The Way We Were

This first-person account by Bridget Potter, who found herself pregnant at 19 in the pre-Pill days of 1962, speaks for itself.

Here are some excerpts. But please read the whole chilling thing.

Sociologist Rickie Solinger in her book Wake Up Little Susie, describes what it was like to have an unwanted pregnancy in 1962. The woman might be “futilely appealing to a hospital abortion committee; being diagnosed as neurotic, even psychotic by a mental health professional; expelled from school (by law until 1972); unemployed; in a Salvation Army or some other maternity home; poor, alone, ashamed, threatened by the law.” There was also an acute social stigma attached to an unwed mother with an illegitimate child; maternity homes were frequently frightening and far away. All counseled adoption. The only alternatives were a shotgun wedding or an illegal abortion.

According to a 1958 Kinsey study, illegal abortion was the option chosen by 80 percent of single women with unwanted pregnancies. Statistics on illegal abortion are notoriously unreliable, but the Guttmacher Institute, a respected international organization dedicated to sexual and reproductive health, estimates that during the pre-Roe vs. Wade years there were up to one million illegal abortions performed in the United States each year. Illegal and often unsafe. In 1965, they count almost two hundred known deaths from illegal abortions, but the actual number was, they estimate, much higher, since the majority went unreported.

<SNIP>

Emily Perl knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who had been taken care of by a woman in an apartment on West 86th Street. When Michael and I arrived, she put the chain on the inside of the door and peeped through the crack. She let me in but demanded that Michael wait in the lobby. The room was dark, overheated, and smelled of boiled cabbage. I glimpsed a big Victorian wood-framed, red velvet couch and a round, oak pedestal table through the dinge. In her fifties, the woman had an Eastern European accent, suspiciously black hair, and smeary scarlet lipstick. She was curt.

She would “pack” my uterus and send me home where I must rest. For a day or two. When I started to bleed I must return and she would take care of it. What would she put inside me, I asked clumsily. “Stoff,” she replied. Where would she “take care” of it, I asked. She pointed to a door. “In ze udder room.” I must “svear” not go to a doctor or a hospital. I understood the chilling threat. “It’s nowting,” she said. “If you wanna now is fine. Five hunnerd dollars. Cash.”

My rent was sixty dollars a month. I earned sixty dollars a week, forty-seven dollars after taxes. I could barely make it Friday to Friday. I thanked her and fled. There had to be a cheaper, safer way.

<SNIP>

Written in pencil was a name and an address. My dress was wet, my tarmacked shoes stuck to the ground as I walked. I had proud long hair then that I ironed straight. It frizzed in the humidity. I handed a cab driver the paper. He spoke no English but I could tell that he  thought I was mistaken, that I didn’t want to go there. That it was far. Yes, yes. I nodded emphatically at the paper, taking it back from him and pointing with my finger at the address. Finally I understood his words: twenty dollars. I handed him money and off we went, out of San Juan, on dirt roads for what seemed like hours, to a small village built around a grassy square. The square was still, empty save for a few mangy looking dogs, a couple of chickens, and two old men sitting on a bench playing a board game. He dropped me in front of an open building, which appeared to be someone’s house.

A small man glanced at me from inside, and pointed to the whitewashed stairs that rose along the wall. At the top stood a second man, dressed in white pants and an undershirt. His massive shoulders and arms were those of a wrestler. He must be a bodyguard, I thought. But he immediately started talking about the money in fluent, barely accented English. He could take care of me but traveler’s checks were no good to him. I didn’t have enough money for the cab fair to the hotel and back again on top of the two hundred and fifty dollars that he was demanding. Are you alone, he asked? Yes, I said. We agreed on two hundred dollars. He would wait. I returned in the twilight with the cash.

A wooden table, no anesthesia, a scraping sound, and a newspaper-lined metal bucket. I moaned. Be quiet, he demanded. Or did I want him to stop? No, no. Go on. Please. Go on.

<SNIP>

In the New York Times in June 2008, Waldo Fielding, a retired gynecologist, described his experience with incomplete abortion complications.

“The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous ‘coat hanger’—which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth. In my years in New York, several women arrived with a hanger still in place. Whoever put it in—perhaps the patient herself—found it trapped in the cervix and could not remove it… Almost any implement you can imagine had been and was used to start an abortion—darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off.”

