for a second medical opinion. Seems reasonable, right?

Her doctor, however, was having none of that. Rather than refer Burton for the desired second opinion, he instead felt it necessary to contact state authorities, who then proceeded to force Burton to be admitted to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital against her will and undergo any procedure the doctor felt like prescribing. When Burton had the audacity to request a change in the hospital in which she was being treated, the court denied her request. Three days into her forced hospitalization, Burton miscarried.

Never mind that there is actually no scientific research to support the claim that bed rest helps prevent preterm birth and that even the American College of of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not believe it should be routinely recommended. Never mind Burton's very real concern for the care of her two small children. Never mind the psychological, physical, and financial toll this takes on her family. The only thing that mattered to the doctor and the government was that they got their (ultimately ineffectual) way.

Oh, and did I mention this case gets worse? Burton (with help from her pro bono lawyer and the ACLU) sued the State of Florida claiming it -- duh -- violated her constitutional rights. The court ruled against her, claiming that that State was merely maintaining "status quo" in the situation.

Incidentally, the woman was a smoker, which compounded the problem.

Over to JJ.

The idea of “fetal rights”, a relatively recent weapon in the arsenal against abortion rights, is offensive on a few levels — primarily because — hello?? — *my* pregnancy is none of *your* business, and vice-versa.  But it’s also an unworkable concept because it compromises the pregnant woman’s rights.   If a fetus has the same rights as the woman carrying it — to the point where the state considers it a “child” they can intervene to protect — the pregnant woman has significantly less personal liberty than her non-pregnant sister, who can’t be ordered by the state to quit smoking and take to her sickbed.

Moving along, Dammit Janet! has more news from the uterine nationalization wars.

New Law Requires Women to Name baby, Paint Nursery before getting Abortion.

Which is obviously -- or maybe not -- a joke.

For now.

Motherload

One of the many reasons I haven't been blogging in the past week is that I am utterly in shock over Haiti.

It's not just the scale of the death and destruction that is bothering me. It's the world response, despite the outpouring of aid, and the media coverage.

I will have much more to say about this in a column tomorrow. But for now, all I ask is that you give. And give.

Choose wisely.

One of my suggestions is Partners in Health, which was on the ground there long before the newsnet cameras rolled in. You can do that by texting ''help'' to 1291.

Aside from the usual relief efforts, I am also supporting Madre.

MADRE is an international women’s human rights organization that works in partnership with community-based women's organizations worldwide to address issues of health and reproductive rights, economic development, education and other human rights. We provide resources and training to enable our sister organizations to meet these goals by addressing immediate needs in their communities and developing long-term solutions to the crises they face.

We work towards a world in which all people enjoy the fullest range of individual and collective human rights; in which resources are shared equitably and sustainably; in which women participate effectively in all aspects of society; and in which people have a meaningful say in decisions that affect their lives.

More here:

We have determined that our partner organization in Haiti, Zanmi Lasante, is able to bring humanitarian aid overland into the country. Teams of healthcare workers from the project have established a functioning supply chain through the Dominican Republic and are currently delivering medical aid to those most in need in Haiti.

Zanmi Lasante has more than 120 doctors and nearly 500 nurses and nursing assistants coordinating emergency medical relief efforts. They are setting up mobile field hospitals in Port-au-Prince, where staff can triage patients, provide emergency care and send those who need surgery or more complex treatment to our partner’s functioning hospitals and surgical facilities outside the destroyed city.

Why Madre?

Because its focus is on supporting women, who too often find themselves at the back of the line when it comes to food, shelter, healthcare, education ... 

All Haitians are suffering right now. But, women are often hardest hit when disaster strikes because they were at a deficit even before the catastrophe. In Haiti, and in every country, women are the poorest and often have no safety net, leaving them most exposed to violence, homelessness and hunger in the wake of disasters. Women are also overwhelmingly responsible for other vulnerable people, including infants, children, the elderly, and people who are ill or disabled.

Like Hillary Clinton said just last week: If you teach a man to fish, he will eat the rest of his life. Teach a women to fish, and she will feed the whole village.

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: Almost forgot to add this fine piece about Madre by the Star's Leslie Scrivener.

A Haitian women's organization documented 238 rapes in an 18-month period ending June 2008: 140 of those were girls aged 19 months to 18 years.

Prosecutions for rape, which became a criminal offence only in 2005, are pitifully few. The Guardian newspaper reported in a documentary film last year only 12 rape cases went to trial and that the police unit in charge of child protection has only 12 officers for 4 million children.

"I am not able to go to the police because I am really frightened," a girl named Stephanie, who was raped during carnival in February 2007, told Amnesty International. "The attackers really pressured me not to report them although I don't know them. This is all so humiliating. I had to stay quiet."

A girl named Laure described to Amnesty International how her landlord forced her to have sex – sometimes at gunpoint – so her family would not be evicted. When Laure's mother complained to the police, she was beaten up and Laure was raped again.

Hot button issue

Okay, I don't think the Star overlords would like me to delve into a deep gynecological discussion here. Suffice to say that, women's genitals, already targeted for mutilation in some cultures, not to mention big moneymakers for the cosmetic surgery industry here, come in all shapes, sizes and colours.

