I am very excited to be able to start your week off with a guest post from Gloria Feldt, who last week wrote about barriers that still stand in the way of American women’s search for equality. This week, Gloria is back with a wonderful post on a woman who’s run for the presidency has helped to strip some of those barriers down. –Kristen

The Importance of Being Hillary

by Gloria Feldt

Like Kristen said in her post “Now That the Dust Has (Sort of) Settled,” Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president is still fascinating to ponder. I was recently asked to write an article on the topic for the ILF Digest, the journal of a think tank I’ve been a fellow of (I find this terminology amusing, but have never come up with an acceptable alternative—can you?) for some years. It won’t be published for a few weeks but I’d like to share an excerpt here because it takes up where Kristen’s questions were leading:

Despite many problems with sexism in the culture and media that made themselves self-evident during Hillary Clinton’s campaign, there are even more reasons to be optimistic that Clinton’s presidential run will be a net plus in motivating women to enter politics. I predict a sea change in women’s participation in politics up and down the ticket and in non-elective political roles as well, for these reasons:

1. Seeing gives the potential for being. The message chanted at Clinton’s rallies: “Yes she can!” has clearly been delivered to younger generations. All young girls hereafter will grow up knowing it is possible for a woman to be president. And Clinton’s willingness to stay in the race despite all the challenges, despite constant calls for her to bow out, despite what must have been intense exhaustion and disappointment, is exactly what women of all ages with political aspirations need to see. In her speeches, she often mentioned “two groups who move me: women in their 80’s and 90’s who come out in walkers and wheelchairs and say they just want to live long enough to see a woman elected president, and families who bring their children and lean over and whisper in their daughter’s ear, ‘Honey you can be anything you want to be.’” Now they know they can.

2. Women were energized as never before. Rep. Carolyn Maloney said at a recent event sponsored by Lifetime Television, which along with three major women’s magazines has spearheaded a massive multimedia campaign called “Every Woman Counts”, that even though Clinton lost the primary campaign to Obama, “I think she lifted up the self esteem of women across the country, across the world.” Observing that Clinton raised $190 million in the primary race, Maloney said. “I think she helped all of us.” One measure of how much she has helped women become more engaged in politics is that in past races, women’s financial contributions amounted to less than 30% of the total. For the first time, fueled by excitement over Clinton’s candidacy, half of the contributions to a presidential candidate came from women. And, in fact, over 40% of Obama’s contributions came from women as well, demonstrating women’s importance to the Democratic party and women’s understanding about the strategic importance of giving their fair share of the proverbial mother’s milk of politics in order to get their fair share of influence on the public policies they want. As North Carolina gubernatorial candidate Bev Perdue pointed out, “Everybody is involved in politics whether they realize it or not.” Since men have little motivation to change the power structure, women have little choice but to become the change we want to see. Clinton’s willingness to put herself out there will motivate more of us to try.

3. Media sexism has been called out, and that roots it out. Rep. Maloney went on to say at the Lifetime event that there was “a big undercurrent of sexism, misogyny and stereotyping” against Hillary Clinton during her campaign for president. But the point here is Maloney made her claims at a public, mainstream media-sponsored event. That would not have happened in the past. The nonprofit Women’s Media Center mounted a campaign called “Sexism Sells, but We’re not Buying It” in collaboration with several media justice organizations They got the attention and the responses of major media executives and producers, as well as on-air apologies from Chris Matthews, David Schuster, and others. Even Katie Couric—too late, sadly, to make a difference in this year’s primary reporting but with luck influential enough to change the way women candidates are treated in the future—finally had enough and spoke out publicly on the subject. Change will be slow and imperfect, but it will happen.

4. Hillary’s post-primary awakening led her to embrace her leadership role as a woman and on behalf of other women. Throughout the campaign, she downplayed the importance of her gender, saying as she did at her Beacon Theater birthday bash early in the campaign when she was still considered the front runner, “For me it is a great honor and humbling experience to be the first woman president. But I’m not running because I am a woman but because I am the most qualified. “ Since the campaign, she has been much quicker to champion women’s rights. For example, she led the charge to challenge the Bush administration’s proposed new regulations that would redefine many birth control methods as abortion and allow medical providers to refuse to provide them. She seems to have learned a lesson about being her true self; other women will take courage from that.

At Hillary’s birthday event almost a year ago now, Elvis Costello performed to a standing ovation. Then the Wallflowers joined Elvis onstage; the decibel level elevated ten-fold, whipping this audience of aging rockers into frothy enthusiasm.