Three years after my trip to San Juan, illegal abortion officially accounted for 17 percent of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth in the U.S. It is speculated that the actual number was likely much higher.

Today, about sixty-seven thousand women worldwide still die each year from abortions, mostly in countries where the procedure is illegal.

Did I happen to mention that PM Stephen Harper doesn't think that contraception, never mind abortion, has anything to do with maternal health?

Blood simple

Today's treeware, about how the period is having a period. With bonus links and videos!

Bloody hell! So now we have "menstrual activism."

Two weeks ago, Britain's The Guardian kicked off the inevitable series of trend pieces with a story illustrated by a photograph of a woman with bloodstained – literally – lips.

We've come a long way, baby, since those olden days when sanitary napkin ads never even showed the product nor discussed its purpose.

Now Tampax has pulled out all the stops with its bitchy Mother Nature imposing her little red-wrapped "gift" on white-outfitted women stepping off planes in vacation spots.

We interrupt this post for a commercial message:

Guardian writer Kira Cochrane detailed many of the current efforts by women to bring their cycles out from deep, dark, taboo territory into the open, so there will no longer be shame in discussing everything and anything from PMS to the environmental implications of all those menstrual products in landfill sites.

These efforts include 18-year-old Rachel Kauder Nalebuff's bestselling My Little Red Book, an anthology of first period stories by women such as Gloria Steinem. There's also Chella Quint's 'zine Adventures in Menstruating – plus her touring menstrual comedy show. In addition, British-based artist Ingrid Berthon-Moine's video of her strumming her tampon string to "Slave to the Rhythm" is making the rounds. That's in addition to her photograph series of women with blood-smeared lips.

Not that this is totally new, mind you.

With the second wave of feminism came the period of period activism, including Germaine Greer's admonishments to women who don't care for the taste of their own menstrual blood to poet Judy Grahn's 1993 book Blood, Bread, and Roses: How Menstruation Created the World.

But now, it seems we have hit a gusher.

"It seems that menstrual activism (otherwise known as radical menstruation, menstrual anarchy, or menarchy) is having a moment," Cochrane wrote. " The term is used to describe a whole range of actions, not all considered political by the person involved: simple efforts to speak openly about periods, radical affronts to negative attitudes and campaigns for more environmentally friendly sanitary products. (It is estimated that a woman will dispose of 11,400 tampons in her lifetime – an ecological disaster.)"

Oh yeah, the impending ecological disaster is our fault – although I would sooner blame non-biodegradable pantyhose myself.

(And one more time, why is there GST – still – on tampons?) Talk about your mental cramps.

That said, there are environmental alternatives such as the reusable cup.

Which brings us to yet another menstrual artist-activist: Vanessa Tiegs, whose recent online exhibit of paintings titled "Menstrala" feature large Masonite boards smeared with dramatic swishes of her menstrual blood mixed with acrylic paint.

They're quite beautiful – despite the initial "ick factor."

As she explained online at spiralingmoon.livejournal.com, "My paintings are monthly menstrual journals. They are a presentation of the only kind of blood that is hidden in our culture, that which is natural, non- traumatic and cyclical."

And therein, she has a point.

Clearly, patriarchal religion has much to do with it. In the church in which I was baptized, there are still all sorts of restrictions on menstruating women.

But we live in mostly secular times.

So why is it that, in our culture, which celebrates blood and gore on screens big and small, we continue to pretend that which half the planet experiences every month for more than half of their lives doesn't happen?

Mind you, when it comes to blood, we don't like any real depictions of it – as those of us who watch the media coverage of war know.

The good news is, menstruation is coming out of the bathroom closet.

The bad news is, we still can't face the implications of the blood we spill overseas.

Talk about being cursed.

A couple of things to add here.

I disagree with Amanda Fortini of Salon's Broadsheet that talking about menstruation is no longer taboo. We're not there yet. My column had to be vetted by a senior editor, just in case, you know, I stepped over the line while talking about a perfectly natural function.

What's more, as one commenter on the main Star site says,

I've always been frustrated with the way menstruation is treated in popular culture. To me the problem is not that it's an unspoken experience- there's a lot of talk, but unfortunately most of it's negative & shaming. Calling it 'the curse,' ads that show women happy, beautiful & active until they have their period, when all of a sudden they become dumpy, 'w'itchy, smelly, dirty & gross... why do we accept these labels? Look around you any day & you'll see dozens of women who are happy, beautiful & vibrant and yes, they are menstruating. Let's grow up a bit, shall we? Menstruation used to be revered as proof of fertility. You don't have to follow that line, but teaching girls that they're dirty & bad for their natural cycle? Enough.