Thanks (or no thanks) to the easy availability of porn, now, just like everything else that women are subjected to, or subject themselves to, there can only be one type of kitty in the litter.

It has to be just so. Just like every other part of your body.

Well, dear reader, if you don't want to go under the knife at the forks, so to speak, there's a quick fix.

Via Little Miss Brightside -- and regular contributor to the comments here, Canadian Nurse -- I've learned of a product designed to give you a designer vadge. Think of it as lipgloss for your lady parts.

Explains the maker, ''certified paramedical esthetician,''

“My New Pink Button” is a Cosmetic Dye especially for the woman's genital area, to help restore that healthy vibrant Rosy color.  Until now there has never been a solution for restoring natural pigment. This is a concern with many women and more than you can even imagine, and a frequent question that Physicians are asked. Check out the blogs on the Internet. You are not alone!  This is a common problem and we now have a simple and safe solution, restoring sexual confidence to Women everywhere! 

And it comes in FOUR FABULOUS COLOURS! Marilyn, Bettie, Ginger and Audry.

Raves one in-the-pink customer:

I was embarrassed about the color change for years and my doctor said there was nothing you could do about it. I was too embarrassed to even discuss it with my friends, and when I finally did I found out I wasn’t alone. We love this product, and it works! Thank you so much.

-Rochelle C. 51 years old

Talk about your burning bush.

As if Brazilians weren't bad enough.

Breast-beating

It's no secret that male and female brains are hard-wired differently. 

Years ago, I saw a documentary that showed a couple having sex in an MRI or similar scanning machine.

While the man's brain was red hot in one segment of his brain, the woman's brain was various densities of pink all over. This was interpreted to mean that men's brains are more specialized -- ie. with different sections responsible for different neuro- or motor functions -- while women used more of their brains, or at least greater parts of them.

I joke to my friends that, during sex, guys are focused on the deed while women are thinking stuff like ''Oh God, look at my stomach jiggling''' and/or ''I hope the kids stay asleep'' and/or ''Better remember to pick up the dry cleaning tomorrow'' and/or ''Geez, how did I miss those cobwebs on the ceiling?''

Whatever. These basic differences, the doc explained, could be why women have a better chance of recovering normal verbal or movement abilities after a stroke. Other sections of their brain would take over those functions -- while men were left with gaping neurological deficits because a pertinent part of their brain was wiped out.

I don't know if subsequent research has proven all this or not -- although the fact that there are gender-specific differences has been confirmed. 

I suppose you could explain this all with evolution. Women are generally better multi-taskers because they have to be. Through the ages, they minded the kids, tended the fires, gathered the nuts and berries, made the clothes, and all that other ''work is never done'' work. They also had to, as the weaker sex (at while least pregnant or nursing), be better able to get along with others in order to survive.

Men had to be more single-minded in order to seek and hunt down dinner -- or to fend off the neighbouring marauding tribes.

Following this logic, it would explain why men are more aggressive and/or assertive than women. Survival of the fittest, the biggest, the loudest, the most confident ...

Which brings us to new media wiz Clay Shirky's much-talked "Rant about women'' of last Friday. In a one line summation, to borrow from Chrystal, women ''need to learn to act like jerks.''

[W]omen in general, and the women whose educations I am responsible for in particular, ... aren't just bad at behaving like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks. They are bad at behaving like self-promoting narcissists, anti-social obsessives, or pompous blowhards, even a little bit, even temporarily, even when it would be in their best interests to do so. Whatever bad things you can say about those behaviors, you can't say they are underrepresented among people who have changed the world.

<SNIP>

Now I don't know what to do about this problem. (The essence of a rant, in fact, is that the ranter has no idea how to fix the thing being ranted about.) What I do know is this: it would be good if more women see interesting opportunities that they might not be qualified for, opportunities which they might in fact f**k up if they try to take them on, and then try to take them on. It would be good if more women got in the habit of raising their hands and saying "I can do that. Sign me up. My work is awesome," no matter how many people that behavior upsets.

<AND>

Now this is asking women to behave more like men, but so what? We ask people to cross gender lines all the time. We’re in the middle of a generations-long project to encourage men to be better listeners and more sensitive partners, to take more account of others’ feelings and to let out our own feelings more. Similarly, I see colleges spending time and effort teaching women strategies for self-defense, including direct physical aggression. I sometimes wonder what would happen, though, if my college spent as much effort teaching women self-advancement as self-defense.

Gotta say, there's something to that. Instead of women spending so much time on Oprah admonitions to self-improve, maybe they'd be better off acting like it's everybody and everything else that needs fixing -- and they are just the -- irony alert! -- man for the job.

Bet that wage gap (PDF) would narrow really fast.

Fun multi-media extras! Click here for a 1950 CBC Radio forum on pay equity. The struggle continues.

And go here to see if your brain is more male or more female.

Saddling up

You know what John Lennon said about life happening while you're busy making other plans?

He was right.

Been away too long, due to circumstances beyond my control-freak control.

I'll get back on the horse tomorrow.

Meantime, read this, by friend and colleague Haroon Siddiqui.

(And how dare Harper prorogue while I was otherwise occupied?)

Happy New Year.

2010 is gonna be a bitch.