When comedian Billy Crystal came up to close the evening, little did he know just how prescient he was when he said, “Hillary is making this campaign not so much for the old rockers but for the new ones.”

Cross posted at Gloria’s Heartfeldt Politics Blog.

Image credit.

I hope everyone had a great weekend, and welcome to the second week of Girl with Pen sans your usual Girl with Pen (Deborah Siegel), who is away on her honeymoon (felicitations!). But don’t worry, she’ll be back next week and we’ll all hold down the fort until then. There are few organizations that work to bridge the gaps between “feminist research, popular reality, and the public” as surely as Our Bodies Ourselves, and so I wanted to bring you this announcement: they are seeking a new Associate Director. Forward it on to anyone who might be interested– or apply yourself! And thanks to Virginia Rutter for sending this over!
–Kristen

New Position of Associate Director, Our Bodies Ourselves

Our Bodies Ourselves (also known as the Boston Women’s Health Book
Collective, Inc.), a nonprofit women’s health education, advocacy, and
consulting organization, is seeking an Associate Director. This person
would work closely with the current Executive Director, other senior
staff, and selected Board members to assume key leadership
responsibilities as the organization approaches its 40th year.

Our Bodies Ourselves provides accessible, research-based information
about women’s health and sexuality and advances health and human rights
within a framework of values shaped by women’s voices and a commitment
to self-determination and equality. For some time, the organization has
maintained a consistent profile, both in terms of visibility and
financial size. A focus for the next few years is to grow the
organization’s annual revenues and budget while stabilizing its
fundraising capabilities and diversifying its funding sources.

Responsibilities (to be phased in over a period of time):

MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

* Supervise the day-to-day operations of the organization
* Ensure accuracy & compliance of routine financial operations,
working with financial consultants and/or staff, including:
– Review financial management system and make recommendations
for strengthening, as appropriate
– Oversee preparation of annual audit and review monthly
financial statements
– Develop and monitor annual and quarterly budgets for the
organization and its specific programs
– Ensure timely and accurate completion of necessary state
and federal government filings
* Lead strategic planning for the organization, in collaboration
with the Board and other senior staff, and monitor/oversee
implementation of strategic plans
* Principal staff liaison with the Board of Directors; attend all
Board meetings
* Manage the human resources function and supervise staff
* Prepare annual report

PROGRAM

* Provide overall program leadership
* Increase visibility of the organization through various modes
and media
– Act as spokesperson for OBOS
– Write op eds and other advocacy pieces
* Conduct policy/advocacy campaigns
* Develop and maintain relationships with other community-oriented
organizations

FUNDRAISING

* Supervise research, writing, and submission of grant proposals
and grant reports
* Lead donor relations
* Develop and implement short and long-term fundraising plans,
created in collaboration with the Board and staff

Required Skills/Qualifications

* Nonprofit management/administrative experience, including direct
supervision and management of employees.
* Knowledge of, skills, and proven experience in financial
management of an organization with an annual operating budget of over
$500,000 (including experience with budget management and financial
reporting).
* Familiarity with and commitment to the content and philosophy of
OBOS (the book)
* Good knowledge base and experience with women’s health,
including reproductive health and gender equity issues
* Excellent oral and written communications skills
* Experience interacting with the media
* Some fundraising experience
* Excellent organizational skills, including the ability to
organize resources, manage multiple projects, and establish priorities
* Demonstrated relevant experience of 8-10 years, including
expertise gained in a growing nonprofit (or other relevant setting)
* Expertise and experience working with diverse communities
* Ability to think strategically and to develop and implement
strategic plans
* Experience/comfort with a collegial model of management
(participatory leadership style that recognizes people’s skills and
fosters leadership in others)

OTHER QUALITIES SOUGHT

* Self-starter (dynamic, highly motivated)
* Entrepreneurial and forward thinking

To apply, please submit preferably VIA EMAIL a resume and cover letter,
to: office@bwhbc.org. The organization mailing address is OBOS, 34
Plympton St, Boston, MA 02118. Fax: 617 451 3664.

Deadline: AUGUST 20, 2008

OBOS is an Equal Employment Opportunity Employer.

Image credit.

