Staus Quo: Football vs. Women, Howard Zinn

Ah yes, the status quo. It's nearly impossible to escape. The Super Bowl defines it, while Howard Zinn defied it.

Football vs. Women

Jaclyn Friedman wrote an interesting piece at The Nation referencing the Focus on the Family's upcoming ad to be aired during the Super Bowl, that I talked about a week ago.

Friedman discusses the objectification and general poor portrayal of women during the big game in "The Second Sex at the Super Bowl," which in and of itself, is nothing new. The Focus on the Family's ad, however, brings the debate to a new level:

Enter the Focus on the Family ad, thirty seconds of squeaky-clean "family values" that make the astonishing claim that women shouldn't have abortions because they might be gestating a future male sports star. There's a lot wrong with this argument, not the least of which is the statistical reality that it's significantly more likely that women who choose to carry their fetuses to term will give birth to rapists or murderers than to Heisman Trophy winners. But what makes it such a perfect fit for the Super Bowl is its blatant cynicism about the role of women when it comes to the big game. It's not enough that we be always available, conventionally beautiful sex-objects. Now we have a CBS-sanctioned ad telling us that if we get knocked up as a result of all that (relentlessly heterosexual) sex, we have only two choices: have the baby, or become an enemy of Football Nation.

This is the point I tried to make in my post, although Friedman puts it much more eloquently. (which is probably why they pay her the big bucks at The Nation. Ha.) "Enemy of Football Nation," eh? Doesn't sounds like the Tebows' and Focus on the Family are going to give women much of a choice.

Furthermore, Friedman argues that CBS and the media should be more responsible about their portrayals of women, considering the huge viewership:

There are few events in the American calendar that bring together more people than the Super Bowl--nearly as many people will watch next Sunday as voted in the 2008 presidential election. If it really is the love of football, friends and family that brings us all together, then it's time to stop helplessly accepting an event that treats half the population like expendable fodder for the other half's entertainment.

Not a bad idea.

(via Feministing)

Howard Zinn

I don't typically find myself feeling sentimental about the passing of celebrities, but for Howard Zinn I need to make an exception. Zinn died last week, at the age of 87. He was an outspoken activist who made his living as a historian. His tenacity and courage of conviction have always been an inspiration to me.

I first read A People's History of the United States for a high school class, which seemed ridiculous at the time, but now I recognize it as the fantastic opportunity it was. About a year ago I read Failure to Quit on a whim when I came across it at the library. I loved hearing from the Zinn the Activist and would highly recommend it. (You can read my review at Goodreads here.)

Revere at Effect Measure, a public health blog, published two Zinn-themed posts last week that are worth a read: Howard Zinn, 1922-2010 and Advice from Howard Zinn.

Lastly, here is one of my favorite quotes from Failure to Quit. When times are tough, it always makes me feel optimistic about the future.

History has always belonged to the people who controlled whatever present there was. They control history. So it’s not a matter of taking it back. Very often people will say, Let us restore America to what it once was. To what? Slavery? Let us restore the good old days? The good old days lie ahead.

Things I Used to Wear: S.T.A.R.S.

Look you guys, I need to get something off my chest: I used to volunteer as a abstinence-only "teen mentor" for middle-schoolers.

Seriously: in the Students Today Aren't Ready for Sex program, or S.T.A.R.S. for short. This is the shirt I wore every week to brainwash the young and impressionable minds of 12- and 13-year-old boys and girls.

I'm so embarrassed. I was going to confess this yesterday in my Blog for Choice post because it seemed relevant. But then, on the other hand, it didn't seem relevant.

In my defense, I was young and foolish. I needed to pad my college applications with something more versatile and substantial than athletics. S.T.A.R.S. was perfect in this capacity. To the casual viewer, this activity demonstrated that I was compassionate and interested in current affairs; a leader among men. However, to anyone else I probably seemed like a spineless d-bag, easily persuaded into selling her soul by empty rhetoric and the possibility of interacting with conservative Christian boys.

