femonomics

Recipe Fridays: Butternut squash lasagna with brown-butter ricotta

2011-12-09T09:30:00.001-05:00

This is a recipe based on the idea of those yummy butternut squash ravioli that proliferate at restaurants this time of year--butternut squash, brown butter, and sage, but in something you can make at home! This recipe takes at least 1.5 hours (not all of it active) from start to finish, so plan ahead!

1 box flat "no boil" lasagna noodles
1 3lb butternut squash
1 16 oz container ricotta cheese (part skim)
1/2 stick butter
olive oil, salt, nutmeg, maple syrup
3-4 leaves fresh sage
parmesan cheese

Start by peeling the butternut squash. The easiest method is to chop the "stem" part off from the bulb, and then chop off the very top and peel it straight down the sides. Then cut the bottom off the bulb, peel, but in half, and scoop out seeds. Chop into 1" chunks (or smaller for faster cooking time). Toss with olive oil and salt, then spread in single layer on 1 or 2 foil-covered cookie sheets, and roast at 375F for about 30 minutes, stirring 3-4 times, or until squash is soft and starting to brown lightly in places. Either place in blender or in a bowl and use immersion blender, add about two cups of water, and blend to a smooth puree. This takes the place of "sauce" in regular no-boil lasagna, so you want it to be quite slushy--add more water if needed. Add maple syrup to taste (it should be sweet, but not dessert-like) and just a hint of nutmeg.

Meanwhile, melt the butter in a saucepan, swirling with a whisk, over low-medium heat. Continue cooking until it starts to brown and smell "toasty", then reduce heat and cook 1-2 minutes more until butter is browned (but not black!) throughout. Stir all but 1 tablespoon of the browned butter into the ricotta cheese (this is why I recommend part skim--it gets plenty rich), then add about 1 cup of water to make the ricotta light and fluffy. Season with salt to taste. Chop the sage and set aside.

Spread 1/4 of the squash on the bottom of a lasagna pan. Layer three lasagna noodles on top (or four if you like to overlap, but that means one less layer. I prefer to leave gaps and let the noodles spread to fill). Spread 1/2 ricotta mixture on noodles. Layer three more noodles on top, then 1/4 of the squash mixture. On top of this layer, sprinkle the chopped sage evenly. Layer three more noodles, then the rest of the ricotta. Three more noodles, then 1/4 squash. Three more noodles, then spread remaining squash mixture on top (this is important, to ensure the top noodle layer cooks) and pour down the sides. You should end up with squash, noodle, ricotta, noodle, squash & sage, noodle, ricotta, noodle, squash, noodle, squash--5 noodle layers, 2 ricotta, and 4 squash. Sprinkle with parmesan cheese, cover with foil, and bake at 375F for about 20 minutes, then uncover and let the cheese brown for the last 10. You'll know it's done when a knife easily inserts, meaning the noodles are cooked through.

To serve, dot with the last tablespoon of brown butter, and cut into slices between the noodles in thirds, then in thirds the other way. Goes great with raw kale salad. Serves 4.

Housekeeping

2011-12-05T21:02:00.002-05:00

Hi Everyone! In case you were wondering, yes, femonomics is back in a limited capacity. Mongoose and I had to take a break for a little while due to career, school, etc, but are going to start up blogging again, although not as prolifically, nor as broadly, as we were. In particular, we're going to keep the blog focused on policy/economics, feminism, and of course, recipe Fridays. While we cook up the next post, here are some of our greatest hits you might enjoy:

Sexy rape: What Ayn Rand, Michael Winterbottom, and Ang Lee have in common

Are men smarter than women? Your guide to detecting bad science

An American doctor in Paris (or why I want an apology from Jezebel)

How to pick up chicks: A reasonably informed response to pickup artist guides

Watching the Blind Side, thinking about Hollywood's problem with race

XKCD and pornography (and feminism?)

Saving "Africa"? Who said they want it?

In advocating for others, listening is prime

Mad Men: Remind me again how Pete Campbell is supposed to be a sympathetic character?

Last but not least, the Nutella Milkshake

We hope you enjoy reading, and we hope you stick around to see what we come up with next!

-Coca Colo

Involuntary Sterilization, Cowboy Doctors, and the West in Africa

2011-11-27T23:48:00.004-05:00

J from Tales from the Hood sure knows how to cheer a girl up. By sending her a story about someone bragging about participating in a non-consensual sterilization in Tanzania!

Now, this is not some big well known person, and there are lots of stupid people on the internet, posting about doing lots of terrible things. So why does this warrant a post? Well, maybe, because J felt the need to "share the love" with me, and now I want to share it with you, so we can stare open-mouthed together. But also, because even though this is just one guy posting about doing stupid things in developing countries, I think his mindset is reflective of a far more common, and deeply damaging, mindset in aid workers: "We're here to help. Therefore, we're helping." And also: "We know better than the poor people (after all, they are poor, and we are not)." Neither of those are true, as J and others have meticulously documented. So, into the meat of our story.

The blog's author, Erik, is a doctor working in a village in Tanzania. A Tanzanian doctor comes to his house at 9 pm, asking for help:

"Hello Dakatari, come on in." We never used each others name. Only Daktari. It's how it is done. The challenge was to use it in every single sentence.
"Daktari, I wonder if I could beg a little help from you this evening. We have a little bit of a problem, Daktari."
"Happy to help, Daktari. What's up?"
"Daktari, a woman has come in to the clinic tonight. She is pregnant and has been in labor for two full days. She has been with the village Traditional Healer for the whole day."

The Traditional Healer. Say no more. Straight away I knew this was not going to go well. Each village had a Traditional Healer/Witch Doctor who practiced ancient arts of medicine. These techniques included ritual skin cutting, herbs and randomly placed sticks through punctures. I'm sure that many of their methods worked, but the only ones we ever saw were the ones that didn't. In those cases the patients would be dragged to our hospital as a last resort. They were usually in septic shock, nearly dead or horribly late for treatment like our Sunday night patient.

The woman needs a C-section, and the Tanzanian doctor has an injured hand, so can't perform the surgery himself. Eric is hesitant since OBGyn isn't his specialty, and he hasn't performed a C-section in 20 years, but he ultimately agrees. The patient's health takes a turn for the worse during the operation:

"How's it going up there, doc?" I asked. Everyone who wasn't a Daktari, I called doc. It was simpler.
"Hmmmmmm..........." I thought he didn't understand my English. I spoke slower.
"How is she doing, doc?"
"Hmmmmmmm...................Well, Daktari, maybe she is not breathing. I cannot be sure," he said without an ounce of panic. I thought: that's a little nonchalant for what he's talking about.

They begin CPR:

"Daktari, the epidural injection must have gone too high and paralyzed all her nerve function," I said as I started doing chest compression over her sternum.. I heard a rib crack with a loud POP under my hand and I winced.

"Yes Daktari. I believe that is correct," said Dr. M. She is a young woman and this is her fifth baby. She has a good heart."
Fifth baby, I thought. Holy shit. All I could think of was five orphans.
"C'mon, cmon," I said to no one in particular, "this cannot go down like this."

And here's where it happens:

As I pumped on her chest I saw Dr. M working inside her belly with his one good hand. With her body heaving back and forth from the chest compressions it must have been like trying to do a tattoo in a car on a bumpy road.
"How's she doing down there, Daktari?" I asked.
"Fine. I am tying her tubes. I think she does not need another baby after this." Dr. M was a cool character. I was wondering if she was going to survive the next five minutes and he was already doing family planning.
"Cmon, cmonnnnnnnnnnn.............."

Ultimately, the woman's heart starts beating, and she lives.

The patient didn't remember anything that had happened. It was like she went away and then came back. We told her she had a baby boy. She asked why her chest was hurting. Dr. M told her not to worry about it. She was wheeled into the recovery room. Dr. M. told me to go home. He would handle it from here.

The post ends with Erik celebrating that five kids still have a mother, and the role his own heroism played in saving the woman's life. I have no doubt that his medical skills did save the woman's life, after it was jeopardized by others' on his team. I also realize he is not the one that performed the sterilization without the woman's consent. But, he is the one writing about it, and displaying a shocking nonchalance about this extreme breach of an individual's medical rights and human dignity.

In fact, the author displays a disturbing condescension toward the patient, and her rights to be informed, throughout the piece: in addition to not being informed of the sterilization, she is not told about her heart stopping, or the rib-cracking CPR. The disdain that the author displays for locals who choose to go to the traditional healer displays further condescension. "The Traditional Healer. Say no more. Straight away I knew this was not going to go well." Yet, given the deplorable medical care the woman ultimately received, who could blame her or women like her for preferring to visit a traditional healer, or traditional birth attendant? Perhaps, the woman knows that it is unlikely for a traditional healer to accidentally paralyze her lungs with excess anesthesia. It's also unlikely that a traditional healer would sterilize her without her consent. Aggregate statistics show that giving birth in a health center, even a bad one, is safer for the mother than giving birth at home, but for any individual woman, maintaining control over her body might be preferable to the marginal increase in survival rates.

But I promised this post was about more than just this case, so let's examine why so many people think it is okay to sterilize a poor woman without her consent. It is a crime that has been committed across the globe, in America, Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America, and continues to this day. Note that the Fujimori-era forced sterilizations now being re-investigated in Peru often occurred under these very same circumstances: A woman arrived at the hospital to give birth, or for some other medical procedure, and left with her fallopian tubes tied, often never knowing the difference until she failed to conceive, or developed an infection from the hasty operation.

Sadly, forced sterilization programs often take root under the guise of progressive policy: expanding women's access to contraception. Note the telling language Erik uses to refer to the non-consensual sterilization: "family planning." The conflation of externally-imposed fertility limits with voluntary family planning is chilling indeed. But this conflation is made over and over again, because people in positions of power, whether the Westerner, or the local, educated doctor administering medical services to poor women, believe they know what is best for their patients. Naturally, a woman with five children should not have any more, the reasoning goes. Or, a woman too poor to support the children she does have, even if only one or two, should surely be kept from having more.

No matter how benign this paternalism masquerading as benevolence might sound, forced sterilization is a crime that is committed against women (and sometimes men, such as in Indira Ghandi's India), stripping them of free agency and human dignity. Patients get to decide what medical procedures are performed on them for a variety of reasons. They get to decide because there is no medical procedure that does not have risks as well as benefits, no matter how enormous the benefits or how small the risks. They get to decide because lots of things that doctors used to think were really good (e.g., hormone replacement therapy) are sometimes really bad. They get to decide because what makes sense for one person may not make sense for someone else. Fully informed consent, where someone is told of the risks and benefits of a procedure, and allowed to make their own, non-coerced, lucid decision, is one of the hallmarks of ethical medical care.

In the case of sterilization specifically, the stakes can be incredibly high. For some women, being able to produce children may be their guarantee of economic security. If they stop producing, their husband may seek another wife, and cut off spousal support. In Zambia, infertile women have told of being divorced and treated as a burden by their community. In South Asia, failure to produce children has been offered up as one predicator of bride burning. In an environment where women lack access to many conventional forms of capital, their ability to produce something valued by society in the form of children may be vital to their physical and economic security.

But even if it is not, the decision to have or not have children is one of the most private and individual choices possible. Who are these men to take away that choice? The story says the woman is young. What if all her children pass away, and she then wants to have another child? Will the good doctors reverse this involuntary tube-tying for her? Probably not. Worse than that, she won't be able to ask, because she doesn't know it was done. Or maybe she just really wants to have a massively large, irresponsibly large, family. Guess what? Being poor doesn't strip her of her rights to make these types of decisions--even if they are bad decisions--for herself. If the doctor is concerned that it isn't really her decision, that the woman may not want children, while her husband does, he could offer her the option of sterilization, or a concealable form of contraception, when she is lucid and able to make an informed decision. But he didn't, because no one in this story believes it is her decision to make.

Worse, the men in this story think that making these types of decisions for their patients, violating their patients' medical rights, makes them badass. They're cowboys, trying to tame the wild wild East. And they are so much smarter than the people they're trying to help.

Joe Paterno Hurt Children, Too

2011-11-10T10:47:00.002-05:00

Child sex abuse is perpetrated by criminals, but enabled by thousands of adults who perpetuate a culture of shame and self-doubt for its victims. One of those adults is Joe Paterno. The University Board was absolutely correct to remove him as head coach. He had an opportunity to prevent harm from occurring to children, and he chose silence, shame, and rape culture over that opportunity. A University is in the business of educating young people to be responsible adults. Right now, at Penn State, their role models are few and far between.

The crime of childhood sex abuse is two-fold, each piece doing its own part to damage the child’s psyche: first, the abuse itself, then the cover-up. The cover-up is integral to the crime, and in fact part of the crime itself, because most childhood sexual abuse is perpetrated by someone close to the victim—a relative, a friend of the family, a religious leader…a coach. The abuser knows that to the child, sex is shameful, and uses this as a weapon to enlist the child in the cover-up. They also use their authoritative position, whether simply as an adult, or as a mentor, teacher, parent, or coach, to convince the child that the abuser’s behavior is normative, and that it’s the child’s perceptions that are out of whack. The child comes to believe they have done something wrong, because if not, why can’t they talk about it? This shame and isolation on top of the abuse itself causes irreparable harm.

In the case of this particular cover-up, Sandusky couldn’t have imagined that he would have so much help. So many other adults had internalized the idea that sex is shameful, and thus sex abuse something to be hushed up, and authority is not to be questioned (especially not football authority!), that they covered up Sandusky’s crimes for him. And in doing so, they, too, hurt children. They participated in the second crime of sexual abuse, just as damaging as the first.

When a graduate assistant witnessed Sandusky raping a child, he left. He then reported the incident to Joe Paterno, who met in hushed rooms with administrators to decide what to do about this “situation.” They decided to ban Sandusky from bringing children on campus, and restrict his access to certain areas. Anyone involved in those conversations should be fired.

Imagine, you see a member of the faculty savagely beating his child in a classroom. Do you tell him not to bring his children on campus anymore? What on earth good would that do? No. You call the police. It’s the difference between something being “not the type of thing you want to be around” and “not the type of thing that is legally allowed.”

Childhood sexual abuse victims, more than anything, need to be able to say that what happened to them was wrong, that it was a crime, and that it was not their fault. Adults like those at Penn State rob us of the ability to put a name to what happened to us—to say, “A crime happened here.” By backing slowly away from what he’d seen instead of intervening and calling the police, that first adult on the scene told that child: You’re not a victim—you’re a pervert. You deserve to be banned with the coach. His actions said, what’s happening here is twisted, messed up. And you’re part of it. The other adults who took no action to find or help the victim, investigate the crime, or bring its perpetrator to justice supported this view, sending the same message: we don’t want that kind of business here. It’s shameful. But they didn’t call it a crime. If it was, they would have called the police, acted as witnesses, and warned the campus about the predator on the loose.

And so that child, like Sandusky’s victims after, and like so many victims before, lost that fragile reassurance that he was indeed a victim, and that he had been harmed by a monster. Instead, he wondered just how bad he must be, to have people walk away from him like that.

It is actions like these that make childhood sex abuse victims lose their ability to distinguish non-resistance from consent, crime from complicity, trust from harm, and adult from enemy. And so the victims, the survivors of these attacks, were left to wonder about their own guilt, to stew in shame, and grow to hate themselves. Incredibly, bravely, some of them spoke out. They took the step that no one else would take for them. They said that what happened to them was wrong.

Sandusky is ultimately responsible, and should go to jail, no doubt. But the blame shouldn’t stop there. Because behind every abuser, there tend to be dozens of adults ignoring the warning signs, making excuses, protecting the perpetrator, and blaming the victim. Those adults, the ones that Penn State students are rioting to support, acted as conspirators when they could have been saviors.

I hope these individuals, who have been outclassed in moral courage and strength of character by the victims in this case a thousand times over, will use every platform they have to apologize. I hope they go on the news, write books, or scream from mountaintops to say to this boy, and the ones who came before and after: I failed you. I harmed you. What happened to you was a crime, and it was my duty as an educator, citizen, and human being to report it. I can never give you back what you have lost, but I can tell you that it was real, that it was not your fault…that it was ours. I am so sorry.

But I don’t think they will. I think they’ll make the easy choice now, as they did then. And for that, they should at least lose their standing to ever again make those types of decisions. A critical pass was thrown their way, and they fumbled. Game over.

Recipe Fridays: Key Lime Pie

2011-02-18T12:41:00.004-05:00

With the surprisingly spring-like weather popping up this week, I'm starting to get spring fever! That means one thing: delectable warm weather treats like key lime pie. I've been searching for a quick, easy recipe, and I found the perfect one from Emril Lagasse. Trust me, this pie will disappear in a matter of minutes.

Crust (by the way, this is a great crust recipe to have on hand for other pies):

1.5 cups graham cracker crumbs (which is basically one of the packages of graham crackers in a box)

1/2 cup sugar

4 tablespoons (1/2 stick) butter, melted and cooled

Mix these ingredients and then press into a 9-inch pie pan. Bake at 375 for 20 minutes or until golden brown. Let crust cool to room temperature.

Filling

2 cans (14 oz) of condensed milk

1 cup of key lime or regular lime juice

2 eggs

Stir until everything is fully blended. Pour filling into the cooled pie crust. Bake at 325 for 15 minutes. Then chill in fridge for at least 2 hours.

Topping (this is what I find really interesting about this recipe--omit if you like)

1 cup sour cream

2 tablespoons powdered sugar

Lime zest

Mix sour cream and powdered sugar. Spread on top of pie after it has cooled. Sprinkle with lime zest and serve.

George Clooney answers your questions about malaria! Hooray!

2011-02-09T10:36:00.003-05:00

George Clooney got malaria in Sudan. Now him and buddy Nicholas Kristof have a Q&A on the disease at NYTimes.com. I tried not to be cynical. I thought it would be a cute, gimmicky way to draw attention to an important disease, and perhaps dispel some myths along the way. Unfortunately, they ended up creating some along the way instead.

The answers range from harmless:

What side effects did you have? And what were your symptoms when malaria was detected?
— Gayle
A.
Not much in side effects, the symptoms are fever, the chills, and exciting adventures in the toilet..weak..really just very bad flu conditions with a little food poisoning thrown in to make you the perfect party guest.

To mildly dim:

George – A dear friend of mine had malaria…does it recur? And if you’ve had it once, can you get it again?
— BrazenMuse
A.
It can…it depends on what type you get..i didn’t get that strain thankfully.
— George Clooney

[Big aside: The number one reason malaria reoccurs is inadequate treatment, meaning all the parasites were not killed in the first place. Old treatment regimes caused the parasite to "retreat" to the liver, rather than fully killing it. Today, when malaria is treated with drugs that it has developed resistant to, or treated incompletely (with a partial course), malaria can reoccur. Many drugs available to treat malaria experience partial parasite resistance, but are still used either because they are effective first line treatments (in an area of incomplete parasite resistance), or because they make the symptoms go away, encouraging clinicians and patients as to their effectiveness. Recurrence is more common in certain strains, but usually because these strains have delayed symptoms, causing malaria to not be treated or to be treated inadequately, or high rates of drug resistance. Adequate, complete, and timely treatment can prevent malaria recurrence in almost all cases (except in the case of reinfection, which is also quite common). Malaria recurrence despite adequate treatment is treatment failure, in which case second-line treatments are deployed.]

To foolish and misleading:

George – How did your treatment for malaria differ from the treatment that the average Sudanese would receive?
— Joy F.
A.
I had drugs to take before during and after…pills that should be just provided to these people, like a polio vaccine..life saving drugs for diseases that kill millions needlessly, belong to mankind not to companies to profit from….we need another Jonas Salk.
— George Clooney

OK, first of all, I don't know what he means by "before, during, and after." If by the "before" part he is referring to prophylaxis pills, then, no, these wouldn't be available to the typical Sudanese, because prophylaxis pills aren't meant to be taken for a long period of time. They're essentially ongoing treatment for malaria, which kills the parasite immediately in case you contract it--the liver has to work over-time to process these pills, and they have to be taken daily or weekly. Ongoing prophylaxis use in endemic areas is medically inadvisable, financially unsustainable, and logistically infeasible.

Let's move on to the next part of his response: "life saving drugs for diseases that kill millions needlessly, belong to mankind not to companies to profit from." I agree, the sentiment sounds nice. It's just a matter of wresting the life-saving drugs from the evil pharmaceutical companies, and all our problems are solved! It certainly sounds much nicer than, "How do we sustainably ensure supply, distribution, and use of lifesaving technologies in a constantly changing disease environment, where even free commodities face take-up challenges?" Unfortunately, that's the actual problem at hand.

It is a MYTH that drug companies' failure to provide treatment at free or discounted prices is responsible for the failure to stop the toll of malaria in the developing world. Many drug companies do provide these commodities for free or at deeply discounted prices, and where they don't, aid funds exist to purchase and distribute them (which is often where the largest cost is incurred). I'll get to why the model of having aid dollars purchase drugs makes sense in a minute. First, let me just emphasize that there are massive logistical challenges involved in getting "diagnosis and treatment within 24 hours of onset of symptoms," the malaria gold-standard, to every patient. You need clinicians able to accurately diagnose malaria (meaning you need electricity for microscopy or adequate supply and usage of Rapid Diagnostic Tests), you need patients who go to a health facility instead of traditional healers, you need health facilities or Community Health Workers within walking distance of patients, you need drug regimens that are tailored to the drug-resistance of common strains, you need these drugs to be distributed across entire countries (including rural areas) and arrive at regular intervals to avoid stock-outs, you need patients to accurately follow the drug regimen, and you need to prevent over-prescription of effective medications to avoid future drug resistance. All of this is extremely difficult, despite being tackled by the best and brightest minds in aid work. Why? Because without prices and other market systems to dictate supply, supplying things is actually a tricky proposition! (See: shortages in Soviet Union)

But Clooney has a solution, which is fewer market incentives! I'm so glad we asked him. Before I dive in to justify all that sarcasm, let me just say that I am in no way suggesting that anti-malarial commodities should not be free to end users. I absolutely think free diagnosis and treatment of malaria is a worthy goal, and one that should be possible. I also think there's some cases in which free distribution of things, such as bed nets, insufficiently communicates their value, resulting in misuse or disuse, and the need for further free distribution. There's good research showing that giving bednets away for free works, but in a setting that already communicates their value, by limiting distribution to pregnant mothers. For free distribution to work, you have to create sufficient consumer demand to ensure proper use. Organizations like Tam Tam are pursuing free distribution of bed nets with this problem in mind. In setting where resources are limited, nominal prices for health commodities can help separate out end-users who are likely to use from those who are likely to misuse. Moreover, pricing enables positive brands to be created for health commodities that have traditionally been pushed onto populations, such as condoms.

All that aside, I agree we should be working toward providing malaria diagnosis and treatment to end users absolutely free. I don't think, however, that this means drug companies shouldn't benefit from their participation in this goal. If we decide drug companies should be allowed zero profit, either direct or indirect, from providing pharmaceuticals to combat developing-country diseases, we decide we never want to cure another disease ever again. The latest and most promising treatment for malaria, Coartem, exists because Novartis believed it could get sufficient positive press, and perhaps future government contracts, for developing it and distributing it for free that it was worth the investment. Malaria is continually evolving drug resistance, meaning we need pharmaceutical companies to be continually investing in developing new treatments. TB and HIV--even respiratory infections--are highly drug-resistant, requiring constant introduction of new technologies. Moreover, few would claim to be satisfied with the currently available technologies to treat HIV, which allow management but not recovery; avoidance but not prevention. Instead of railing against the existence of market incentives to create better treatments, we should be asking how these market incentives can be made compatible with free delivery to the end user. We should be asking what sources of profit can be built in, such as the frequently under-priced payoff to Corporate Social Responsibility, to a system that denies access to no one in need.

