Cured: Global Warming, Racism and Moral Decay

By: Brook

I often wonder if the voices of the those who espouse radical values realize just how radical they sound. We all have our beliefs, but the point is to not trample on the rights of others in our communities in pursuit of these values. I've been doing a lot of research on abstinence only education in America that has led to a lot of eye opening moments. These abstinence only programs have censored information, made moral judgements, stigmatized students and discriminated against the LGBT students they teach. Extensive research on the issue has concluded that eighty percent of the curricula taught contains false, misleading and distorted information about reproductive health that misinforms students about the effectiveness of contraceptives and risks of abortion.

It goes without saying that women's independence in reproductive health issues goes hand in hand with this issue. Denying any woman the necessary information to make healthy and informed decisions about their bodies and sexuality does not lead to more 'moral' and abstinent teens. It only creates a vacuum of empowered, economically successful women who are leading healthy and self defined lives in which they have accrued honest self respect. The very prevention of this goes to the heart of governmental desire to maintain social roles that serve a patriarchal state.

However, abstinence only programs insist that teens abstain, and that if they make the mistake of having sex, that they bring their pregnancies to term. All sorts of methods have been employed to create a "morally pure" message, and some of the tactics and visual imagery I observed were quite shocking. Shockingly offensive.

Now that all of these issues are at the forefront of public debate with Obama's so called 'liberal agenda' that

will effectively end abstinent only education with his proposed 2010 budget cuts, I wonder what the radical pro-life voices have to say about all this? I did not have to look very far for some visual messages on the issue. Did you know that pro-life supporters cannot be environmentalists? Or that abortion is actually racist and the creates the 'ultimate exploitation of women'? Here I am fighting all this time to recycle, reduce and reuse, while raising awareness against unequal pay, opportunities and access, and all I had to do to stand against the exploitation of the environment, women and minorities was to encourage women to bring more babies into the world!

Why does one concept have to be so antithetical to the other in the pro-life discourse? A pro-life supporter can't advocate saving trees until those tree huggers finally take a stand on the abortion debate? And we all know the ultimate form of racism is abortion. Of course. Forget all those that we lynched, held in captivity, sold into sexual slavery and dehumanized. Because when a black woman aborts, she causes the ultimate hate crime that perpetuates racism? This is a loaded conversation that has many facets that the person who rendered this illustration probably didn't consider fully.

And this is exactly what we should be doing when addressing all social issues: considering it fully. Why are abstinence and pro-life rights so valued by conservative proponents? Why is there such a high price on maintaining moral purity through virginity? Why must women define themselves through their sexuality, or lack thereof? And why are the politics of virginity focused on girls as the keepers of morality, rather than on boys?

Comments?

P.S. I have begun reading The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti to help deconstruct some of these questions further. The research continues...

»»  read more

Military Entertainment Promoting Rape?

By: Marc
This upcoming Christmas will be the 2nd holiday season I will have been deployed overseas in support of this so-called War on Terrorism. The first time I was here, I was a younger Soldier, and did not know much about the feminism that I eventually found and grew to love. This time, back and armed with a feminism perspective (among other things), I am starting to see a lot of the things that should have bothered me, and things that I see as being a big contribution to the incidences of rape in the military.

Each holiday, those "appreciative" of the services rendered by military personnel often come into our areas of operations to entertain us; these include pro athletes, celebrities and comedians. But each year, it seems, these Morale, Welfare and Recreation events also include entertainment that's questionable - cheerleaders, Hooters girls and other scantily-dressed women, whose purpose is simply to entertain Soldiers (need I say male?) and be eye-candy.

While I am not in favor of censorship, and most certainly, do not believe there is direct connection between watching scantily-dressed women dance to turn men on, and rape. What I do believe is that the objectification of women - that is, the separation of women's bodies from their humanities, can lead to rape. Yet, each year, this happens over and over again - conventionally beautiful women entertain sex-starved Soldiers who are already working in an environment in which traditional masculinity runs amok. Is it too much of a stretch, then, to think that these males, watch these women and objectify them, and then, in turn, objectify their own sisters in arms, making it much easier for them to rape?