You know, the funny thing is that sometimes being a spineless d-bag has it's advantages. In the 3rd week of my second year doing S.T.A.R.S. (no, I didn't get enough the first time around), both of my co-mentors were going to be out of town for some super-fab spring break trip I wasn't invited to. There were a number of fellow mentors who could fill in for the one session, but I decided to impose on a guy I'd been interested in for the past few months. Why not? The fact was I needed someone to help me run the session, and this was innocent enough. Plus, he had a car.

So, what happened? Did we hook up wearing our S.T.A.R.S. shirts? Um, no. This is not that story. The boy in question, let's call him Val Kilmer, agreed to assist me for the one session. We were alone in his car. We got lunch. We talked about music and mutual friends. It was one of those very strange situations that when you're in them, you have no idea what's going on. Afterwards, you think that maybe it could have been almost a date, but it was definitely not a date because either you or the other person was being weird. And you only realize that it could have been sort of a date a few days later, and by then it is much, much to late to do anything about the fact that you blew it. (Those last couple sentences sound like they could have been part of a monologue in the movie "He's Just Not That Into You." Which, bt-dubs, is the worst movie in existence. Or at least top 10.)

Obviously, I was the one who blew it, for reasons that would be foreign to me except for I don't think they even exist. Being a teenager and trying to get a little action is hard enough, and it is nearly impossible when the irony of your self-righteous, abstinent douchebaggery is staring you in the face. Ay, ay, ay. (Looking back, the writing was on the wall. A popular strip club in my hometown shared the name of the program, so I was often teased about working for Stars Cabaret when I wore this t-shirt to school. In my dreams, people.)

When I found the picture of this shirt tonight, that was the first memory that popped into my head. Ridiculous, huh? For the record, the second memory was of a fellow teen mentor roleplaying the part of a 12-year-old during training. For some reason she was also playing the part as if she were a Chinese-Italian exchange student. "Wat iz dees prega-nancy?" she wondered obnoxiously.

I think this video pretty much sums up the situation.

*********************
Things I Used to Wear is an irregular series featuring strange items from my former wardrobe. Past entries have included a tank top, shoes, a shirt, glittery makeup and another tank top.

Blog for Choice Day 2010 (was 2 days ago)

Friday was NARAL's 5th annual Blog for Choice Day. I had every intention of dedicating a post on HWW to the event, which is held on January 22 to commemorate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (37th this year!).

Obviously, I am a slacker and no such post exists. In my defense, I had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week, so you should all feel very sorry for me. I cried at work. Who cries at work?! I'm 25 years old, for Chrissake. A huge chunk of my pride is gone forever. Which will be followed by another huge chunk of my pride the next time it happens. And the next time, and so on. Lovely.

Anyway, the theme of this year's Blog for Choice Day was "Trust Women," which is an homage to the late Dr. Tiller who typically wore a button carrying the sentiment.

Before I get into a discussion of "Trusting Women", I wanted to talk about this theme in relation to a upcoming commercial. The commercial in question is Focus on the Family's pro-life/anti-choice ad, which is set to air during the Super Bowl. In a completely inexplicable move, CBS is allowing Focus on the Family to be the Super Bowl's first "issue ad" to ever appear. In the past, Moveon.org, PETA and the United Church of Christ have attempted to buy Super Bowl real estate, but CBS has turned down their requests, according to AlterNet.

Although representatives at CBS refused to talk to the Advocate (weird), spokesman Dana McClintock told the NY Times: “Our standards and practices continue to adhere to a policy that insures that all ads on all sides of an issue are appropriate for air.” I'll believe when I see it.

The 30-second, $2.8 million ad will feature the notoriously obnoxious--I mean, religious--University of Florida QB Tim Tebow, and his mommy, Pam. According to Wikipedia, Tebow's mother became seriously ill during her pregnancy and the medications used to save her life threatened the Tebow fetus. Doctor's recommended she terminate the pregnancy, anticipating a still-birth which could put Mama Tebow at serious risk. Obviously, the abortion did not occur, and the little Tebow grew up to be (against all the homeschooling odds) an NCAA football megastar.