We have not failed to treat malaria because we have failed to control big, bad, greedy drug companies. If anything, our failure is to insufficiently incentivize these companies to join in the fight.

Re-Defining Rape: A Bipartisan Goal

2011-01-30T20:49:00.014-05:00

By now many of you may have heard about H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act". According to legislators, the purpose of this bill is only to make existing limits on abortion in federal code, such as the Hyde Amendment, permanent. However, the law goes further than permanently codifying these restrictions on women's privacy, and drastically limits the definition of both rape and incest.

The text of the bill lists that the only exceptions to the ban of federal funding for abortions include when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life and:

"[I]f the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest..."

Forcible rape? What does that even mean? One major reason for concern is that the term 'forcible rape' is not defined in the federal code, nor do many states have a definition. To me, the term 'forcible rape' sounds like the only time rape is really 'rape' is when your attacker has a gun or a knife to your head. It would be interesting to see how we decide whose rape qualifies and whose rape doesn't for a federally funded abortion.

The incest exception is also being drastically changed. Federally funded abortions would only be allowed if the victim of incest was under 18. Because that makes sense. (?!)

I was surprised to learn that this bill, introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ4), has bipartisan support. Nine 0f the 173 cosponsors are Democrats, including Daniel Lipinski (D-IL3) and Nick Rahall (D-WV3).

But to be clear, I wasn't surprised that some Democrats would support pro-life legislation. Rather, I was surprised they would support legislation that would only really accomplish demeaning women, restricting their rights, and perpetuating harmful myths about rape.

Want to take action? Join the Twitter campaign. Stand up for survivors everywhere. #DearJohn

State of the Union 2011 - Some analysis, many links

2011-01-26T20:41:00.018-05:00

Tuesday night, President Barack Obama gave his third State of the Union address to Congress. He addressed a myriad of issues, including America's competitiveness in the world economy, education, jobs, infrastructure, and health care reform. This year, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar was in a secure location during the speech to ensure continuity of government in the event of a disaster. Michelle Obama wore a lovely Rachel Roy dress, and the President tried to be funny, although most of his jokes fell flat. Personally, I most enjoyed the one about traveling on high-speed rail without needing a pat-down :).

It was a lofty speech, with the kind of rhetoric we've come to expect from President Obama. He has very talented speechwriters, and probably had a hand in crafting this speech as well. This year's State of the Union was almost exclusively focused on non controversial issues; he did not cover topics such as gun control, which might have been expected after the shooting in Tuscon. In a way, the speech echoed the bipartisan seating plan that many of the Congresspeople adopted for the evening: policy plans straight down the middle, and ideas about patriotism, innovation, and a brighter, better future for the country.

While there weren't any particularly memorable lines, I did enjoy the reference to RFK: "The future is ours to win,” Obama said. “But to get there, we can’t just stand still. As Robert Kennedy told us, 'The future is not a gift. It is an achievement.' Sustaining the American Dream has never been about standing pat. It has required each generation to sacrifice, and struggle, and meet the demands of a new age." I liked this reference as it sort of summed up an important theme of the speech: innovation, investments in education, and growing the economy can bring America a great future.

In sum, I will have to agree with Paul Krugman - meh. It was an okay speech, not the best, not the most inspiring, but probably what the country needed to hear now.

A few more links for perusing:

Patterns of Speech - words used in past speeches, dated by president and amount of usage

Word clouds for Obama's speech and past presidents

SOTU in numbers

GOP Response from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

The text of Obama's speech

Watch the speech on YouTube

Mark Bittman is ending his "The Minimalist" column today

2011-01-26T08:24:00.000-05:00

You may be aware that we at femonomics love Mark Bittman. Farewell, old friend.
Here are some links to his best recipes: A gallery of recipe videos. His 25 favorite dishes.

Femonomics at the movies: Winter's Bone

2011-01-25T11:51:00.002-05:00

The Oscar nominations are out, and I was surprised to see my favorite movie of this year getting four big nominations, for Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Adapted Screenplay. That movie is Winter's Bone, and I hope these nominations will be the push you need (yes, you) to watch it immediately. You can rent it on Amazon for $3.99.

Winter's Bone is more than a great movie; it is the best movie I have seen in recent memory for fully fleshed out female characters that matter. With a female heroine who never once talks about a boy, her female best friend with whom she shares a family-like bond, and a female villain from whom our heroine receives veiled, then not-so-veiled threats, Winter's Bone passes the Bechdel test with flying colors. I want to repeat that this is a movie with a female hero and a female villain, neither of whom are sexualized. Adding to the thrill is the fact that those characters are featured in such a fantastically, spine-tinglingly taut crime drama that you don't realize how special what you've just seen was until it's over.

The film follows 17-year-old Ree, an Ozark Mountains girl from a meth-cooking family. Her dad is supposed to stand trial for said meth-cooking activities, only no one can find him. Because he placed the family home and woods up for bond, Ree, her neuro-atypical mother, and her two young siblings will be left with nowhere to go if they can't manage to "turn 'im up." What follows is Ree's search for dear-old dad, which takes her first to his menacing brother's place, and finally to the home of a local crime boss, whose wife does not appreciate the disturbance. In a region where the code of silence is more important than family ties, Ree is treated brutally by those who see her quest as "against their ways." She is helped, finally, by the same uncle who initially menaced her, when he decides the rest of the clan has gone too far in trying to shut down a 17-year-old's quest to keep her family from sliding into destitution.

As Ree digs deeper to uncover her father's whereabouts, a quieter tale unfolds of a 17-year-old girl, torn between home obligations she wasn't ready for in a drug-ridden community whose ways she despises, and a shaky dream of escape, to a world she neither knows nor understands. Somehow, though, Ree proceeds on her search with an unshakable faith that this better world does exist, and that people in this iniquitous community will, when pushed, still act according to its basic tenants: help your neighbors, love your family, do what's right. She knows that's the only way she can find her father--if one of these unmovable villains gives, just a little bit--and thus the only way to save her family. So she fights like she's got nothing to lose.

Recipe Fridays: Oven fries or breakfast potatoes

2011-01-21T18:13:00.000-05:00

Mmmm...potatoes. These oven fries even won over my three-year-old niece, who loves french fries with lots of ketchup. "I want another potato fry!" she insisted of these much healthier and more wholesome spin on the original.

Oven fries
2-3 Idaho potatoes (other varieties like red potatoes or yukon gold are great, especially for the breakfast version)
2-3 tablespoons olive oil
1 pressed or grated garlic clove (or 1/2 t garlic powder), 1/2 t chopped fresh or dry rosemary (if dry, mash with oil with the back of a spoon to extract flavor), salt, and pepper.

Slice potatoes into fry-like shapes. For wedges, cut in half lengthwise (through the thicker part if not round, resulting in two more flat halves), then cut lengthwise in halves again, then cut each half into 3-4 pieces. For fries, slice lengthwise into 1/2 inch thick pieces, then slice lengthwise the other direction to make sticks. If not cooking immediately, place in water to prevent browning.

Toss fries with olive oil and seasoning, and place in oven pre-heated to 425 degrees on metal baking pan. Cook, stirring every 10 minutes, until fries are brown and crisp outside, soft inside (20-30 minutes). If they are browning too quickly, turn oven down. If they are getting soft but not yet brown, drizzle with more oil, toss to coat, and turn oven to 450 or place (briefly!) under broiler.

Breakfast potato version
Cut potatoes into chunks instead of spears (just cut through the spears crosswise). Replace seasoning with 1 t paprika, 1/2 t turmeric, 1/2 t garlic powder, dash cayenne, and salt and pepper. Once done baking, toss with sliced green onions.

Red carpet wrap-up: Golden Globes

2011-01-17T17:41:00.000-05:00

[Image via TLo]

Yay!! Dresses and mean jokes about Hollywood!

Ricky Gervais was hilariously out of control last night, making jokes about the airbrushed SATC2 poster and how terrible The (nominated) Tourist was. See a rundown of every funny-awkward-funny jibe here. Many have speculated he went too far, but I only thought he really crossed the line in making a Scientologists are gay joke--we all know, Ricky, but outing people isn't funny. Movieline has pointed out that Gervais essentially pulled off the Emperor's new clothes of Hollywood, un-self-awaringly illustrated by this quote from the HFPA: "Ricky will not be invited back to host the show next year, for sure. [A]ny movie he makes he can forget about getting nominated. He humiliated the organization last night and went too far with several celebrities whose representatives have already called to complain."

Gawker has their take on the most memorable moments. Dave Karger contemplates how the wins affect Oscar predictions. Complete winner's list here. For my take, it looks like The Social Network is dominating, but I wonder if the academy doesn't want something more feel-good. I hope Annette Benning beats Natalie Portman, and I think she has a good chance, given the Academy's penchant for career-achievement awards. I think supporting actress is a wide-open race, and wish Hailee Steinfeld were getting more love (she was not nominated for the globes).

And the fashion: The Fug Girls have the best and worst outfits over at NYMag. Tom and Lorenzo (bless them) have parts 1, 2, and 3, as well as a rundown of the men.

What did you think of the hugely mean-spirited and mildly sinister show last night? (To paraphrase Robert Downey, Jr.)

The warpath of the Tiger Mother

2011-01-16T15:46:00.001-05:00

This guest blog by new femonomics contributor ENTJ addresses the controversy over Amy Chua's infamous "Why Chinese Mothers are Superior" WSJ piece. ENTJ is an Asian-American woman in the finance industry, with her very own Chinese mother. ENTJ is passionate about educational policy, film, museums of all kinds, and fashion.

You have to think that Amy Chua won in all of this. Her memoir, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, is now the #5 book on Amazon. She’s won the kind of instant notoriety that is typically reserved for cast members of Jersey Shore. The original Wall Street Journal article about her book has been the most-read article on the site for more than a week, and has generated more than 6,000 comments, split between admirers of the Asian-American community’s disproportional representation in the Ivy League and those citing the Asian-American community’s disproportional representation in national depression and suicide statistics.

But for me, the most interesting reaction has been among those of Asian-American descent themselves. I am Chinese-American, and was tempted to create a filter in my Gmail account so I wouldn’t have to sort through all the times that people emailed the article to me. Among the first people to email me the article was my younger sister, who sent it to me and my parents, with no comment besides, “I’m not sure how I feel about this.” My parents did not have the same reaction. Apparently, a mailing list of Asian parents in our town had been debating the article since it first appeared. From the sampling of emails that my parents forwarded on, the uniform reaction of the parents was a disavowal of Chua’s techniques; one after another wrote that “If this is what a Chinese parent is, then I am a Western parent!”
Why then, did the children of the parents on the list have a more conflicted reaction to the article? I do not know any member of my generation who read the article and did not feel a shiver of recognition. My mother let me go to the bathroom during my marathon piano practice sessions, but the threats coercing me into enduring three hours in front of an instrument I didn’t care very much about were very real. During school vacations, my parents would unplug our television and lock up the power cord so that I would read and practice algebra instead (I was 10). What happened when I got a B on a paper or if I didn’t excel at one of my extracurricular activities? I’d rather not go into it here.

In the broadest definition of the word, my parents’ approach was a success. My little sister and I attended the same Ivy League school. She is on the road to becoming a doctor, and I am pursuing a career that allows me to pay for a substantial part of her education.

Under the surface, however, it is not Chua’s extreme tactics, but the assumptions her approach to parenting makes about success, child psychology, and parent-child relationships that have caused the most lasting damage to me and my generation. When my parents told me that they and their friends did not think of themselves as Tiger Mothers and Fathers, my first reaction was disbelief. Perhaps they allowed the occasional sleepover or maybe even participation in a school play, but the approach and end goal are the same as Chua’s: the assumption that what every child truly desires is two Harvard degrees, one from the College and one from the Med School, and that the only way to get there is to walk a path of disciplined drills of the “right” things: perfect grades, piano competition trophies, and high standardized test scores. The result is that I see my Asian-American friends struggling with a rash of common problems: many of my generation have no idea what their passions are, no idea how to figure them out, or, most terrifyingly, that they’ve spent so much time on the “right” things that they can’t pursue what they actually care about (in one extreme case that has appeared on the internet, a young Asian-American achieved all of those "right" things, only to decide she did not want them--she suffered from depression for two years before taking her own life).

I recognize that these existential crises are not exclusive to Asian-American youth, but during my time in college, when I was struck with envy by my peers who knew exactly what they wanted to do with their lives and had a single-minded determination to achieve it, I soon noticed that none of them were Asian. To this day, I have trouble spending any time on activities at which I do not excel. After years of incredible pressure by her Chinese mom to get into a top college, a high school classmate of mine totally imploded after arriving there. She had no idea what was next, didn’t know how to determine her future path, and spent her four years wandering about the school binge drinking. When I arrived at college, I was shocked to realize that most of my classmates willingly spoke to their parents every day. I only called my parents when something was wrong, and if my phone rings and it says “Mom” my first assumption is that she has a friend whose kid needs help with some admissions essays.

So for all the debate and discussion that has emerged as a result of Amy Chua, the two groups that have not been talking to each other at all are the parents and children of the Asian-American tradition. I believe that Chua’s greatest disservice to the Asian-American community was not throwing back the curtain on what causes us to be perceived as the “model minority,” but rather by exaggerating her approach so much that other Asian-American parents do not see the parallels between her methods and theirs. By focusing on her, we are ignoring parents who have less extreme methods but are causing damage nonetheless. Perhaps the greatest condemnation of traditional Asian-American parenting is that I do not have enough of an emotional connection to my parents to point out to them that what they’ve done is more similar to Chua’s approach than not. I hope that someday a backlash will happen, when all of us Asian doctors and lawyers and other “successes” tell our parents that even though our family homes have walls filled with trophies and certificates and medals, we feel empty inside.

Recipe Fridays: raw kale, beet, and orange salad

2011-01-14T15:58:00.000-05:00

I like raw kale salad. It's healthy, it's easy, it tastes delicious. My favorite version is still an Italian-style take, but a little variety is always nice. The one below is perfect for winter produce.

Raw kale salad

1 bunch kale
1 large navel orange (or several smaller oranges)
1 medium beet
Walnuts (optional)
Lemon juice, olive oil, sea salt, and fresh pepper

Wash kale thoroughly. Cut off stems, and, if you wish, cut out the stem part of the larger leaves (I leave it in). Tear or chop the kale into less than 1 inch pieces (I gather all leaves and cut into strips, then cut again the other direction a few times). Put sliced kale in bowl and drizzle with olive oil. Squeeze 1/2 lemon over kale; sprinkle with salt. With your hands, massage the lemon/salt/oil mix into the kale until leaves begin to soften and turn bright green.

Wash the beet and scrape the outside to remove rough skin. Remove stem and root section. Cut beet in half vertically. Slice each half thinly, then cut slices into matchsticks. Peel orange using knife to remove as much pith as possible. Cut orange in slices (going across sections, not between), and split slices into 4 pieces. Toss beet pieces and orange with kale. Grind in fresh pepper, and add more salt, lemon juice, or olive oil as needed. A splash of balsamic vinegar is also nice. If desired, top with broken walnut pieces. (A sliced avocado also works). Enjoy!

Recipe Fridays: Quick Navy Bean Stew

2011-01-07T17:02:00.002-05:00

With all the temperatures dropping and snow keeping everyone indoors, now is the perfect time for some steamy soup or stew to keep you nice and toasty. I made this extremely easy and fairly quick navy bean soup from good ole Martha. I added a zucchini and tweaked some minor things, but here's the original recipe. Here's what I did:

1 tablespoon olive oil
1 small onion, chopped
4 small red potatoes, cut into 1/2-inch pieces (I used a few small, a few medium as I like more potatoes!)
1 pound mushrooms, cut
1 zucchini, cut
1/4 teaspoon dried thyme
Salt
1 tablespoon tomato paste
2 cups water
10 ounces baby spinach leaves, rinsed well
1 can navy beans, drained and rinsed
1 tablespoon red-wine vinegar, optional
Ground pepper

Heat oil in a large pot. Add onions and potatoes; cook until onions are golden. Season with salt. Add the mushrooms, zucchini, and thyme. Season with more salt and cook until mushrooms, etc are tender. Add the tomato paste and water. Mix until tomato paste is blended. Cook that until the potatoes are tender (maybe 10-12 minutes). Add spinach, beans, and vinegar. Heat until spinach is wilted. Season with (more) salt and pepper. Serve hot!

Recipe Fridays: Southern Comfort--Chicken Pot Pie

2011-01-07T13:47:00.006-05:00

The long, cold winters in Washington always make me miss my mama's home cooking terribly, so I've worked on some of her recipes for the past few years and am delighted to share some of my favorites that I crave on a weekly basis from November to April.

Chicken Pot Pie

Filling:

· 1 Tbsp. olive oil

· 1 Tbsp. unsalted butter

· 1 medium Onion, chopped

· 1/4 cup flour

· 2 cups chicken stock

· 2 cups chopped Roasted Chicken* (I either season and roast several drumsticks at 425 degrees for 40-45 mins and pull the meat off the bones with a fork and discard the skin, or I purchase a rotisserie chicken at the grocery store, if I feel like taking a short cut, and chop some of the breast, leg, and thigh meat, also discarding the skin, and season it)

· 1/2 cup frozen sweet petite peas

· 1 potato , diced and boiled

· 1 1/2 cup chopped, cooked carrots

· Salt

· Pepper

· Dash of Tabasco (or red pepper flakes instead)

*Scratch the chicken and add more veggies to make it vegetarian.

Crust:

· 3/4 cup white or yellow cornmeal

· 3/4 cup flour

· 1 Tbsp. baking powder (don’t use if you are using self rising flour and cornmeal)

· 2 Tbsp. sugar

· 1/2 tsp. salt

· 3/4 cup milk

· 1 large egg

· 2 Tbsp. canola oil

· 2 Tbsp. melted butter

Cooking Instructions:

To make filling: Preheat the oven to 400°. Spray a 2-quart casserole with cooking spray. In a large sauce pan, heat olive oil and unsalted butter together. Add onion and sauté until tender--4 to 5 mins. Add in flour until blended. Slowly stir in 2 cups of heated chicken stock, whisking well. Cook mixture over medium heat until it thickens and starts to bubble--about 4 mins. Stir in chicken, peas, potato, carrots. Season mixture with salt, pepper, Tabasco (or red pepper flakes), and any other seasoning that you like. Evenly spread mixture into a 2-quart casserole dish coated with cooking spray.

To make crust: In a bowl, combine cornmeal, flour, baking powder, sugar, and salt. Mix oil, egg, butter, and milk together in separate bowl. Then, stir wet ingredients (milk, egg, butter, and oil) into dry ingredients. Spoon the batter evenly on top of the filling.

Bake until the top is golden brown, about 20 to 25 minutes

Make it Vegan!

Cornbread Crust:

· 1¼ cup. all purpose flour

· 1¼ cup cornmeal

· 2 tsps baking powder (do not use if you are using self-rising cornmeal and flour)

· ¼ cup white sugar

· 1½ cup soy milk

· 2 Tbsp olive oil

· ½ tsp salt

Filling:

· 2-3 Tbsp. olive oil

· 1 medium Onion , chopped

· 1/4 cup flour

· 2 cups vegetable stock

· 1/2 cup frozen sweet petite peas

· 1 potato , diced and boiled

· 1 1/2 cup chopped, cooked carrots

· 1/2 tsp. salt

· Cracked pepper

· Dash of Tobasco (or red pepper flakes instead)

· Salt

· Pepper

Follow the cooking instructions above.

I like to entertain, so I don't make dishes that serve only 1 or 2 folks usually, these recipes could easily serve 4-6, so keep that in mind. It also freezes and holds up wonderfully if you have too much leftover.

Dear Decorum: Polite Feminism?

2011-01-03T21:42:00.008-05:00

"Dear Decorum" is an attempt to answer some of life's most challenging questions concerning everyday etiquette and how to stay cool, calm, and collected even during those most trying social situations. Deadbeat friend never have cash on hand to pay their share? We have advice for you--Stop inviting said deadbeat; they'll take the hint. Busybody neighbors all in your grill? Maintain boundaries, but it's never a good idea to completely alienate a neighbor. And so on...

You are cordially invited to send us your questions and we'll do our best to help!

Dear Pearls,

How should one behave when a new acquaintance, or friend-of-a-friend, or friend's significant other makes an inappropriate (e.g., racist, sexist, otherwise offensive) comment? I ask because the rules of traditional decorum seem to indicate one should gloss over the incident and move merrily along, preventing the evening from descending into awkwardness for everyone. Meanwhile, the rules of feminism--or at least my feminism--seem to dictate one should put that person promptly in their place. I admire the stories of Snarky's Machine berating colleagues or her doctor for racist/size-ist comments, and of Choosing Raw's Gena firmly telling the receptionist at her gym that she would not accept unsolicited comments on her body. But those situations were, it seems to me, a bit different. In each, there was some element of a professional relationship, rather than a purely social one. In professional relationships, or online one, or to strangers, I haven't hesitated to state my aversion to even mildly -ist behaviors or statements. But what about when you meet a friend's friend, at a party at your friend's house, and she says something implying, let's say, immigrants are lazy? Or you go out with a group of girls, one of whom you've never met before, and she calls someone "So Jewish" (as in cheap)? Or you meet an old friend's significant other for the first time, and he/she says something sexist? I'm not talking outright* racist or discriminatory behavior, like them calling a friend of mine a name, in which case, you can believe I'd bring the whup-ass. But I've experienced variants on each of the situations listed above, and in each case, I tried to mildly make my disagreement known, while gently moving the conversation along. What's the right thing to do in these situations? When at a social gathering, where the feelings of people you care about are at stake, how can we still stand up for what we think is right? When decorum and feminism come into conflict, which one should rule the day? (Or is there--please--a happy medium?)

Love,

Coca Colo

*I know that term is loaded, so please understand I use it to distinguish between them being in my face, versus me needing to get in their face to make a correction

Dear Coca Colo,

This is indeed a challenge that I am all too familiar with as well. You know me, so you've seen the jaws drop, heads turn, and ignorant comments fly out of folks mouths when they discover I am not their stereotype of "southern black woman" and I've shared some of this experience with the readers before. I still haven't figured out why people feel it's acceptable to comment on a. how articulate I am and/or b. how I mix "black" speech (Negro dialect, anyone?) with "talking white"? This sort of situation has ruined many a lunch, dinner, first impression of a friend's significant other for me. None of it makes sense, but luckily we live in the age of the "Teachable Moment", oh yes. So, even when the situation is personal and hurt feelings may result, my suggestion to you is that you keep doing what you're doing--you've found the "happy medium", which I think is to use these situations as opportunities to gently nudge and enlighten our peers who may just not have had the same exposure to folks of different cultural backgrounds or skin colors and welcome them into the light of the 21st century.

I totally agree with your approach to calmly state your opposition and reasoning and move the conversation forward. It is both right and polite to do so. I don't think any offense can be taken so long as you aren't gearing up for a Lincoln-Douglas style debate, which really would ruin the party. I don't think you have to choose between being true to your convictions as a justice-seeking feminist or being "nice" for the sake of saving your party from an awkward social situation. I mean, certainly, by the time the offender has made the remark things have already turned rather awkward, no? And others have noticed, it's just most aren't going to speak up. So, unless you are truly at risk of making a large, dramatic scene and it's a public event, work function, someone's wedding, etc... (you'll know when discretion is advised), then continue to speak up, as you have been. Embrace the teachable moment. Honestly, if someone is surprised by the use of the term "off the chain", they should be encouraged to expand their circle.

