It’s always a treat to get quoted in a mainstream newspaper article that takes a critical look at U.S. norms and values. Fellow GWP editor, Shira Tarrant, and I were recently interviewed about trends in female Halloween costumes:

Talking with this reporter reminded me of a campaign launched on my university’s campus a few years ago by the student club Feminism Is. They created posters with the slogan “We’re not a trick or a treat!” to raise awareness at California Lutheran University about the importance of the messages being sent by the hyper-sexual costumes that had become popular among U.S. female college students. With too many Americans still unclear about the relevance of sexism in our daily lives, it’s vital that we mentor and teens/young adults who create feminist events and collaborate with reporters who are willing to ask questions like — Is dressing up “like a slut” for Halloween “harmless fun” or “demeaning”?  Kudos to writer Rhiannon Potkey and other journalists who are fighting the good fight!

Not far into Nona Willis Aronowitz and Emma Bee Bernstein’s book, Girldrive: Criss-Crossing America, Redefining Feminism, the word drive takes on new definition. Friends since they were 11, the duo spent summers together at Camp Kinderland, (where they return to teach a gender awareness workshop at their journey’s end). Aronowitz describes their mutual upbringing as one in which they incubated within the same “bubble: the liberal Jewish one that inhabits New York’s Upper West Side and Greenwich Village.” Post-college, over Bloody Marys and brunch, they hatch a plan to drive across America to try to understand what feminism means to twentysomethings outside this shell. After planning and saving, they set off for an odyssey of exploration, crashing on couches, interviewing in living rooms as well as in bars, doing their best to catch the flavor of whatever city they’re in and to measure how the word “feminist” translates.

Through series of snapshots – both visual and written – they tease out from their interviewees whether or not they comfortably embrace the word “feminist” as part of their self-definition. The book feels like a gloss – in the best sense – Bernstein’s photos are vivid and edgy as is each page’s sleek design. Aronowitz is responsible for the bulk of the writing and through her capsule write-ups she imbues mutable definitions into the word “feminist.”

The two discover a “badass feminist posse in Baton Rouge,” are so taken with the “fascinating women in Nashville,” they say on an extra day, dress up as frumpy second-wavers for some Halloween partying on the Las Vegas strip. They interview members of Big Star Burlesque, a plus-size dance troupe in Austin, chat with graduate students in San Diego and parse the contributions and detriments of “academic feminism,” learn from a young single mother on welfare tending bar in Sioux Falls, and bring some of their “guy friends” directly into the discussion in Kansas City. They drop acid in Abiquiu, follow a text to an afterhours “noise show” in Portland, feel surprised by Seattle’s “crunchy clean,” spend much of their holidays in New York City zigzagging across the boroughs to capture the rich communities of writers, artists, and activists they find.

The effect is one of pastiche, weaving, or braiding, all good second-wave tropes, but with the conversation focused on third-wave concerns. Aronowitz and Bernstein are transparent about their process throughout – and frank about what surprised them. Working out and through the interconnective fibers that bind generations of women is their work. They encounter women who mightily resist the word “feminist” due to generational preconceptions, but still desperately want gender injustice to end. Some embrace the word “humanist” or just want to be called an activist, minus any labels. When some women were confused by what the word “feminist” even meant, the two asked, “What pisses you off about being a woman?” or “What keeps you up nights?” often to a flood of response. The collective narrative picks up friction when Aronowitz and Bernstein openly grapple with women who say they plan to have a “traditional” marriage or eschew premarital sex or are ardently anti-choice. These moments are compelling as Aronowitz and Bernstein gamely push up against these comments, and fairly include them.

Interviews with second wave feminists leaven the book as the two ask what legacy has been handed down, and what these women hope for their generation. The two sit down with Erica Jong, Katha Pollitt (and her daughter), Michele Wallace, poets Mei-Mei Berssenbrugge and Anne Waldman, Starhawk, (among others), pay homage to Kathleen Hanna, and close the book with an interview with feminist artist Susan Bee Bernstein, Emma’s mother.

If I could wish for one change, it would be less breadth. Surveying with a wide lens is the point of their project – to collage viewpoints and show the multiplicity of meanings that inhabit the word “feminist.” Yet at times the interviewees’ comments are so brief they don’t allow meaning to accrete. The richest part of the book is its sheer panoply of voices and images, but more interstitial reflection would help frame the montage.

It is impossible to not commend the two for the ambitious scope of this project, to admire their commitment, and the sense of passion present in their quest. Sadly, it’s also impossible to not think about the losses that accompany the book – especially the resonating silence that surrounds losing the voice of a young feminist from the collective conversation. But the echo left is one of fervid dialogue – richly diverse – engaged in trying to create what changes lie ahead.

