Jul 06

The Politics of Women’s Health in the US: Part Three

The biggest news last week was no doubt the Supreme Court ruling upholding President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), or you may know it by its catchier on name ‘Obamacare’. The Act does a lot of good for different groups of Americans, but the one I want to look at is the biggest: women. This ruling was good, and I mean good news for women, i.e. half of the entire population of the US. It was like a ‘Hallelujah!” moment for women across the country (although those that don’t support the act, likely do not think so, even though they too will benefit from it!).

 

Why was the ruling so good for women? The act will end health insurer practices that actually contradict good health practices (one would think that better health for those insured would be the ultimate goal, but it’s not). Basically you and/ or the  females in your life will now have better access to more affordable coverage with more reproductive health-related specific health care measures put in place. AND, something that I find particularly exciting, (brace yourself) preventive services will be covered. Covered, as in no extra out-of-pocket cost for life-saving screenings. This is a big deal for the health of not only women, but the entire country.

 

These new changes are all great for American women; but, I think the most important issue these provisions address is the issue of gender equality. This act was designed from a sound social equality, human-rights based approach in which no one can be discriminated (i.e. not given coverage, not offered coverage, or charged more for coverage) based on their gender, much like women Continue reading

Share

Jul 05

The Gendered Nature of the English Language

I was watching my sister write thank-you cards the other day, when she came across a card from an older couple that she didn’t know very well. She stopped, realizing that she didn’t know how to properly address the envelope. I checked online and discovered that traditional etiquette dictates that a formal invitation or card should always be written “Mr. and Mrs.”, followed by the male’s full name (example: Mr. and Mrs. John Smith). Instantly, I became aggravated. What’s wrong with just a simple “John and Jane Smith”? Why should it always be the woman’s name, which has to be excluded?

The thinking behind using traditional etiquette is to first and foremost, promote respect. It’s about making other people feel comfortable and at ease at all times. However, there comes a point when traditional etiquette becomes just that- traditional. And therefore outdated. Personally, I feel rather uncomfortable at the prospect of only being referred to in relation to my husband’s identity when I’m older. Why should my name be the one to become ignored and forgotten? Why should I give up one of my greatest sources of pride, my female identity?

Gendered language has long had a home in the English language. For centuries, it has served as a way to perpetuate certain gendered roles and expectations. Think back to elementary school, when you tried to memorize the difference between “Mrs.”, “Miss”, and “Ms.”. Traditionally, “Mrs.” was used for married women, and “Miss” was for those who were unmarried. However, years ago, “Ms.” was introduced as a female equivalent for “Mr.”. Women were finally able to be greeted in the same manner as men, where their name was their first and only identifier, and marital status was only an afterthought. However, the use of “Ms.” is still limited, and has a far way to go before it catches on in daily conversational discourse, and especially until it makes its way into the books of “traditional etiquette”.

Where else does gendered language turn up in the English dictionary? There’s a long list of gender specific terms, which are scattered throughout the English language. Words like “man” and “mankind” are often used to refer to women, yet connote images of only males. “You guys” is also used often in conversational discourse. The problem with using such gender specific terminology is that it sets men as the golden standard. With such words, women take on a sort of half existence, in which they are ignored the right to a fully autonomous identity. Their identity becomes marked solely by their relation to men. The good news? That many of these gender specific words often have gender neutral counterparts:

  • man = person, individual
  • mankind= people, human beings, humanity
  • chairman= chair, chairperson, coordinator
  • mailman= postal worker, mail carrier
  • policeman= police officer
  • fireman= firefighter
  • congressman= legislator, representative
  • Dear Sir= Dear Sir or Madam, To Whom it May Concern

To use a gender specific noun, is to say that an individual’s sex is relevant to an identified role. It’s to say that only men can become chairmen, policeman, fireman, or even mailmen. When children are taught such terminology, it plants the belief in their mind that only men can dream of becoming such occupations.

In 1972… some three hundred college students were asked to select from magazines and newspapers a variety of pictures that would appropriately illustrate the different chapters of a sociology textbook being prepared for publication. Half the students were assigned chapter headings like “Social Man”, “Industrial Man”, and “Political Man”. The other half was given different but corresponding headings like “Society”, “Industrial Life”, and “Political Behavior”. Analysis of the pictures selected revealed that in the minds of students of both sexes use of the word man evoked, to a statistically significant degree, images of males only — filtering out recognition of women’s participation in these major areas of life — whereas the corresponding headings without man evoked images of both males and females…. The authors concluded, “This is rather convincing evidence that when you use the word man generically, people do tend to think male, and tend not to think female”  – Douglas R. Hofstadter