I try to live my life by two totally unoriginal credos. The first my mother impressed upon me from an early age: When you LEARN better, you DO better. OK, so, she got this from Oprah (yes, we are drinking the Oprah Kool-Aid), who learned it from Dr. Maya Angelou. It's a simple, but true message. Breaking down these kinds of barriers requires time and patience and it requires us all to be teachers and students of life when we are called to be so. If you know the person, then gently, saying, "I think your remark may stem from how homogeneous your background and upbringing has been. Not all gay, black, Jewish, women, etc... people can be lumped into the same stereotype...." Is usually enough to embarrass an offender into checking themselves before they wreck themselves. If you don't know the person, it may simply be enough of a ball-buster to inquire, "Do you actually feel that way or were you trying to make a joke?"

My other motto is: Truth over Harmony (as an order of my values). This one I stole from a system of prep schools in the northeast geared towards character development (reform school?), not that a good southern belle like me ever needed to attend reform school, but the message has still had meaning in my life. I've found that even if being honest makes someone upset, in the end, it's appreciated and actually strengthens friendships and bonds.

So, keep it up Colo! We are all challenged by these situations and I appreciate you bringing them to light. Each one teach one.

xo,

Pearls

Happy New Year!

2011-01-03T18:44:00.005-05:00

Happy New Year, everyone! Is it just me, or have we put a lot of pressure on 2011 to usher in the good times? Good riddance 2010--you sure were a lousy year! In the past few days I've been surprised to find out (via my Facebook News Feed) just how angry my friends have been at 2010. And when I stop to think about it, 2010 was a whopper for me as well. Midway through the year I got Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever from attending an outdoor Dave Matthews Band Concert--I can no longer bear "Ants Marching". Following my month long antibiotic regimen, I broke my foot, leading to a six week sentence of house arrest. That wouldn't have been so bad, but did I mention it was a new house? It's a great place--it's a great arrangement, as I now get to spend 24/7 with my sweet beau, but hobbling isn't an efficient way to move and sometimes I wasn't sure if the fever was due to my illness or the agony and the ecstasy of adjusting to a new living situation--with a boy.

And then there's September, and college football season is stressful for a Bama bred girl. Defending a national championship is hard. So, my team decided not to do it...in October.

On a trip to visit Colo in November, I was sorely disappointed by so-called "soul-food" in DUMBO, but I should have known better. And in the same night, I learned I wasn't ironic enough to ever step foot in Williamsburg again.

All I needed was a little Christmas, but Uncle Boone's "Killer Bee" concoction left me a little too merry and the Snowmaggedon Part II that Washington never got made me a nervous wreck, as after Snowmaggedon Part I, I developed a crippling snow-phobia.

Man am I ever glad it's January...2011 and I (we) can put this all behind us and start fresh! I'm not a New Year's Resolution making kind of girl. Too much pressure. But, I am happy to say that I have gotten in a cardio workout 2 days in a row. Things are already looking up.

So, Welcome 2011! I've always preferred odd number years anyway!

Get Informed December 6: 10 News Stories you might have missed

2010-12-06T08:00:00.032-05:00

If you get your news from Fox commentary, NYTimes opinion pages, satirical news comedy, or anywhere on cnn.com, then you might be missing a lot of big important stories! Here's a few I've culled from the back pages of leading news organizations. An informed citizenry may be important for democracy, after all ;-)

Pakistan police officers to be arrested over death of Benazir Bhutto, after destroying the crime scene less than two hours after her murder.
European nations agree on offshore North Sea electric grid to deliver wind power across the continent.
ACLU obtains documents showing the government routinely violates the law in spying on US citizens, although they did not find any evidence that the violation is intentional.
New Meningitis vaccine may end African epidemics - see, not all the news is bad news!
Rising CO2 levels cause ocean acidification, threaten marine life
The Brazilian army is policing Rio de Janeiro slums in the country's first domestic peacekeeping mission.
Lawsuit challenges history-sniffing, a practice where websites build a profile of visitors based on sites they had visited in the past (without permission, naturally).
Renewed violence prompts concern in Central African Republic, threatening the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers from the region and CAR's upcoming election.
State budget cuts put law enforcement on front line of mental care, as clinics that treat the mentally ill close nationwide.
Italian actress-turned-minister is making progress in the fight against sexism in a country of extreme double standards. I wanted to end on a positive note!

Femonomics at the Movies: The Next Three Days

2010-11-30T20:00:00.001-05:00

The Next Three Days is an action-suspense movie that follows John Brennan (Russell Crowe) as he plans his wrongfully convicted wife Lara's (Elizabeth Banks) escape from prison. The film takes place in Pittsburgh, and has a long windup as we watch John plot the breakout while simultaneously raising a young son and teaching at a community college.

The Viewer's Angle
The film is very well written and tightly paced, competently following the heist / escape plotline that we've heard before. John's tricks and turns are clever, and it is fun to watch him execute his plan. However, the performances fall rather flat, and a cameo by Liam Neeson only served to remind me how much more engaging similar material is in his hands. A lack of convincing chemistry between the leads, along with limited backstory on their characters, made it difficult to care if they succeeded. If anything, having to wait through the buildup, the main reason I wanted the escape to work was so I could see the payoff of all the planning. Extraneous characters to the story, a brother and sister-in-law, way more detectives than called for, and the most beautiful playground mom ever seen, end up prematurely diffusing some of the tension, which I find critical in a low-explosion film. Overall, a bit of a disappointment, and I'm probably going to check out Unstoppable this weekend to get my action itch scratched.

The Feminist's Angle
The Next Three Days is another damsel in distress story where the big, strong, and notably male action hero swoops in to save yet another defenseless woman. At the beginning, Lara is the more dynamic of the couple, and I was hoping that she would be John's copilot a la Mr and Mrs Smith. However, prison wears down Lara's spirit (understandably), and she morphs into a hopeless, depressed, even suicidal dead weight in the adventure. I must continue in my search for a female action star to follow in Angelina's footsteps.

Along more of a social justice dimension, I think it would be fair to say that most wrongfully convicted prisoners are not beautiful white women. For something more true to life, I suggest the acclaimed American Violet, based on the true story of Regina Kelley, falsely convicted of selling drugs. For more information on how false convictions are impacting people's lives in reality, look at The Innocence Project's website. It's truly unbelievable the injustices we put up with in our country.

So, I haven't found this season's action movie - but I will keep looking! Unknown, coming out in early 2011 (trailer below) looks pretty promising.

An American doctor in Paris (or why I want an apology from Jezebel)

2010-11-29T20:21:00.002-05:00

I will not be visiting Jezebel until they apologize for publishing "Edward Pasteck's" ridiculous, rape-apologizing, harassment-defending garbage. For those of you who aren't familiar with this steaming pile of rapey mansplaining dung masquerading as interesting content on a feminist website, it went a little something like this [TRIGGER WARNING--scroll to "end trigger"]:

Having just returned from living in Paris, I feel more convinced than ever that America gets many things wrong about sex. Right there near the top of the list is our attachment to the idea of consent.

In Paris, it seems as if the straight male attitude toward consent is that it doesn't exist. At clubs, bars, bistros, in the street or on the Metro, Parisian men lobby very aggressively for sex. At the clubs in the 8ème, off the Champs-Élysées, and all along Rue de Rivoli, it is fairly common to watch men literally grab and touch the girls who weave through the crowd. Men often draw a finger down an unknown girl's cheek or under her chin like a doting Uncle; they can be seen pinching girls' noses, throwing arms around shoulders and even stealing kisses. It's not for nothing that the French slang word for "kiss" or "make out" is choper, which literally means "to catch."

...One lesson from Paris is that sex shouldn't be an activity to which we need to consent if a decision will suffice.

A specific example from my time in France helps illustrate my point. I once fell madly in love with a woman named Madeleine. I thought she liked me too because she kept agreeing to see me and she once elegantly blew me a kiss as she descended into a Metro station. We were never intimate because the moment never seemed right to try to kiss her. Lovesick and unsure of what to do, I complained about Madeleine to a female French friend who said to me, "Have you tried getting her drunk?" Obviously my friend's recommendation was based on the assumption that after getting drunk Madeleine would be easier to seduce. This idea of plying a woman with alcohol (something that is applauded by American men in private) often enrages American women because they view it as an assault on their right to consent. Is this really a good thing?

That's right, Jezebel, you and I are over. I will get my celebrity gossip from People, and my feminism from sites that have never defended sexual violence. I originally wanted to use this space to talk about how I had personally been affected by the fragility of consent in American society. To talk about walking the gauntlet in NYC bars with bile in the back of my throat as men exercised their assumed right to touch me however they pleased. To talk about how, as a survivor of sexual abuse, I am terrified that society thinks "Well, it's not like she fought him off" is an admission of agreement. I wanted to tear his ridiculous argument to shreds. Then I had a different idea. [END TRIGGER]

Why not try to apply Pasteck's logic to another situation in which consent is required to avoid legal action? Medicine. The below follows the exact same structure and argumentation of Pastek's piece, with almost all taken verbatim (including the parts that make no sense and say nothing), although edited for length. With apologies to the French, who did nothing to deserve this, here goes:

Having just returned from living in Paris, I feel more convinced than ever that America gets many things wrong about medical care. Right there near the top of the list is our attachment to the idea of consent.

In Paris, it seems as if the average physician's attitude toward consent is that it doesn't exist. At hospitals, clinics, or even in the street or on the Metro, Parisian doctors lobby very aggressively to perform medical procedures. At the private clinics in the 8ème, off the Champs-Élysées, and all along major healthcare centers, it is fairly common to watch doctors literally grab and and begin operating on patients who weave through the crowd. Doctors often draw "where to cut" dotted lines in marker down an unknown girl's cheek or under her chin like a doting Uncle; they can be seen giving girls nose jobs, throwing dislocated shoulders back into place, even sneaking up behind patients for open-heart surgery. It's not for nothing that the French slang word for "treat" (as in to treat a patient) is choper, which literally means "to catch."

Parisian patients deny or accept these advances with a decisiveness many American patients lack. Naturally, some patients in Paris walk away and reject these unwanted medical overtures. But one can observe many of them reacting with surprise and delight; these patients understand the game. They often seem legitimately flattered by the attention and stick around for an introductory surgery. The doctors often give the patients prescription medication on the house. Sometimes they trade phone numbers or go to a corner for a quick cosmetic procedure. And sometimes, of course, the whole exchange ends in a life-long doctor-patient relationship. Whatever the result, patients maneuver around medical aggression to gain the upper hand. They are the ones deciding what to do with the onslaught of medical care. And though the doctors are leveraging these attacks as a pretense for familiarity (later on at the patient's bedside, the ice has already been broken when the doctor suggests another procedure) it's the patients who call the shots.

In America, by contrast, the discourse on consent impresses upon us all, men and women alike, that medical care is something more important than a decision. A lot more is involved in obtaining or denying consent than making a decision. For one thing, consent has ethical and legal overtones and implies the kind of complete and utter self-mastery that isn't always on offer while facing a dangerous medical situation. One lesson from Paris is that medical care shouldn't be an activity to which we need to consent if a decision will suffice.

A specific example from my time in France helps illustrate my point. I once treated a woman named Madeleine who I desperately thought needed a breast augmentation. I thought she wanted one too because she kept agreeing to see me and she once pouted while taking off her bra to change into her hospital gown. Desperate to perform surgery and unsure of what to do, I complained about Madeleine to a female French doctor who said to me, "Have you tried giving her anesthesia before asking whether she wants the procedure?" Obviously my friend's recommendation was based on the assumption that after inhaling narcotic gas designed to dull the senses, Madeleine would be easier to convince about her lacking bosom. This idea of plying a patient with drugs (something that is applauded by American doctors in private) often enrages American patients because they view it as an assault on their right to consent. Is this really a good thing?

It would be asinine and anti-Hippocratic to argue that consent doesn't exist, or that the complete disregard of consent has no repercussions (because it most certainly does). But our language reflects and enables our sub-standard medical care, and that in turn causes us to do damaging, disempowering things (like second-guess patient overuse of medical services), and it may be inadvertently enforced by how we refer to medical choices. I'm not suggesting that a patient have a medical procedure with someone he or she doesn't want to, but I'm hoping we can start having more guilt-free, potentially unnecessary operations by any means necessary. If we turn the volume down on consent, perhaps we'll get closer to this kind of liberation.

Edward Pasteck is a doctor living in New York City who would like to remove your appendix without your permission.

Would Jezebel have published that? Would anyone?

Get Informed November 26: 10 news stories you might have missed

2010-11-26T12:20:00.002-05:00

US sets aside 'critical habitat' for polar bear in Alaska: 187,000 square miles of good news!
Obama outlines plan to defeat LRA in Uganda. No boots on the ground, but the US will partner to put these scumbags who use child soldiers out of business.
Despite China's open trade with Africa, tensions with African immigrants remain
BP's oil spill bill could be much less than expected, as many of the fisherman's claims were submitted with insufficient documentation and will be rejected.
Study finds no progress in safety in hospitals, with patient deaths from complications or infections steady between 2002 and 2007. The study was limited to 10 North Carolina hospitals.
Russia's proposal to unite missile defense systems rebuffed by NATO
Use of contractors added to Iraq War's chaos. Though they are much less effective than actual troops, look for the use of contractors to increase as US pulls out of Afghanistan. Wikileaks' documents detail a plethora of problems.
DHS panel on at-risk chemical plants is stacked with industry lobbyists who push for weaker standards and more lax security requirements! But you will have to get naked or get groped to get on a plane, because that makes us safer...
China is financing a $6 billion expansion of oil refinery in Cuba, expanding the country's influence in Latin America and increasing energy security.
Food insecurity continues to plague North Korea.

Jezebel publishes piece advocating rape (Or, OMFG Jezebel WTF)

2010-11-25T13:04:00.001-05:00

For anyone who has read this article (Huge, massive, billboard-sized trigger warning), let me just say that I am so very sorry. I am sorry that you, who may or may not be a victim of sexual assault, but if you're not has probably been on the other end of sexual violence or attempted sexual violence at some point in your life, had to read some scumbag's self-justifying rape apologism, all the time wondering whether this made YOU less safe in a world with these men, and those who publish them; whether this meant YOU should feel empowered by your sexual assault, even though you feel like ice inside instead; whether this meant that the world is really as hostile as this website where you used to feel at home.

What really got me was how very much like an assault it felt to read THAT piece on THAT blog. To look at the headline "American guy in Paris freed from idea of consent" and think that Jezebel was going to tear him apart. Then to click the link, and start reading a first person narrative of someone advocating unwanted touching and kissing of women in bars as "liberating" (for the m-fing women!) and getting a girl drunk as embracing life, and wondering when this clever satire was going to turn and reveal how wrong-headed this sleazeball logic was. And then to get to the bottom and realize that none of it was a joke? That one of my favorite websites had just actually given a platform to a rape apologist, without unpacking his argument, offering a counterpoint or at least warning its readership that the website had done a complete 180 on what kind of content to publish, and they should probably take their morning coffee and bagel elsewhere?

Read this comment thread for an incredibly sorry explanation for said behavior, and some very articulate explanations as to why said sorry explanation is complete and total b***sh**. Read Sady's historical take on said b***sh** here.

Then please go check out one of the other excellent feminist websites that are out there. Fighting the a**holes. Instead of publishing them.

The Very Best Podcasts on iTunes

2010-11-21T14:00:00.001-05:00

This post seems to have gotten a lot of traffic from Google, so I'm going to keep updating it as I find more excellent podcasts. Leave your finds in the comments!

I am not the biggest fan of exercise, primarily because I find it boring (I climb stairs, go for walks, or use the elliptical or erg machines), and my boredom draws attention to the fact that exercise is less comfortable than sitting on the couch drinking wine and watching The Dog Whisperer. But I believe exercise is important, so I combat the boredom with podcasts. The following podcasts are so good, I go to the gym just to be able to completely focus on them.

The Moth
"Real stories told live, without notes" - a simple concept, and absolutely compelling content. Dan Kennedy created this series, and each week a new episode is released with a 10 to 15 minute story that may be hilarious, touching, or simply jaw-dropping.Check out some sample episodes here. I strongly recommend Jon Levin's "Elevator ER." Among the more awe-inspiring stories is Deborah Kiley's "Lost at Sea." Seriously, every week is a surprise.

Radiolab
I've just discovered this one, and it's also awesome. WNYC's Radiolab is the first podcast I've listened to that has experimented with the medium - different music, sound effects, overlapping voices, and more. The content is awesome. Mostly science topics, but with history, anecdotes, and interviews tossed in. Episodes are typically an hour, which is a bit long, but they are really worth it. They've also produced some shorter episodes - so you can ease your way in.

Poetry Off the Shelf

This podcast comes out two or three times a month, is 10 to 15 minutes long, and usually features poetry reading plus some commentary. It's really brilliant, and I especially like the episodes that do a retrospective of one poet's work and the themes throughout (unfortunately this is typically an obituary episode...) The Poetry Foundation website is even cooler than the podcast itself, with a tremendous amount of poetry, biographies, analysis, multimedia, and on, and on. Look at this article on Ten Poems to Get You Through Science Class this Year - supercool!

Girlfriend MD - Quick and Dirty Tips to Understand Your Body

Now, Girlfriend MD won't be for everyone, as she is explicit and some readers are likely to be squeamish. The premise of the podcast is that Dr Sanaz Majd answers women's health questions that you'd only ask your doctor if she were also one of your closest friends. Some great recent episodes provide info on getting rid of menstrual cramps, why women get migraines, and the differences between all available emergency contraception methods. Useful stuff brought to you by an expert! Dr Majd is trying to plug her cohost's book with the podcasts, but delivers a valuable service nonetheless.

Get Informed November 20: 10 news stories you might have missed

2010-11-20T16:00:00.001-05:00

Dialysis treatment centers mismanaged by giant corporations: ProPublica investigates a publicly-financed system that is extremely profitable for the providers, but which costs more per patient with shamefully bad health outcomes when compared to other developed countries.
Vatican to issue guidelines on sex abuse, victims groups are unimpressed and some church leaders are still discounting the severity of the situation.
Senate approves settlement for underpaid aid to black farmers and mismanaged Native American trusts. Unanimously!
Ireland is said to discuss bailout of nearly $70 billion, in order to counteract dual problems of a crippled banking sector and the nation's tremendous government debt.
A GAO report to Congress explains that raising the minimum retirement age would disproportionately impact the poor and minorities, who often cite health problems as the primary reason for leaving the workforce.
BP may face new penalties over an Alaskan oil spill in 2006.
Private-army phenomenon exacerbates African conflicts, UN says. Mercenaries, not a great thing? Who knew!
Senate moves ahead on food safety bill that would give FDA new powers, shifting more liability to producers and giving the FDA recall power.
Der Spiegel profiles Turkmenistan, and details superpowers efforts to court central Asian nations for access to energy resources and military base real estate.
APEC countries agree to launch massive new free trade zone, linking the region more closely with the US, China, and Japan.

Recipe Fridays: Shepard's Pie three ways

2010-11-19T14:27:00.000-05:00

I know it sounds a little dated, but I've just realized Shepard's Pie is an incredibly easy, filling, and impressive-looking main course that can be made vegetarian--the perfect winter meal in my house.

Shepard's pie (serves 4)
6 potatoes
2 cups either cooked lentils, ground beef, or ground beef-style soy
1 large carrot
1 large green pepper
1 onion
2 tomatoes
spices: salt, pepper, thyme, paprika, cinnamon, and nutmeg are good (as in all of them, or a meat seasoning mix)
Garlic, butter, and cheese (if desired) for mashed potatoes

Peel the potatoes and cut into pieces. Boil until tender. Meanwhile, chop all vegetables. Saute onion in large skillet with olive oil until translucent. If using ground beef, add at this point, and cook for 5 minutes, then add carrot and tomatoes. If using soy or lentils, first add carrots and tomatoes. Saute until carrots begin to tenderize. Then add soy or lentils, and cook until heated through and carrots are tender. Last, stir in spices and green peppers and remove from heat.

Mash potatoes with garlic, butter, and cheese to taste (also salt, of course). Scrape meat/soy/lentil mixture into round casserole dish. Spoon potatoes on top in pretty pattern, and then "rough up" top with a fork to encourage crisping. Place in either a 400 degree oven for 30 minutes, or, if you're hungry, under the broiler for 10 (monitoring and turning as needed). Remove when potatoes are browned in places.

Serve with a green salad with quick pickled onions: Heat 1/2 cup vinegar, 1 tsp salt, and 1 Tb sugar until boiling. Add thinly sliced red onion (rounds) and return to boil. Remove from heat and let sit for 30 minutes, until onions are soft and bright pink.

Google launches seriously cool boutiques.com

2010-11-17T11:08:00.000-05:00

Google has launched a new fashion website, that allows you to shop in dozens of celebrity, designer, blogger, and (soon) user-generated e-boutiques. As the NYTimes says in a piece that sounds like an ad for the site:

Boutiques.com has so many capabilities and components that even Google engineers have a hard time qualifying it. It is a collection of hundreds of virtual boutiques merchandised — or, in the new parlance, “curated” — by designers, retailers, bloggers, celebrities and regular folks. You can shop in the style of, say, the actress Carey Mulligan or Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen — among the celebrities who signed up for the launch — or you can build your own boutique and amass followers who can comment on your taste.
...In every boutique on the site, there are dozens of additional choices inspired by a designer’s or celebrity’s style — generated by algorithms — with product photos that are much larger and sharper than on other shopping sites.

Yes, it's part of the unrealistic fashion industry that wants us to spend $495 on "investment" jeans. Ultimately, it's a way to change the model for how people shop for fashion, in a time when high-end designers are finally feeling the pinch of recession (luxury goods held strong for a while in the real-estate bust). But what I like about it is the potential for it to become a sort of fashion twitter. Each boutique creator has followers and can follow other boutiques. That means that if you have impeccable taste and have always wanted to open a store, now you can with zero start-up cost. I can imagine users who scour the internet for beautiful, unique items at great prices amassing thousands of followers, a la twitter. Moreover, that means if I find a few boutique proprietors who I like, someone else can do my online shopping for me! [Note, I tried out the feature, and it seems that google might limit the items you can put in your boutique to what it has in its "catalogue." If this remains the case, the potential for bargain-scouring might not be as great as I hoped.]

Special google magic also means that fashion searches that usually yield frustrating results are now going to work well, at least according to the Times:

And that may be Boutiques.com’s ultimate game-changer — how precisely it analyzes your preferences to give you what you requested. As many online shoppers know, search engines tend to give you stuff you don’t really want. A request for fern-colored shoes might yield fern shoes, plus fern-print blouses. But, as two experienced online shoppers found when they tested the site earlier this week at Google’s New York office, if you ask for cobalt blue shoes, you get them. And if you refine your preferences with a click or two, you get even more specific styles.

Time will tell whether the site lives up to its potential for fashion democracy. In the meantime, I'll be doing some shopping in Carey Mulligan's boutique.

Law & Order & Prison Rape

2010-11-11T09:00:00.003-05:00

For reasons that defy explanation, I have spent a significant amount of time in the past couple of weeks watching episode of Law & Order: SVU. For those of you who have not watched television in the past decade, the show follows a fictional team of detectives, medical, and legal staff responsible for investigating sexual crimes in New York City. It is highly formulaic but well acted, with a strong sense of morality coursing through each episode. Because this show is so sensitive to issues surrounding sexual assault and victims' rights, I was very surprised that in many of the episodes the detectives crack rape jokes!

No way! Not possible! You'd think this would be egregious behavior for officers (even fictional) that are charged with investigating sexual crimes. But apparently it's acceptable (on TV) because the potential victims are the criminals that have been charged with the episode's crime and are entering prison.