A year and a half ago Feministing reported about rapes occuring to women working for defense contractors in Iraq. The gist of the story is this: assaulted workers told, badgered, intimidated into keeping silent about vicious assaults on them.

One of the people who this happened to was Jamie Leigh Jones. She testified before Congress in December 2007 about being drugged and gang-raped in company barracks in Iraq. Her company, Halliburton, said that when she signed her employment contract, she lost her rights to a jury trial. The contract they offered forced her into having her claims decided through secret, binding arbitration. WTF?! She had no idea.

Fast forward to October 2009. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) introduced an anti-rape amendment to a larger defense appropriations bill last week that (per talkingpointsmemo) would “prohibit the Pentagon from hiring contractors whose employment contracts prevent employees from taking work-related allegations of rape and discrimination to court.” Kind of minimum standard.

The amendment passed, 68-30, in the Senate. Because that is the right thing to do. Indeed, Jon Stewart profiled the case, pointing out that, “If, to protect Halliburton, you have to side against rape victims, you might want to rethink your allegiances.”

But, Huffington Post reports that someone not yet clearly rethinking his allegiances is Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI). He’s considering removing the amendment, and he has the power to do so. Explains HuffPo: “Inouye’s office, sources say, has been lobbied by defense contractors adamant that the language of the Franken amendment would leave them overly exposed to lawsuits and at constant risk of having contracts dry up.”

There is so much wrong with this I don’t know where to start. But I wanted to provide the update. Read this for info about contacting Sen. Inouye to tell him to support the Franken amendment.

-Virginia Rutter

Some would say this has been true since 2006, when the FDA approved Gardasil for exclusive use in girls/women, and finally the FDA agrees. Last week Merck received FDA approval for Gardasil to be used as a genital warts vaccine in boys/men (ages 9 to 26 years old). However, yesterday, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted for only “permisive” use in boys, rather than voting for the stronger recommendation of “routine use,” as they had for Gardasil’s use in girls/women.

As reported in Bloomberg.com, this decision had been predicted by some experts:

William Schaffner, chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, said the panel will be asking itself “if we vaccinate all the girls, how much additional benefit will we get by vaccinating the boys?”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution cited a similar argument from a different expert:

Debbie Saslow, director of breast and gynecologic cancer at the American Cancer Society, agreed with the findings. “If we can vaccinate a high enough proportion of young girls, then vaccinating boys is not cost-effective,” she said.

This line of reasoning and the ACIP’s conclusion are problematic on two levels. First, there seems to be a privileging of female health over male health. There are compelling reasons “ other than the prevention of cervical cancer” for the ACIP to recommend “routine use” of a safe and effective male HPV vaccine. Second, there seems to be a heterosexist assumption in the ACIP’s decisions — that all boys/men are sexually attracted to (and sexually active with) girls/women and vice versa.

Maggie Fox of Reuters offered a more complete assessment in her article published yesterday:

The main reason the vaccine was approved was to prevent cervical cancer, which kills 4,000 women a year in the United States alone. But various strains of HPV also cause disfiguring genital warts, anal and penile cancers and head and neck cancers. “We know that the later the cancer is discovered, the lower the chance of survival is,” David Hastings of the Oral Cancer Foundation told the committee, asking for a recommendation to add the vaccine to the standard schedule for boys. However, ACIP decided only to consider its use based on its ability to prevent genital warts.

Did the ACIP adequately factor in the clinically proven causal links between certain strains of HPV and potentially life-threatening oral cancers — which do not discriminate on the basis of sex? This seems important, particularly if, “The death rate for oral cancer is higher than that of cancers which we hear about routinely such as cervical cancer” (Oral Cancer Facts)?

A recent New York Times article reports that the committee will “take up the issue of the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing HPV-related male cancers at its next session in February, when more data should be available.”  But data has been available since 2007, when results of clinical studies were reported and the Oral Cancer Foundation issued a press release urging male HPV vaccination?

If the FDA believes Gardasil is safe and effective, then we deserve a more thorough explanation of why the vaccine’s potential to protect against oral cancers — in both men and women — is not reason enough for the federal advisory group to issue as strong a recommendation for male vaccination as for female vaccination.

My current favorite thing on the internet is the show Smart Girls at the Party, created by Amy Poehler, Meredith Walker, and Amy Miles.  This isn’t a new show—it’s been online since late 2008—but I’m just now finding out about it.  The show’s mission statement is to “celebrate extraordinary individuals who are changing the world by being themselves.”  And the people they celebrate are girls.