Why is there such resistance to changing to a more gender neutral language? Studies have found that those who react negatively towards such changes are in fact those who hold more sexist beliefs in the first place. Of course they don’t want to change the language. They’re often the ones benefiting from it. It is important to examine the nuances of the English language because at the end of the day, language does shape our social reality. Words have the innate ability to reinforce our beliefs about both ourselves and the world in which we live. By allowing “man” to become the anchor of our language, “woman” is only allowed to hold the place of the “other”. As long as such gender specific language exists, true gender equality cannot be achieved. However, the beauty is that while language can be a reinforcer, it can also be an instrument of change. If people allow themselves the opportunity to use more gender neutral terminology, the opportunity for change is alway there. And just like that, we finally might be able to create for ourselves a new standard of reality, and a renewed chance for gender equality.
Share

Jul 03

Redefining Feminism

If you haven’t heard, a controversy has arisen around Laura Bush recently winning the Alice Award for her good work in the Middle East supporting women’s health rights. Any woman is eligible to win, but it has traditionally been given to well-known feminists. Because of this association not everyone was happy she received the award. In fact, 22 well known feminists, including Sonia Pressman Fuentes, the co-founder of NOW, protested her right to win because Laura supposedly did not help women enough in the United States. However, many people believe the women really protested because Laura didn’t fit today’s feminist mold and therefore couldn’t be a leader in women’s rights activism.

But who sets these “standards for feminism”? Where do they come from? Shouldn’t anyone who supports women’s rights have the support of the feminist movement? Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be the case, as Laura Bush does not have their support even though she worked to help women. But the point of this article isn’t to argue whether or not Laura should have won the award. What I really want to talk about is why we have created such rigid standards for feminism and why women must supposedly conform to these standards if they want to support women’s rights.
According to the definition, a feminist is an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women. That is the entire definition. A feminist is essentially
 just someone who supports women’s rights in any capacity and isn’t restricted to certain issues or opinions. Of course, there are rights and beliefs that many feminists share but I don’t think it should be mandatory that everyone has to agree on every point. Nor do I think that some issues are more important than others. But unfortunately, it seems that a majority of the most outspoken feminists don’t agree with me. They have set a very clear standard for feminism that people must adhere to. And in their opinion anyone who does not reflect those views does not support women’s rights properly. The feminist movement has shifted in past years so that it now reflects a particular, strict vision of women’s rights that only certain women’s rights proponents support rather than a majority of women.
It’s for that reason that I’ve never really considered myself a feminist. I’ve always been a huge proponent of women’s rights and have been very outspoken in my beliefs, but I still never associated with feminism. To me it appeared to be a movement that forced its opinions on everyone and didn’t allow for debate or discussion. Maybe I’m wrong about my interpretation of feminism today, but I think there is at least some truth to my experiences because other people have had similar opinions. For example, my sister’s teacher asked everyone in her high school class to raise their hand if they considered themselves feminists. Not a single person raised their hand. Not one. This is in an extremely liberal high school, so I know a majority, if not the entire classroom of people, support women’s rights and yet they didn’t consider themselves feminists. In my opinion, this perfectly highlights the problem. There appears to be no place within the movement for people, like myself, who support women’s rights but don’t agree with in all areas with leaders. I am a strong proponent of women’s rights and yet Continue reading

Share

Jul 03

The Commercialization of American Schools

The reality is that many schools have money problems. Big money problems. Across the country there are major budget cuts and layoffs. Financial issues have been the main topic of conversation in schools for years. A recent solution that many schools have adopted is to allow companies advertising rights within the school, in exchange for a little cash. For many districts with serious budget problems, the money received through advertising becomes a saving grace. What’s the problem with a little brand name exposure if it means an improved music program for the school? More science equipment? Or that they finally will be able to purchase some computers for the library? What’s the harm done?

School sports fields have long been home to advertisements, promoting small town businesses and multinational corporations alike. Logos are often found on the scoreboards, nestled right between the scores of the game and amount of time remaining. School buses have also historically been a traditional advertising platform for schools. However, the advertising of today has turned into more than just athletic fields and buses. Company logos can now be found everywhere from the school hallway, to lockers, to vending machines in the cafeteria. Not even report cards are left untouched. At Jefferson County Public School District in Denver, a college savings program named CollegeInvest has the rights to advertise on the district’s report cards for the next three years, modeled after McDonald’s scheme in Seminole County in Florida just a few years before.

What’s the problem with advertising in schools? The problem comes at the divide between the opposing goals of schools and advertisers themselves. Advertisers don’t necessarily care about the children. They’re not concerned about their well-being, or education. Simply put, the main objective of many advertisers is to sell as many products as possible. Their intention is to sell a way of life, which promotes the product, by popularizing certain behaviors, values, and ideals. In the end, it’s a culture that promotes bolstering private profits rather than the public good.