I can definitely understand the writers' impulse here: in the televised morality play, the viewer wants to see eye-for-an-eye justice. And with such heinous crimes being depicted, of course we want to see the "monster" suffer as much as possible. However, rape is NEVER OK. Not even in prison, not even when the victims are rapists themselves. And joking about prison rape erases a very serious and brutal problem with our nation's incarceration system. It's slightly more disturbing because these (fictional! I know!) detectives are charged with investigating all sexual crimes, including presumably those that take place in prison. The writers seem to have lost their way!

As the jokes would seem to allude, rape is a real threat for all inmates in the US - men, women, juveniles, etc. The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission released a report in 2009 detailing the epidemic. Although rates varied across facilities, overall about 5 percent of adults in jail reported sexual assault, and an even more shocking 20 percent of incarcerated youth reported that they had been the victim of non consensual sexual activity in the last year or since entering the facility. They also found that these problems were neither inevitable nor a natural part of incarceration, and that strong leadership and policies could essentially eliminate the problem. A Justice Department report this year states that 12% of juveniles inmates are raped - we are talking about children here.

SVU's writers do come back to this topic in later episodes, where the detectives' jokes catch up with them. And that's great: own your mistakes, acknowledge what went wrong, ensure they won't happen again, and move on! But that's not what happened. After the contrite episode, characters continue to make prison rape jokes! So, that's a media fail.

This is still, I think, pretty good television. However, a couple of reasons not to watch more than two SVU episodes per week (learn from my experience!)

You will have terrible, terrible nightmares. This actually makes sense, but for some reason I didn't think of this and watched four episodes right before bedtime...
You will never be able to look at LOST's Henry Ian Cusick with the same lovestruck eyes again. [See video below]

Other feminist bloggers on SVU:

Organizations working to end prison rape

Get Informed November 10: 10 news stories you might have missed

2010-11-10T13:15:00.002-05:00

I'm thinking of making this into a regular feature. Let me know what you think; at least it keeps me reading the news! -Mongoose

If you get your news from Fox commentary, NYTimes opinion pages, satirical news comedy, or anywhere on cnn.com, then you might be missing a lot of big important stories! Here's a few I've culled from the back pages of leading news organizations. An informed citizenry may be important for democracy, after all ;-)

Obama backs India's quest for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The president acknowledge that India was already a major global power, and criticized the country's relatively isolationist stance thus far.
Oil and food industry groups are challenging the EPA on ethanol in gasoline. Raising the allowable amount from 10% to 15% may drive up food prices and cause damage to engines.
New report claims 100 tigers are being poached annually, a significant loss in a global population of around 3,500. :-(
Polio outbreak in the Congo Republic, the government plans on vaccinating the entire population orally.
Secretary Clinton announces US-Australia talks on rare earth metals supply. China currently has a near monopoly on the market for these critical components to electronics and military systems.
Executives of for-profit colleges are receiving huge bonuses. Compensation for the C-suite at these schools is in some cases more than 20 times what the highest paid traditional university president gets!
Hardly any white Southern Democrats remain in office following last week's midterm elections. Only one white Democrat congressperson remains in deep South states of LA, MS, GA, AL, and SC.
School nutrition bill could be revived in Congress. The bill passed the Senate earlier this year and may now pass Congress after two representatives have dropped opposition to using food stamp funding.
The White House altered drilling ban report, overstating scientific and expert support.
Sarkozy accused of using French intelligence to spy on journalists; the opposition party is demanding an investigation.

Male privilege alert: Men's inviolable right to violate women's bodies

2010-11-09T19:38:00.004-05:00

Today Gawker has a post about the alleged sexual assault of a Google employee at a tech conference by a Twitter engineer. Gawker's headline reads "Googler accuses Twitter engineer of sexual assault on her blog." Right there, we're off to a bad start. Because her blog post is not, really, at all about "accusing" someone of sexual assault, but rather stating the simple fact that she was assaulted (he put his hand down her pants after she turned down his advances), naming the person who did it, and saying rather eloquently that it's part of a broader problem of guys excusing their bad behavior based on the setting:

It’s not the first time something like this has happened to me, at all. It’s not the first time it’s happened to me at a tech conference. But it is the first time I’ve spoken out about it in this way, because I’m tired of the sense that some idiot can ruin my day and never have to answer for it. I’m tired of the fear. I’m tired of people who think I should wear something different. I’m tired of people who think I should avoid having a beer in case my vigilance lapses for a moment. I’m tired of people who say that guys can’t read me right and I have to read them, and avoid giving the wrong impression.
...It is not my job to avoid getting assaulted. It is everyone else’s job to avoid assaulting me. Dozens of guys succeeded at that job, across the week. In the pub, in the stairwell, on the MARTA, in my bedroom.
One guy failed, and it’s his fault.

The commenters make the bad start even worse, by (typically) questioning her behavior (which, in a move that makes me want to give her a medal, she bravely documented), attire, and decision to name her assaulter. The author of the Gawker article feels compelled to pull out the "Innocent until proven guilty" refrain, and laments that the victim in the case couldn't vent her trauma without naming the perp. But why should she? "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really apply to the victim in the case since, to her, there's already pretty clear-cut evidence that the person at hand is guilty. Remember, this happened to her. It's the legal system that's meant to reserve judgment. Moreover, if you think it was "tasteless" of her to name the guy, or some other BS the commenters are spewing, ask yourself whether you would not do the very same thing if a crime were committed against you: If your house was broken into by a neighbor, and you wanted to blog about it, wouldn't one of your purposes surely be to warn others that this neighbor isn't to be trusted? This is not a case of kiss and tell--it's a case of a victim, simply and without malice, documenting her assault.

As one commenter on the Gawker piece astutely put it, the author's discomfort with the naming of the alleged perpetrator had more to do with his desire to spin this story into a general trend article than with any actual identifiable issue with her behavior. Whether news agencies should name alleged perpetrators of sexual assault based on victims' statements is an open question. Whether victims themselves should do so (if they choose to) through any medium available to them is NOT a question.

But why are men so uncomfortable with the idea of a fellow man being called out for sexual assault? This hullabaloo reminds me of a startling conversation I had with some friends and colleagues in Zambia. We were discussing a friend of a friend who had grabbed a woman's breast at a party, and had a bad reputation as a result. As with the above case, what was being discussed wasn't rape, but it was an assault on a woman's body--unwanted sexual contact. One by one, the men in the group defended the breast-grabbing-man, insisting the incident "shouldn't follow him around" and us chicks should "let it go." We made it very clear to them that what we were discussing wasn't some guy going too far during a makeout session and getting gently pushed away, but rather the outright, uninvited violation of a woman who made it clear she wanted no part of it. Still, they persisted in their defense. At one point, a singular guy stood apart from the pack and said, "I think it makes sense for him to have bad rap for the time he's here, sure." Hearing this glimmer of sanity, we clarified, "So you don't think it's unreasonable for someone who walks up to a woman at a party and grabs her breast to be known as the 'boob-grabber' for his remaining three months in Zambia?" The response: "Three months?! Oh, no, I thought he was here for like a weekend. Three months is way too long to still be punished for something like that!"

These were men who, on the surface, seemed like decent, upstanding guys. They were aidworkers in Zambia, for goodness sake. And yet every single one of them insisted that it was unreasonable that a man should be in any way dogged by his choice to violate a woman's body. Both this assault, which had a humorous edge to it (the woman was not traumatized, only appalled), and the one suffered by the google writer linked to above are unlikely to ever be prosecuted. Their perpetrators have little to fear from their actions other than a bad reputation. And yet the gods of maleness want to insist that that price is unreasonable? The idea that women shouldn't be allowed to use their social networks, online or otherwise, to spread the word about creeps who will likely never suffer legal consequences for their actions is absurd beyond belief, and could only be dreamed up by the collective knee-jerk brain of male privilege. These men aren't upset over the rights of one guy named in a blog post to be "innocent until proven guilty." They're upset because this victim speaking out about her assault threatens their inalienable, god-given right to violate women's bodies without reproach. Welcome to the jungle, ladies.

Get Informed November 7: 10 news stories you might have missed

2010-11-07T10:39:00.000-05:00

Mexico drugs cartel suspects arrested in Atlanta area: Agents arrest 45 members of La Familia Michoacana and seize $10 million worth of meth, cocaine, and pot.
Hurricane Tomas sweeps through Haiti, with severe wind and rain battering earthquake refugees still living in insubstantial tents.
Dead coral found near site of BP oil spill: Scientists begin to find more acute and long-term ecosystem effects from this summer's disaster.
Wal-Mart hopes to move into Africa with takeover bid: The retailer is acquiring South African chain Massmart.
The Supreme Court hears a case on the constitutionality of tax credits for private religious schools: Interestingly, the matter seems to turn on whether a tax credit is money that "belongs" to the government or not. Also, Elena Kagan weighs in!
600+ Women were raped along the Congo-Angola border: The UN is asking the two countries to investigate.
Russia upholds freedom of assembly; Journalist brutally beaten in connection with his work: One step forward and two steps back?
GOP seeks to cut pay for renewed jobless benefits: Republicans may refuse to pass extension of unemployment benefits unless the impact on the federal deficit can be lessened. Merry Christmas guys!
Mood is grim as Myanmar heads to elections: Both choices are pro-military, pro-democracy party refuses to participate, outside media and observers are being barred, results are unlikely to be legitimate.
US involvement in Yemen edging toward "clandestine war": President Obama is said to be considering CIA covert operations in the country supplemented by unmanned drone strikes.

Be a Feminist and Vote this Tuesday!!

2010-10-30T23:54:00.000-04:00

It would be hard not to know, with the incessant pleas and accusations of campaigning politicians across all forms of media these past few days, but this Tuesday, November 2nd, is Election Day! This is our opportunity for civic engagement, to hold government accountable, and feel smugly superior for the low cost of standing in line and exercising the right to vote! There is usually even some free coffee, and very nice volunteers to usher you through the process pain-free.

First of all, you must be registered to vote. Usually this has to be done at least a month before Election Day, but this varies from state to state. In Georgia, I was registered when I got my driver's license, so that was super convenient.

To figure out who all of the eligible candidates are, I started by Googling "Georgia election commission." This type of search will generally lead to your state's Secretary of State office, which is responsible for overseeing elections. If your state is up-to-speed on internet technology, you should be able to learn where your polling place is, which districts you can vote for, what all of the open seats are, and even have links to the candidates' campaign websites.

There should be a sample ballot available online, which you can print out to mark down your choices. It can be hard to remember what you researched when there are a lot of candidates and issues, so I recommend working through this ballot or taking a cheat sheet in with you.

What You'll Need

Form of identification
Sample ballot or cheat sheet (optional)
Patience (occasionally the lines are long)

What You'll Get

A voice in the political process
Sense of satisfaction for doing the right thing
Complaining rights if the other guy wins
Coffee, and maybe even donuts (if you're lucky)

Remind your friends, family, and coworkers to get out to their polling places on Tuesday!

Recipe Fridays: Asian Turkey Meatballs

2010-10-15T09:58:00.003-04:00

Thanks to the newest issue of Everyday Food magazine for this delicious recipe. I modified it slightly since I don't like things too spicy and had no rice on hand. These were a great meal to stretch over a few days, and, always a plus, it's easy to make.

coarse salt
1 cup long-grain white rice (i didn't have rice so i used whole wheat orzo)
1 carrot, shredded
3/4 cup fresh breadcrumbs
1 1/2 pounds ground dark meat turkey or ground pork (i used a combo!)
3 scallions, white and green parts separated and thinly sliced
1/3 cup chopped fresh cilantro
4 tsp fish sauce
4 tsp hot-pepper sauce (i thought that was too much so i used 2 tsp)
4 tsp sugar
1 large garlic clove, minced
2 tsp veggie oil
lime wedges, for serving

1. preheat oven to 450. cook rice (or orzo!). remove from heat and top with carrot. let stand, covered, 5 minutes, then stir in carrot (and i put the scallion greens in at the same time, but you can also put them on right before serving).
2. meanwhile, combine breadcrumbs and 3 tbp water. let stand for 5 minutes. add meat, scallion whites, cilantro, fish sauce, hot pepper sauce, sugar, garlic, and 1 1/2 tsp salt. gently mix to combine and form into about 12 meatballs.
3. in large nonstick skillet heat 1 tsp oil over medium-high. in batches brown meatballs on all sides, about 10 minutes (add up to 1 tsp oil as needed). transfer to rimmed baking sheet and bake until cooked through, about 10 minutes. serve meatballs with rice and lime wedges.

Recipe Fridays: Baked Mac and Cheese

2010-10-08T11:48:00.004-04:00

As temperatures drop and the seasons change, it's time for warm comfort foods. I recently tried my hand at Ina Garten's Mac & Cheese (she's always got great recipes). I made some modifications (took out the tomato and added in bacon and mozzarella cheese). Feel free to experiment!

1 tablespoon salt+enough to salt the water
veggie oil
1 pound elbow macaroni
1 quart milk (aka 4 cups)
8 tablespoons unsalted butter
1/2 cup all-purpose flour
0.6 pounds) Gruyere cheese, grated

0.4 pounds mozarella, grated
8 ounces extra-sharp cheddar, grated
1/2 teaspoon ground black pepper
1/2 teaspoon nutmeg
1 1/2 cups fresh white bread crumbs (made from 5 slices white bread, crusts removed and grated)
bacon!

1. Grate cheeses.
2. Grate bread.
3. Preheat oven to 375. Bring a large pot of salted water to a boil. Drizzle veggie oil into the boiling water (a couple tablespoons). Add the macaroni and cook according to package instructions, 6-8 minutes. Drain well.
4. While the noodles boil, begin to heat the milk in a small saucepan...but DO NOT allow it to boil. 5. (I waited for my noodles to drain so I could use the same big pot for this step) In a large pot melt 6 tablespoons of butter along with the flour. Cook over low heat fpr 2 minutes, stirring with a whisk (or spoon if you don't have a whisk).
6. Then whisk in the hot milk and cook for 1-2 more minutes, stirring/whisking until smooth and slightly thicker.
7. Turn off the heat under large pot.
8. Stir in 1 tablespoon of salt, the pepper, and the nutmeg.
9. Stir in the grated cheeses.
10. Add in the cooked macaroni and stir well.
11. Pour into a 9x13 (or 3-quart) baking dish.
12. Put the strips of bacon (uncooked!) on top--remember bacon shrinks as it cooks so feel free to use a lot!

13. In a small saucepan (or a microwave-safe bowl) melt the remaining 2 tablespoons of butter. Toss with the bread crumbs to coat evenly.
14. Sprinkle bread crumbs over the top of the macaroni caserole.
15. Bake for 30-35 minutes (cheese should be bubbly and bacon baked).

Yet Another Study Raises Concerns for BPA

2010-09-25T15:05:00.004-04:00

Just this past week a study was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives raising new concerns (and supporting past concerns) about the negative effects of BPA on human health.

One of the major research findings was that humans are exposed to higher levels of BPA than previously predicted.

In an effort to protect our health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency determines reference doses for chemicals. A reference dose is the maximum daily exposure level, which is expected to not cause any significant risk for human health.

For BPA, the EPA determined a reference dose of 50 µg/kg/day. However, the study published by Taylor et al demonstrated that in order to achieve the levels of biologically active BPA that have been detected in human serum, the rhesus monkeys had to be given a dose that was 8 times the EPAs reference dose.

The results bolster scientists’ concerns that we truly do not know all of the sources of BPA exposure. Aside from plastic bottles and canned goods, there are new routes of exposure that continue to be identified such as thermal (carbonless) receipts.

The study also directly compared BPA studies using mice and rhesus monkeys, and demonstrated that, in fact, rodent studies are a valid model for human effects. To date, the biggest argument used to discredit the massive amount of data showing BPA can have negative effects on human health, had been that rodents were not a good model.

With all this new evidence, I wonder how long until a real regulation gets put into place to protect consumer health. I’m also excited to see what the counter argument will be. Stay tuned!

[Image credit: brian.gratwicke]

Recipe Fridays: Eggplant with ginger and tomatoes

2010-09-17T06:24:00.000-04:00

One major cuisine I've failed to incorporate into my cooking repertoire is Indian food. It just seems like there's such a high startup cost! In order to make anything tasty, you need a billion spices, and it still turns out much worse than the carryout you could have gotten in 1/10th of the time. (To be honest, Chinese food probably seems the same way to many people, but since I grew up with it, I find it more manageable. I think ethnic cuisines have a high fixed cost - low variable cost structure. Someone should write a paper on this.) However, there's one dish I make that's vaguely Indian inspired that also happens to be super easy, and turn out delicious every time. So if you, like me, have an irrational phobia of Indian cooking, try whipping this recipe up for all (ok, most) of the satisfaction with none of the hassle.

Eggplant with ginger and tomatoes

2 large eggplants
2 large or 4 small tomatoes
1/2 onion
1 thumb-sized piece of ginger
Vegetable oil
Salt, pepper, and chile flakes to taste

Heat 4 tablespoons of oil in a large pot. Chop the onion finely, and add to the oil. Without skinning, cut the eggplant into 2-inch chunks. When the onion is translucent, add the eggplant and saute until the eggplant is brown in places. Chop the ginger very finely, and add to pot, sauteing for 2 minutes longer. Turn heat down to medium-low, roughly chop the tomatoes, add to pan, and cover. Cook, stirring occasionally, for at least 30 minutes, or until each piece of eggplant is soft. You may wish to add more oil, or a couple tablespoons of water if mixture begins to stick. The eggplant tastes best with lots of oil and when left to cook for 45 minutes to an hour, but that depends on your time and nutritional constraints! Add salt, fresh pepper, and chile to taste. Enjoy with rice, or, when cooked for a long time, spread on crusty bread.

How to pick up chicks: A reasonably informed response to pick-up artist guides

2010-09-13T21:42:00.000-04:00

It is really hard to meet men I want to date. I hear that men also have trouble meeting women. (I smell an arbitrage opportunity here!) Hence, the abundance of guides on "picking up women" all over the internet. Some of these guides have really disrespectful attitude towards women, which makes me wonder about their true intent and efficacy. So, here are some of my tips for sparking a woman's interest - all should also work with men!

Ask - and remember - her name. This is really simple, but is an easy way to show respect and interest. If names give you trouble, try repeating it right after she tells you (i.e., "It's nice to meet you, Rachel"), and repeat it a couple of times in your head.
Actively listen to what she's saying and ask appropriate questions. People love talking about themselves, and feel extra special when someone is really engaging with what they're saying. Don't use her conversation as a way to change the subject to yourself. When I recently told a guy in a bar that I liked books, he used this as a way to start talking for 15 minutes about his own collection, which was not particularly endearing. A smoother dude would have asked me more about what I liked to read, or maybe the most recent book I had purchased.
Make eye contact, but not too much. The main thing here is not to stare at the woman's rack while you're talking - it really bothers most of the women I know. However, don't lock eyes too intensely either. If she's backing away, fidgeting a lot, or keeps looking away, you are probably being a little too strong. Eye contact, look away, eye contact, glance away, etc.
Don't swear profusely, say bigoted things, or indulge in excessive vulgarity. Dropping F-bombs is not going to impress anyone, and being sexist, racist, or homophobic will not score you any points. This is your first conversation with this person, so put your best foot forward.
No negging. Negging is a common pickup artist tip where you catch a woman's interest by insulting her. Don't do this - it's stupid, rude, and makes you look like an inconsiderate jerk. Compliments are totally the way to go. You already know this to be true, so just trust your instincts. Anecdotes of successful negging are just that - rare stories. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
Make her feel great. This is your antidote to negging - instead, give her a nice compliment, laugh at her jokes, take interest in her conversation, use her name, buy her a drink. This is a classic sales strategy and common sense: everybody loves a charmer.
Accept no as an answer. Don't be too persistent, and allow her an easy escape from the conversation. If she's not interested in you, it behooves you to be as polite as possible and not make her uncomfortable. Not only is this the right thing to do (harassment is bad!), she might also have friends with her who might be more receptive to your advances. If this sounds like bad advice, read this harsh piece about too-persistent men. Don't be that guy!
Follow up with a call. If the stars align and you get her number:

Call when you promised or within three days.
Call once, leave a voicemail. This is really important - calling half a dozen times is inappropriate. Just leave a voicemail with your name, a reference to where you met so she can remember the context, and your number.
If she doesn't return your call, try again, but only once. (See #6 for rationale.)

Ask her out on a date. In a world of online dating and a hookup culture, it seems that people are increasingly afraid of the face-to-face rejection inherent in dating. Rejection is a normal part of the dating process, and picking yourself up and moving on is a big part of improving your game.While Match.com and hookups can be great, a dinner date is a really good way to get to know someone through a relatively sober and private conversation. It sounds intimidating but there's nothing to be scared of - and it gets much easier with practice!

These might seem really simple, but I've seen so many men (and women!) blow their chances by messing up on common courtesy. Any more basic tips out there for meeting people?

Femonomics crowd-sourcing: Helping a friend in an abusive relationship

2010-09-12T11:40:00.000-04:00

Scenario: You have a friend. Maybe you've just met. Maybe you've known her for a long time. Either way, she trusts you, and you care about her. One night--maybe it's the alcohol, maybe it's that she's tired of waiting for his calls--she opens up to you. She tells you a story so heartbreaking, that your tears flow just as freely as hers. Her boyfriend hits her. He's put her in the hospital. He's left her by the side of the road with no money for a bus home. He dictates who she talks to and when. She's been cut off from her friends. It's making her sick. Maybe you know the guy--maybe he even seems like a perfect gentleman--or maybe you don't, but you've never even seen a hint of what she's telling you before tonight. Looking into her tear-stained face, you know why she's telling you. She's worried if she doesn't get away now, he will kill her. And you know it too. So together, you make a plan. You engineer her escape. You tell her it's going to be hard, it's going to hurt, that she'll want to go back. She says she knows all this. She's ready. You turn off her phone, together you pack a bag, maybe you take her to a friend's house, maybe she stays with you, maybe you find a hotel. I'm helping her, you think. I can save this girl. She looks at you, grateful. Together, you feel strong.

And then, suddenly, just like flipping a switch, she changes her mind. Maybe it's the next day, maybe it's only an hour later. Maybe she's talked to him, heard his apologies. She wants to go back. She needs him. She tells you nothing she told you is true. He doesn't hit her, she says. They just fight sometimes. He's flawed, but she loves him. She wants her phone, she wants to go. Don't block her way. You look her in the eye. Tell me he's never hit you, you say. He's never hit me. Tell me he's never left you by the side of the road. Never. Put you in the hospital? Never. Told you who you can talk to? Never. I just wanted attention, she says. Thanks for your concern. Now let me leave.

You want to shake her. You want to yell at her and scream at her. (What has this turned you into?) He's going to kill you, you say. How badly does he need to hurt you for you to leave? Will a broken bone be enough? A permanent scar? You want to run her life for her, to just take over. But then wouldn't you be just like him?
I'm an adult, she says. I'll leave him when I'm ready. Now let me pass. She's a junkie*, you realize. Addicted to something that's much stronger than you. She knows it hurts her, she knows it makes her feel badly, but without it, she feels like nothing. She thinks there's a way she can get her fix without the crash. That it will be different this time.

You've read the books. You know the stats. And yet you thought you were stronger than it. You are powerless. And you're angry at him, yes. But, incredibly, you're more angry at her. How could she be so stupid? So immature? You stop yourself. It's him who's done this. You take a deep breath, and try again. Pedantically, you explain to her that abuse is cyclical because part of what an abuser does is break down her self-esteem, cut her ties with the world around her, and convince her that she needs him. Abuse isn't just physical, you preach, it's emotional. That's what he's done to you. I feel fine, she says. And she's gone.

