Here today is Adina Nack with a fantastic guest post on how STD stereotypes have led to the mismarketing of the HPV vaccine as a cervical cancer vaccine. An associate professor of sociology, who has directed California Lutheran University’s Center for Equality and Justice and their Gender and Women’s Studies Program, and author of Damaged Goods?, Adina asks some provocative questions about the consequences this gendered mislabeling will have for public health awareness. –Kristen

The “Cervical Cancer” Vaccine, STD Stigma & the Truth about HPVby Adina Nack

You’ve probably seen one of Merck‘s ads which promote GARDASIL as the first cervical cancer vaccine. Last year, their commercials featured teenage girls telling us they want to be “one less” woman with cervical cancer. GARDASIL’s website features new TV spots which say the vaccine helps prevent “other HPV diseases,” too, and end with, “You have the power to choose,” but do you, the viewer, know what you are choosing?

A clue that this is a STD vaccine appears briefly at the bottom of the screen: “HPV is Human Papillomavirus.” Merck’s goal may have been to appeal to parents who are squeamish about vaccinating their daughters against 4 types of virus which are almost always sexually transmitted. This marketing strategy means that the U.S. public, currently undereducated about HPV, is none the wiser about this family of viruses which infect millions in the U.S. and worldwide each year. When the ads briefly mention “other HPV diseases,” how many realize they’re talking about genital/anal warts and that recent studies link HPV with oral/throat cancers? [You don’t need to have a cervix (or even a vagina) to contract any of these “other” HPV diseases.] Why don’t they want us to know the whole truth about the vaccine?

Branding GARDASIL as a cervical cancer vaccine was aimed at winning public support. But, what are the consequences of a campaign built on half-truths? Today, only females, ages 9-26, can be protected against strains of a virus that may have serious consequences for boys/men and women past their mid-20s. If public health is the goal, then let’s question how our STD attitudes shaped a marketing plan which has, in turn, influenced drug policy.

Marketing a “cervical cancer” vaccine may have appeased some social conservatives who don’t want their daughters vaccinated against any STD, fearing it might promote premarital sex. But, the vaccine will likely soon be available to males, and their anatomy does not include a cervix — will girls get a “cervical cancer” vaccine and boys get a HPV vaccine? The current gender-biased policy supports a centuries old double-standard of sexual morality. Most view STD infections as more damaging to women than to men. Many believe that STDs result from promiscuity — girls/women deserve what they get. So, are we ready to embrace any STD vaccine (including a future HIV vaccine) as a preventive health measure?

Having studied women with HPV, I know that a person can contract the virus from nonconsensual sex or from their first sexual partner — you could still be a ‘technical’ virgin since skin-to-skin contact, not penetration, is the route of transmission. In my new book, Damaged Goods?, I take readers inside the lives of 43 women who have struggled to negotiate the stigma of having a chronic STD. One chapter delves into stereotypes about the types of people who get STDs: these beliefs not only skew our perceptions of STD risk (bad things only happen to bad people) but also can psychologically scar us if we contract one of those diseases. Merck’s branding of GARDASIL makes sense: a typical U.S. teenage girl or young woman has good reason to fear others’ judgments of her — thinking her to be promiscuous, dirty, naïve, and irresponsible — if they knew she’d sought out a STD vaccine. Whereas, getting a “cervical cancer” vaccine feels more like something that a responsible girl/woman would do.

Unfortunately, with GARDASIL taking the easy way out, the U.S. public misses a prime opportunity to learn about this prevalent, easily transmitted disease that is unfortunately difficult to test for. We’ve also lost a chance to take on STD stigma and challenge the population to view sexually transmitted infections as medical problems rather than as blemishes of moral character.

No vaccine is 100% effective and neither are the treatment options for HPV infections. STD stereotypes (particularly negative about infected women) come back to haunt those of us who become infected with diseases like HPV and herpes, which are treatable but not curable. Until there’s a ‘magic bullet’ cure, we should educate ourselves not only about medical facts but also about STD stigma — the anxiety, fear, shame and guilt — that often proves more damaging to the lives of those infected than the viruses, themselves.