Among the values of a commercial-based culture? First of all, it’s a culture, which emphasizes material goods over all else as way to achieving life satisfaction. It’s a culture of conformity. And more than anything else, it’s a culture based around the concept of brand loyalty. Did you know that basic brand loyalty starts as young as two? And that by age three, most children can differentiate one brand logo from another? Advertising in schools builds the perfect platform for advertisers to latch on to their cradle-to-grave mentality. While you might think that seeing a mere logo on a scoreboard is trivial in the scheme of things, a lifetime full of logos, advertising, and marketing campaigns is anything but. Brand loyalty becomes established in the minds of the students from the moment that they arrive at the school steps on their first day in kindergarten. Do you know why children are the most desirable target audience for advertisers? Because if you can catch a kid at age five, you’ve got them hooked for life.

This can be attributed to the fact that young school children are the most vulnerable Continue reading

Share

Jul 02

HIV Test Now At A Pharmacy Near You

Remember the last time you went to the pharmacy to pick up your prescription? You probably have seen signs in your local pharmacy offering flu shots or blood pressure tests. Now the next time you go into your local pharmacy, you may see signs advertising a new health service: free rapid HIV testing. The Center of Disease Control has recently invested $1.2 million dollars in a new pilot program in association with local pharmacies and in store clinics. This pilot program will be run in over 24 cities and rural communities in the next few weeks. CDC has already started this pilot program in select Walgreens Pharmacies in Chicago, Washington D.C, and a clinic in Lithonia, Georgia. Pharmacists and staff will be trained on how to administer the test as well as learn some counseling techniques. This test will be a simple cheek swab test done in private room in the pharmacy with full confidentiality. The patient will find out results within twenty minutes. Also, if the test is positive, staff will direct the patient to other health care providers for a blood test to confirm the results. Next summer, CDC will then analyze the results and decide whether nationwide HIV testing in pharmacies and in store clinics should be implemented at a larger scale. I think that this program has great potential with exception of one issue.

HIV and AIDS has always been a controversial issue in the United States since the discovery of the disease in 1981. Many people do not get tested for many different reasons. Stigma is still one of the many reasons people today do not get HIV tested. Offering accessible testing in local pharmacies, I think is a great way for people that are afraid of stigma to overcome that fear. It is very confidential and discreet. For example, Walgreens has created a  simple test request card, which looks very similar to normal business card. Customers can simply get a test by just giving the clerk the card. Another positive factor is that it is very convenient because it is easily accessible. People do not need to get a doctor’s appointment or travel far to get a test. Individuals can easily go their local pharmacy or in store clinic. There are many financial reasons why many people do not get tested. People who do not have insurance or whose insurance does not cover HIV testing can get the test for free of charge. Since it is free, more people will get tested for virus. This program definitely does help makes HIV testing more widely accessible and inexpensive, which means more people will probably get tested than otherwise.

Even though this pilot program may help increase the number of people getting HIV tested, there is one negative aspect about this program. I think that learning that you are HIV positive is completely different than finding out that your blood pressure is a bit high. Local Pharmacists and staff may have received some counseling training, however I do not think that little training is suffice. The patient can become psychologically distressed when finding out that the test results and they can potentially hurt others and themselves. There is no psychological support that may be found at a doctor’s office or the health department in small local settings. For example, pharmacists or staff should be able to go through a comprehensive and extensive counseling training made specifically for this program. The trainee could receive a special certificate at the end of the training that shows he or she has certified counseling training specifically for HIV testing.

I think that this pilot program is a great idea to make HIV testing more accessible to the general population. There are over 200,000 americans that are living with HIV but have no knowledge of it. Treatment is best when the virus is caught in its early stages. Since it is convenient, more people will get tested than usual. I just wished there was a stronger psychological support system also involved in the program. Despite that, this program has potential to be successful. HIV testing can really save lives and this is a great way to promote HIV testing.

Share

Jun 29

Redefining Beauty: It’s Time for a Change. It’s Time for a New Standard of Beauty.

Did you know that 80% of ten-year-old children are afraid of becoming fat? And that around 90% of 15-17 year-old girls want to change at least one aspect of their appearance? Or that girls are three times more likely than boys to have a negative body image? What’s the reason behind these startling statistics? The media, who sends the same message time and time again to young girls- that appearances are everything. The pursuit, for many young girls, becomes bodily perfection.What will it take to stop this media madness, and repair the declining state of girls’ body image in our society? Will the media finally change its ways, or is it time for people to take on the challenge themselves? Learn more about the effect of the media on girls’ body image by watching this short video, and join the conversation today.