This story might sound familiar to anyone who's tried to help a friend in an abusive relationship. One minute, she wants your help desperately, and you're sure that you can save her, and the next, you're the enemy because you're keeping her from him. In economic terms, I call the psychological component of abuse a lowering of the victim's outside option. By convincing her she's nothing without him, he ensures she'll come back when the bruises fade. That's why abusers so often use language like "Who else would want you?" and "Nobody will ever love you but me." In some cases, this lowering of the outside option is realized physically as brutal maiming designed to make the victim feel as undesirable as she's constantly being told that she is.

So the question is, if you're on the outside looking in, how do you help? I think the first answer to that is that it's somewhat naive to believe we can help, at least without some major backup. If a friend needed to break a heroin addiction, few of us would think we could just sit up with them all night and then go to work the next day with a shiny savior halo. (Although, I know people who've tried to stop an addict themselves, too, so maybe we always tend to overestimate our own abilities to help.) A friend trying to kick a long-time drug habit likely needs intensive rehab, not a shoulder to cry on. When someone comes to the realization that they need out, it may be best to seize on that moment to get them linked up with professional resources that can provide them specialized counseling of the kind we, for all our good intentions, are not qualified to give. But beyond that, I don't really know what the answer is. Can good friends help a person to leave an abusive relationship, or can we only serve as reinforcements once that person is ready to get out on their own? If we have to wait for them to want to change, how can we keep our own mental health through the inevitable hot-and-cold?

My best answer to these questions right now is that a good friend can try to connect someone with specialized resources when they decide they need help, can support and reinforce their decision to leave, providing shelter and even money if asked, and can keep ties even if they change their mind and go back, so that they'll have someone to turn to when it once again becomes too much to bear. But there's something about that very rational game-plan that seems so unsatisfying when you know your friend is in imminent physical danger. As much as we might know the limits of our own power, it seems a galaxy away when you're staring into her glistening eyes and you honestly believe that--if you just try hard enough--you can reach her.

Readers, what do you think? Have you tried to help a friend leave an abusive relationship? Have you ever had to end a friendship because you had tried to help someone who then pushed you away and went back?

*Note: I do not mean at all to displace blame onto victims of domestic violence for remaining in violent relationships. The desire to stay, to go back, are consequences of physical and emotional abuse. I only want to illustrate the incredible frustration an outsider can feel trying to do battle with an abuser's psychological hold on the victim.

Life Skills: Packing Light and Smart

2010-09-07T14:10:00.000-04:00

Another great post from guest VikingKitten - a veteran traveler with some tips on keeping your suitcases light!

We travel a lot, so we know what you’re thinking: You don’t want to be THAT person—the notorious over-packer who takes 5 suitcases on a week-long trip, but you also don’t want to leave anything important behind. Here’s our top 10 tips for packing light while still covering all the bases:

1. Make the room to bring a camera:

You’ll regret it if you don’t.

2. Check the weather before you leave:

This point cannot be emphasized enough, but always remember that weather can be unpredictable. Make sure to take advantage of layers, and consider bringing a jacket, umbrella, and hat.

3. Choose clothes in travel-friendly fabrics:

Knit, cotton, and denim travel better than linen or silk, particularly if ironing won’t be an option. Opt for easy-case fabrics that will retain their shape without the fuss.

4. Bring versatile shoes:

The average female traveler packs 5 pairs of shoes—what a waste! Bring a couple pairs of versatile, comfortable shoes in neutral colors, and at least one pair that can handle water/rain.

5. Make your own travel-size toiletries:

Don’t waste space packing your huge shampoo bottles, and avoid wasting money buying travel-sized bottles of all of your favorite toiletries. Instead, fill up reusable travel-sized bottles, like these with your existing shampoo, lotion, conditioners, and other toiletries to save both space and money.

6. Use plastic bags to avoid potential spills:

Speaking of toiletries, make sure to put any bottles containing liquids that may leak into plastic bags to avoid a disaster.

7. Try space-saving bags:

Affordable bags such as these get great reviews from frequent travelers who want to save space.

8. Stick with color schemes:

Color schemes make outfits easier to coordinate. Neutral colors are better because they are easier to mix and match and can handle many climates.

For women in particular—it’s always wise to pack a dress in a neutral color, which can be dressed down during the day with sandals and dressed up at night with heels, jewelry, and a cardigan.

9. Remember your chargers:

For your phone, camera, laptop, etc.

10. Pack a scarf:

Scarves are an underrated travel accessory: versatile and worth the space. They are good for cold weather (for warmth) or for warmer weather (to dress up an otherwise bland outfit).

And finally, some inspiration:

http://ericlefou.1.online.fr/MES_TRUCS/MESobjets/Mon_equipement/international.htm

http://sites.google.com/site/1ozluggage/pictcase

Any more tips readers? What are your tricks for keeping everything in the carry-on?

Femonomics reads the internet so you don't have to: Eminem's Love the Way You Lie

2010-09-02T22:16:00.001-04:00

You may have heard that Eminem and Rihanna have come out with a new music video of "Love the Way You Lie." This has generated a lot of buzz, and in some cases controversy, for it's depiction of domestic violence. The video portrays a complex relationship where the abusers aren't completely unsympathetic and the victims are not faultless human beings - in other words it's a lot like real life! Some people are arguing that the video makes violence look sexy, which would be a not-so-great message. Others note that the message seems to be that violence is not a choice, but more like a natural disaster, over which no one (not even the abuser) has any control. This discussion is complicated by the fact that both singers have lived through abusive relationships, Rihanna having been violently assaulted by her then-boyfriend last year and Eminem having been both a perpetrator and receiver of abuse in past relationships. Also, the whole dialog is taking place on the internet, so decency and politeness is at a minimum.

Here's the video. It is not similarly offensive to Eminem's other work, but there is somewhat graphic violence and swearing.

I have to admit, I like the duet, the rhythm, and (so help me) the obvious rhymes. My primary takeaway is that this is not being portrayed as a desirable relationship, but rather as a cautionary tale. And not to equate Eminem with the great playwright in terms of art, but couldn't the same charge of romanticizing violence and death be leveled at Romeo & Juliet? I can see however, where people are misinterpreting this as glorifying (and sexifying) domestic violence. The actors playing the couple are Dominic Monaghan and Megan Fox, both of whom are really, extraordinarily gorgeous. These two would look smoking hot at a pie-eating contest - even though pie eating contests are completely gross! Monaghan gave an interview where he explained the intention in creating the video was to both give a believable portrayal of violent relationships, and to send a strong anti-violence message.

Over at Tiger Beatdown, a commenter make the point that the lyrics do misstep in one description of abuse:

Yeah, I’m not at all familiar with the Eminem oeuvre, but I did watch the video so I could make sense of the Atlantic article, and it was strange. I felt like he was saying, ‘The abuse in this relationship is just this thing that happens, like a natural disaster, completely beyond anybody’s power to stop, so you really can’t blame anybody for it, and anyway it’s mostly her fault.

She's referring to the lyrics where Eminem describes the situation as "that's what happens when a tornado meets a volcano." And she has a point - abuse is not beyond the abuser's control, and certainly not beyond their culpability, which is what the natural disaster connection seems to imply.

The final criticism this seems to raise is a legacy issue with Eminem, which is the intensely and shockingly misogynistic nature of much of his past work. I don't think this is news to anyone who remembers the 1990s, but I do think it's fairly tired ground at this point. Rap music has a strong anti-woman strain. For an older but interesting analysis of Eminem's particular brand of misogyny, I recommend this 2002 essay in the Village Voice and here's a more recent 2009 article over at the Huffington Post. To be honest, it's really depressing stuff, and I personally would unlikely date anyone who was a huge fan of the guy. While I think it's important to decry Eminem's anti-woman screed whenever it arises, as the authors above do, I would rather just starve it of consumers. And this piece, in and of itself, is not misogynistic, and so seems fit for consumption. I'm generally in favor of free speech and allowing the market to eliminate the bad stuff. Still hasn't worked with Rush Limbaugh unfortunately...

Recipe Fridays: How to cook (and eat) Zambian food

2010-08-27T08:00:00.011-04:00

The staple Zambian food is N’shima, a cooked maize product similar to grits or polenta. It’s dense and highly caloric, thanks to the cooking process by which a small amount of maize meal is cooked into a porridge, then additional meal is beaten in until the N’shima is thick and sticky. There are two kinds of maize meal, or mealy-meal, from which N’shima is made: Refined meal, called “Breakfast”, and whole meal, called “Roller” (pronounced Rollah). N’shima is eaten with a variety of “relishes”, such as vegetables, small dried fish (kapenta), beans, and/or meat with gravy. The major Zambian vegetables are: Rape, a dark green, slightly bitter leaf similar to chard; Chinese cabbage, a slightly lighter colored and more crisp leaf; Chabwawa (pronounced almost like Chihuahua the dog), pumpkin leaves, which are thick and often sandy if not washed enough; Kalembla, pointy, sometimes star-shaped leaves which can be slimy if over-cooked; and Bondwe, basil-shaped leaves with a distinctive fragrance. These vegetables are usually cooked with tomato and onion, and sometimes in a groundnut (peanut) stew called V’sachy.

Zambians eat with their hands, but this is certainly not an excuse for poor hygiene or table manners. Washing hands before and after meals is mandatory, and you’ll find most Zambians somehow keep their hands clean throughout the entire affair. This is managed by the process of taking a golf ball-size lump of n’shima, rolling it into a ball, and flattening it with the thumb before picking up any food. The n’shima and the thumb together are used to pick up vegetables and sauce, leaving the rest of the hand clean. For tearing apart meat and fish you will have to use your hand—but only one. The other rests on the table clean. Westerners seen grabbing food directly off the plate by the handful are considered just as uncouth here as they would be back home, so be warned—eating with your hands isn’t as simple as it seems.

Below are some Zambian recipes, starting with those that are most transferable to Western grocery availability.
Tomato gravy
Use a small-hole grater to grate 3 ripe tomatoes into a pan (a technique I'd never used before Zambia, but which makes a very nice sauce!). Use some water to wash the grater over the pan, so you get all pulp. Place pan on stove and bring to boil, then turn down to simmer. Add one cube veggie bouillon OR seasonings to taste (such as pepper, curry, garlic powder). Grate in one clove garlic, and add some chopped onion if you like. Chop one additional tomato and add this. Cook until the chopped tomato has lost its shape and gravy has thickened somewhat. You may want to add a bit of water. Mix a tablespoon of flour in a bowl with four times as much water—it should be thin, not pasty. Add this slowly and stir. Heat until liquid returns to clear and has thickened.

Sweet potatoes with groundnuts
Peel sweet potatoes and cook covered in just a bit of water, about an inch. When soft, cut in pan into small pieces. Add about one-half cup of peanut butter for every two potatoes, and add additional water. Let mixture boil and cook. Stir. Peanut butter and water will thicken. Salt to taste.

Fried rape (can be made with chard or kale)
Start with a large bunch of rape, as it will reduce to almost nothing upon cooking. Wash rape leaves thoroughly. Pile tightly together and cut off bottom half of stems and discard. Holding leaves in tight bundle, thinly slice crosswise starting from bottoms of stems, continuing to top of leaf bundle. Place cooking oil to cover the bottom of a large pot and heat. Add cut rape leaves and cover. After about one minute, flip the leaves so that the cooked ones from the bottom are on the top. Sprinkle on top one tomato and half an onion, chopped. Cover again. After a few minutes, stir again, and add a bit more oil. Add salt. Continue covering and stirring until rape is bright green and onions are soft.

Beans with tomato, onion, and green pepper
Cook beans according to package directions. Add salt. Add one-half chopped onion and cover. Add a chopped tomato. Last, add a chopped green pepper. Add cooking oil to taste. Serve with rice, preferably Mongu, and hot sauce to taste.

V’sachy (Chabwawa is best, but any dark leafy vegetable will do)
If using Chabwawa (pumpkin leaves), prepare vegetables by washing thoroughly, plucking off leaves at mid-stem, peeling strings from stem, and slicing thinly. Wash again to remove all traces of sand. Put a bit of water in the bottom of a pot and heat. When it boils, add vegetables. When vegetables are bright green and mostly cooked, add pounded groundnuts (you can substitute peanut butter, but the taste will be slightly different). First mix groundnut powder with water to make a paste, then add to pot. You will add about one cup for a bunch of vegetables. Let ground nuts boil. If using Chabwawa, add a pinch of soda. Now add chopped tomato and onion. Cook until groundnut mixture thickens and darkens in color, about 15 minutes. Salt to taste.

N’shima (try it with fine cornmeal and let me know how it goes!)
Heat two cups water in pan. Add 1 cup mealy-meal mixed with water to make a paste. Cook until a thick porridge has formed. Gradually beat in additional mealy-meal until N’shima reaches desired consistency. If using Roller meal, allow to simmer before serving. Use a wet spoon to scoop out in lumps.

[Image via Mina in Zambia]

Unlocking the puzzle: HIV in East Africa

2010-08-21T11:35:00.001-04:00

Let me ask you this: Do you believe patterns of sexual behavior are the primary determinant of rates of HIV infection in the world? If a country has more HIV, does that mean more people are having more unprotected sex with more partners?

Personally, I don't believe the above statement, at least without major qualifications, but there are plenty of people (and plenty of people in the HIV/AIDS advocacy community) who do. What I would say, is that countries with higher infection rates probably provide the virus with more opportunities for transmission--perhaps in the form of unprotected sex, but also in the form of overall poor health, additional untreated infections, possibly lower rates of circumcision, and other so-called "open windows" (to borrow a phrase from Elizabeth Pisani) into our normally protected bodies.

On the other hand, I am also troubled by how HIV rates could be so high in relatively well-off East African countries (such as Botswana) and so low in equally poor Latin American countries. What's the missing variable? One theory that I've heard advanced is that East African societies tend to favor concurrent sexual relationships, rather than serially monogamous ones, which is more conducive to HIV transmission. The idea is that HIV is most infectious after you've been recently infected, so if you have sex with someone for several months, become infected, and then start a new relationship a few months later, you're less likely to transmit the disease than if you have an ongoing sexual relationship that involves multiple instances of unprotected sex with two people during the same time period. But is it the case that East Africans have more concurrent sexual relationships than people in other countries? Honestly, I don't know. Feasibly, it seems like something you could find out by examining DHS surveys, but I don't know of anyone who's done this. So in the absence of facts, let's at least talk about why that impression exists.

Here in Zambia, it is true that cheating seems to be not just a major problem, but also one that people have become resigned to. A friend of mine taught me the nyanja word "Chipakisha," meaning to endure, and said that when women are married here, they're told they're now part of the "Chipakisha club." Their job is to endure their husband's faults and infidelities, they're told. While I can imagine someone telling a woman that in the fifties in the states, it certainly seems less than ideal today. Another friend, who was cheated on multiple times, also told me that she no longer wanted to date a Zambian man because of how large a problem cheating posed, and that she was sure men in America cheated much less. It's not that people don't form committed, long-term relationships--far from it. It's just that many do seem to have relationships on the side. Often, these side relationships are themselves committed, which poses a double problem: 1) It meets the criteria for concurrency, given that non-monogamous sex is not just a one-time occurrence, but often an ongoing relationship and 2) This element of commitment means that many people won't consider using condoms because their partners are long-term. Bingo, HIV transmission.

On the other hand, I wonder where exactly all these serially monogamous Americans that seem to be the comparison point are. Many of my friends are in long-term committed relationships, and most wouldn't consider cheating, but those that haven't found "the one" yet tend to sleep with many different ones, on many different nights. Perhaps if we're using our parents' generation as a point of comparison, we'd believe East African sexual mores result in more total high-risk unprotected sex, but certainly with the emergency of hookup culture, I believe that today, Americans on average probably start having sex younger and may have more partners over their lifetimes than East Africans.

So is it really that random instances of unprotected sex are less risky than concurrent partnerships? Can that explain the divide? And if sexual mores do play a role in higher rates of HIV transmission what do you do about it? Helen Epstein's book "The Invisible Cure" advances the hypothesis (note, I have only read about it--not actually read it) that a "monogamy campaign" was largely responsible for the late nineties drop in HIV rates in Uganda. In fact, she seems to hypothesize that stressing monogamy is more important than even condom usage. But, that's not something I'm necessarily comfortable with. It seems to me that changing who people have sex with, and how often, is more difficult and intrusive than changing what kind of protection they use. Nonetheless, Pascaline Dupas' work on relative risks showed that informing Kenyan schoolgirls that older lovers were more likely to be HIV positive than boys their own age resulted in a decline in risky sex. Could concurrency be a similar story?

Personally, I'd rather focus on condoms and female empowerment, and let cultures shape themselves. Nonetheless, given the devastation of HIV in East Africa, it's something we may not be able to afford to ignore.

ETA: I generally get pretty defensive when people bring sexual mores up as a possible explanation of HIV rates, because often their suggestions are tinged with racism. Before this last trip to Zambia, I probably wouldn't have been willing to engage in a discussion about it, or write this post. But after being told by multiple Zambians that the sex lives of committed Zambians seem different to them than in other places, I thought it was worth at least bringing up the discussion. I should also add that it's not that cheating isn't looked down upon or thought to be a sin, it's just that some people also seem to accept it as an inevitability. Thoughts?

Recipe Fridays: Nutella Milkshake

2010-08-20T10:56:00.003-04:00

So this recipe is not rocket science. It's not gourmet. It's not inventive. It is simply to die for. A few months ago some friends and I went to Brooklyn Bowl for some good old fashioned fun. Not only is it a fantastic-looking venue, but the food is scrumptious--thanks to Blue Ribbon who runs the food there. And, lo and behold, they have a Nutella milkshake on the menu. It was heaven! I attempted to recreate it the other weekend to much success.

Warning: Once you taste the first sip, you'll want to have bucket loads. All the time.

Ingredients:

Vanilla ice cream

Nutella

Milk of your choice

In a blender, mix ice cream and milk until you get the consistency of milkshake you would like. I find that three parts ice cream to one part milk (or thereabouts) is best. Then add in a couple of spoonfuls of Nutella (again, as much as you would like). Blend well. Serve and drink immediately!

Femonomics reads the internet: Thank you Obama, leave Shelley alone, pro-choice heartbreak

2010-08-17T11:20:00.000-04:00

Obama spoke out in support of the "Ground Zero Mosque", which as Gawker points out (in a hilarious piece on potential "compromises") could more accurately be called the "The Downtown Manhattan Muslim Community Center," but that doesn't do as much to justify faux outrage and calls to "refudiate." Seriously, thank goodness. Now could someone from the right prove their party isn't going over the waterfall of irrelevance by doing the same? Anyone?

Shelley O (The nickname is from TLo) took a trip to Spain, and now someone is comparing her to a modern day Marie Antoinette. Snarky columnists will be snarky columnists, but the part that really irks me, is that her approval ratings fell after the whole thing. Honestly, give me a break. She took a trip with her daughter and a few friends. Surely this is not unheard of from someone who earned over $300,000 a year as a vice president at University of Chicago Hospitals?

I'm about as pro-choice as they come (when it comes to legal restrictions) and yet I found myself tearing up reading this description of abortion (last page) in a piece on selective reduction of twins linked to by Jezebel. Jezebel's Anna North seems to ask whether we should judge one woman's choice in terms of how this informed our defense of her right to choose. But to me, the two can be unrelated. It's possible to feel sadness about abortion, and even to feel anger at the person doing it, without believing in legal restrictions on it. Going in with this belief, I was still surprised at how much the piece affected me emotionally. Go read it and let me know if your eyes stay dry.

Guest Post: The Teaching Methods of Higher Education - Sexist or Simply Part of the Profession?

2010-08-15T10:15:00.003-04:00

Another great guest post from VikingKitten regarding teaching methods and potential gender bias in graduate schools. Enjoy!

At first glance, graduate education programs seem to be more female-friendly than in years past: female enrollment in graduate programs of traditionally male-dominated fields—such as medicine, law, and business—has significantly risen in recent years, with enrollment in law and medical schools about evenly distributed among genders. However, despite this rise in female enrollment, the teaching methods of these schools have generally remained the same. Does this put women at a disadvantage?

As a law student, I will focus on the teaching method with which I am most familiar—the “Socratic Method”—which, despite its unfortunate misnomer, actually describes the following type of scenario: A law professor will “cold-call” on a student, asking questions about the assigned cases or reading material. The professor will often give the student a tough time and ask many follow-up questions, forcing the student to come up with strong arguments on the spot and to support his/her opinions with clear and logical reasoning.
So, what’s wrong with this method? According to Harvard Professor Lani Guinier, one of the many staunch advocates for the removal of Socratic Method in law schools, the Socratic Method may put women at a disadvantage to men. The basic argument, stemming from Guinier’s 1994 study and extending into more recent scholarship, is that women learn better in cooperative environments and are more likely to speak up and excel in smaller groups and in more interactive situations. Proponents for the removal of the Socratic teaching method also observe that women tend to take longer than men to formulate answers on the spot, that they tend to feel alienated in the law school setting, and that male students consistently outperform their similarly-situated female counterparts in law school.

Besides the apparent correlation vs. causation counterargument, a further counterargument to Guinier and other critics of the Socratic Method is that the legal profession itself often demands public speaking—whether that means defending one’s position in court or negotiating a deal for a client, and law school should thus prepare students for this. Whether the student is male or female, the skills of thinking quickly on one’s feet and to defend one’s opinions and arguments are helpful and critical in the legal profession (and just generally in life!). The Socratic Method can also be attacked on other grounds, such as its questionable efficacy in preparing students for actu al legal practice, but is it an inherently sexist method, the continued use of which puts women at a disadvantage to male students? I argue no.

The teaching methods of other types of graduate schools (with which Femonomics readers may be more familiar than me) have also come under attack recently as their female enrollment has increased: For example, the case method of business schools is often criticized for the lack of emphasis on female role models in the corporate world and in textbook cases (one statistic suggests that there are over 6 times as many women managers in corporations than are proportionately portrayed in business school cases).

What do readers think? With the rising number of female students, do graduate schools need to revamp their textbooks and teaching methods, or would doing so represent a step backward by implying that women cannot compete with men in the system as it exists? Is it time to revamp teaching methods for the 21st century in general?

Mad Hoc: Character studies

2010-08-14T11:39:00.000-04:00

Just in time for the new episode of Mad Men, RMJ's and my chat on "The Good News." These chats may be more infrequent/posted later due to internet connections in Zambia, but we'll try to keep bringing you Mad Men discussions!

Don and Anna

RMJ: So, what did you think?
Coca Colo: Well, TLo pointed out it was a slower episode, and I agree, but it was really sweet and interesting to see so much Don-Anna interaction
  RMJ: So I was with tlo - it was a little boring
  i watched it with a friend which i think means i missed some of the subtleties
Coca Colo: Yes, it was more about laying groundwork. I'm less into this other version of don, as far as I just find him less exciting, than the Madison Avenue one, but I think that's the point
RMJ: Yeah, he's a lot less compelling but much happier
Coca Colo: I think it’s because he's NOT that polished guy. He's the guy in the country bar and painting the wall.