The Tebow's will presumably relate this story during Focus on the Family's commercial.

So, ladies listen up! Please consider the odds of your fetus growing up to become a professional athlete (supposedly 1 in 22,000) before you terminate a pregnancy. I think that's what Focus on the Family is getting at. We'll see on February 7.

Now back to "Trust Women." Jos at Feministing writes:

Since Roe v. Wade became law 37 years ago abortion access has been under constant attack both from antis in the streets and legislation like the Hyde Amendment. Regardless of intent many of these actions send a clear message that women can't be trusted. Abortion, a medical procedure that is only needed by members of a marginalized population, has been singled out from all other procedures as something the state will not support financially and that often requires crossing medically unnecessary hurdles like waiting periods, parental consent, and harassment by antis. The implication is both that abortion should be controversial and taboo and that women can't be trusted to decide if they should have the procedure, even with the help of doctors and counselors.

"Trust Women" is a reminder that access to abortion shouldn't be limited because of politics or religious ideology. And it's a reminder that no one but the woman seeking an abortion is qualified to decide if it's the right decision. "Trust Women" means recognizing that each individual woman can make her own decisions about what is best for her.

Jos is pretty smart, and these things make sense to me. The logistical and financial hoops that women have to jump through in order to get an abortion are often excessive, and are put in place by people who out of touch with the reality of the situation.

"Trust Women" reminds us that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is not a simple one that a woman takes lightly. Young, middle-aged, single, married, whatever-- an unwanted pregnancy is a scary situation, and I think it's ignorant to assume that women carelessly choose to abort.

On the other hand, (yes, there is another hand) it takes two to tango, right? While I firmly believe that a woman should have the final decision in whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term or not, should her opinion be the only one that matters? What about the father? Does he have no voice?

Sure, you're probably rolling your eyes right now. If you came to this blog on purpose (ha!), you probably know me and we're probably similar people: women, liberal, open-minded. But there's more to it than that. Honestly, I used to think that the man's opinion was irrelevant. Whoever he was, it didn't matter! It's not his body, it shouldn't be his choice.

But what sort of man-hating bullshit is that? Of course the father should get a say! There should always be a discussion. That's all I'm saying. If you can be an adult and have sex and get pregnant, then you can be an adult and talk about the consequences.

If nothing else, look at it like this: why should women carry the entire burden of deciding to have an abortion? It's not fair. Share the experience, share the emotional toll.

And that's all she wrote on Blog for Choice Day (two days late).

Happy New Year!

2010! Whoa! Can you believe it? Time flies when you're living your life.

Speaking of which... I've taken an unintentional hiatus from Healthy, Wealthy & Wise, and I'm sad about this. Life has been overwhelming the last couple months, but I plan on getting back into the blog soon. Promise.

While I have your attention, I wanted to relate a short anecdote, which has given me great cause for concern recently. A couple days ago, a coworker found out that he has some major health problems, and is undergoing a serious medical procedure next week. He's in his 6o's and strives to be active and healthy, leading a weekly "health and wellness" group for our clients. So how did Mr. Healthy get sick? He stopped drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes a number of years ago, doesn't touch red meat and sprinkles seaweed on nearly everything (which has arguable benefits). He's been unable to get much exercise in the last year due to a prolonged rehab from illness, but in a previous lifetime, he was very active.

It blows my mind that my coworker is going through this right now (and only partially because I'm selfish and his absence virtually doubles my work load). He works so hard to advocate healthy choices, and seems to practice what he preaches. I think that heredity plays a significant role in these situations, but to some extent, is this also a cautionary tale? (See picture.) Will the decisions we make now affect us more significantly down the road? Food for thought.

Take care of yourself, please. And Happy New Year!