Share

Jun 29

Forced Marriage: How to reconcile differences in culture and tradition with law?

Recently in the UK, that age-old question has popped up again of how to reconcile differences between cultural/ traditional practices and human rights through law. The practice I’m talking about here is forced marriage, the human rights would be the abuse and lack of life choices by those forced into the marriage (likened to being “little more than slavery” by the Prime Minister David Cameron), and the law would be impending UK legislation criminalizing forced marriage. This legislation has stirred up a lot of emotions throughout the UK and has created a debate over whether criminalizing forced marriage is the right avenue towards erasing it versus creating public awareness about the issue and eliminating it through the education of people of human rights. So what to do? Penalize or educate? I say, why can’t it be both?

I know it may seem like a cop out over something so debatable to say both answers are correct, but it’s not and they are and they aren’t. I’m not talking about some 50/50, easy solution here. This is a complex issue with many nuances and loads of implications for the future of those forced into marriages, their families and their communities. What I’m saying is it needs to be a blend of the two, where awareness-raising through educating people is strongly pushed and backed up by law to safeguard humans’ rights.

First it’s important to make the distinction that I’m not just talking about early marriages here (you can be forced into marriage at any age, although it typically does occur when younger) and I’m not referring to arranged marriages. I’m talking about a marriage where one or both parties are forced into it and it’s quite a problem in the UK where 8,000 cases are reported yearly (likely an underestimate). It’s also important to note that while most of these women are from South Asia and forced marriage is often associated as a religious practice, it’s not. No major world religion endorses this practice, it’s a cultural tradition.

The analogy presented by dissenters against the law compares it to UK efforts to stop female genital mutilation (FGM) and its total failure to bring about any course of action. This side of the argument has their reasons and I think they are completely valid. The practice will likely get pushed Continue reading

Share

Jun 29

No Controversy – The fight for contraceptives

When you think about Women’s rights what comes to your mind? The right to receive an education? Abortion? What about the right to plan their own families? Whenever women’s reproductive and health rights are being discussed, there is always controversy surrounding this issue. Especially when it comes to using contraceptives, also known as birth control. In the United States, millions of women use birth control and have easy access to contraceptives. But what about the millions of women in developing countries that want birth control but do not have access to it? Almost 215 million women and girls across the globe do not have access to basic reproductive care. Something simple like birth control can really change the lives of women and help reduce poverty in various ways. I believe that contraceptives should not be controversial at all. It important for governments and organizations around the world to focus putting birth control and family planning back on the global health agenda and realize how effective birth control can be in reducing poverty. On July 11th 2012, a Family Planning summit in London will be held in association with the United Kingdom Government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. To gain more support and to spread more awareness about this issue before the summit, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation along with its partners, have launched a No Controversy to Contraceptives online campaign.

The No Controversy campaign is a fully fledged online campaign that enables women and girls from all over the world to show their support for contraceptive use and the right for women to control their own sexual and reproductive health. Individuals can share their stories online and they will be published on the website. The website shares more information about the cause such as why this is an issue, why are contraceptives the solution, and what individuals can do to help with the cause. People can also send premade tweets from the website through their twitter account to share with their followers. I definitely like the idea of the campaign and the overall premise behind it. In my opinion, I really think this is a good idea to spread more awareness about this issue by using an interactive website and twitter. I liked that you can also share the link to the website through twitter or use it as your status on facebook.

Even though this campaign is a good idea it is not good enough to create an impact about the issue itself. For instance, there are so many other different platforms for social networking. If the campaign better incorporated other social media sites such as Tumblr, Youtube, and Pinterest into its website. It could have a much larger audience, hence more impact. For example, Almost 80% of Pinterest users Continue reading

Share

Jun 28

The Politics of Women’s Health in the US: Part Two

Apparently freedom of speech and talking like an adult are not acceptable in some places in 2012. Specifically I’m talking about the Michigan House of Representatives where, as you may have heard, one female state representative and her colleague were banned, banned, from speaking because of a word that was uttered. What could she have possibly done that was so offensive, so out of line, so vulgar that she should be banned from speaking on the house floor? Wait for it….she said vagina. How shocking!

No, this is not something out of a political satire. Democratic Representative Lisa Brown actually said the technical name for what a part of the body

Michigan State Representative Lisa Brown

is called and actually got her freedom of speech revoked from the Michigan House floor. Now, let’s look at this in context. She wasn’t running around yelling “Vagina!” at the top of her lungs just to get a reaction. No, the state House was discussing one of the most restrictive pro-life pieces of legislation ever to be brought to a House that is to be voted on. Oh yes, Rep. Lisa Brown was banned (by the male Republican House leaders) from speaking for using a medically correct term while discussing legislation directly about said medically correct term.