Even though the primaries are over, that doesn’t mean the discussion (and activism) on the role of sexism in the campaigns, or the continuing role of women in politics or the media is done… so don’t turn off the monitors yet. Here’s a roundup of what we should still be talking about (a number of these are taken from the awesome WMC Daily News Brief):

Sexism Against Clinton: ‘Sharp Reality in Media’
A group of women, including Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D.-N.Y.) and Rep. K. Granger (R-Tex), got together to discuss the effects of Clinton’s campaign. Maloney argued that Clinton’s campaign had made it “more likely a woman will be elected commander in chief.” Another panelist noted that the campaign served as consciousness-raising for American women: “I think it was a wake-up call for a lot of women to say ‘Gee, I had no idea there was that much blatant misogyny out there.’ And that not only the media moguls but the American public tolerated it.” Katie Couric has been making a number of statements about sexism in the media as well.

A (Female) VP Candidate by Any Other Name?
This, I must say, I just don’t get. Seemingly similar to the “We won’t vote for Obama” statements made by Hillary supporters during the primaries–now some former Hillary supporters are up in arms over the idea that Obama could choose a woman VP who isn’t Hillary. One such supporter suggested that “Clinton’s loss has deflated activist zeal for making history with another woman.”

Here are a few reasons from former John Edwards advisor, Kate Michelman, why that activist zeal shouldn’t be lost: Each possible candidate, including Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, “would be ‘outstanding’ as vice president because each supports abortion rights as well as a range of other issues of particular concern to women, such as pay parity, universal quality day care and economic support for mothers.” [my emphasis]

The New York Times also reported on a potential backlash among former Hillary supporters on Sunday. Meanwhile House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has told everyone to cool their jets, noting that, “None of us can afford the luxury of ‘my candidate doesn’t win the nomination’ or ‘my candidate wasn’t chosen as vice president, I’m taking my marbles and going home.'” Here here.

Taking a Page from the Al Gore Post-Game Playbook
Am I being too hopeful in thinking that Hillary might now use her energies post-primary-loss to become an outspoken campaigner on behalf of women’s reproductive rights…?

–Kristen

Cross-posted at Transitioning.

I’m delighted to bring a guest post from Gloria Feldt, former head of Planned Parenthood of America, currently on the board of the Women’s Media Center and Jewish Women’s Archive, co-author with Kathleen Turner of the NY Times best-selling Send Yourself Roses, and needless to say, feminist extraordinaire. Keep reading for Gloria’s provoking questions on why barriers still remain for American women today. –Kristen

I am perplexed. I hope you can help me figure this out.

During the last 50 years, thanks to feminism and other civil rights movements, reliable birth control, and an economy that now requires more brain than brawn, women have broken many barriers that historically prevented them from partaking as equals at life’s table. But though we’ve smashed many corporate glass ceilings and marble barriers to political leadership, and now make up the majority of college students and graduates, women remain far from parity in any sphere of political or economic endeavor. For example, women hold just 16% of seats in Congress and 25% of state legislative offices ; 3% of clout positions in mainstream media corporations and 15% of corporate board positions. And despite gender equity laws and the separation of biology from reproductive destiny, women still earn approximately3/4ths of what men do while shouldering the lion’s share of responsibility for childrearing. These factors are interrelated, though they have usually been thought of as discrete problems, and that is one reason they still exist.

Still, it seems to me—and I am a second wave feminist who has seen many barriers fall, but I’m well aware of the many structural challenges women still face—that by far the most intractable problem facing women today is not that doors aren’t open, at least wide enough to give us the sense of possibilities, but that women aren’t walking through the open doors with intention sufficient to transform the workplace, politics, or relationships.

I am trying to figure out why we don’t seem to use all the power we have to change the system so that it works better for us. I’d like to know what you think. Here are just a few of the theories that have been advanced:

Women have less ambition than men.

Women have less motivation than men.

Women are more adverse to competition than men.

Women see these problems as individual ones rather than problems that women have in common, and therefore don’t join together as a political force to solve them.

Women do not negotiate compensation as aggressively as men.

Women are more turned off by the rough and tumble attacks of political campaigns than men are.

Do you think I’m simply all wet in my statement that women aren’t walking through the doors with intention sufficient to transform the workplace, politics, or relationships?

I know that many GWP readers are experts in various aspects of these questions, and even more important, all of you have a stake in bringing about greater equity and equality for women. What are your thoughts? What do you think is to be done about it? I am eager to hear from you.

Cross posted in part at Heartfeldt Politics Blog.