It's not just rape that's the problem, though - while that number is high, and as the latest Stars and Stripes study showed, on the rise, this also contributes to sexual harassment, which has an effect that, at times, can be just as harmful to women. Of course, I am not comparing rape to sexual harassment, but I am saying sexual harassment also makes it difficult on women to perform the job well, and given the power dynamics in the military ranks, can make it very difficult for women to report these incidences.

By bringing in these entertainers, the military acknowledges that it sees women as simply entertainment for men - and what happens when these women leave after their week of being in theater? Soldiers turn to entertainment by observing, talking about and degrading other Soldiers. Degradation and the objectification of human beings, we know, is one of the passages of sexual assaults. There is no other organization in the world in which it would be acceptable for the heads of companies to bring in what I would consider "adult entertainment" to entertain its employees, yet this culture is almost the norm, and perfectly acceptable within the Army. At times, I've wondered if it's my tax dollars - the same money that the military pays me each two weeks that is supporting these MWR activities. If it is, then it is my own tax dollars - and yours, too, that are implicitly contributing to the sexual assaults and harassments taking place in theater.

On a more theoretical point - the military also apparently thinks that Morale, Welfare and Recreation, in this case, is limited to male entertainment. Not that I am advocating the Army bring male dancers in theater to entertain women, because it's just as wrong, but I cannot help but think the lack of male entertainers, whose goal is to whet women's sexual appetite (and the Play on Word award goes to me!),is a result of two things: a denial and acknowledgment of women's sexuality, and the subtle hint of homophobia, in that if gay male Soldiers saw other men, they would be turned on, and then God knows what will happen in the shower when they see a straight man they are attracted to!

For all its problems and the way it's scrambling to try to stop sexual assaults in theater, the very least the military can do is put a stop to these peep shows. The unfortunate thing, however, is that those responsible for many of the programs taking place in the military for troop morale, and indeed, for their own safety, are neither equipped to deal with these problems from a gendered perspective, nor do they have the experiences to understand the various dynamics being played out.

At some point, somewhere, someone with enough rank (I am talking about senior officers) will bring up these issues, and they will take the step necessary in curbing the rape culture that the military - no matter how implicitly and innocently - is promoting. But I am not holding my breath.

Thoughts?
-Marc

»»  read more

Sole Satisfaction

By: Brook
I recently came across Toms One for One website where I found these amazing boots. Now don't get me wrong, this blog isn't going to get consumer centered, you know we purchase with a purpose here at Phem! Now not only have I found a boot that will conform themselves around my powerful calves like other boots refuse to do (except for the dreary UGG which I just refuse for numerous reasons), rather it is to tell you about this fantastic company, their mission, and their kick ass...well... kicks!

Here's the deal with Tom-for every shoe you buy through tomsshoes.com, he donates one to children in Argentina and South Africa who cannot afford to buy shoes. Since 2006, Toms has donated more than 50,000 shoes to children and plans to extend the program to kids here in the United States. The shoes are organic, a lot are vegan (like my lovely boot there) and the fabrics and styles are vibrant and inspired by the traditional rope-soled Argentine alpargate.




From Tom's website:

ONE FOR ONE
TOMS Shoes was founded on a simple premise: With every pair you purchase, TOMS will give a pair of new shoes to a child in need. One for One. Using the purchasing power of individuals to benefit the greater good is what we're all about.

OUR STORY
In 2006 an American traveler, Blake Mycoskie, befriended children in Argentina and found they had no shoes to protect their feet. Wanting to help, he created TOMS Shoes, a company that would match every pair of shoes purchased with a pair of new shoes given to a child in need. One for One. Blake returned to Argentina with a group of family, friends and staff later that year with 10,000 pairs of shoes made possible by caring TOMS customers. Since our beginning, TOMS has given over 150,000* pairs of shoes to children in need through the One for One model. Because of your support, TOMS plans to give over 300,000 pairs of shoes to children in need around the world in 2009. Our ongoing community events and Shoe Drop Tours allow TOMS supporters and enthusiasts to be part of our One for One movement. Join us.