The eight episodes that make up the first season feature girls who dance, do yoga, and have rock bands, girls who write stories and garden, and girls who are sisters.  My favorite episode features Ruby, who is a feminist.

Ruby is adorably goofy.  She giggles, scratches her nose, draws a picture called “Make Your Mind Crazy,” and apparently can’t skateboard at all.  She enthusiastically explains feminism and sings a song she wrote—she is loaded with self-confidence and extraversion.  But she’s not the only kind of girl featured on the show.  Eleven-year-old Valentine is quiet and thoughtful as she explains her passion for community gardening.  Ten-year-old Kenaudra seems almost shy as she describes her praise dancing, but she leads the adult women in a dance.

It’s no surprise that this great idea has come from Amy Poehler, who is one of my favorite famous feminists.  In an interview with BUST magazine in 2006, she was talking about media representations of girls and women, and she said—among other fabulous things—“I’m over the weird, exhausted girl.  I’m over the girl that’s tired and freezing and hungry.  I like bossy girls, I always have.  I like people filled with life.  I’m over this weird media thing with all this, like, hollow-eyed, empty, party crap.”  So she’s created a show that highlights girls who are filled with life.  You can see that Poehler and her co-hosts, Walker and Miles, work hard to create a comfortable atmosphere for the girls so that they can express all their incredible funkiness.

These are amazing girls, but not because they’re, for instance, award-winning dancers or published writers.  This is not a show that seeks out The Most Amazing Girls in some competitive way.  Instead, Poehler interviews ordinary girls and through the interviews lets the girls reveal their thoughts, interests, and talents.  As a viewer, you’re struck by how cool these girls are—but not in a way that makes them out of reach.  This is part of what makes the show special.  Watching it, I think, “I know girls like that!  They should be on the show!”  And I hope that girls who watch it might think, “I can do that!  That’s like me!”  It’s inviting rather than distancing.  It’s creating a sense of community and a sense of possibility, as well as validating girls for the ordinary things that make them special.

The show’s website has a casting call for season 2, so if you know a girl who is changing the world by being herself, encourage her to submit her information to Smart Girls at the Party.

Damn. The Shriver Report, out in the morning, already sounds fantastic. CAP explains: “The Center for American Progress, in partnership with Maria Shriver, has broken new ground with the publication of The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything. By taking a hard look at how women’s changing roles are affecting our major societal institutions, from government and businesses to our faith communities, the report outlines how these institutions rely on outdated models of who works and who cares for our families, and examines how all these parts of the culture have responded to one of the greatest social transformations of our time.”

You can read Gloria Steinem’s early Women’s Media Center review–she likes Kimmel on men’s stake in equality, she worries that the 50/50 workplace hasn’t created a safe and just world just yet, she has high hopes for change. At Time Magazine, they’ve posted the Shriver Report survey results with the headline, “The Argument about Women Working Is Over.” In a skillfully conducted poll, 76% of men and 80% of women agree that women and men sharing the work force 50/50 is “positive for society.”

In the coming days, much will be said–and the media blitz looks fabulous (Time Magazine cover out Friday; CAP President John Podesta and Maria Shriver on Meet the Press Sunday, Maria Shriver on Today Monday – Wednesday, Heather Boushey on MSNBC on Tuesday, and god knows what else)–but here are two early points that I want to celebrate tonight.

First, the survey finds–and recognizes that it finds–much more similarity than difference between men and women across a host of items. Just one example: Men and women have very similar life goals. We value security, fulfilling work, and children to a similar degree. The widest margin of difference? Women value religion more so than men.

Second, I love the way the Center for American Progress identifies their project. CAP has located the focus on the great labor market transition of the late 20th century as a human issue, not a gendered issue. Women are the movers–in this case moving into the workforce–but the movement is about all of us, men and women, and how we as a working nation can arrange our lives humanely and effectively.

For all the data and analysis, visit CAP’s project page “Working Nation: How Women’s Progress is Reshaping America’s Family and the Economy.“

-Virginia Rutter

Today is Blog Action Day. Theme is climate change. Here are a few things to consider:

• Women die from natural disasters more. In the 2004 Tsunami, 80% of deaths were to women. In the 1991 Bangladesh cyclones, 90% of the 140,000 people who died were women. And in the aftermath of Katrina in 2005, African American women faced the most severe obstacles to survival.
• Women are 70-80% of the world’s farmers, and climate disturbances and drought are disastrous for them.
• Women in many developing countries spend three or more house a day fetching water: droughts intensify this effort.
• The impact of climate change is disproportionately affecting the world’s poor. Women are 70% of the world’s poor.