Facebook, Schmacebook: Privacy & Positivity

After I wrote the Frenemies and Facebook post about a month ago, my FB usage dropped off dramatically. My new job duties leave exactly no time to mess around on the computer, which isn't the worst thing in the world. Now, instead of obsessively checking the "Live Feed" on my FB homepage, I fill my working hours interacting with loads of strange people and time-consuming tasks of the cooking and cleaning variety. I've gone from working with one person and exchanging a handful of spoken sentences every day to engaging in near-constant conversation with upwards of 40 people (not all at once, but throughout the day). Have you ever attempted to make meatloaf and salad for 20 people while pretending to be interested in a monologue on Japanese school girls and supervising unnaturally perky nursing interns?

It's a little like herding cats. In heat. Who are on a cocktail of anti-psychotics.

Anyway, two Facebook related things caught my eye recently. One was extremely useful, while the other was extremely annoying. Here they are.

Extremely Useful: 5 Easy Steps to Stay Safe (and Private!) On Facebook (Via the New York Times Technology section)

I expected to know everything in this article because I consider myself to be a Facebook expert. It turns out that I have an inflated sense of self, I am not an expert, and this article offered up a few important housecleaning tips for the FB.

#1 Make Friend Lists: I have done this a little bit, and I can see how it could be very useful to put people in categories, so you can block certain groups. But am I really going to spend an hour or two sorting through all my "friends"? No. (Maybe you can though?)

#2 Who Can See What On Your Profile: Check out the privacy settings! There are lots of options now for who can see the various bits of info you've put up on your page.

#3 Who Can See Your Address and Phone Number: Um... why are you putting this on your page in the first place? I suppose if you must include your digits, you can use the privacy settings to restrict random people from calling you.

#4 Change Who Can Find You on Facebook Via Search: You can become invisible with the click of a button. I imagine this option as a sort of FB Witness Protection Program.

#5 Stop Sharing Personal Information With Unknown Applications: Seriously! I had no idea about this. If you are a compulsive quiz taker, please go to Edit Applications and purge some of those long-forgotten apps that still have the right to view your profile information. You can either delete apps or restrict their ability to email you and post things about you under "Edit Settings" for each one. Take back control on Facebook!

Extremely Annoying: My profile, myself (Via Boston Globe Sunday Magazine)

I understand the concept of a "puff piece" and I accept that it has a place in print media. Not every article needs to be a hard hitting exposé on Mexican drug lords, because that would just be silly. But some puff pieces try too hard to be witty or playful or poignant... and they just annoy the bejesus out of me.

Example: "My profile, myself". Kara Baskin waxes poetic about Facebook and the compulsive urge to be optimistic, as evidenced through status updates, photos and other public correspondence.

One early-morning browse through Facebook a couple weeks ago, I encountered a woman who had it all: She got massages, partied in New York City, and was perpetually off to fabulous restaurants. When she wasn’t dining out, her loving husband was preparing gourmet meals. She was popular, too -- 630 friends! I took a swig of coffee. That person was me. The same me who was nursing an unrelenting zit while listening to that gourmet husband hiss about a $2,000 car part.

I took another gulp of coffee and updated my status: “Loves caffeine!”

Baskin admits that even she is annoyed by her own inane positivity. Well, maybe not annoyed, but ashamed to some extent. She goes on to relate her attempt to publish more even-handed status updates, which included references to her husband's brief unemployment. But then at a party, an acquaintance references a status update in regular life, and it freaks her out. "Wait, I'm not trying to be popular... I just am popular?! Awesome! I mean... weird??"

And that fake quote sums up the article.

In all seriousness, I agree with Baskin that the daily "sugar-spun epiphanies" that appear in many profiles are generally unnecessary. Sharing the occasional good news is one thing, but adding ten exclamation points to an update about watching movies and eating dinner is excessive. Also, daily Zen-ish adages like "Life is truth" or "Friendship is life" are just silly. Don't do that.

So, what is my point? At the end of the day, Facebook is not that interesting. And talking about Facebook is even less interesting. Plus, a few other things... like, "Practice forgiving yourself for being human. Then pass that forgiveness on to others." (Courtesy of a recent status update)