Richard E. Nisbett, a psychology professor from the University of Michigan, wrote an op-ed that appeared in the New York Times last weekend about the importance of funding educational programs that really work. All this stimulus package talk has breathed new life into an old conversation: how do we measure the effectiveness of educational interventions?

Nisbett insists that we not overlook the little things, namely boosting children’s self-esteem through high expectations. He writes:

Consider, for example, what the social psychologists Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson have described as “stereotype threat,” which hampers the performance of African-American students. Simply reminding blacks of their race before they take an exam leads them to perform worse, their research shows.

Fortunately, stereotype threat for blacks and other minorities can be reduced in many ways. Just telling students that their intelligence is under their own control improves their effort on school work and performance. In two separate studies, Mr. Aronson and others taught black and Hispanic junior high school students how the brain works, explaining that the students possessed the ability, if they worked hard, to make themselves smarter. This erased up to half of the difference between minority and white achievement levels.

In the age of Barack and Hillary, this is exciting news. The days of “you can’t be what you can’t see” are over for little girls or black kids destined for positions of powerful leadership.

But it’s also got me thinking of other implications for the “stereotype threat.” Is part of why young women are so plagued by eating and anxiety disorders that we are constantly reminded of a stereotypical version of ourselves (emotional, overwhelmed, perfectionist)? Would we be healthier if we were told that our quality of life was, indeed, under our control? How can we pull apart the cultural associations of femaleness and self-sacrifice/internalized anger/stress?

I struggle with this because I wrote a book that traces some of the contemporary causes of perfectionism behavior and disordered eating and exercise. Is Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: How the Quest for Perfection is Harming Young Women inherently reinforcing an unhealthy perfect girl paradigm just by exploring it? It’s a pretty paralyzing thought, especially for a  feminist and cultural critic. I’ve always believed strongly in the importance of speaking tough truths, naming things, giving voice to pain. But what if, by mirroring the most painful aspects of my generation’s struggle, I’ve inflamed it?

Where is the balance?

–Courtney Martin

Earlier this month, my colleagues at the National Council for Research on Women asked advocates and scholars working on issues affecting girls’ lives–along with girls themselves–to address the national conversation on girl’s needs, desires, and rights. What would they like to see changed? Some links to their responses, below.

Navigating Girlhood to Womanhood from New Moon’s Nancy Gruver

Twelve-year Old Calls for Better Educational Opportunities for Girls, by Hannah

Dear Arne Duncan—Not Everyone Learns the Same Way! by Sylvie, grade 5

Young Obama Campaign Worker Wants Equal Opportunities to Pursue Her Dreams, by Ashley, age 14

With New President, Young Girl Sees Chance for the End of Racism, by Nkem, age 10

Discrimination Can Happen “Anywhere, Anytime, to Anyone”, by the Girls Editorial Board of New Moon

See Dad, by Joe Kelly

Lyn Mikel Brown Counters the “Mean Girl” Onslaught with Strength-Based Programs

Allison Kimmich Advises Obama to Connect Policy to Parenting

GIRLS FORUM: R-E-S-P-E-C-T, by Courtney Macavinta, founder and CEO of Respect Rx

GIRLS FORUM: Kathy Cloninger–Developing Girls of Courage, Confidence, and Character

A day late, but on behalf of the whole Girl with Pen community I wanted to wish a smashing, happy 40th to our founder and inspiration, Deborah Siegel. Deborah rocked some truly glamorous locks (see pic of us to the left) at a fabulous party that proved that women really can find common ground across generations– at least in having a good time drinking wine and eating chocolate cake. 🙂 Happy Birthday, Deborah!!!

And yes, even though I have now walked on the earth for four decades, I am still wearing my hair in pigtails in this shot.  As my grandmother might have said, oh dear.

I had SO much fun on my 40th this weekend–utterly surrounded by friends and chocolate and love.  I’m still glowing. Thanks, everyone!!

Naked women. What’s not to love, right?
Well…Let’s talk about Frank Cordelle.