What’re the real underlying issues here?  This can’t just be about the use of a blush-inducing word, can it? It’s not. Right now in the US women’s health has for some inexplicable reason become a major political issue. Throughout the states, legislation attempting to control access to contraception and abortion has made a resurgence. The real problem here is that open and candid discussions about this major issue are not happening. The real issue is that male state House leaders think that they can silence women from talking about women’s health.

One of the more outraging facts in this story is the language used by the spokesperson for the House majority leader. Ari Adler in his comment on the situation boldly stated that Brown wasn’t silenced because of the word she used; it was the way that she disrupted the House and essentially threw a “temper tantrum,” like an unruly child. Now, there are two things blatantly wrong with what Mr. Adler has to say. If you watch the video below of Brown’s speech in question, the only thing that could be somewhat and loosely labeled a disruption after she utters the infamous word, is a few, and I mean very few, cheers and applause. None of the lawmakers behind her even flinch at what she says. Secondly, this is blatantly not some “childish fit of rage” and it’s highly offensive to invoke the stereotype of the overly emotional and angry female in a situation where she is obviously quite composed. Way to further perpetuate female stereotypes.

If you want to talk about women’s health, fine. But, you had better be able to stomach the language that comes along with it. That’s the thing. Here we have state lawmakers that think the use of the correct anatomical term for a female body part is so “disturbing” that it can’t be used in a professional Continue reading

Share

Jun 28

What Makes an Athlete a “Woman”?

It’s officially less than one month until the Olympics. Twenty-nine days to be exact. (Not that I’ve been counting…) Ever since I’ve been young, I’ve loved the Olympics. From the moment the Opening Ceremony starts, I’m glued to my television set- through all the events, the award ceremonies, and straight through to the Closing Ceremony.There’s nothing like it in the world.

Dramatic juxtapositions mark every event of the Olympic Games. On one side, there’s joy. Extreme joy. Displays of happiness like none other, as athletes celebrate their long awaited victory, as they finally realize that all of their dreams have finally come true. At the same time, standing near them is an athlete in despair. The athlete bent over in anguish, tears streaming down their face, as they realize that their lifelong dream of winning Olympic gold might be gone for good.

While devastating, that’s the beauty in the Olympics. Some win, some lose. Not everybody can win that coveted gold medal. But everyone at least has the opportunity to try. Or can they? Due to the recent movement to reinstate sex testing back into the Olympic games, there is a possibility that some female athletes might not be able to after all.

Sex verification is nothing new. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) first introduced it back in 1968, amidst emerging questions about the fine line between sex, gender, and athletes in the world of sports. During that time, female athletes were subjected to a series of degrading physical examinations in order to verify their sex before competing. Due to complaints over the invasive and humiliating procedure, the IOC decided to choose something more technologically advanced- the chromosome test. From that point on, sex verification took place based on the chromosome test, which analyzed the athlete’s individual chromosomes instead. However, many geneticists fought this testing too, stating that it was far too simplistic of a test. The Committee was further humiliated during the 1996 Atlanta Games, after eight of the female competitors failed the original chromosome test, but were later cleared during a physical examination, as it was determined that seven of the eight were born with an intersex condition. Luckily, all were then allowed to compete. Then there is the story of Caster Semenya.

During the world track and field championships held in Berlin, Germany in August 2009, eighteen-year-old Caster Semenya was nearly stripped of her gold medal victory in the 800 meters. It wasn’t because she was disqualified. Or involved in some type of scandal. It was because track officials thought she might have been too “masculine” to compete in a women’s event.

Caster Semenya

Semenya won the gold medal in the 800 meter race, beating her competitors by more than two seconds, with a time of 1 minute, and 55.45 seconds. However, she soon realized that she might have to hand back that medal, as the International Association of Athletics Federations was planning on conducting a sex discrimination testing to determine whether Semenya was eligible to compete as a woman. What brought on this investigation? Semenya’s husky voice. Her muscular build. And the fact that she beat her fellow competitors by over two seconds in the race. Luckily, Semenya “passed” the sex discrimination test, and was able to keep her gold medal. However, it became a public relations nightmare for the International Association of Athletics Federation, and sex testing was officially abolished by the IOC from the 2000 Sydney Games.

However, last Friday, the International Olympic Committee posted a new set of regulations, as a supposed improvement on the old sex discrimination tests. The new regulations will determine whether women are able to compete based on Continue reading

Share