Today I’m excited to bring you a guest post from Virginia Rutter, sociology prof at Framingham State College and frequent guest poster at Girl with Pen, who tackles the ever-misrepresented question of the female “opt out” with a close look and some hard facts. – Kristen

Opting out ain’t what it used to be: economics, not psychology, explains an historic decline in women’s employment, by Virginia Rutter

Dear Debbie: While you’re away, make sure you read the New York Times today on women and unemployment. Louis Uchitelle tells us that

…for the first time since the women’s movement came to life, an economic recovery has come and gone, and the percentage of women at work has fallen, not risen, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. In each of the seven previous recoveries since 1960, the recovery ended with a greater percentage of women at work than when it began.

Economist Heather Boushey and colleagues at the Joint Economic Committee in Congress put this finding in context in a new study. Uchitelle reports:

The Joint Economic Committee study cites the growing statistical evidence that women are leaving the work force “on par with men,” and the potentially disastrous consequences for families.

…

The proportion of women holding jobs in their prime working years, 25 to 54, peaked at 74.9 percent in early 2000 as the technology investment bubble was about to burst. Eight years later, in June, it was 72.7 percent, a seemingly small decline, but those 2.2 percentage points erase more than 12 years of gains for women. Four million more in their prime years would be employed today if the old pattern had prevailed through the expansion now ending.

The pattern is roughly similar among the well-educated and the less educated, among the married and never married, among mothers with teenage children and those with children under 6, and among white women and black.

While at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Boushey started responding to the blahblahblah about the “are women opting out?” question, by doing what she does best—using data to look for answers. Her paper, Are Women Opting Out? Debunking the Myth, responded to viral anecdotal accounts of highly educated women leaving the workforce. At that time, Boushey reported that the data showed that women were

not increasingly dropping out of the labor force because of their kids. The main reasons for the declining labor force participation among women over the last four years appears to be the weakness of the labor market.

(Boushey discussed some of the complexities of these issues at girlwithpen last year.)

Here’s what I’m thinking: The new study is ominous especially because unemployment is going to continue to hit men and women hard for years to come (for an analysis, see John Schmitt and Dean Baker’s report, What We Are In For: Projected Economic Impact of the Next Recession. And for a reflection on the impact of the recession on families, see Stephanie Coontz and Valerie Adrian’s Council on Contemporary Families’ June 2008 briefing report.

The impact of unemployment, as Uchitelle highlights, continues to be interpreted, understood, and experienced differently for men than for women. So, as the “opt out” narrative (those anecdotes about women who withdrew from the job market that got picked up as a “trend” until Boushey and others started to debunk the myth) tells us, when women lose work, it gets interpreted as being about family and psychology (not about unemployment or the economy), or seen as a return to traditional gender roles (not as women assuming a new gender role on the unemployment rolls). Until someone brings evidence to the subject.

Facebook launched itself into the hearts of Madison Ave. in November 2007 with a new scheme for targeted advertising. Essentially, this meant that data from users’ profiles would be used to throw up advertisements on their sidebars that supposedly fit their wants/needs.

At first glance, I was actually impressed, or at least mildly amused, by the system. My most scintillating piece of personal information at the time was a quote from Arrested Development, where George Sr. yells at George Michael in a prison yard to “Give me your hair! Give me your hair!” because he needs a disguise. And what do you know, within a week, I had a new targeted advertisement that ran along the lines of: “Going bald? Here’s what we can do…”

Having removed all hair-related references from my profile, leaving only a few references to Ella Fitzgerald and Betty Grable behind, things have changed now that I am tagged and targeted as a “Woman.”

As soon as bathing suit season began to come into gear, I received ad upon ad about “losing those 15 to 30 pounds” accompanied by pictures of ostensibly “unattractive” women with non-concave stomachs, not to mention many an ad urging me to “date that special someone.” The Australian blog, Dawn Chorus, has a roundup of some of these ads, the Feministing community has been discussing various manifestations of these ads for both males and females, young and old, the UK F-Word talks about subvertising these ads (with example provided above!), and Feministing discussed a few months ago how ads for Crisis Pregnancy Centers were coming up as well. I have described a pretty pernicious advertising campaign above– but I wonder what kind of happy advertising campaign the feminist blogosphere would launch to women (and men) on Facebook. Suggestions welcome!

In more heartening news from Facebook, however, Facebook has evolved over the years in its approach to gender. First of all, it no longer requires that you designate one. There is also a very cool application that you can add to your profile that allows you to express your gender and sexual identity in your own way–be that binary, non-binary, in transition, or anything else.