However I am in total accord with Fortini's assertion that

Menstrual activism thus seems like an overreaction to a taboo that has mostly dissipated. People don't need to see menstrual bloods on lips -- a PETA-ish gimmick -- to shock them into recognizing a hostility they don't feel. At a time when Tampax is employing menstrual humor, guerrilla tactics like this seem sour and antiquated and out of place. And while some activists must surely be fighting important menstrual-related battles (advocating against dioxins in tampons, say, or for the environmental benefits of multiple-use products) might not the energies of those playing their tampon strings like a guitar be more effectively utilized if applied to any number of feminist causes such as, I don't know, equal pay or domestic violence or human rights abuses committed against women?

How lovely to be a woman

So, last night, my favourite show Mad Men started with the closing clip from the 1963 movie musical Bye Bye Birdie. Video here. 

This flick made a huge impression on my friends and me back then. We practiced all of Ann-Margret's moves and, I have to say, while watching Mad Men last night, I found myself on my feet ''throwing myself at the (imaginary) camera,'' as Don Draper said.

Yes, I was alone.

Bye Bye Birdie hit the big screen just before Beatlemania, and it came on the tail end of the Elvis worship. But it wasn't the singing idol(s) aspect we loved. It was the depiction of what we imagined teenaged life to be, the going steady, the parties, the dancing, the whole Barbie & Beach Party & Betty & Veronica thing.

Then came the Pill and pot, psychedelic music and a radical shift in pop culture.

But for just a few months, we lived in this glorious bubble, dying to be Ann-Margret, who was so much sexier than the perennial Disney star Annette Funicello.

Anyway, I am not embarrassed to admit that this bit below was my favourite scene and song, one I performed in front of the mirror, with one of my dad's sweaters. I still sing it every once in a while, just to make friends cringe.

And I still came out a feminist.

By the way, here's my treeware take of last week on the instructive value of Mad Men today.

(Jezebel and Feministing have their takes on last night here but be warned, there are spoilers.)

Over the counter, over the hill

Oh noz. If Sarah Haskins, who just turned 30, is old, what does that make us baby boomers?

I know: The target market for Big Pharma.

Losing our shirts

  Back, just in time for International Women's Day on Sunday, March 8.

It started just about 100 years ago when women all over the world gathered to fight for a single day when they would all press for their demands for equal rights. Its roots also lie in the tragic Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in Manhattan 98 years ago. That's when some146 mostly Italian and Jewish immigrant, mostly young women, workers were burned to death behind sweatshop doors that were locked to prevent theft.

I know. I know. When is it International Men's Day some of my regular readers may ask? Depending on where you live, that comes pretty much every day since, in most of the world, women have no rights, no choice, no protection, no hope, no chance, no nothing.

Here in the Great Pink North however there is much to celebrate. Not only can women vote, but we have access to excellent health care, reproductive options, and freedom from religious and tribal oppression.

Things aren't perfect though, as a joint statement from YWCA Canada and the Canadian Women's Foundation points out today:

Women account for 70% of part-time employees and two-thirds of Canadians working for  minimum wage. The number of women in top executive positions at the nation’s largest publicly-traded companies has hit an all-time high: 7.2%. Nearly 40% per cent of Canadian women don't make enough money to pay taxes. With the highest levels of working mothers in our history, 36% of mother-led families still have incomes below the poverty line and 43% of children living in a low-income family live with a single mother.

 Income statistics show women of colour, Aboriginal women and women with disabilities are even more at risk. A woman earning the minimum wage in full-time, year-round employment anywhere in Canada is living below the poverty line. If she is on her own with children, she is living well below the poverty line and in need of significant assistance to keep her kids in child care and be able to work. If she’s raising her kids on social assistance it is absolutely guaranteed that they are all living deep in the pocket of poverty.

Now some would say -- and they do, over and over again -- that, if you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't have them. True enough, I suppose. But it's funny how often these very same people are the ones against women having access to abortion. What's more, once the children are born, does it not make sense for the good of all that they grow up healthy, well-nourished and safe from abuse and violence?