Cordelle is a photographer with a long-running exhibit he calls The Century Project. It’s a collection of pics — nude girls and women ages birth through 100. (Get it? One hundred years of naked women = The Century Project.) The line-up for 2009 includes shows at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, Rhodes College in Memphis, and the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA.

The pics are supposedly a celebration of the naked female body in a variety of shapes, sizes, races, and ages. Each photo comes with a little story about the featured female. Many of these “moving personal statements,” as Cordelle calls them, are first-person blurbs about overcoming abuse, eating disorders, etc.

Cordelle’s Mission Statement describes his exhibit as a project that “aims more generally to stimulate thought and discussion about subjects that are often taboo in our culture, or otherwise too personal, too painful.” An 8-year-old girl certainly has lots to tell us. But why does she have to do it in the nude?

Visual artist Karen Henninger comments, “if men REALLY got the issues, they would refrain — as in take a break — from female nudity. There is NO need for men to do female nudity — unless it SERVES them. It’s pretty much a mainstream art thing. Female nudity is acceptable and will get you attention. So much for art being a place of ‘creativity,’” Henninger says. Check out the Met. Or any other museum. As the Guerrilla Girls have noted for years, themes of female nudity melded with rape or sexual assault — regardless of how the art is intended — have been a constant theme in art history. Think Rubens’ Rape of Europa or Hayez’s Susannah at her Bath. Depicting women naked, vulnerable, or linked in some way to abuse has been “a constant way for women to be portrayed” in the art world Henninger comments.

But back to Cordelle.

The problem is not female nudity or female sexuality. The problem is that The Century Project uses naked female bodies, eating disorders, and abuse in ways that promote voyeuristic interest. While childhood nudity should be free and joyful, in our culture that’s a big challenge because girls are already hypersexualized at younger and younger ages. As a result we — as a culture — often don’t know how to see a naked female body (regardless of age) other than in sexualized terms. Is she available? Arousing? Sexually interesting? Or not?

I am anti-censorship. I’m a huge fan of feel-good sexual exploration and the freedom to accept our own bodies on our own terms.

The Century Project is not it.

It’s the same old-same old: girls’ and women’s naked bodies on display. I saw the exhibit and talked to the photographer. For the most part, the “moving personal statements” moved me to want to vomit. The exhibit visually exploited women and put their stories on display for no apparent productive end.

Check the photographer’s website and see what he has to say under the FAQ “Why Women?” I remain unconvinced that he gets the issues. Cordelle’s explanation for exhibiting naked female bodies reinforces assumptions about women as different and needing special attention or unique protection. There’s something really off about it. He puts girls and women on display while claiming concern for our well being. Really, Frank: Don’t.

And P.S., Therese Shechter (Trixie Films) has continued this convo over at the blog American Virgin. Drop by and take a look!

That’s right, sportsfans. Botox is now being used by men.

According to an article in Time magazine, “The number of men in the U.S. who paid to get a series of tiny injections in their face nearly tripled from 2001 to 2007–to 300,000, or about 7% of the total Botoxed population. And despite the recession, those numbers aren’t going down yet; one of the many things the laid-off cannot afford is to look their age.”

And now here’s an interesting tidbit:

“Men do, however, fret a lot more about the pain. ‘They get so jacked up worrying that it will hurt,’ says Botox enthusiast and nine-time Olympic gold medalist Mark Spitz. ‘Maybe that’s why women have babies and we don’t.'”

And speaking of which, one of my dear dear dear friends had her baby last night.  Welcome to the world, Baby Maxanne Evelyn!  And what does this have to do with Botox?  Hmm..how bout this: May you long stay away.  (Coming over to meet you, right now!)

Thank you, Laura Sabattini, as always, for the heads up.

I’ve got the cover story over at The Big Money (Slate’s money mag) today! It’s posted here: Love and Layoffs | The Big Money. Your comments over there would be most welcome!