RMJ: Happy people don't need drama
Coca Colo: And what Anna said really resonated with me, "I know everything about you, and I love you." Because I think that's our deepest fear sometimes, that if anyone knew the real you, they wouldn't love you. So it's so meaningful that he has that. Someone who loves him without secrets and pretense and showmanship.
RMJ: But then he has to lose it immediately, and go back to consorting with awkward Englishmen and hookers. Which just makes his loss - both of Betty and Anna - that much more potent.
Coca Colo: Yes. You're right, it is a little funny, that the best he can do for a friend is Lane. But he knows he's living a duality, it's almost like his night out with Lane is his rebound from getting a little too real.  He has to come back and put things in their proper boxes

Joan and Greg

RMJ: So what did you think about Joan this episode?
Coca Colo: Well, we got to see a very different side of her this week, with her being very vulnerable and emotional. And it was interesting to see her so genuinely concerned about a family and her marriage, because before I felt like that was more of a status and a comfort thing to her, than what she actually wanted.
RMJ: I think it's still to a certain extent a status thing. She's realized she's behind on her checklist And so she's trying to make sure it gets done, like a good manager.
Coca Colo: That's an interesting take, and I can see why you say that, but I also felt a lot of genuine emotion behind it.
RMJ: Oh, definitely. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Also, we definitely saw a more positive view of Greg than we ever have before.
Coca Colo: Yes, which is interesting. Is this show doing a whole humanizing rapists thing? TLo said this:

After she cuts her finger badly on a knife, we get to see Greg act like something other than a selfish jerk. Most of the viewers aren't ever going to forget that he raped her once, but people aren't easily pegged in the world of Mad Men - or the real world, for that matter. He did a horrible thing and we doubt anyone involved in the show would argue otherwise, but people are more complicated than merely being Villains or Heroes. Plus it was nice to see that he's not a total loser on the professional front. In fact, we think Joan was seeing that side of him - the caring, competent side - for the first time herself. "I can't fix anything else, but I can fix this."

Which is all well and good, yes, people are complex, but I still feel a little ishy about making it out to be that raping women is just another bad thing that men sometimes do
RMJ: Well, it is, though. Rapists are everywhere, and they're not usually clear cut monsters.
  It's an especially horrible crime, but they are not fundamentally not human. They have more sides than just "terrible rapist person."
Coca Colo: Sigh. I know that that's true. But I have this weird moralistic thing about only being able to forgive people for doing bad things if they know it's bad.
RMJ: I understand that, but it's not a moralistic show, really.
Coca Colo: Yes. You're right. But, I feel like someone who rapes a woman has an underlying issues with respect for women, personal boundaries, and entitlement. So I feel like even when they're being nice, we should see that issues. And I hope they don't get too far away from that.
RMJ: I think they've already very clearly established that with Greg, so I think that considering the brevity of his appearance in this episode, the weight of his past characterization means that this episode is more shading than a turning of tides.  He's probably about to be out of the picture, forever, and he's been one of the most 1-D characters in the whole show. So I interpret this as shading, and expect some f***ery from him next week.
Coca Colo: Yes. You're right. Sorry I'm such a rapist bigot :)
RMJ: Haha, no, I think your point of view is really necessary for a feminist discussion of this. Rape is something, I think, that the producers want us to keep constantly in mind when viewing these characters.
Coca Colo: It's especially meaningful to me, because I have had to make some very big decisions to forgive people in my life for big things, and an underlying criteria for me was that they had to know it was wrong, understand why, and be genuinely sorry. That's how I've been able to put the past behind me.
But I haven't been able to do that with Pete and Greg. So we'll see where it goes.
RMJ: I think that's totally fair. Pete and Greg both did something that fundamentally altered your view of them, and considering what they did, I think your reaction is totally appropriate.
Coca Colo: So, maybe they will get some kind of comeuppance or redemption. We'll see where the writers take us.

Joan and Lane

Coca Colo: What did you think of Joan's response to getting a note from Lane signed "Kisses"?
RMJ: Well, that was supposed to be for his wife...
Coca Colo: Right. But when Joan reacted, she didn't know that, and I was actually really intrigued by her reaction. Because Joan does so often use her sexuality to charm men, it was interesting to see her react so strongly against someone being overly familiar with her. I liked that, actually, but it was interesting to me.
RMJ: I think it was confusion - she had come on so strong in the previous scene with him.  I'm curious about whatever was accidentally sent to his wife!
Coca Colo: I think the secretary said that it said "Joan, forgive me." Which is obviously terrible in the context of his messed up marriage! Imagine him trying to explain to her that that's his secretary!
Or office manager, rather, since she seems to have moved up quite a bit, and as she notes, doesn't file papers anymore--she has people to do that.
RMJ: haha
Coca Colo: We also saw this episode that Peggy isn't, after all, engaged, but she is still seeing that guy.  She said "my boyfriend" to Joan.
RMJ: Oh yeah, I completely forgot about that!
Coca Colo: Anything else to discuss?
Coca Colo: Like whether Don is physically incapable of not hitting on women outside of the office? It's like his default response when he feels intimacy or closeness, or guilt, or any emotion. Try to sleep with person involved.
RMJ: Right, ugh.
Coca Colo: I guess, while we’re waiting to see where the writers take other characters this season, we’ll have to see if there’s any personal growth from Don. It would be nice to see him figure out what he wants in a woman and stick with that.
RMJ: Till next time….

Recipe Fridays: Chess Pie

2010-08-13T11:46:00.004-04:00

When the fancy strikes me (which is not often), I just have to bake a pie. There's something old-fashioned and homey about pies that makes baking them even more enjoyable. Last night I went and bought the ingredients to a traditional Southern pie: Chess Pie. It reminds me of the filling of pecan pie--only without the pecans. It's super easy, super tasty, and super sweet so make it to share with your friends, family, and neighbors.

1/2 cup butter
2 cups sugar
1 tsp vanilla
4 eggs
1 Tbsp cornmeal
1/4 cup evaporated milk
1 tsp distilled white vinegar
1 unbaked pie shell (unless you have more time, then definitely make your own pie crust!)

Preheat the oven to 425 degrees. Mix the butter, sugar and vanilla together. Then mix in the eggs, then stir in the cornmeal, evaporated milk, and vinegar. Stir until smooth and pour mixture into unbaked pie shell. Bake the pie in the oven (make sure you put the pie on a cookie sheet in case it spills over the crust) for 10 minutes. Then reduce the heat to 300 degrees and bake for 40 minutes. Let cool and serve.

Recipe Fridays: The Best of Jamie Oliver (so far)

2010-08-13T08:00:00.001-04:00

I have to admit, that my first introduction to the work of Jamie Oliver was here at Femonomics, when we reviewed his new show Food Revolution. Since then, I've been DVR'ing episodes of Jamie at Home, and have checked out his books from the library. I think I might be in love. Not only are his recipes exactly the kind of think I like to eat, they are "dead simple" and really impressive. A few of my favorites so far:

English Onion Soup - like the traditional French, but with as many kinds of onions you can get your hands on.

Proper Chicken Ceasar Salad - cooking the croutons underneath the chicken, and later bacon, makes them ridiculously delicious.

Zucchini Carbonara - this is a little trickier, and requires a lot of prep time (for me), but is super tasty and massively impressed a colleague I cooked it for.

A couple of notes, Jamie adds red pepper and pours olive oil on top of everything. There's no need to replicate that, it's just his tic. He also uses really expensive ingredients - organic, local, the highest quality. That's all well and good for a multi-millionaire, but I just do the best I can. In most cases, you can get by with whatever's in the grocery store.

You can see from the video below that he loves the dramatic intro, which makes me roll my eyes a little. But he's also super cute, and he giggles when something is really delicious!

He also said the following about his wife, model Juliette Oliver (nee Norton), expressing a very different sentiment than you see from what a lot of American men might say:

Jools is interesting cos she’s not like me at all. She hasn’t got a mission, she just wants to be married to someone she loves and have a family and that’s it, end of story. It’s odd for me, because I’ll go, what do you want to do? Then do that, I’ll help you! Because I believe that anyone can do anything. If I wanted to be a surgeon, then I would be, I’d just have to work my arse off for 10 years. It baffled me for ages, I almost felt she had a part of her life missing, then I thought, it’s sweet and quite refreshing, especially in London.

Celebrity crush of the month!

Out of the pot, into the fire: How hierarchy defines our lives

2010-08-12T03:46:00.001-04:00

I've just finished the first week of what will be a four-month stay in Zambia (and the reason femonomics posting won't be daily for a while). The first time I was in Zambia, I was a cultural outsider. I spent a lot of time just chatting with people, anyone who would, to try out my fumbling grasp of the local language (English is the language taught in schools, but other languages remain prevalent), and understand as much as I could about the place whose people made up data points in our research. After three months spent working with Zambian women, living with Zambian housemates, cooking and eating Zambian food, and making Zambian friends, I felt integrated enough into the culture that when I returned this time, part of it was strangely like a homecoming--returning to an old familiar place and the memories it holds.

But as I felt less cultural separation between myself and the Zambians around me--of course we still came from different backgrounds, but I no longer felt like a complete outsider--I noticed a strange thing.... I was adapting more to the class hierarchies of Zambian society. Instead of chatting with guards and bus drivers, I offered them curt greetings and hurried on my way, trying to avoid the inevitable discussion of my relationship status that I'd learned would follow. I found myself referring to domestic workers in local terms, as a "garden boy" and "maid," despite finding these terms pejorative, and using "She doesn't even speak English!" to express that someone was uneducated to my housemate. And honestly, I had no idea why. The less I saw my middle class Zambian friends as separate from myself, the more I was adopting their way of organizing the world into "other" and "same." As I saw things less in terms of me versus them, developed country versus undeveloped, white(ish) versus black, the more I saw them as educated versus not, laborer versus professional, economically comfortable versus poor. I was absorbing a new set of hierarchies and division to replace the old, and it felt as natural as breathing.

There are many misconceptions about developing countries, especially African ones, that I hope to address in a future post. But one of the most pernicious is that everyone is poor, destitute, and miserable. Far from it. Plenty of Zambians, especially urban ones, are middle class, comfortable, and caught in between the same appreciation of their good fortune and striving dissatisfaction that so many Americans face. And very often these individuals seem to define themselves in contrast to those that are not, just as much as we define ourselves in contrast to our vision of them. Why is that? Is it human nature for us to make sense of our landscape through hierarchy? Does our wealth mean nothing if we are not richer than? Is our education useless if we're not smarter than? Or is it the insidious effect of Colonialism, still boiling away, in which class and ethnic divisions were often encouraged in order to better control Colonial lands? (For more on this, see Mahmood Mamdani's wonderful book Citizen and Subject, about how the British encouraged hierarchical and authoritarian local rule in South Africa in order to better oppress the Africans they sought to dominate.)

If we rid ourselves of one form of oppression, will another replace it? Is hierarchy truly as natural to us as breathing?

A feminist capitalist's manifesto

2010-08-08T07:55:00.004-04:00

In a recent piece titled "Feminism and anti-Capitalism, a love story" on Feministe and Girldrive, Nona argues that because structural sexism is built into a capitalistic economy, fiscal conservatism and feminism are inherently incompatible, and in fact in conflict with one another. In fact, she seems to single out fiscally conservative beliefs above even socially conservative ones for exclusion from the feminist paradigm. While it is "[effed] up to leave conservative women out of the conversation, especially if they felt torn between their family’s traditions and their own reality," fiscal conservatism is a different issue because "capitalism needs to be humanized" and "business [needs] to be regulated."

And yet, here I am. I am a feminist and I am a capitalist. I am a feminist because I believe in expanding the choice set for women everywhere. I am a feminist because I work to challenge systematic oppressions. I am a feminist because my life's work is women, and I have never felt satisfied doing anything else. And yet, I am a capitalist. I am a capitalist because I believe in making the pie bigger, and then trying to divide it as equitably as possible. I am a capitalist because I am an economist, and I believe that markets tend to offer more efficient solutions to problems (and in fact, often more equitable) than governments, although I also believe that sometimes they don't. I am a capitalist for reasons that have nothing to do with ideology, because my ideology is that none of us have any moral claim to the endowments of our birth, and thus a good life is one that serves others. I am a capitalist because I think it works.

I am not a capitalist because I think the interests of business should come before the interests of women. Far from it. I have seen big government oppress women, and business and free markets help them. I believe systematic oppression is every bit as entrenched in government forces as it is in market ones, and that both can be tools to either rectify or reinforce the hierarchies of the past. I believe there is a role for government in correcting inequalities, but I also believe that government helped to put them there in the first place, both in the US and the world over. In places where governments continue to oppress, I have seen the remarkable effect of freedom, both market and personal, in improving the quality of life for people in need. I believe that women's right to vote in this country, a fundamental accomplishment of feminism, is also integrally tied to immigrant and otherwise under-privileged women's participation in the labor force, even under sub-human conditions--sheer, brutal, ugly capitalism.

But because my capitalism is not a philosophy or ideology, but rather, shall we say, a method, a tool, I also have no problem with government intervention or labor activism when that's a more effective way to achieve my ultimate end goal--prosperity, equality, hope. While Republicans often use economics to defend 100% anti-regulation positions with the fervor of religion, economists have no religion. Their only god is math. They calculate the welfare gain and the deadweight loss from a given policy, and use this to determine whether it's pareto improving (meaning it makes some people better off without making anyone worse off), average welfare improving, or only a change in distribution. Economics can't tell us which policies are moral or good, that takes our own judgment, but it can tell us which create wealth and which destroy it. I am a capitalist because I believe that if we can create wealth while preserving dignity and freedom, that's the route we should take. Within that framework, there's plenty of room for social justice and redistribution. But first, you have to have something to distribute. I am a capitalist, but a humanist first.

But this isn't enough for Nona, who thinks that because of feminism's historical ties, those who don't subscribe to its associated political leanings should be kicked out of the club today.

Feminism isn’t only about equality; it’s about believing that you can alter the status quo, and feminism has deep historical connections with socialism/Marxism/anarchism. In a (very small) nutshell: the two opposing forces here are big government and the free market. A pro-business stance is pretty much always part of a Republican platform, undisputed. The Tea Party’s bread and butter is appealing to people who have lower-taxes, less-government, let-the-poor-fend-for-themselves mentalities. And so if you push for more corporate power, and less government spending, you’ll inevitably be cutting social programs and widening the pay gap. And the people who will be hurting the most is women and their families, and poor people and minorities and the disabled and pretty much everyone who’s not white, male and rich.

Unless you think that the regulations and constraints on free enterprise made by people in power, who are mostly male, white and rich, mostly serve to benefit the male, white, and rich. Unless your realize that many things "big government" does are to protect its interests abroad, which very often means hurting the economic interests of poor people outside the US. Unless you think the very worst thing that can happen is war, and that a government equipped to protect women and minorities from social injustice is also a government equipped to persecute them abroad in wars under dubious auspices. Unless you think, as I do, that the same healthcare bill that helped under-privileged groups receive care also gave the government an unprecedented role in deciding what is and what is not appropriate care, something that they decided in a direction that was very damaging to women. There are many reasons to favor restrictions on rather than expansions of government, and many of them are very feminist indeed.

You may not agree with my political leanings, my economic analysis of the situation, but I will not let you stand there and tell me I'm not a feminist. I refuse. Because to me, being a feminist is about opening up options to women who have few. It's about supporting women's choices and their right and ability to make them. You may do that by working for social services and regulation, I do that by working on issues of gender equality and female empowerment abroad. Have I done less to uplift women than you? How would you know?

But to Nona, my views are easily put in an anti-woman box:

Let’s call these positions what they are: a pure, religious devotion to corporations. An unwillingness to re-imagine capitalism.

I’m not an economist. This isn’t meant to be an entire structural analysis of how class and gender intersect. It just disturbs me how capitalism has become untouchable in our political environment, that the only thing getting debated feminist-wise by mainstream pundits is whether or not someone supports abortion, gay rights or other social issues. It pisses me of that socially moderate, fiscally conservative politicians like Olympia Snowe or Jean Schodorf get a (tentative) feminist pass just because they don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

She is not an economist, but I am. And I am also a feminist. I'm a feminist who believes that if a woman supports women's rights to make choices free from oppression, she is on my side. I am a feminist who is more interested in creating allies among people with different perspectives and modes of operating than encouraging division. Nona's worried about this, too, but not enough to let fiscally conservative women join the team:

Republicans often complain that liberals are tolerant of everyone except conservatives. The same complaint goes for feminists—that they’re constantly critiquing who can be in the club and who can’t. I’ve always been opposed to framing feminism as some sort of club, with a laundry list of rules and regulations. Not only does that ignore the fact that traditionally marginalized women feel excluded from the movement (as we learned last week on this blog), it also creates a dynamic of “You’re either with us or against us.” It blocks discussion. It leaves no room for complexity.

But after Sunday, I realized voting for a socially moderate Republican does no good–ever. It may protect some civil and reproductive rights we have now from being bludgeoned, but it does nothing to break down more structural inequities. No matter what, it gives the cold shoulder to economic policies that, as Ann puts it, “have, for far too long, been lost in the woods.”

This post is a big part of the reason I started a blog. I wanted to have a blog for women who were pro-women, but who didn't necessarily call themselves feminists or immerse themselves in feminist theory. I wanted a blog for women to be treated as whole people, deserving of engagement in matters political, religious, social, and the like. I wanted a blog where women could be themselves, without fear of being told they didn't know enough or weren't like-minded enough to join the conversation. Most of the writers of this blog are not fiscally conservative, but I happen to be, and we somehow manage to work together to make the world a better place for women all the same.

If you're a fiscally conservative feminist, or a fiscally conservative person who works on behalf of women, you are welcome here, and we won't tell you what you are and what you aren't. If you use your voice and your actions to make the world a better place for people who are less privileged than you, that's good enough for me. Have a seat and join the conversation.

How to respond when senior coworkers are sexist jerks

2010-08-07T12:25:00.000-04:00

This week the feminist blogosphere has been buzzing about a Slate advice columnist's response to the following letter from a woman working in a law firm for the summer:

I am a female law student who is employed for the summer (and potentially for the school year) at a small firm that I'm really enjoying. The law office shares a floor of an office building with a bigger law firm, and my cubicle is "on the border." All of the attorneys at both firms are male, but at the other firm, the men are far from politically correct. I have two issues: First, one of the attorneys, "Jerry," often makes comments to me about my appearance. These range from annoying but harmless ("Nice tan") to creepy ("I like that skirt," in a lecherous tone). I have tried to ignore him or subtly indicate his comments aren't welcome, but neither approach has worked. I'm tempted to speak to one of my firm's partners, but I fear it would make me look like a little girl running to a man to fight my battles. I'm also considering documenting all his comments until I have enough for a sexual harassment suit so I can make his firm pay for the legal education I used to nail it. Second, I overhear a lot of conversations I find highly offensive. The men are fond of using homosexuality-based insults, calling one another or opponents "fag" and "homo." The work environment is becoming so unpleasant that I wonder how long I can stand it. What should I do?

The response is basically to (a) confront Jerry directly, (b) chill out about the homophobic bigots next door, and (c) not to be so eager to sue, it won't win her a lot of points. Jezebel has a good summary of responses to this column, including why this advice is not really so great, especially since it lacks the broader context of entrenched sexism in some law firms.

But what DO you do when coworkers, especially those above you on the office hierarchy, say bigoted or offensive things? It's a tough dilemma for many in the workplace, as calling out unacceptable behavior can decrease your own political / social capital. I find this particularly challenging, since I want to live my values and advance progressive causes, but find myself uncomfortable saying anything that makes waves. One Jezebel commenter had some advice that I particularly liked:

Here's what I did in a similar situation: I went to the partner that I felt would be the most receptive. I started the discussion with how much I liked my job and the firm, and how I hoped to work there for many years to come. I talked about being a team player and wanting the best for the firm (bosses eat that shit up). Then, I mentioned overhearing some of the male attorneys saying inappropriate things in front of the clerks and secretaries, and how bad it would be for all of us if these women sued the firm. Because I was looking out for the firm. -SheelaNaGig

So, being strategic with how you deliver the message can help. I haven't read the whole thing, but this free manual from The Southern Poverty Law center on responding to everyday bigotry has a lot of good ideas. It even gives sample conversations, which I think is really helpful (nothing like a script to make you feel more confident!) Do you have any strategies for confronting workplace sexism / racism / homophobia?

Guest Post: Purchasing Power in Numbers

2010-08-07T09:00:00.000-04:00

Here's another great post from guest contributor VikingKitten, letting you know where to find the best deals online!

It’s smart to save money, especially in this economic climate, and “group-buying” seems to be the newest way to do so. Amazon’s June 30th announcement that they will acquire Woot.com, along with the recent news of the purchase of FreshGuide by Sugar, Inc (an online publisher focused on women’s media), indicates that the group-buying phenomenon has become more popular than ever.

Group-buying websites typically work like this: online shoppers indicate their desire to purchase a particular featured “deal of the day.” If enough people agree to buy the deal, they get it at a significant discount.

Here’s a quick comparison of our favorite group-buying sites:

Site Name	# of Cities	Main Type of Merchandise	How It Works	Rewards for Referrals	Other Notes
BuyWithMe www.buywithme.com	6	Restaurants, retail, entertainment	Minimum number of buyers needed to get the deal	N/A	Includes a handy “how close are we?” bar to show how many more buyers are needed to get the deal
DealOn www.dealon.com	11+	Restaurants, retail, entertainment	The more buyers who join in the deal, the lower the price goes	$10 credit for each person who clicks on your referral link and buys a deal	Shows the starting price of the deal, the current price, and the amount of savings from retail price
FreshGuide www.freshguide.com	4+	Restaurants, events, entertainment	Minimum number of buyers needed to get the deal	$10 credit for each person who clicks on your referral link and buys a deal	Currently trying to expand into several cities
Gilt City www.giltcity.com	1	Fashion, events, restaurants, entertainment	Deal can be purchased until it sells out.	$25 when a referral makes a first purchase	Deals often sell out—so act fast! However, you can be added to the “wait list” for a sold out deal, so all hope is not lost
Groupon www.groupon.com	93+ (incl. non-U.S.)	Restaurants, retail, entertainment	Minimum number of buyers needed to get the deal	$10 credit for each person who clicks on your referral link and buys a deal	Includes discussion boards with helpful staff members answering customer questions; Hilarious “Groupon says” section of each deal
LivingSocial www.livingsocial.com	26	Restaurants, retail, entertainment	1 deal/day. No minimum number of buyers required	If 3 people buy the deal using your referral link, you get it free. $5 to a referral for signing up, and $5 to you when your referral makes a first purchase	Features a section of “365 things to do” in your city of choice.
SteepandCheap steepandcheap.com	online	Outdoor gear and clothing	1 deal at a time until the item is sold out; then another deal immediately begins	None	Has a neat feature where you can see the current number of people viewing the page; For apparel, the number of items remaining is broken down by color/size
Tippr www.tippr.com	9	Restaurants, events, entertainment	3 deals/day. The more buyers who join in the deal, the lower the price goes	$5 to a referral for signing up, and $5 to you when your referral makes a first purchase	Can log on automatically though Facebook
Woot www.woot.com	online	Electronics	1 item/day until it sells out or the day ends. Does not reveal the number remaining or the retail price of the item.	None	The management claims that there will be no change to Woot’s ways in light of Amazon’s acquisition—it will be interesting to see if this is true

Yipit.com is another helpful site, which essentially aggregates group deals from various group-buying sites, organized by city. Readers, are there other sites where you go to shop for bargains?

Recipe Fridays: Apple-Blackberry Crumble

2010-08-06T15:29:00.003-04:00

This is a fairly easy dessert to whip up. And lighter than a cake. Pick your fruit filling (berries, plums, peaches, even pineapple) and your nut (walnut, almond, pistachio, pecan) and get baking! I made a few of these this week--and this turned out to be tasty:

Crumble topping:
1/2 cup rolled oats
3/4 cup flour
1/2 cup light brown sugar
3/4 cup walnuts, chopped
7 tablespoons of butter, softened
pinch of salt

Mix the oats, flour, brown sugar, and salt together. Then add the nuts. Next, mix in the softened butter with your hands until everything is evenly moistened. Set aside.