Back to the release:

Of late, pundits are seized with the notion that with job losses concentrated in male-dominated sectors, women may become the majority of the workforce. The phrase “lipstick economy” is being thrown around, as if this increase is a new phenomenon. It’s not. Women’s participation in the labour force has climbed steadily over the last thirty years. In 1976, women made up 37% of the workforce in Canada.  By 1996, that figure had passed 45%, by 2006 it hit 47%. The growth of Canada’s GDP over the same period is linked to women’s work force participation.

 <SNIP>
 
Immediate changes are needed to make Employment Insurance into an insurance system that works for women who lose employment. It’s a no-brainer.  As the nation lost 129,000 jobs in January, reported EI claims climbed. In December, the number of men receiving benefits jumped over 21% from a year earlier; for women it increased 8.6%. This is consistent with report after report which confirm that 70% of women who pay into EI are not eligible to collect when they lose their jobs. Women need access to the EI funds that have been amassed through deductions from their pay cheques. It’s a question of fundamental justice: you ought to get what you pay for.

Ah yes, the EI plan brought to us by the Conservative-Liberal coalition in Parliament. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his prefect in the Liberal party Michael Ignatieff ensured that women would remain in the bottom position throughout the economic downturn. Here's just the bit about EI from this great analysis in Edmonton's indie weekly, Vue:

Monica Townson, an economic consultant and research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives who co-authored a 2007 report on the gender bias in the EI program, explains that when the Unemployment Insurance program was changed to the Employment Insurance program in 1997, eligibility criteria went from being based on the number of weeks worked to being based on number of hours worked. This change, which dropped the percentage of unemployed workers who qualified for EI from 70 per cent to just 36 per cent by 2004, disproportionately impacted women because they tend to work more part-time and other non-standard jobs due to family responsibilities, and therefore find it harder to accumulate the necessary hours. While 40 per cent of men qualified in the year Townson looked at the data, just 32 per cent of women did. In Alberta, because of the complicated formula based on regional unemployment levels, fewer than one in four women in the province were eligible for EI in 2004.

 “The important thing to note is that women are adversely affected compared with men under the current situation, and that will be particularly serious for them in the recession if women are losing their jobs and can’t qualify for benefits,” Townson warns.

(Speaking of the Harper-Ignatieff separated at birth routine, have you checked out Iggy's pose with Barack Obama on the Liberal website? It is to laugh.)

Today, there were protests outside an EI office in Toronto:

"Six out of 10 unemployed women across Canada can't get EI benefits," said Marie Clarke-Walker, Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC). "Our message to Parliament is: unless EI eligibility requirements are fixed, women and other vulnerable workers will bear the brunt of this recession with no safety net."

But do the Harpies and Iggyites care? Not according to the NDP:

New Democrat Labour Critic Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) will present a motion in the House of Commons today calling on the Harper government to make much-needed improvements to extend Employment Insurance to the tens-of thousands of newly unemployed Canadians.

“With more and more Canadians losing their jobs every day, we need a system that can really help people who need it,” said New Democrat Leader Jack Layton. “The minister may believe that it’s ‘lucrative’ to collect EI, but the truth is that Canada is running out of jobs and more unemployed Canadians deserve to access the help now, when they need it.”

According the Statistics Canada only 43% of unemployed Canadians and only 39% of unemployed women currently qualify for EI under the Harper government’s qualifications.

The New Democrat opposition day motion calls on the Harper government to eliminate the waiting period for EI, reduce the number of work hours needed to qualify for the program, expand eligibility to include self-employed workers, raise the rate of benefits and encourage training and re-training.

Well, according to the Liberals, this motion was so great, they voted for it -- even after they voted for the Conservative budget. Boldface is mine.

Liberals today supported a motion in the House of Commons that aims to quickly and efficiently get employment insurance (EI) into the hands of those who need it most during this tough economic period, announced Mike Savage, Liberal Human Resources and Skills Development Critic.

“With tens of thousands of Canadians losing their jobs, what is really needed are reforms that will make EI more responsive and get money into the hands of the unemployed quickly,” said Mr. Savage. “Liberals believe that EI is one of the most effective methods of providing quick stimulus to the economy.”

In the months leading up to the Fall Economic Statement and Budget, organizations like the Conference Board of Canada, the C.D. Howe Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives recommended substantial reforms to EI as a means of addressing the economic downturn and protecting the vulnerable.

“Unfortunately, the Conservative government did not take their advice” said Mr. Savage.