–Kristen

Image Credit

What has been especially interesting in the furor over the New Yorker cartoon (I’m sure we’ve all seen it by now–nonetheless, helpful clip to the left) is that the main focus has been on Barack Obama’s image as a Muslim terrorist and not on his wife. In some ways, this is unsurprising. After all, there’s a history of the “Obama-Osama” slip-ups–though “slip-up” gives Fox News too much credit–and he is the presidential candidate. Nonetheless, and maybe because I’ve felt already inundated with the Obama imagery, the cartoon of Michelle Obama shocked me much more. As Sophia A. Nelson writes in a superb article in the Washington Post today, the New Yorker satires an “Angela-Davis-Afro-wearing, machine-gun-toting, angry, unpatriotic Michelle Obama.” I use the word satire, because clearly it is meant to be one. At the same time, the New Yorker was willfully obtuse on this one. No virgin voyagers on the high media seas, the meta-New Yorker must have known how images can be misconstrued and used to deepen prejudice. (Just take a look at this report from Media Matters on reactions from conservative WorldNetDaily readers.)

But the Michelle Obama cartoon seemed a much more egregious satire to me. Besides a “terrorist fist bump” here and an “unpatriotic” there, I have never seen Michelle Obama painted in such a way that so clearly undermines the strong, professional, intellectual image she has maintained throughout the campaign. As Nelson points out in her article:

“Sad to say, but what Obama has undergone, though it’s on a national stage and on a much more prominent scale, is nothing new to professional African American women. We endure this type of labeling all the time. We’re endlessly familiar with the problem Michelle Obama is confronting — being looked at, as black women, through a different lens from our white counterparts, who are portrayed as kinder, gentler souls who somehow deserve to be loved and valued more than we do. So many of us are hoping that Michelle — as an elegant and elusive combination of successful career woman, supportive wife and loving mother — can change that.”

This is clearly an issue for the feminist blogger world. So here are my questions:
1. Which image were you more shocked by?
2. Do you feel that the feminist and race implications of the Michelle Obama image have been underreported?

– Kristen

Crossposted at Transitioning

Image Credit

Hi everybody, Kristen Loveland (of Transitioning, formerly called The Choice) here helping to fill in for Deborah a bit over the next two weeks with some cross-posts. It’s always best to start your week off with a little contemplation about how much those pesky, pervasive, much-(statistically)-vaunted “sex differences” between men and women hold water beyond the oversimplified pop study and advertising board room (let’s all take a minute to painfully remember Mel “sugartits” Gibson’s What Women Want movie). In a brilliant move over at Slate, Amanda Schaffer and Emily Bazelon take on the latest literature by the “sex difference evangelists” in a six-part series (click through to read them all and thanks to Daphne Uviller for sending this over!) Looking at everything from language to empathy to hormones to Larry Summers, they ask why there is so much focus on the Mars/Venus dichotomy, and so little on the many variables within a gender. And most happily, instead of taking all the stats and studies at face value, they dig into these researchers’ findings beyond the intro paragraphs.

For instance, they get to the bottom of how significant the difference in empathy is between men and women, noting that by 1987 sex differences were actually only “comparable to the difference in average height between 15- and 16-year-old girls, “though this didn’t stop psychologist Susan Pinker to use these studies to argue “that women have a powerful ’empathy advantage.'” But most significantly, and something I always try to keep in mind when the New York Times flashes the latest stats across its front page, Schaffer and Bazelon point out:

“Of course, what people say about themselves on questionnaires tells a limited story in any case. Psychologist Nancy Eisenberg made this point most dramatically in the 1980s, when she demonstrated that the empathy gap, which appeared in studies that relied on self-reporting, all but vanished when other measures like physiological responses or changes in facial expression were considered. Men and women differ in ‘how empathetic they would like to appear to others (and, perhaps, to themselves),’ she wrote—and that’s not the same thing as real underlying sex differences in empathy.”

Any weekend spent with my sister (my complete opposite in countless ways) very clearly brings the differences within gender home to me. This weekend, this very neatly played out in our contradictory reaction to the very advertising and consumer campaigns that target those so-called differences. Lacking soap, I very naturally picked up my brother’s Old Spice “Vitality” body wash to use. It smelled quite nice, I thought, though I’ll wait for the day when a “woman’s” body wash is tagged as the dynamic “Vitality” as opposed to “soothing,” “calming,” or the it’s-hard-being-a-woman “re-energizing.” As soon as I ran down stairs, feeling quite vital, thank you very much, I was subject to a very big sisterly campaign of: “I can’t believe you just used man-wash. You smell like a man now. Who uses man wash?” Clearly, it was not something she would have even contemplated. Even in our decisions as to how much we will abide by the consumer-minded gender roles, the reactions are variegated, dare we even say, unexpected.