Today I’m pleased to bring you first time guest poster (and frequent Girl with Pen commenter!) Marjorie Asturias, who encourages all of us women to start getting our voices out on the opinion page. Marjorie is a weekly columnist at the Grand Junction Free Press, and maintains her own blog, Interior Designs, where she dishes out more advice on the writer’s life– so go check it out! –Kristen

Girl with Newspaper Column by Marjorie Asturias

Landing a newspaper column gig isn’t easy, but neither is it impossible, and it’s about time that more women put themselves out there and make a bid for one of their own.

A few months after moving to Grand Junction, Colorado, where I now live, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Grand Junction Free Press criticizing the slant a reporter had taken on an article about a local woman doing humanitarian work in Africa. The editor wrote within hours letting me know how much he liked my writing and that he hopes that I submit again in the future.

I immediately wrote back and asked him if he would be interested in hiring me on as a columnist. He was and quickly signed me on, warning me that he couldn’t pay me for columns, but he did encourage me to submit regular features in addition to columns, as those news-y type pieces are paid.

I’m now a weekly paid columnist and special contributor to the paper, and while the compensation won’t buy me any Birkin bags, the assignments have opened up a number of opportunities for me. Yes, I’ve received my share of hate mail. Yes, I have had my moments where I’m two hours from deadline, and I’ve yet to write a single word.

On the other hand, I’ve also had a few of my columns reach a national readership, including one about the loss of Generation X that was picked up and distributed by an online news aggregator. Another column I wrote about Ralph Nader’s entry into the 2008 election was linked from the front page of Mr. Nader’s site and generated tons of hits from around the world. Not only did I get my own name and work out in the public eye, the Free Press also saw a hefty spike in its own site statistics, garnering valuable publicity for the paper itself.

Writing the column turned out to be much harder and more rewarding than I dreamed it would be. Not only am I faced with a weekly deadline, I’m also dealing with the fact that I’m writing primarily to a conservative, small-town readership.

My columns frequently touch on issues that ignite heated debate in the community: immigration, abortion, gay marriage, and religion and prayer in public institutions. I’m also proudly feminist and have written about mail-order brides, sexism in the 2008 presidential election coverage and why being child-free can be a liberating choice. Since much of the paper’s audience receives its news primarily from local sources, I’m offering them a viewpoint rarely found outside of the national media outlets, i.e., that of a minority woman who sees the world through the a lens that is both gendered and “colorized.”

I have my days when I cringe even as I write some of my more potentially controversial piece, or when I get yet another racist or sexist rant in my Inbox. But I’ve found that the more I write, the more confident I become. Now, although I also occasionally write about “lighter” topics, I find that the columns that make my readers think are the ones that I find most rewarding. To me that’s a sign that I’m doing my job. Equally important is that even among the most offensive emails, I often learn something new about the issue that I hadn’t considered before.

I strongly encourage women in any community, no matter what the size, to submit their opinion pieces to their local papers. Don’t just aim for the big guns like the New York Times. Every media outlet needs to hear our voices. Carol Jenkins recently wrote in the Christian Science Monitor that part of the responsibility for the dearth of women commentators lies not just with the women who aren’t submitting, but also with the top-level decision-makers who aren’t actively creating op-ed pages that reflect their commitment to diversity.

Let’s do our part and make sure that the supply part of the equation is taken care of. The decision-makers won’t have any excuse not to publish us.

I had to post Jill from Feministe‘s comments below on the passing of Estelle Getty, who played the tenacious and hilarious Sophia on Golden Girls. Writes Jill on the meaning of Golden Girls for her:

I’m a huge Golden Girls fan, and I maintain that it’s one of the best feminist shows ever created: It’s got an all-female cast; they women are all older and therefore outside of traditional beauty norms; the women have independent lives that involve men but don’t revolve around them; and the characters are funny and smart (with the possible exception of Rose, but she’s smart in her own little way). Where else have you seen a popular sitcom (or any show) that revolves around women who actually kind of look like average women, who aren’t young and fabulous and beautiful, who have interests other than finding male companionship, who put their female friendships first, and who have sex after menopause? More to the point, where can you find a TV show or movie that revolves around women like that, and those women aren’t the butt of the joke?

It’s certainly a rarity, and Golden Girls remains a bright spot in TV history. Estelle Getty was a class act.

I have to second that statement. Sure I’ve sat around with friends debating which Sex and the City character each of us is, but I’ve also sat around and talked about which Golden Girls character we are, or will be, or hope to be. I’m banking on being a decided Dorothy.

–Kristen

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