Liberals understand that not all of the EI reforms in the motion – totalling $3.4 billion annually – may be feasible right now during this time of economic turmoil, but they are all ideas that parliamentarians should be exploring going forward.

“The EI system needs to change to better respond to the need,” said Mr. Savage. “We have to ensure that the most vulnerable in society are properly protected, not just during tough times but at all times. It’s why we support the spirit of this motion and will be voting in favour of it.”

Phew. Is it me or it it hot in here?

This from the same crew that did nothing to promote infrastructure plans to help women, or to create childcare spaces so that women could work, as The Regina Mom deftly points out.

Iggy the Liberal has certainly been thinking too highly of himself and too little of others.

His support for Harper’s budget bill is a slap in the face to Canadian women.  Of course we shouldn’t be too surprised at this given the Liberal Party’s record with women.  Wasn’t it Paul Martin as Finance Minister who began the federal attack on women’s organizations funded through Status of Women Canada?  So, to see Iggy and his ilk support an attack on pay equity and infrastructure solutions that exclude women while still denying Canadian women a national childcare plan is really to be expected.

But Canadians have some kind of sick idea that the Liberals are better than the Cons.  Not me.  Liberal or Tory, it’s the same old story.  Tommy Douglas was right about that in his story of Mouseland.  Not that the NDP or any partisan organization will be the savior of Canada or Canadian women, for that matter.  But at least the NDP get it when it comes to women’s issues.  Mind you, it’s not quite to the extent that the Bloc Quebecois get it, but it’s good.

So anyway, despite their fiscaling of women, today the Libs were quick to talk about how they love the little ladies.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is continuing to embarrass Canada on the  international stage with its regressive policies towards women, Liberal Status of Women Critic Anita Neville said today.

"As countries around the world are preparing to mark International Women's Day on Sunday, this government is taking the women's movement back," said Ms. Neville. "By implementing policies that take away women's rights, the Conservatives are simply failing Canadian women."

Today, as Minister of Status of Women Canada Helena Guergis takes the stage at the United Nations (UN), representatives of Canadian women's organizations and labour unions are set to gather at the front gates to protest the Conservative government's failing record on women's equality.

The Harper government has attacked women's rights to pay equity, unilaterally changed the guidelines for Status of Women, dismantled the Liberal child care agreements and have failed to address the issue of more than 500 missing and murdered Aboriginal women.

Since coming to power, the Conservative government has been embarrassing Canada internationally on other important issues as well. These include:

.       failing to implement the recommendations proposed by UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women;
.       refusing to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and
.       obstructing progress on climate change at the UN.

"Women are so desperate for change, that they are being forced to plead their case to the international community," said Ms. Neville. "It is no wonder women's groups are intending to file a complaint with the United Nations. Today what we are hearing is enough is enough."

Jeez. Can somebody please turn on the air conditioning?????

So anyway, one more release from my crammed in-box today:

Representatives of women’s organizations and labour unions will gather in front of the gates of the United Nations tomorrow to condemn the Harper government’s record on women’s equality. They will also be announcing their intention to file a complaint with the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

 Helena Guergis, Minister of Status of Women Canada, is set to speak to the UN Commission on the Status of Women tomorrow. Women’s rights advocates are concerned that this will serve as an opportunity for the Harper government to use an international stage to make claims about its record on women rights, while it simultaneously destroys the right to pay equity at home.

 Representatives from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec, the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, the Feminist Alliance for International Action and several others will announce their intention to file a complaint with the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in regard to the  Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, which they say will severely curtail the rights of women in the federal public sector to demand equal pay for work of equal value. The bill is currently being rushed through the Canadian Parliament as part of the Budget Implementation Act (Bill C-10).

A photo op shopping trip to New York?

Nice try but, when most of Canada seems not to have noticed that the wool has been pulled over their eyes, I would say that the ConLibs have this one all sewn up tight.

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: Apologies for dicking around with the format of this post. It's like I left my mind on the beach.

 

Booby Trap

Yesterday, I blogged about how the Catholic Church is blaming The Pill for male infertility. Something about how women taking contraception are polluting the water supply by flushing away all that estrogen into the world's water supply.

Blame the fornicating females, as usual.

Coincidentally, today comes this news from the Canadian Women's Health Network. No, it's not your imagination. Little girls are turning into big girls a lot sooner than they used to. They're developing breasts and getting their periods at younger ages than, say, 40 years ago and that apparently puts them at greater risk for breast cancer.