Think about this. The reason to care about climate change isn’t because it is gendered. Saying it is gendered isn’t a marketing gimmick to get you to care about the climate. But climate change is about the social world, and the social world is a place where men and women around the globe still have very different statuses and opportunities. The poverty aspect of it reminds us that climate change is a human problem.

And do this. Be a human being. Take action to reduce your carbon footprint. Take steps to raise awareness of the processes and impact of climate change–see this for more info. And let your members of Congress know that you want to see a strong version of the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Bill. (Here’s some optimism about it.)

And, your bonus round…here’s some info for raising awareness of the processes and impact of climate change. Barbara Sutton, a sociologist at University at Albany, SUNY, put together a fabulous list of sources — books, fact sheets, articles, organizations, websites — on gender and climate change. Check it out.

–Virginia Rutter

It seems like every other story in the past month had a science grrl at its core. Some were good, some not so much. I honestly couldn’t make up my mind on which story to write about, so I’ll write a little about all of them:

• Elinor Ostrom is the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics. The best part of her story? That her high school advisor told her that she couldn’t take trigonometry because she was a girl. It’s been quite some time, but if that advisor is still alive, I hope they give her a call to apologize. Otherwise, girls take note. My high school advisor was horrible my freshman year, so I switched. If you don’t feel supported, find someone else to talk to!
• Ostrom topped off what has been a banner year of women winning the Nobel. We had the first time two women won a Nobel together (in medicine). The advisor-former graduate student pairing makes my heart a flutter. Now that’s Sisterhood NOT Interrupted! In addition, Ada Yonath won in Chemistry.
• The motive for the murder of Annie Le is still to be revealed, but for me it doesn’t take much to see this crime as a possible crime against women in science. While I was still pondering the role that gender in the lab played in the crime, another woman was attacked in a lab. Sadly women in science history holds one huge dark chapter: In 1989 a man massacred 14 women as he “fought feminism” in Canada.
• In animation land, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is telling young girls to not dumb themselves down and embrace their geekdom. My husband took our six-year-old daughter to see this movie while I was out of town over the weekend. She’s certainly not dumbing herself down…yet…but my money is on the fact that she’ll remember that the main character’s dad dies rather than she should be herself.
• Considering the high participation of women in environmental science and public health, we could see more women winning Nobels if some new awards are added in the future.
• And while she does fall under science FICTION, I think that Octavia Butler deserves to close out this post. Her novels paint a bleak picture for our future, but the way to avoid most of it are also laid out in her novels. She uses science to craft her stories, even in her last unfinished story arc on vampires science is a huge character. And now the Huntington Library is where her papers will be stored (PDF link). I eagerly await a biography on this genius who was taken from us way too soon.

If anywhere in the vicinity, please spread the word!

ASU Women of the World lecture features authors and activists Oct. 13 (that’s TODAY)

“Changing the World: Feminism in Action Generation to Generation” with panelists Gloria Feldt, Maria Teresa Kumar, Courtney Martin and Brittany Collins

The WomenGirlsLadies intergenerational panel brings a fresh conversation among diverse feminist authors and activists to this annual event. Free and open to the public.

Where: Memorial Union, Arizona Ballroom, #221
Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
When: Tuesday, Oct. 13, 7:00 p.m.

(I miss you, WGLs!)

From our friend over at noapparentmotive.org: Here’s some info about the Domestic Workers United Celebration Campaign–because there are lots of ways to get it done but they should all involve respect and fair labor standards. Per noapparentmotive.org,

DWU is an organization of nannies, housekeepers, and elderly caregivers in New York working for respect and fair labor standards for domestic workers. In less than a decade, the DWU has built a membership of over 2,300 workers and won almost a half a million dollars in unpaid wages for domestic workers.

DWU has recently launched a campaign to recruit “donor members” to help sustain their work through these tough economic times. The donor campaign celebration will be held on October 29 from 6:30pm to 9:30pm at the offices of SEIU Local 32BJ, 101 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor. (A flyer with full details here.) You can use the pledge form if you’d like to help, but can’t make it on the day.

A recent article in Signs: A Journal of Women in Culture and Society (you can check out the abstract here) asks: “As the boundary between family and market changes to accommodate the entry of women into the labor market, who will assume these women’s family‐welfare work?” The authors use an analysis of labor in the US and Sweden to conclude, “Rather than blaming women who hire housecleaners, progressives should aim instead at elevating the status of this labor.” That’s nice work.

–Virginia Rutter