And a humongous shout out to Marco, who is so bravely allowing me to use him as Exhibit A these days, in print.

We’ve been quiet over here today, I know.  I’ve been on deadline, but am now resurfacing.  I’m excited to bring you my new column over at Recessionwire.com: LOVE IN THE TIME OF LAYOFF: Take This Heart and Shove It. It’s a Valentine’s Day special in which I give my husband’s ex-employers a lil piece o’ my mind.

Have fun 🙂

And check out The Big Money tomorrow…I’ll see you there!

January 20, 2009 not only ushered in a new President, but a President who believes in science and wants to fund it. While I haven’t been in the lab in over a decade, my heart is still there, and I have been working on a daily basis for over ten years to convince more women to decide on a scientific research career.

The last few years I’ve had a tough time with this because the level of funding for science has dropped like a lead balloon. I have many reasons for wanting women to enter science or engineering, but one of them is that they can make up to $40,000 – $60,000 right out of college. Economic justice for women can’t happen if we continue to keep women segregated into low-paying jobs. In my insider/outsider status in the scientific community, I’ve seen more and more scientists fight over fewer and fewer dollars. It’s made me think: Is this really the place I wanted to send women?

The women I meet want to change the world with their science and engineering skills. They want to ease, if not eliminate, poverty in drought-stricken environments. They want to cure diseases that they watched their grandparents die from, that broke their parents’ hearts. So yes, of course, I still encourage them to keep moving forward and to chase their dreams. They will change the world.

As I write this, the economic stimulus package has just been passed in the Senate, though it may ultimately be shorn of some essential funding for science and education. Republicans criticized and wanted the removal of funds for the National Science Foundation, which supports much of the basic science that happens at colleges and universities where many of our future scientists and engineers are training. Apparently a number on the right side of the aisle don’t believe in or understand science enough to know that yes, science is stimulus and is shovel-ready. I’ll let my former research adviser, Mark Westneat, take it from here:

…scientific research is basically all about hiring people and buying stuff. NSF grants are not funding elite Ivory Tower endeavors — the money helps everyone. The primary line item in most research grants is salary for students, technicians, interns, post-doctoral scientists, and researchers. These are mostly young people who contribute fresh approaches and new ideas to the research while receiving training in science and technology. While these are not blue collar jobs, all institutions charge an overhead fee on federal grants that is used to fund operational costs, including administrative assistants, plumbers, electricians, and house-keeping staff to keep the research enterprise running. The remaining money is used to buy things, from high-end items such as computers, microscopes, DNA sequencers, and chemicals, to every-day items like office supplies and airline tickets. Most of these things are purchased from American companies and, in the case of my own institution, preferentially from local minority and woman-owned businesses. In addition, scientific institutions provide a significant portion of developmental aid at low cost, by training thousands of students and colleagues each year in developing countries.

In all reality, some of our great institutions of higher learning are putting off building maintenance in order to keep classes open and faculty employed. I’m sure that if those who criticized NSF funding as pork understood that science and education are shovel-ready projects, they would have thrown a few million to universities to fix deferred maintenance on buildings.

Here we are in a new administration, which clearly supports science, and yet we still have to deal with anti-science people who seek to cripple our colleges, universities, and museums from doing what they do best – research, teaching, and preparing a new generation of products and people to bring us economically and scientifically into a new frontier. Science and engineering bring us medical advances and the new gadgets that people line up for days before going on sale to buy. From the smallest iPod to the next Wii, there’s a lot of science and engineering, education and research, behind it. Ever seen the line outside the Apple store? That’s stimulus. And that’s an industry I could feel comfortable telling women to go into in order to derive all possible benefits. But clearly it’s still going to have to take some more Change around Washington to do.

I’m working on this week’s post for my column at Recessionwire.com — a Valentine’s Day Special — and just learned about yesterday’s profile of the site on CNN. I’m so tickled I just had to share:

See also latest coverage in Wired, Mediabistro, and Portfolio.

Go Recessionistas!