That girls are hitting puberty earlier comes as no surprise to me. I can remember very well when my friends and I all got their periods back in the day, because it was pretty much all we talked about. I also can recall that few of us filled more than a ''training bra'' in Grade 7. 

As I type this, I am watching the kids from the middle school not far away head home for the day and, although they are now bundled up, I know that those girls have women's bodies underneath their puffy jackets.

For years now, I have observed class after class of girls with boobs and hips while the boys lag way behind developmentally. T'was always thus of course but now the difference seems much more pronounced. What's more, thanks to media, fashion and other socio-cultural shifts, girls are dressing and behaving much more sexually. I imagine it must be very different to be a ''tween'' nowadays.

But I digress.

According to research, all kinds of factors may be behind this earlier onset of puberty, including better nutrition. Perhaps. But, growing up in an affluent neighbourhood as I did, I didn't notice anybody starving.

So there must be other reasons for this, as the Canadian Women's Health Network piece points out:

In The Falling Age of Puberty in US Girls (2007), Sandra Steingraber, who is probably best known for her groundbreaking work on the links between environmental health contaminants and cancer, undertakes a thorough meta-analysis of the existing data on early puberty in girls. She carefully traces the complex and interlocking relationships between puberty, which includes the advent of breast buds, pubic hair and menarche (first menstruation), with physiological, psychological and environmental (nutritional, chemical) conditions, and the consequences for the maturation process of our young women.

<SNIP>

Steingraber argues that more recently, particularly in the last several decades, trends in the decline of the onset of puberty in the United States (which are similar with other affluent countries or countries with similar ethnic heritage) seem to be responding to stimuli beyond nutrition and general health.

Her report highlights numerous studies which have linked exposure to chemicals in our environment, particularly endocrine-disrupting chemicals (which can mimic hormones in the body), to a plethora of health concerns, such as shortened gestational periods in fetal development, low birth weight babies, higher rates of obesity and poor insulin regulation in the body, which are all risk factors for early puberty. This should make us sit up and take notice, since as Steingraber says, “children are exposed continuously to low-level endocrine disruptors in their diets, drinking water and air supply.” 

Chemical flame retardants, for example, polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) have been linked to earlier menstruation in girls and with earlier pubarche. Similarly, high levels of dioxin exposure have been associated with elevated risks for breast cancer and early menarche.

Also, hormonally active components, which have been linked to earlier pubertal development, can be found in a wide array of consumer products, including hair tonics, pesticides, packaging and building materials.

As a result, studies have shown hormonally active agents in the urine of US girls and traces of such known human contaminants as phthalates and bisphenol A (which was originally developed as a synthetic hormone, but is now used in all polycarbonate plastics and the linings of food and beverage cans, among other uses; it has been recently been banned in Canada for use in baby bottles). Rat studies on bisphenol A indicate that prenatal and early-life exposure can induce earlier sexual maturity.

The use of natural and synthetic hormones to promote growth in US livestock and stimulate milk production in dairy cattle (a practice banned in European countries) has also raised concern; critics of the practice believe this may contribute to early puberty onset, but again, more research is necessary.

Steingraber concludes that, in combination, this chemical cocktail may be a significant factor in causing the “new normal” rates of pubertal development in US girls, but we don’t have enough research to say for certain—only enough research to raise red flags and caution.

If women are becoming more womanly because of pollution, then it stands to reason that men are becoming less like men -- at least in fertility terms.

I don't know about you but I am finding more and more reasons to avoid eating meat and to go completely organic. This I believe will develop into one of the biggest issues of the next few years, especially as we look for ways to slow down climate change. If more people cut back on animal products, we'll cut back on environmental degradation.

Do you suppose the Pope will get down with that?

Nah. Thaty's because early puberty = early pregnancy and the more babies, the better.

My heart belongs to daddy

In the news today, how photographs of Marilyn Monroe taken shortly before her 1962 death by an overdose of barbiturates could fetch record prices at auction:

"She is an embodiment of the idea of glamour," said Philippe Garner, international director of photographs at Christie's.

But I'm not sure if it was glamour that Monroe was about. Sexuality and sensuousness -- and a great deal of vulnerability -- would be more apt.