WHY SHOES?
Most children in developing countries grow up barefoot. Whether at play, doing chores or just getting around, these children are at risk. Walking is often the primary mode of transportation in developing countries. Children can walk for miles to get food, water, shelter and medical help. Wearing shoes literally enables them to walk distances that aren't possible barefoot. Wearing shoes prevents feet from getting cuts and sores on unsafe roads and from contaminated soil. Not only are these injuries painful, they also are dangerous when wounds become infected. The leading cause of disease in developing countries is soil-transmitted parasites which penetrate the skin through open sores. Wearing shoes can prevent this and the risk of amputation. Many times children can't attend school barefoot because shoes are a required part of their uniform. If they don't have shoes, they don't go to school. If they don't receive an education, they don't have the opportunity to realize their potential.

There is one simple solution...SHOES. Of the planet's six billion people, four billion live in conditions inconceivable to many. Lets take a step towards a better tomorrow.

mens martinez cordones and girls sparkle mary jane tiny toms

ladies prima toms and burlap woven toms

p.s. thanks to my partner's grandmother, virginia, who brought us some vegetarian times magazines where we discovered this great company! :)

»»  read more

Resisting His Allegiance

Ten year old Will Phillips is boycotting his school's daily pledge of allegiance after contemplating the meaning of the pledge and finding it to be untruthful. There is a refreshing honesty that children have that parents and adults continuously try to shape and mold out of them, telling them that it's impolite or inappropriate to speak so frankly. I think in doing so we have silenced a generation of potential activists and honest leaders. Tact is one thing, dishonesty is another. Viva, Will, Viva!

Will explains how the last words of the pledge 'liberty and justice for all' stirred a rebellion within: "Gays and lesbians can't marry...[and] there's still a lot of racism and sexism in the world." When the substitute teacher who was present at the time of his refusal gave him some grief about not reciting it, he recalls his reaction: "Ma'am, with all due respect, you can go jump off a bridge."

»»  read more

The Crazy Woman Vision

By: Teri
I am completely bothered how this story on 15-year-old Alyssa Bustamante is being covered – if this isn’t a girl screaming for help I don’t know what is. Yes there are extraneous situations where mental facilities are severely compromised but the combination of running away, cutting, wanting to feel is classic behavior of someone in need.

This is a great reflection on perceptions of mental health and women’s health; once again relegated to dismissal while using the criminal aspect as an excuse to not deal with this situation. Angling this story on the horrendous behavior she exhibited means there isn’t the responsibility to fully handle this situation. Just throw the disturbed person in prison and mainstream society is done (keeping the whole problematic prison system as a whole other narrative).

It’s exhausting to have the continuation of mainstream society sticking their head in the sand so they won’t have to deal with these issues; it is a common relevant problem that takes a long time to overcome. Isn’t it proactive to use this opportunity to address this issue instead of demonizing it? Wouldn’t it be of greater societal benefit to have this in the open so assistance can be given earlier rather than later?

»»  read more

Love, Sex and Happily Ever After

By: Amy Rubio
Disney, television and the media put such an unrealistic perception on love. That there is a man, man sees woman, woman falls in love with man, and they live happily ever after. Not only is love restricted to heterosexual people, but "happily ever after" bugs me so much! What happens after "happily ever after?" What are the perceptions on love that are being thrown at us everyday? And what about the concept, "Love at first sight?"

I know I had my own misconceptions about love (no thanks to Disney). However, I never bought into "love at first sight." I am cynical about that at best. It is more about "Lust at first sight." Can love really be born so quickly? To see someone's face in an instance and immediately "know" you love them? I don't buy into that one bit.

I, personally, can not stand it when people throw the word "love" around. I knew someone once that would say, "I love you" after knowing/dating the person only a day. Repeat. A DAY! I could not believe it. Maybe he really felt that way or only said it because he felt that is what the other person wanted to hear. I don't know. But I think the concept of "love at first sight" makes it so love can be seen as a fleeting thing that can come and go instantly. In this day and age, has love become something that you can get and throw away at will? Easily disposable? Is love just some fleeting emotion to be tossed aside when you've no use for it anymore?

Also, for some reason, sex has been sensationalized into representing love. Thanks society. Pressures are placed on everyone in terms of sex and love. You don't truly love someone unless you have sex with them and vice versa. Since when is sex they way to show someone you love them? I know I was pressured into having sex, but what's surprising is most of the pressure came from my three elder sisters and my twin. They thought I was prudish because I was a virgin at the age of 17/18 and that I did not ever want to talk about sex with them or learn about their experiences. I am sorry. Is there a requirement or memo I never heard of that says you have to lose your virginity by this age otherwise you are a prudish, stuck-up bitch?