Image Credit

Claire Mysko here, reporting from the BlogHer ’08 conference! My first session today is on political commentary with Jennifer Pozner of Women in Media and News and Catherine Orenstein of the Op-Ed Project.

Jennifer opened the session with this question: How many of you have engaged with media outside of your blogs? Most people in the room raised their hands, but those who didn’t said they haven’t engaged because they are nervous about putting themselves “out there” and exposing themselves in their communities especially when it comes to politics. Jennifer made the point that as women, we must be willing to engage in a competitive landscape. The media landscape does not look the way we want it to. Women are marginalized and “hard news” is still seen as the realm of men (white, privileged men for the most part).

Jennifer gets tons of hate mail after her TV commentary. Perhaps not so surprising (but still pretty depressing), most of those comments are usually about her physical appearance and almost never about what she actually said.

The more popular your blog is, the more likely it is that mainstream media outlets will come to you. When you get that call, you have to be prepared. Jennifer mentioned the brother-in-law test. If you can get your brother-in-law to understand your point and frame your argument in a way that he gets it, you’ll know that you are better prepared to address a broad audience beyond your niche.

Catherine Orenstein posed five questions:
1. what is credibility?
2. how do you create an argument that is a contribution?
3. What is the difference between being right and being effective?
4. how can you see what you care about as part of a bigger picture?
5. how can you see your knowledge and experience in terms of its value to others?

Some stats: 85% percent of op-eds are dominated by men, 84% of political pundits are men, 84% of Hollywood producers are male, 84% of Congress are male. Get the picture?

Plenty of women are blogging, but not in the places where it has the most influence. One out of 20 political bloggers are women. Sadly, these numbers convey the idea that women’s voices don’t matter and that women aren’t leaders.

Three things happened when Catherine published her first op-ed: She got a book deal, she was went on national television, and she was invited to speak with a Clinton adviser. In other words, there are incredible opportunities presented to those who do put themselves out there. If you’re not writing your own story, someone else will. And probably not in the way you would tell it.

Public conversations are happening in an echo chamber. Catherine compares this to what happens in the movie Being John Malkovich when John Malkovich goes through the John Malkovich tunnel. That’s what public debate looks like these days.

Women don’t submit op-eds. Shouldn’t we all be projecting our opinions into the prominent forums? So here are Catherine’s thoughts on some of those questions.

What is credibility: Accountability to knowledge. What are you an expert in and why?
Creating contribution: What would be valuable? What’s the evidence (statistics, quotes, news information, research).
What’s the difference between being right and being effective: She shared a letter she received after she wrote an ope-ed that was critical of Sex & the City. “It’s Sex & the City, not Jobs & the City,” the writer pointed out. “Your version: Boring.” Catherine realized that she had alienated a large portion of the audience she wanted to reach. What she learned is that before she concludes an argument, she needs to put herself in the shoes of someone who disagrees with her. Remember two words: empathy and respect. Assume that the other party is both intelligent and moral.

This content is cross posted at 5 Resolutions.

Heads up over here about another guest poster coming to you next week, one who I am thrilled (THRILLED!) to announce will be contributing regularly here at GWP with a column featuring reviews of newly released books, called “Off the Shelf.”

Elline Lipkin (pictured left) is a poet and nonfiction writer. Her first book, The Errant Thread, was chosen by Eavan Boland to receive the Kore Press First Book Award and was published in 2006. She is currently working on a book about girls for Seal Press and will be a Visiting Scholar with the Center for Research on Women at UCLA in the fall. She recently taught at UC Berkeley where she was a Postdoctoral Scholar with the Beatrice Bain Research Group.

Watch for Elline’s review next week of Pamela Paul’s latest,
Parenting, Inc, a book that investigates “the whirligig of marketing hype, peer pressure, and easy consumerism that spins parents into purchasing overpriced products and raising overprotected, overstimulated, and over-provided-for children.” Parents, yes, and especially, perhaps, mothers.

And with that, I am signing off for reals–to go get married!!!