Fruit filling:
3 lbs apples, peeled and cut into chunks
2 cups blackberries
3 tablespoons sugar
2 tablespoons flour
1 tsp vanilla
pinch of cinnamon, nutmeg, and salt

Mix all filling ingredients together in a bowl. Transfer the filling into a buttered 2 quart baking dish (or 8x8). Dot the top with 2 tablespoons of cut-up cold butter. Sprinkle crumble mixture on top of fruit. Bake until golden (40-45 minutes) at 375 degrees. Let it sit 10 minutes before serving.

California shows some sense! Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional, appeal may end up in Supreme Court

2010-08-05T03:04:00.001-04:00

Gawker. The Advocate. NYTimes.

Editorial from the Times:

Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did so because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nation’s most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment’s rights to equal protection and due process of law.

...One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”
To justify the proposition’s inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.

“Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”

The ideological odd couple who led the case — Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 election — were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walker’s ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.

Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrived for the federal courts to bestow full equality to millions of gay men and lesbians.

Mad Hoc: The many faces of Peggy and Don

2010-08-03T22:57:00.006-04:00

This is the second in an ongoing series where Deeply Problematic blogger RMJ and I break down each episode of Mad Men through both our feminist and fan lenses.

RMJ: Let's start with Peggy. Is she engaged?
 Coca Colo: No, I don't think so, the boyfriend just made that up last time,  and this episode, she said "I have a boyfriend" 
RMJ: But I thought there was a ring at the end? 
Coca Colo: I actually thought it was interesting, because Freddy told her at the end that if she wanted to marry him, she shouldn't put out , and I thought her choosing to sleep with him was her making the decision she didn't want to marry him. But I didn't see a ring!  Was she wearing it in the last scene? 
RMJ: Screencap is in order:

Coca Colo: Oh, goodness, I didn't notice that detail! Is that her left hand?
RMJ: I can't tell - I'm a little screwy about right/left :). The viewer is clearly supposed to see it, they wouldn't just have it there for no good reason... 
Coca Colo: I hope she's not marrying him...  It doesn't seem to me that she respects him, nor that she's willing to let him see "real Peggy." Like is she as smart, funny, interested, conflicted, etc. when he's around?
RMJ: I think that she does show him the real Peggy to a certain extent - her work covers her bed - and he doesn't like it.  I'm interested to see what her mother and sister have to say about the dude.  They are probably pushing for her marriage to him.
Coca Colo: That's interesting, hadn't thought of that.  What does it mean if our career spitfire Peggy gets into an un-fulfilling relationship herself?  Does that make her truly one of the boys?
RMJ: Yeah, it seemed like it could very well be imitating Don, as she so often does - rushing into an unsatisfying relationship for the sake of having a relationship .
Coca Colo: Well, first of all, I am hoping she's not engaged, and that the last scene was her choosing sex over marriage, for now , like I thought. But, given that you're absolutely right, the hand-on-chest shot seems significant, I'm hoping she comes to her senses before going through with it! 
RMJ: Me too!  ME TOO.  I wanted her to have a little office thing in which she has the upper hand. 
Coca Colo: I know she wants companionship just like anyone else, I know she doesn't want to be alone on New Year's, but she deserves better.  What I love, though, is that she's not a "type" the creators have done a really good job making her complex and real .
RMJ: I agree.
Coca Colo: This episode really showed an interesting tension in Peggy's life, that we still deal with today.  She wants a fulfilling work life and a fulfilling personal life, and she doesn't feel as though she should have to choose . Freddy thought he had insulted her by suggesting she wanted to get married . But she does want to get married. She just doesn't want to be threatened with spinsterhood if she forgoes Pond's cold cream and instead spreads out her work on her bed.
RMJ: I also think it's interesting how it showed her having to appease and make compromises in both areas - she's clearly better at her job than Freddy, but he ignores her attempts to assert her authority and competence.  And it didn't seem like the dude was a good match for her, but she wants to get married, and she had to negotiate what sex and respect meant for them in that relationship. 
Coca Colo: the whole virgin ruse was indicative of that.
RMJ: I agree. Speaking of the fake virginity thing though, it also reminded me of Joan pretending to be a virgin with Greg. 
Coca Colo: YES. And, likely, everyone else in that era . Which is so funny, because the men were having sex with somebody . The math doesn't work for them to be having all this extra-marital/premarital sex, and for all the women to be virgins! 
RMJ: Right? So you throw a little deception in there, and everyone's cool . How long do you think Freddy will stick around? I can't imagine long. I also didn't think Peggy was too mean - he was ignoring and belittling her ideas and she flipped the script on him. 
Coca Colo: I think you're right, it's been pointed out on several of the blogs that he's a huge mismatch with the new "upstart" vibe of the agency. I think Peggy felt bad because she realizes that the world is passing Freddy by a little bit, and that he's as hurt by it as anyone else.  She was frustrated about him not listening, but instead of criticizing his behavior, she (rightly, but meanly) criticized his talent/copyrighting skills . I think she felt bad about that, not about standing up for herself.
RMJ: And I guess that's fair, seeing as she owes him a huge professional debt. 
Coca Colo: And that she thinks, personally, he's a good guy. He's just outdated, and that's a little sad. 
RMJ: It is.
Coca Colo: I love when she says "I don't understand your list"  to Freddy about the old actresses. Her facial expressions are fantastic!
RMJ: Yes, I love her! Her lines are so great sometimes: "You're never going to get me to do anything Swedish people do." Elisabeth Moss is awesome. Peggy is a terrific character, and it's largely due to her delivery. 
Coca Colo
RMJ: Bravo segue! Yeah. He has definitely... fallen far.  The letter from Sally was HEARTBREAKING. 
Coca Colo: Yes. She can be so weird sometime, but that letter really made me love her and feel for her.  The fact that she was protecting her brother, and she was so quietly mature about her dad not being there on Christmas... It looks like they're making Sally a character this season, which will be interesting to watch.

RMJ: Yes. I'm interested to see where Creepy Glenn goes . I think they're going to develop how she is/is not reacting to her mother's programming. Things could go very, very badly there, I'm afraid.  He's clearly targeting Sally for abuse and intimidation, likely sexual . The secretness of "Stanley" The destruction of her personal property... He's training her for abuse.  Not necessarily of her, but her family's.
Coca Colo: Yes, she's pleased by his gesture, but gestures like that, that involve violence and destruction, generally indicate severely unhealthy relationships--leading to an "you owe me" mentality, stalking, etc.
RMJ: Exactly. It's what Betty taught her to appreciate.  I think it's going to go beyond just unhealthy into abuse and assault.
Coca Colo: Mad Men is interesting, though, because sometimes they step back from the edge with things like this. Instead of following them through. So we'll see whether they just plant that idea in our heads Or actually run with it. 
RMJ: I think they'll run with it. Interesting, too, how much Glenn's styling resembles Don, and of course Sally looks just like Betty. 
Coca Colo: Yes. We'll see where this goes. Interesting decision to bring Glenn back.  This piece basically argues that Glenn's violence, Lee's bullying, and Don's entitlement are all sides of the same coin. We saw throughout the whole episode the level of entitlement he feels toward women .

RMJ: Yeah, I'm not totally sure how to react to it. It's a continuation of a theme. It's interesting that he finally went into the office sexually , because if you'll remember in the pilot, he rejected Peggy's advances. And we've always seen him avoiding office romance in most cases. 
Coca Colo: Yes, and I think he hates himself for it. As do I, a little. I groaned when he reached for Allison .
RMJ: I know.  Did she consent?
Coca Colo: Well, the piece I linked to points out that she says "no" when he first reaches for her,  but then he tries to kiss her again and she lets him.
RMJ: She said "don't" actually. 
And after he goes in the second time, she grabs him.  And seemed to enjoy it. 
Coca Colo: But, I didn't feel like it was non-consensual, I felt like she was excited, because he's DON DRAPER.  
RMJ: I think that there was enthusiastic consent, but it was... I guess it's like with Peggy's fake virginity. Women are taught to offer resistance sexually.  Also, I think that the purpose of the scene with the nurse neighbor was to show that Allison did have a way out. Yes, it's her boss, but she could have left and he wouldn't have stopped her.
Coca Colo: Yes, I think you're right. But she wanted it, because of what she thought it stood for. But it was actually just his desperation.  And then to be handed an envelope of money the next day? Like, wrong time to hand out the Christmas bonus, Don! And, also, sex tip, if you can have intercourse without anyone's clothes coming off, it's very rarely going to be satisfying for her 
RMJ: Ha. Yes.  But she seemed hopeful and interested in progressing with a relationship. After all, he is eligible for marriage.  The whole episode was about the STATUS of sex, and its negotiation.  And it wasn't pretty.
Coca Colo: I don't think she thought it was a relationship, necessarily, since she left afterward to still meet her friends, I think she thought it at least meant that he WANTED her, and that made her feel hot. To be wanted by Don Draper
Coca Colo: But then the next morning, it made her feel so unwanted , so discarded.
RMJ: Yeah, I can see that.  "Should I close the door?" 
Coca Colo: Oh, poor girl. Her acting was great, too.  When she said "Excuse me?"  Oh my goodness.  It's one thing to have random sex. It's another thing to have random sex and be treated like a nobody afterward, like it didn't happen, and you can be so easily erased and forgotten.  Yuck. 

RMJ: And paid off from his personal account, Christ almighty.  I wonder if Don will see the Betty lookalike professionally 
Coca Colo: The doctor? 
RMJ: Yeah. Which will be a nice allusion to his deception of Betty in the first season. Dude needs help, and it would be an interesting relationship professionally, particularly with the sexual tension. Like Rachel, but unconsummated.
Coca Colo: I like that she's got some meat going professionally. That would be a big step out of the gutter he's in. But his first act is still to try to reduce her to a sexual object.  "I thought you came to flirt." Of course you did, Don, because you see women as sexual objects . Unless they're not pretty .
RMJ: Well, he doesn't treat Joan as an object .
Coca Colo: Joan and Peggy somehow both get to be treated with respect. But he tried oh so hard to make the psychologist lady feel small. To make her act like a "woman" and not like a colleague questioning his methods .
RMJ: Maybe it's that he has to automatically reduce outside partners? 
Coca Colo: Yes, maybe when they're on his side they don't have to be objects . Unless he's drunk.  interesting...more to come I'm sure . So one last thought, did you catch how when they're grousing about integration at the Christmas party,  someone says "If they pass medicare it won't be long before they outlaw private property"? And they complain about the country becoming socialist ?  The more things change the more they stay the same...  I thought it was so funny to hear those sentiments then, when everyone acts like it's new now. Like the tea party is so original!
RMJ: I caught that. Also, with the segregation talk, it was another nod to Civil Rights without a serious discussion - just tossed in there like the Beatles 45s . Just how we were talking last week, about how racial politics get acknowledgment without serious consideration .
Coca Colo: You're absolutely right. The racial politics are informing the script without being integrated into it. And that can't be sustainable. You can't use integration and racism as a period detail to prove authenticity, like a Beatles album.  It's a whole lot more than that to a lot of people.
RMJ: Exactly.  So I guess we'll see if they eventually address it head on this season...

Tune in next week, and join the conversation in the comments!

Femonomics at the Movies: Salt

2010-08-02T22:52:00.001-04:00

I'm a little late to the game on this one - it's been a week since I've seen Salt and everyone has already written about it! Easily the most anticipated movie of the year (for this mongoose, at least), the picture is Angelina Jolie's return to a starring role in an action flick (Jolie plays the eponymous Salt). I enjoyed Tomb Raider, and was a big fan of Mr and Mrs Smith - the movie that launched an entire tabloid industry. So, was I disappointed?

The Viewer's Angle

In short, no - but neither was I elated. Salt is an unrelenting action film - not an action-comedy, action-romance, or even action-drama. The basic plot is a chase, with the FBI chasing Salt, and Salt chasing a mysterious group of bad guys to which she might belong. I have to agree with David Edelstein's review that "the movie is a blast, even though - and this might be a deal-breaker for some people - it makes no sense, at all!"

For pure action though, Salt has really nailed the basics. The players are top notch (Jolie and costar Liev Schreiber have some major acting chops between them), the pacing is relentless, the stunts are exciting and until the climax seem pretty real (you feel the hits). The running time is right around 90 minutes, allowing viewers to stay in their seats and engaged, a pleasant break from recent films that seem to go on and on. I did want more character development for Salt, however. Outside of a few flashbacks to life with her husband, we don't get much on the character herself, and we have to unpick the bits we get from her cover. The end leaves the film well-positioned for a sequel (or series, really), so hopefully we will get to learn more in future installments.

The Feminist Angle

Firstly, leading female carrying an action movie - that's still a big deal! Let's look at the big action films so far this year:

Shutter Island
Green Zone
Clash of the Titans (I saw it - I regret it)
The Losers
Iron Man 2
Robin Hood
The A-Team
Eclipse (does it count?)
Inception

None of them have, as a primary star, a woman. While it may not be particularly progressive to headline a woman in 2010, we still have a long way to go in terms of representation. (This argument holds true for politics as well.)

Over at Salon, Scott Mendelson argues that Salt is "fake feminism" because the filmmakers rewrote the script for a woman, and in the process changed the dynamic where the male Salt would have saved his wife, arguing that this was "castrating." That is a very unfortunate choice of language - I imagine most husbands would rather be saved from life-threatening danger than not, even if it meant losing a little bit of face (which it doesn't have to). Mendelson explains:

The filmmakers believe that it was perfectly OK for the spouse to be rescued from mortal danger if said love interest was a girl, but not if the romantic partner was a man. Apparently, it's great if the action hero is a girl, as long as she doesn't have the opportunity to one-up any male counterparts or reverse the oldest cliché in the action-film handbook. Saying that girls can be portrayed as helpless damsels in distress but boys can't or shouldn't be is the very opposite of the sort of "progress" that Noyce and Jolie claim to be making.

Which would be great, if that's how it was written. But he wrote the post before the film was released, and didn't have all the information. To put it simply, Salt one-ups A LOT of men in this movie. She is super intense, and spends half the film in mens' clothing to boot. Jolie herself has thought a lot about the unique quality of the role for a woman, and for any action star to play a relatively unsympathetic action hero. You can read an interview with her about it here.

A couple of other feminist reviews to take a look at:
Feminist Review: Salt
Angelina Jolie in 'Salt' Proves Girls Can Take a Hit (and Throw a Punch)

Femonomics reads the internet: the legal system is actually sortof working to fight bigotry, oh man, is there a lot of bigotry

2010-08-01T18:21:00.000-04:00

Congress has passed legislation that will cut the extreme sentencing for crack to be more in line with that for cocaine. Previously, someone found to be in possession of crack would be sentenced as though they had been found with 100 times as much cocaine. The new legislation, waiting to be signed by the president, reduces that ratio to 18:1. The 25-year-old crack sentencing guidelines have been responsible for the imprisonment of thousands of African Americans while white drug users often went free, and is a leading reason many people believe the war on drugs to be a war on black families. According to the Washington Post, 80% of people arrested for crack possession are black. This is a huge step in the right direction, but will not have the desired effect unless the ratio of arrests and searches for black and brown versus white individuals is brought more in line as well.

In other "thank freaking God" news, a court in Arizona has blocked the most controversial part of the SB1070 immigration legislation. The case is now headed to a San Fransisco appeals court. Supporters of the law rallied in Phoenix, while immigrant rights group Trail of Dreams peacefully spoke out for the other side. Civil rights, people. Civil freaking rights.

And now in terrible news, the Anti Defamation League has joined the bigots protesting the "Ground Zero mosque," while confusingly saying they're still against anti-Muslim bigotry. I put "Ground Zero Mosque" in quotes because the planned Muslim community center would be two blocks away from the site of the World Trade Center. I am willing to grant the ADL that the funders of the community center should be thoroughly vetted to insure that no money from radical groups is making its way into or out of the project. But the ADL, amazingly, in their statement say that even if the center is found to be completely legitimately funded and to be promoting a positive, peaceful message, it should not be allowed to built because "this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right." Give. Me. A. Break. How on earth is a center that promotes peaceful Islamic community, and educates others about the religion outside of the extremist mold all too often portrayed, not consistent with the goal of memorializing 9/11? Along with the victims of the terrorist attacks that day, many of whom were in fact Muslim, Islam itself suffered a devastating blow in the attacks on the twin towers, which left Americans and others with a deeply skewed view of the religion, and paved the way for conflicts raging across the globe over Muslim representation. That deserves a memorial as much as anything else. At least us Jews still have J-Street to talk sense.

Guest Post: Toeing the Line Between Friendly and Flirtatious

2010-07-31T14:55:00.000-04:00

VikingKitten is a friend of Femonomics, and has agreed to submit some summer guest posts for us. She is an aspiring lawyer, recovered Diet Coke addict, Texan, and cat-lover. Let's make her welcome!

During a recent diversity-themed luncheon and discussion at my company, we began to touch on the issue of being hit on at work. My coworker mentioned that she often faces unwanted or inappropriate comments from male colleagues and clients, and that she was unsure of how to respond to them. The advice she received from my colleagues was nearly unanimous: they advised my coworker to take particular care in everything from choosing her wardrobe to altering handshake techniques in an effort to avoid giving off the wrong impression.

My subsequent Google-ing of the issue turned up this recent Corporette post, dealing with the issue of being hit on in a professional setting. Interestingly, the author of the Corporette post concludes in part by suggesting that women who want to avoid sending out inadvertent “I’m flirting” signals be particularly mindful of their body language when associating with others in a professional setting. Thus, both my coworkers and Corporette seemingly agree that it is important for female professionals to be overly cautious about their actions towards the opposite sex.

And in fact, it is certainly realistic that men may pick up unintentional flirting signals from women: Psychological studies have shown that males have more difficulty than females in distinguishing between “friendly behavior” and “sexually interested behavior,” and that men often misinterpret friendly behavior of women as flirtation. Thus, at least in interactions between men and women, signals can often be confused.

However, this recognition this leads to a difficult question: should it be the responsibility of women to be overly mindful of their actions in order to avoid unintentionally sending the wrong signals to men, as my colleagues implied? Or should men instead be held accountable for their unwanted and inappropriate remarks? While professional women fear client loss, job loss, or retaliation from employers if they report (or harshly respond to) unwanted and inappropriate advances, men may not even be aware they have said something that is in fact unwanted unless women do respond. Is there a middle ground here?

Readers, what do you think is an appropriate way to deal with being hit on in a professional setting?

Recipe Fridays: Eggplant rollatini

2010-07-30T15:38:00.000-04:00

This is a hearty, pasta-free version of manicotti, so could for gluten-free folks. It's also great for people who don't really like eggplant, as the eggplant becomes melt-in-your-mouth delicious.

Eggplant Rollatini
1 large eggplant (or 2 smaller ones)
1 jar tomato sauce (you won't need all of it)
1/2 cup grated mozzarella cheese
1/2 cup grated Parmesan cheese
2 cups ricotta cheese
1 egg
Garlic, salt, pepper, and fresh basil if desired

Trim off the top and bottom of the eggplant, and then slice vertically into long, thin slices. Cut the middle slices, which will be broader, in half vertically. Heat 1 tablespoon of olive oil in a pan and fry each slice of eggplant until lightly browned on each side and soft--you'll need to add more oil after every few batches. Remove to paper towels to drain excess oil.

Blend together ricotta, egg, half the Parmesan cheese, 1 smashed garlic clove, and salt and pepper to taste (you can add fresh basil to the filling or the sauce if desired). Spoon filling onto one end of each eggplant slice, and roll. Place with the loose end underneath into a square baking dish. Continue with remaining eggplant (2 tablespoons of filling each), arranging in baking dish in single layer. Pour tomato sauce over top of eggplant, and top with mozzarella and remaining Parmesan cheese.

Bake at 400 degrees for 30-45 minutes or until cheese is bubbly and lightly browned.

Mad Hoc: Episode 1, Defining the Mad Men universe

2010-07-29T10:23:00.003-04:00

Today brings a new, collaborative weekly television feature: Mad Hoc. Deeply Problematic blogger extraordinaire RMJ and I are huge Mad Men fans, and we both love to read all the recaps and discussions about the show. However, we also feel like the show gets a pass sometimes because it's so good in many respects that we as viewers assume that Matthew Weiner knows all and is perfect. And RMJ and I have something to say about that. So each weeek, we're going to chat about the new episode, in the style of Sady Doyle and Amanda Hess’s “Sexist Beatdown." We’ll discuss a mixture of general issues and episode specifics, viewing it all through both our cranky feminist lenses, and our huge fan goggles! These posts will usually appear on Monday or Tuesday following a new episode.

Coca Colo: Ok, so, I think it would also be good and proper for me to tell you a tiny bit about myself and my Mad Men background: I'm a grad student, phd in economics. And, I actually haven't watched every episode of Mad Men! I am very into it, and read lots of blogs about it, but I haven't seen all of season three.
RMJ: I am 24, living in Virginia (originally from Kansas!). I graduated from a women's college two years ago, live with my boyfriend and two cats, work as a composition tutor.
Coca Colo: Oh, and since you do such a good job of unpacking privilege on your blog, that's something we should make explicit, and keep in mind with regard to these posts. I'm half white, able-bodied, straight, cis, size-privileged.
RMJ: Good idea! I am white, mental disabilities/physically abled, straight, cis, fat with some size privilege, class privileged.

Coca Colo: One of my things with Mad Men, getting into content now, is that it's allll about sexy whiteness and wealth. And it's not just that, it's that there is a certain amount of goo-goo-ga-ness to its presentation of whiteness and wealth.
RMJ: Yeah no kidding. That was definitely present here, with the multiple fancy interviews in fancy restaurants and the whole “TimeLife building! Two floors! Wow!” I often feel like they're giving a nod to civil rights, as with the reference to Andrew Goodman, without seriously addressing it the way they do feminism.
Coca Colo: Even with the white people, they show there are major problems beneath the facade, but we're supposed to ooh and ah at Betty's clothes. Within that framework of showing an admittedly very appealing fantasy, how much can you be subversive?
RMJ: Well, but is it supposed to be a fantasy? I mean, I think it's supposed to be "gritty" and "revealing" to a certain extent. Like "this is what your grandma's sex life was REALLY like! In the CAR! Have you EVER!" And “people were RACIST and women were DISCRIMINATED AGAINST! My stars!” Which is a revelation...for rich white people
Coca Colo: Yes, I agree, but I just meant that part of what they draw viewers in with is how sexy and luxurious it is. It's not a fantasy life, but it plays on our fantasies.

RMJ: Also, while I think they're doing a great job of portraying problems with women and work and the home, it's not like "the feminist mystique" is really radical in 2010.
Coca Colo: It's 1964 now, and the Feminine Mystique has just been published, right? So I wonder if they will push that farther in this new season, if they will dig into the source of Betty's ennui. We've seen her move from her troubled marriage with Don into a relationship with Henry that doesn't seem to contain any more satisfying elements, except that at least he's still enthralled by her.