All I know is that they all lost their virginity around the age of seventeen and not one of them has that guy they gave it to in their life anymore. I did not want that for myself. I did not want a guy to have sex with me only because he was attracted to my body. I wanted someone who cared about me; my mind, my heart, my soul. Not some piece of flesh to get pleasure from. Sex meant and still means more to me than just pleasure or satisfaction.

I was nineteen when I lost my virginity. It was to the man I am currently dating and he gave me his virginity as well. I knew him as a friend for a year and then dated him for six months and within that time period (no sex) I realized that I loved him. It was gradual and slow to come, but when the realization sank in I knew I wanted to grow old with him. We both shared our feelings for each other before sex was even in the picture. Even so, we waited another two moths before we both felt ready for sex. I just don't see why sex is placed at the forefronts of relationships. Our way of saying "I love you" is just being together, enjoying each others' company, and learning about each other. Sex does not define or solidify our love for each other and nor should it have to.

I am the only one out of my sisters that is in a serious relationship where marriage is in the foreseeable future. It saddens me because I am the youngest sister, yet the one most likely to get married first. It would not be so saddening if I knew that my sisters did not want to get married or if they were completely okay with being single. But I know they are looking for love just as I have, yet sex play a large part in their search when it shouldn't. Sex does not equate to someone loving you and I feel that many young women are being sent that damaging message. I honestly can't say why I turned out completely different in this area than all my other sisters but whatever it was, I am thankful for.

Lastly, "happily ever after," is another damaging message sent to young women. It implies that once you do fall in love, everything magically works out perfectly...which is entirely untrue. Relationships are work! It is hard work. Relationships are about learning about who your partner is and learning who to live with each other and make things work. Every relationship has some issues and kinks that need to be addressed. It deals with compromise on both sides, not on just one side. I know my relationship is not perfect, but I also know that we are both willing to take the time to sit down, gather our thoughts, and talk about any issue that may come up. Willingness to listen to each others; view is extremely important in order to come up with an acceptable solution for both of you. No relationship is a "happily ever after." But if you work at it, it can be very fulfilling.

»»  read more

I Am Not A Pre-Existing Condition!

By: Brook Buesking I was browsing and came across change.org 's posting on the latest drama in the unfolding reforms on the health care bill. Jen Nedeau of change.org's perfect post on the matter:

We've heard about how being a victim of domestic violence, being pregnant or having had a previous c-section can prevent a woman from qualifying for private insurance. Despite how shocking this all is, it becomes really problematic if a public option is not included in the health care reform package when and if it is ever passed.

Today, the National Women's Law Center is trying to raise awareness about these issues and more by announcing a new public awareness campaign called "Being a Woman is Not a Pre-Existing Condition." The goal of the national campaign is to educate women about the disparities they face in health care coverage and rally them to contact their Members of Congress to demand that Congress pass health reform legislation that works for women.

play the video!

The Center also released a new report, Still Nowhere to Turn: Insurance Companies Treat Women Like a Pre-Existing Condition, which provides new data about the inequities that women face in health insurance such as:

• The extent of gender rating, in which insurance companies charge women more than men for the same coverage, worsened since the Center issued its landmark Nowhere to Turn report in 2008; 93% of the best-selling plans in the individual insurance market practice gender rating in 2009 compared to 83% in 2008.

• Gender rating also occurs in the group market; insurance companies in most states are allowed to charge a business more for coverage if it employs women. Some states have protections against this discriminatory practice, but these are typically limited to small groups - such as businesses with 50 employees or less. Moderate-sized and larger businesses are subject to gender rating in all states except Montana.

• The gender gap for younger women has grown significantly in the last year; in 2009, 25-year-old women are charged as much as 84% more than men for individual health plans, compared to as much as 45% in 2008.

• To further examine the arbitrary nature of the current system, NWLC looked at premiums charged 40-year-old female non-smokers versus 40-year-old male smokers. In most states, it often costs more to be a woman than to be a male smoker; more than 60% of best-selling plans charged 40-year-old female non-smokers more than 40-year-old male smokers.