That little girl voice, the breathlessness, the squeals, the apparent lack of self consciousness (feigned or not) of her power to make men's knees go weak  ... all these qualities contributed to Monroe's enduring image. I'll even confess to emulating some of her tics and tactics in my teens and 20s in a youthful attempt to sex myself up.

Ah yes, Marilyn the icon.

But wait.

Here's this why-didn't-I-think-of-it analysis by Trivia's Carolyn Gage, which I stumbled on via Mirabile Dictu, that reframes Monroe's ''I want to be loved by you'' persona. (I added the link.):

Much of what the media portrays as women's sexuality looks suspiciously like dissociative identity disorder. Marilyn Monroe's behaviors, for example, bear more resemblance to those of a molested child trying to appease a male authority figure than an adult woman engaging in an empowering and mutually satisfying sexual interaction. And, indeed, why wouldn't they? Our pop cultural icon for female sexuality spent a fatherless childhood of sexual abuse and poverty in a string of orphanages and foster homes after her mother, who suffered mental illness, was institutionalised. By her own account, she was a survivor of multiple episodes of child sexual abuse. Shortly after her fifteenth birthday, her legal guardian brokered a so-called marriage for her. In other words, Marilyn Monroe was legally prostituted as a teenager. She made three attempts at suicide before she was twenty-five, and several more throughout the rest of her life. Marilyn called her first husband "Daddy," she called second husband Joe Dimaggio "Pa," and she called third husband Arthur Miller "Pops." Apparently it wasn't just her heart that belonged to daddy.

But this profoundly traumatized woman who died such a tragic, early death has become, not a symbol for a movement against child sexual abuse, but an icon of female sexuality. What does it say about male dominant culture that its sex goddess was a desperately unhappy, suicidal incest survivor who had dissociative identity disorders and who eventually killed herself? Can anyone really believe that Marilyn Monroe's sexuality was a transcendent phenomenon, somehow existing apart from her history of trauma, developed in a cultural vacuum? It was not. Her sexuality was no different from that of millions of survivors of child sexual abuse all over the world. At a recent auction of her personal affects, a pair of Marilyn's stiletto-heel pumps was sold for $48,000. A high price to pay for shoes, but the price is much higher for the woman who attempts to walk in them. And maybe that's the point.

"Hypersexuality" is a term you will never see in the popular media, although it's all over the literature about post-rape and post-incest syndromes. It has been suggested that sexual dissociation is so rampant in female populations that dissociative disorders have come to define what is considered normative sexual behavior for women.

The piece is actually about intimacy in lesbian relationships but I was struck by this excerpt.

Sure, we Marilyn fans knew she was a tragic figure. The failed marriages, the abortions, the miscarriages, the pills, the highs, the lows. But we never give a thought to her childhood. She sort of spontaneously generates as a pin-up, the lovely young Norma Jeane Baker, who then rides the wave of inevitability to celebrity and suicide.

But really, she is the world's most beautiful, and best known, poster child for what happens to sexually abused children.

Period Periods

For all you ladies still experiencing ''the monthlies'' -- and those who have them, blessedly, in your past -- and for all the gentlemen who regard that time as a deep dark mystery (or worse), here's a gURL guide to menstrual products through the ages.

Flip through it. It's fun.

Ever since the first cave-woman got her period, she had to find some way to handle it. After all, you can't have blood on the floors of your cave! What would the neighbors think?

Nowadays we have an entire aisle of menstrual products to choose from, but in the past, menstruating women relied on some pretty strange and intriguing products.

You know, as bad and as bloated as you sometimes feel, just think: It could be worse, much worse. Believe me. I know. I date back to the time of belts, even before stick-on pads.

What's more, when I wanted to switch to Tampax, our family doctor lectured me on how that would be inappropriate for a young unmarried woman, if you know what I mean.

Ewww.

Now the issue for me and my friend Sheena is, stop charging women GST for these products. It's not like we have a choice, ya know?

What's more, if the Harper government were as pro-family as it claims to be, it would have an interest in making women happy 28 out of 28 days. You know, it's all very easy to skip menstruating all together with contraception.

Do the math. No periods = No babies.

Just saying.

Actually, maybe I shouldn't say it at all, considering how some people want to ban the Pill.

Now this is pro-family

Via Feministing, a video of San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders talking about Proposition 8, a measure on tomorrow's ballot in California that would prevent gay and lesbian men and women from enjoying the same life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as other Americans.