RMJ: I think that's going to be Betty's major arc - she's trying to recapture the whole "thrill of the chase" once again. And I think that is a relevant critique, considering how much "rules"/Cosmopoliton nonsense women are still filled with today, where romance and being desired and protected are the most important components of a relationship, rather than respect or partnership.
Coca Colo: Absolutely. Betty and Don never had a relationship on adult terms, it was about her being a child and seeing how far she could push him and what the limits of her power over him were. And speaking of "rules", we saw a lot of that with "Betty junior", Don's date who knew better than to let a man "walk you to your door" while rich husband shopping.
RMJ: Yup. Don has moved on from that whole “get married have babies” ideal family mantra, it seems. I'm not exactly sure where they're taking his character, but I'm intrigued.
Coca Colo: Yes. Many people have pointed out that Betty gets a lot of grief for her parenting, but Don has it easier--he just shows up, gives hugs, lets them watch tv, and then drops out again.
RMJ: Yeah. Don basically gets parades for not abusing his children, which is great and all, particularly for the time period, but Betty was just dropped into this without a choice. It's a good demonstration of why motherhood should be a practical choice.
Coca Colo: Yes, yes, yes. How should she feel about her three kids, given the situation under which she had them, particularly the last?

RMJ: And of course, Carla's childcare is almost totally erased. I think it's interesting how Betty's relationship with her caretaker was kind of idealized, whereas we never see Bobby and Sally's relationship with Carla.
Coca Colo: I agree with you about her presence being interestingly erased. I don't know what the "rules" are for inclusion as a character in Mad Men, versus someone who only gets to be onscreen when one of the designated characters is onscreen, you know? For example, Betty has been given the "character" designation, so we get to see her without Don, even though she doesn't work at the office, but most other people's homelives, we only see when they're there - no scenes of Jane alone, or Joan's fiance.
RMJ: Or Trudy
Coca Colo: So the issue is, they've decided Carla isn't a character, so we can't see her without Betty - and I wonder, why do they construct the rules that way, when you know it will exclude any person of color from being a character, since they won't be hired at the office.
RMJ: And Betty is the only exception to the SC rule - the beautiful white lady, and her father/daughter/etc.
Coca Colo: So if there are exceptions, why not make them for others, so we can see non-white/hetero/etc characters? Like why does Sal have to be gone just because he got fired?
RMJ: Joan wasn't!
Coca Colo: And why can't we see a little bit more of Carla's life, and what civil rights means for her, and her children, which she probably leaves to care for Betty's rich white children.
RMJ: And you know what, they COULD expand their point of view to characters of color working in SC/DP.
Coca Colo: Right, because I'm sure there are office workers and others of color, but they've chosen not to show them, I think because it's not "sexy."
RMJ: Do you remember the scene where Peggy/Pete got it on, and there was the janitor watching and laughing? Who is he? Or the elevator operator, Hollis, how does he see SC, how does he interact with the executives and secretaries? I mean, I can't write MM fanfic, and I understand that there are limits to the number of characters they can show. And they do do a good job of showing that people in the 1960s were really openly racist - they just don’t show characters experiencing and processing racism directed at them. They do as a good a job of showing that people in the 1960s were really openly sexist, but what’s great about their portrayal of sexism is that they go beyond that to show women experiencing and processing sexism directed at them. It seems to me the point of view of people of color is as valid a perspective as Joan or Peggy or Betty. If the secretaries are worth exploring....what about the other workers then considered "menial"?
Coca Colo: This goes back to my point about the show presenting this, almost fetishization of rich whiteness, and refusing to deviate from that to REALLY place it in the 60s, and the experience for so many. So that's what makes me wonder how progressive it really is, because they've chosen to only tell the stories of people of color as background players to white characters. They're only relevant if a white person speaks to them, or if they observe a white person, etc
RMJ: It's classic feminism: talk about the white ladies, nod to non-standard bodies without any kind of serious consideration.
Coca Colo: That's why I think women of color and feminists of color are NOT so excited about this show, because it's being progressive, but in that same very white-centric mold. [See Latoya Peterson's work on this.] The Mad Men world doesn't exist outside the walls of Sterling Cooper (Draper Pryce), the Draper household, and expensive restaurants.
RMJ: It's consistently only about the white side of the domestic/social/professional sphere
Coca Colo: Yes. And I am NOT giving it a pass because "it's the period". Yes, it's period-appropriate that people of color would not work side-by-side in the ad agency, but that certainly doesn't mean they didn't exist. Weiner has chosen to define the rules of his universe in a certain way that excludes them.
RMJ: And also, women did not often work side by side - white women were likely not more important than black men in the advertising environment, but the Mad Men universe has chosen to include them. There WERE black advertising executives at the time, I’ve read (though I can’t find the source) but they’re just not showing them.

Coca Colo: Now, I promised we would talk about the kink we saw in Don’s Thanksgiving relationship. I was excited to see it, actually, not just because of the complexity it adds to Don's character, but because of how it shows unvarnished sexuality, not movie sexuality where it's all romance (from the woman's perspective) or hot babes (from the man's). It wasn't exploitative, the way that normally is.
RMJ: It's also interesting in that with slap happy kink, it's usually men spanking/slapping women, but here is the manliest, sexiest character on the show asking for a slap.
Coca Colo: What do you think it said about his character (and potential control/self esteem/parental issues)?
RMJ: I think it's supposed to be a reflection of his boredom with women and his emotional pain right now, and also his history of abuse. Also, now that he's single, he can't just have affairs, he couldn't tell a, uh, non-transactional lover about his kink.
Coca Colo: I don't think he would have let his guard down that much to any of his lovers, he was still always projecting an image. But I thought because it was hinted his relationship with the sex worker was ongoing, that it could also be a farther-back preference of his and not a new thing - just our first time seeing it.
RMJ: Sure, but it could have been developed in the year we as viewers didn't see. You know, it is worth commending that Mad Men usually has a pretty decent and respectful representation of sex workers. they're workers, they're employees of sorts, they're professionals. Not exactly in-depth, but better than many shows
Coca Colo: Yes, you're right. There's no moral judgment on her in the least, it's seen very much as her being a professional woman in his life, not all that unlike his new maid. He can replace his perfect wife in pieces by women for hire--one for cleaning, one for slapping, perhaps one for babysitting next? Also, it's interesting about the affairs, how it seems to have changed things that he's not married, that it's actually gotten HARDER for him to date women. Ironic!

RMJ: Yeah, that IS interesting. Now that he's single, every woman looks like a potential Betty
Coca Colo: And they also look at him differently, perhaps? It might not matter for women who are married, but for someone unmarried, hm, not sure how to say this without buying into sexist tropes. But, basically, he doesn't have an excuse anymore not to get serious with women. And at the time, that's still what was expected to come out of dating relationships.
RMJ: Whereas before, his affairs had an automatic expiration date, now there's an expectation of something more. And there's also the Sterling/Jane relationship, which he clearly hates and wants to avoid.
Coca Colo: Ah yes, the famous Don Draper moral code: screwing everyone within a block radius is A-oK, but actually divorcing your wife for a younger woman is VULGUR. I love how he is so self-righteous, despite everything!
RMJ: I know right? "I'm from the midwest, we ____."

RMJ: Now, what else was there to unpack in this episode? Peggy! Do you think she has a little something something going with that coworker she was flirting with?
Coca Colo: First off, I love the haircut. I love the new sense of command
RMJ: Yes and yes.
Coca Colo: I even love the scenes with Don, even though he's berating her, she has a new sense of self in responding - she will not be reduced to a little girl.
RMJ: Tom and Lorenzo really nailed this part:

Pete pays a visit to the fabulous creative department, where Peggy's sporting a new bubble 'do and an attitude of confidence that makes you completely forget the nervous, sheltered secretary fresh from Miss Deaver's Secretarial School. This is when we meet Joey, the cute co-worker (artist? copywriter?) who defers to Peggy when she pulls rank on him, but seems to have a great working relationship with her consisting of constant repetitions of Stan Freberg's old "John and Marsha" routine. We just loved the image of Peggy sitting on her desk, whiskey in hand, bitching about difficult clients. Later, she barrels into Pete's office unannounced, confidently shouting out "He's expecting us!" to his secretary on the way in. She orders Joey to work with a sharp "Chop chop, Joey." She's supremely confident and in her element and she probably never would have gotten the chance to be so free and open at the old SC. It's really wonderful to see.

Coca Colo: Yes! I'm excited that you read them!
RMJ: Hell Yes! Their Mad Style posts are what I read when I get cranky.
Coca Colo: So, about Pete being a rapist... and yet being presented as so likable in this episode...
RMJ: I think this is an important conversation, but maybe we should revisit later in the season? Because you just wrote about it, and this episode isn't about Pete, and this post is going to be mighty long anyway :)
Coca Colo: Yes, I think you're definitely right, let's revisit it later.

Tune in next week! (And please join the conversation in the comments!)

Femonomics reads the internet: Phoebe Prince, sluthood, race and sympathy

2010-07-28T17:36:00.001-04:00

Slate ran a piece on "What really happened to Phoebe Prince," which does some decent reporting as far as logging exactly what the attacks on Phoebe consisted of, and whether they deserve jail time, but also advances a rather questionable hypothesis that "Phoebe helped set in motion the conflicts with other students that ended in them turning on her" by "attracting guys away from relationships." The Women's Rights blog rightly points out that what happened to Phoebe was slut shaming, not just bullying, but I'd go one step farther and say Slate's article buys into that same narrative. Apparently, you can bring bullying upon yourself by daring to get involved with young men who may or may not be in fickle teenage relationships. Men who are eighteen, mind you, but clearly the fifteen-year-old Phoebe is to blame. Gross, Slate.

***

Jaclyn Friedman has a great piece on sluthood (hers, specifically) and about how talking about women's sexual experiences outside of committed relationships has the power to help break us free of the virgin/whore dichotomy. After recounting a story about a casual encounter on Craigslist, she says:

I’m telling you this because sluthood requires support. Because any woman who indulges these urges carries with her a lifetime of censure and threat. That’s a loud chorus to overcome. A slut needs a posse who finds her exploits almost as delicious as she finds them herself, who cares about her safety and her stories and her happiness but not one whit about her virtue. A slut alone is a slut in difficulty, possibly in danger.

And rightly acknowledges that she is in a privileged position to talk about sluthood without jeopardizing her livelihood. Hetero men can often indulge "sluthood" without fear for their safety. For women, non-hetero men, and transgendered individuals, it's rarely so easy. And by not talking about it, we keep it that way.

***

For anyone who thinks we live in a colorblind society, please check out these two videos of news reports on 7-year-old boys who each highjacked a family vehicle for a joyride that ended in a police chase. You'll never guess: When the white boy does it, it's "funny," and his video games are taken away; When the black boy does it, it's "dangerous," and he needs to be in the "system" so he can get "help."

Mad Men: Remind me again how Pete Campbell is supposed to be a sympathetic character?

2010-07-26T23:59:00.004-04:00

The season premiere of Mad Men was yesterday. I watched it; I loved it; better people than me have written recaps. I want to talk about Pete Campbell.

You remember Pete. Him and Peggy had a thing. He used to be somewhat of a smarmy ass. His dad died. Oh yeah, and he raped his neighbor's nanny. He had done her a favor by replacing a dress she'd borrowed and ruined, and tries to make a pass at her. When she declines, he shows up at her door drunk, demands to be let in, and then forces himself upon her. Apparently some people think this is a "gray area"? This video shows only part of the interaction, not the part where he demands she undress (by insisting she put on the dress he's replaced), blocks her exit from the bedroom, and kisses her despite her clear fear and discomfort, but I think you can get the idea:

I thought that scene would be a turning point for Pete Campbell's character, where he went from being a misguided schmo in the viewer's mind to being a really entitled asshole who deserves comeuppance. But that comeuppance never came. Instead, here we are in season four expected to laugh at Pete's antics, and the oh-so-cute dynamic between him and former flame Peggy. His character arc is, apparently, that he got more likable after raping his neighbor's nanny, and now we're supposed to accept him as one of the boys. It troubles me that after all the positive feminist ink Matthew Weiner and co got from portraying Joan's rape by her fiance and Pete's rape of the nanny--showing that rape isn't always the kicking, screaming, violent act we expect, but rather one where men trade on other power dynamics than merely physical superiority to coerce women into submission--they've failed to let Pete's character bear any of the moral consequences of his actions, or even paint them as reprehensible to the audience.

Weiner is trying to portray a time when women were less powerful, rape culture was perhaps stronger, and men frequently saw crossing the line as their entitlement. And yet, I still see space for defining the morality of individual character's actions within that time. If Weiner doesn't, that's a problem for me. Because then every frat boy who lives in an environment where women aren't respected gets to say he didn't know better. I think he does; and I think Pete Campbell did, too. And so, no, I can't laugh at his jokes, I can't smile at his character development, and I certainly can't root for him as an up-and-coming member of the new agency. He. Is. A. Rapist.

Even this article from Bitch magazine, while at least clearly defining Campbell as a rapist, seems to see him as a "product of his times" instead of someone making criminal, morally repugnant, and damaging decisions in the context of those times:

Pete Campbell is a rapist. I keep repeating it like that, keep saying it flat-out like that, not because I demand that you hate his character now. (In fact, I've always thought Vincent Kartheiser - who I hated on Angel - does an excellent job of making such a weasel character kind of sympathetic, human.) I keep saying he is a rapist because I think everyone would benefit from understanding that "rapists" are not monsters: they are human beings. They are human beings who have been taught, time and time again, by this culture, that they are entitled to sexually use other people. They are not outliers; they are not blips on the radar; they are not deviants. They are, often, just men who have gotten so caught up in themselves, so blinded by the ego they are told from birth they must develop as a symbol of virile masculinity, that they have utterly forgotten that woman are human beings. They have forgotten that women are not there for their sexual use.

In this interview, Pete's portrayer says he doesn't see his character as a villain, and doesn't think in terms of "good and bad." Apparently neither does Matthew Weiner. This is not about the "world of Mad Men," which is meant to be deeply flawed, and viewed through a critical lens. This is about the world we live in, where that critical lens settles only so briefly on a man's rape of a domestic servant, before moving on to admire his personal growth. Men who rape get to be oh-so-very complex and troubled. Women who get raped get to dry their tears alone.

What Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism have in common

2010-07-25T23:34:00.003-04:00

A couple weeks ago, news broke that the Catholic church had ruled ordaining a woman an offense punishable by immediate excommunication, putting it in the same category as sexual abuse. I think it's clear to most that the Catholic church has a woman problem.

But, I think it's equally evident that Orthodox Judaism has a woman problem, and one that doesn't get nearly as much ink, perhaps because Orthodox Judaism is so much smaller of a movement than radical Islam and Catholicism. Moreover, despite those rumors of a "Jewish establishment," unlike Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism has no single governing body that dictates its tenants. That doesn't mean some factions of Judaism are any less virulently anti-woman than the worst of the Catholic church. In fact, echoes of the very same "ordaining a woman is the gravest crime anyone could possibly commit" attitude were evident in a recent NYMag piece on an Orthodox rabbi doing just that, ordaining a woman, Sara Hurwitz (right), who had completed all of the requirements for becoming an official spiritual leader and religious teacher.

Rabbi Hershel Schachter, a revered scholar at YU widely known as the foremost authority on Halacha in the United States, raised eyebrows at the RCA [Rabbinical Council of America] convention when he reportedly put the ordination of women in the category of yehareg ve’al ya’avor, a tenet that literally suggests one should opt for death before violating the law, used by rabbis when referring to acts that are absolutely impermissible. “He believes that it is a slippery slope that will lead to the breakdown of traditional Judaism,” explains Marc B. Shapiro, an expert on Orthodoxy.

This is only one individual, but this sentiment seems so clearly ludicrous, it deserves highlighting. As with the Catholic church's declaration, I have to ask, how can a victimless crime be worthy of such grave punishment? How can treating a woman as an equal be so blasphemous that one should die before doing it? The Jewish Star has more on the specifics of the RCA's objections to Hurwitz's ordination:

“These developments represent a radical and dangerous departure from Jewish tradition and the mesoras haTorah, and must be condemned in the strongest terms. Any congregation with a woman in a rabbinical position of any sort cannot be considered Orthodox,” said the statement, whose signatories included Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetzky and Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, the Novominsker Rebbe.
Their principal objection is based on tznius, modesty, in the understanding of Rabbi Avi Shafran, Agudah’s director of public policy.
“Tznius isn’t a mode of dress. It includes the idea that women are demeaned and not honored when they’re put in the public eye and put on a pedestal. The position he [Weiss] has created violated the concept,” Shafran said. Whether the ordination violates a specific halacha (Torah law), is unimportant, he explained. “Putting a woman in front of a group of men and women on a regular or ad-hoc basis is violative of tznius"

That's right, the prohibition of women being spiritual leaders in the Orthodox community comes from a fundamental belief in female "modesty"--essentially that women should be at home, not out in society, and not interacting with (tempting) men. Many Orthodox congregations offer few outlets for spiritual study for women, almost all segregate them during services, and few allow them to perform spiritual duties. At a Jewish wedding I recently attended, an Orthodox friend of the bride quipped that although dancing was traditionally segregated at Orthodox weddings, the women "have much more fun" because they actually know how to dance, since the men are too busy studying all day to learn. This is what the practices of segregation and limitation of learning do to women within the Orthodox community--it reduces them to inconsequential creatures who have "fun" while the men read. One friend told me that Orthodox men often remark how un-serious women are, since they gossip on their side of the partition during services. Cut off from their opportunity to learn and participate, what else are they to do?

Rabbi Weiss wanted a way for women to become true members of a spiritual community, and achieve religious knowledge and enlightenment. He started women's prayer groups, worked to educate women in the Torah, and, yes, eventually decided one of those women had achieved a high enough level of study to be called Rabba. I think his purpose in doing so was two-fold. First, he wanted to recognize the achievement of one Jewish scholar (who happened to be female), and, if we're being honest, to try to push the Orthodox community toward liberalization. But secondly, I think he realized that by giving his community a female spiritual leader, and by showing that a woman could achieve such a high level of religious scholarship, he would open the curtain of his congregation to include women as true members with valid religious as well as home lives. He would make the women of his congregation visible.

As strongly as I feel that women should be allowed to participate in spiritual study and sacred rites, it is difficult to argue with the religious beliefs of others. I don't believe in reincarnation, and yet I waste little time trying to talk others out of it. What makes the treatment of women different, I suppose, is that I feel it actively hurts and oppresses people. To what degree they are party to their own oppression is up for debate, but asking one to choose between her religion and her equality is a hard bargain indeed. The fact of the matter is that certain segments of Islam, Judaism, and Catholicism (and other parts of Christianity) actively place women in an inferior position, and a primary weapon they use to do this is the restriction of their right to religious learning and practice. Both the Catholic church and radical Islam get a lot of press for their treatment of women. When will we turn the same critical eye to Orthodox Judaism?

Editor's note: I recognize that not all Orthodox congregations, and generally not modern Orthodox, fall under this umbrella, and that many actively promote the participation of women in spiritual matters. I would be very interested to hear from anyone who considers herself a feminist in an Orthodox Jewish community, and how she reconciles the two.

Recipe Fridays: Berry Poke Cake

2010-07-23T17:52:00.004-04:00

I have been on a baking kick for the past month or so. And because I don't have a lot of time to spend baking I have been using a lot of cake mixes from a box and adding things to spice it up. This Berry Poke Cake was something I remember my mom making when I was in high school. Quick and, of course, scrumptious!

1 box of yellow or white cake mix
1 box of jello--any flavor, usually strawberry (hence the "Berry" Poke Cake)
Cool whip or frosting

Bake cake as directed. When it's done baking poke holes into it, about half an inch apart. Make jello according to the directions (up through it still being a liquid). Pour the liquid mixture over the cake. Then chill the cake in the fridge for 3-4 hours. Top with cool whip/frosting and serve.

Recipe Fridays: Things to do with quinoa that are actually delicious

2010-07-23T16:13:00.000-04:00

One of the NYTime's top articles this week has been a recipe for a spicy quinoa salad. This reminded me that when people first started going nuts for quinoa, it was one of those things like Justin Bieber for me--everyone is talking about it, but you're not sure what it is, and you don't get the fuss either way. Then I tried it, both eating it and cooking with it, and it became one of those things like kombucha, which everyone tells you you're supposed to like, but you just find a little weird. After much trial-and-error, though, I finally learned how to appreciate quinoa, and in fact now enjoy cooking with it, both due to its health benefits, and because it actually tastes ok! The big thing that helped me to start liking quinoa was to learn to overcook it. Most recipes say to cook it just until the thread around the grain becomes visible, but at this point, to me, it still tastes like bugs. (Sorry for the imagery, but now you know why I don't like quinoa. Beetle shells, I am telling you.) I generally cook it for about ten minutes after this point, giving it a much more rice-like texture. Try cooking white quinoa this way with a little bit of olive oil, salt, and pepper. It actually tastes good! Red quinoa doesn't get as soft, and seems to go better with acidic sauces like a lemon vinaigrette and fresh herbs. Below is one of my favorite quinoa recipes, courtesy of femonomics contributor Mad Dr.

Mad Dr's Quinoa pilaf

Cover 1 cup white quinoa with 2 cups water, a small drizzle of oil, and a pinch of salt. Bring to boil, then cover and reduce heat. Continue cooking, adding water as necessary, until about ten minutes after threads become visible (or until quinoa is soft). Meanwhile, saute 1/2 chopped onion with 2 chopped garlic cloves in olive oil. When onions are translucent, add 2 chopped celery ribs and 2 chopped carrots. Add 1 T butter. Saute until carrots are tender. Add cooked quinoa, and continue stirring over heat for 5 minutes longer. Season with salt and pepper to taste and serve.

The onion, celery, and carrot is what the french call a mirepoix, and provides a vegetable-broth taste to the pilaf, meaning no additional seasoning is necessary. Mad Dr also adds chopped bell peppers to this, added near the end of cooking. I like to add toasted pine nuts. You can add any other vegetable (cooked eggplant sounds good0, or even a protein such as cubed tofu or chicken to make a complete meal. Add dried fruit, like currants, to give it a fall flavor.

Did you also go through a quinoa=yuck stage? Have you made any recipes with it that changed your mind? Post your best quinoa recipe below!

Congress Introduces Legislation to Protect Public Health

2010-07-22T20:21:00.011-04:00

Recent events, such as the BP oil spill, highlight the danger posed by regulatory agencies that aren’t properly doing their jobs of, well, regulating. The BP oil spill happens to be one highly visible and very dramatic example, in which we learned too late that MMS was actually allowing companies to drill without proper permits and overruling findings of staff scientists.

However, oil is not the only industry escaping proper regulation. Surprisingly, the cosmetics that women use are not being regulated at all by the U.S. government. The FDA spells it out clearly on their website, that the responsibility of ensuring the safety of ingredients actually falls on the cosmetic industry:

Does FDA approve cosmetics before they go on the market?

FDA's legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products regulated by the agency, such as drugs, biologics, and medical devices. Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives. However, FDA may pursue enforcement action against violative products, or against firms or individuals who violate the law.

Feeling safe? Current research has strongly demonstrated that we should feel quite the opposite. Studies have shown that the chemicals we are exposed to every day are not only getting into are body but are linked to a increasing occurrence of diseases, such as cancer and learning disabilities. The President’s Cancer Panel came to the same conclusion, which I reported in early May.

In an attempt to correct this dangerous lack of oversight, Reps. Jan Schakowsky and Edward Markey introduced a bill today called the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. If passed, this bill will require government testing of products and ingredients and strengthen safety standards.

If you are interested in starting to use safer cosmetics and personal care products on a shorter timescale than lawmaking will allow, the Environmental Working Group has a cosmetic safety database called Skin Deep, which evaluates products based on the safety of ingredients that will allow you to choose the best alternatives.

In other Hill news, Reps. Bobby Rush and Henry Waxman introduced legislation today, called the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010, to overhaul chemical regulation policy in the U.S. The bill would change regulation requiring companies show chemicals are proven safe before they are introduced into consumer goods instead of the burden being placed on the EPA to prove they are harmful to be removed. A similar bill sponsored by Senator Lautenberg was introduced in the Senate in April.