Those who want to join the campaign can visit the website to learn about the issues and upcoming events, share the facts with their own networks via social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, and post about the issue on their blogs and websites. They also can send a message to their elected officials in Congress to tell them that health care reform must meet the needs of women and their families.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Visit the website. Sign the petition.

Additionally, I received a letter from N.O.W. this morning stating that the health care bill presented is working towards eliminating safe and affordable access to abortion services for women nationwide.

NOW Opposes Health Care Bill That Strips Millions of Women of Abortion Access
Says Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose

Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill

The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.

Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.

The Stupak Amendment goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

• Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
• Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
• Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

We truly need more gender sensitive minds in Congress, in public policy/legislation, to be our advocates and social 'watchdogs'; thankfully, there are great change makers: read more here. Look out world, I will finally have my Bachelors in hand in about two months....

»»  read more

The Mind, Love and Beauty and the Beast

By: Elizabeth

I'm listening to Belle from Beauty and the Beast (at Youtube.com) and I couldn't help thinking about Gaston, the hunk who wanted to marry Belle and his plans to marry Belle. Belle is the main character of the story and the most beautiful woman in the village, however, she's rather odd because she likes to read a lot, that and she's the inventor's daughter. Gaston only wanted to marry Belle because she was the most beautiful female in town, thus making her the "best" and since he deserved the "best"- he desired her. Gaston and Belle had nothing in common, Belle also wanted nothing to do with him. Gaston, however, proceeded to ruin Belle's, the Beast's and other's lives for his quest of marrying a beautiful woman he hardly knew.




When I was younger, the story line was too complex for me to understand it's underlying tones. All I saw was a girl who had man falling over her because she was the most beautiful despite the fact that she was the odd one. (yeah, even at a young age I had issues with the way I look) Look at the message writing like this is sending our young girls, that in order to be loved you have to be beautiful YET you should look inside the heart of others if you are going to love them. This them and others I am referring to are men, does this sound like I am over generalizing? Yes, however, it seems that the media has started telling us at a young age that we have to look our best in order to be accepted!

Now that I am older, I see the story as glorifying gender and sex roles for those who are young. I'm beginning to realize why I am so cynical at the concept of love, for the simple fact that it gets thrown around a lot- in movies, television, books, school, jobs, etc.

The way I see it, if I'm going to fall in love- even if it's just once or a billion times- why I can't I do it carefully and with consideration. I don't want to fall in love with a fool because he perceives to have the qualities that I think I am looking for. I want to fall in love because this person definitely has the qualities that I am looking for and even if we don't get married, I want to know that in that moment of time my heart and mind worked in conjunction of each other. I have a habit of giving love to everyone, even those who don't deserve it and I just want, for once, to have someone take that love and hold it dear to them. To feel the same way I do, I don't want to fall in love quickly and surely.... I want it to take time and to be mutual.

Back then, Beauty and the Beast was written when looks was more important than the self- marriage was going to be loveless because people didn't last that long and cared more about their gender duty than their feelings or emotions. If Gaston, Belle, and the Beast where characters put into a story today- and not just based on some folk tale- it would have to deal with angst but one thing that would not be left out is that instant attraction at first glance. The first glance that is mentioned in Twighlight, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc where the main characters just know in an instance that the person that they are looking at is going to be a great love in their lives.

This instant attraction is what make people in present time so ready to throw the word love around. They equate that feeling of attraction with "love at first glance" without realizing that everything takes work, relationship and time. I don't get how I'm so skewed with my view on love when most people are so willing to fall in and out of love so quickly and to rush into marriage after less than a year of dating. Age has nothing to do with it, people stay serious monogamers at all ages- it takes the smart and educated people (ie, romantics who realize that love takes work to thrive, not just the cohesiveness that most people believe in) to stay together to make love and (maybe) a marriage work.

Despite its sexist undertones, there is a lesson that I take away from Beauty and the Beast, love is gradual and happens when you know the heart of a person first before weighting the physical attraction. This means that a person can love another, even if they are beautiful and the other is ugly or if the other is ugly and they are beautiful or any variation. As long as they know that this person is someone that they have allowed into their hearts, who has allowed them into theirs and know that this is the person that they want to share love and a life with.

(Although I am a cynic, I do see myself as a romantic)

»»  read more