Here's a partial transcript:

I do believe that times have changed. And with changing time, and new life experiences, come different opinions. I think that's natural, and it's certainly true in my case.

Two years ago, I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative. Those beliefs, in my case, have changed.

The concept of a 'separate but equal' institution is not something I can support.

I acknowledge that not all members of our community will agree or perhaps even understand my decision today.

All I can offer them is that I am trying to do what I believe is right.

I have close family members and friends who are a member of the gay and lesbian community. Those folks include my daughter Lisa, as well as members of my personal staff.

I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones -- for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life's experiences.

And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law.

Good for him.

I have never understood why social conservatives insist that gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage. I just don't get their ''logic.'' Isn't family and love family and love, no matter what form it takes? Why should any human being, because of sexual orientation, be denied family and love to serve some senseless conservative agenda?

UPPITY DATE (4/11/08): Leslie in the comments points out that this video is from Sept. 2007. True, and I should have mentioned that when I posted it yesterday. But, for some reason, it went crazy viral yesterday as if it were new. My bad.

That said, the Mayor's thoughts and sentiments stand the test of time. I only hope they stand the test of the ballot box.

World of hurt

Stunning — and very heartening — reaction to today's treeware column, about the global war on women. It pretty much speaks for itself, although space limits restricted my including many facts, figures and other details. So, I will reproduce it here almost in full, with some links for those inclined to get further information.

Ever since I started writing this column 15 months ago, switching over from the media beat, I have been immersing myself in so-called women's issues, everything from reproductive freedom to pay equity.

Women face social, cultural and economic pressures — some self-inflicted, I admit — that men don't. Sexual assault and cosmetic surgery, domestic violence and daycare, they're all related. They all affect how we can make our way, with or without partners and/or children.

My misogynistic hate-mailers, and, believe me, they are legion, are terrified that, as women progress from the kitchen, nursery and bedroom to the college faculty, newsroom and boardroom, men will lose what little power they have over their little corner of their very narrow world view.

I wonder, would they like to bash us back to the Stone Age?

Which isn't all that far away, as a sickening report released last week by the Christian humanitarian organization World Vision shows.

"Before She's Ready: Fifteen Places Girls Marry by 15" is a sickening indictment of patriarchal countries — which number far more than 15, by the way — where 10-year-olds are sold off to men three, four, five and six times their age, and are pregnant as soon as they hit puberty.

It doesn't take a med school scholarship to figure out that a 13-year-old body isn't not yet ready to deliver a healthy baby. According to World Vision, as many as one in four infants doesn't make it. And, as other reports, from the United Nations and other organizations, every minute of every day — that's 500,000 a year — a woman dies in childbirth.

As for those girls who survive, well, needless to say, life is not a bed of roses. Not only do they have to feed and care for these children, haul water and dodge rapists, many of them, their young bodies traumatized by their maternal labours, are torn apart, resulting in an obstetric fistula that leaves them unable to control their urination and defecation.

That's when their husbands cast them aside and move on to other girls.

This goes on all the time. All the time.

And yet the Vatican prohibits contraception, which would not only scale back this gendercide, but also result in lower rates of HIV infections, less suffering and more sturdy children.

And let's not even get into how some chiefly Islamic societies treat their girls.

[We interrupt this blog post to say that, for those who wrote to complain about my dragging the Pope into this, one of the 15 countries on the World Vision list is Nicaragua, where it's a lousy place to be a woman lately. Honduras is not far behind. I wouldn't want to be in Rwanda either.]

This summer in Pakistan, three teenage girls were reportedly buried alive by their male relatives, while the mother of one and aunt of another were shot as they begged their men to stop, because the girls defied their fathers over their choice of husbands.

The savagery directed at women is so routine, it gets scarce notice in the Western media.

But what a world of difference it would make to all of us if only all these girls were given a chance — to read and write, to be child-free, to start businesses or otherwise earn a paycheque.

The Girl Effect, a research organization supported by the Nike Foundation, reports that, when a girl in the developing world receives seven or more years of education, she marries four years later and has 2.2 fewer children.

Multiply that by 600 million girls who live in the developing world and that's more than a billion fewer babies that this planet cannot afford anyway.

This is why I laugh at the "war on terror."

The real threat is the war on women.

If you want to do something, check out the Stephen Lewis Foundation, which does plenty for women, including supporting the Panzi Hospital which treats patients with obstetric fistula.

Thank you.

Operators are standing by to take your comments.