feminism

Here are some quick hits of issues on the Sex and Sensibility front that caught my eye this week:

1. When Sex and Politics Meet: Amy Schalet, whom Virigina referenced in her post on Juno and teenage love back in January, is at it again with a brilliant article in the Washington Post. This time she has a question for Sarah Palin:

Should public school students be taught that contraception and condoms can prevent unintended pregnancy and disease?

But beyond this, she addresses how parents should address the question of sexuality with their teenage children. A question near and dear to my heart, Schalet makes a great historical argument on the changing role of sexuality in young people’s lives:

Simply put, the circumstances and aspirations of young people have changed since the 1950s, but our society’s narratives about the place of sexuality and the nature of relationships do not reflect these changes. And we pay a price for that inability to talk realistically about teenage sexuality and love.

Of course, with all the hoopla around Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy. In my opinion, this is a topic that is off-bounds, in my opinion, in any facile understanding of Palin’s VP suitability, but totally in-bounds in questions of conservatives’ and republicans’ generally obtuse and unrealistic (read: abstinence only) approach to teenage sexuality and public sexual health education. And Schalet makes a valid point on this topic:

The Palins, of course, deserve credit for their public embrace of their eldest daughter, which shows that, ideology notwithstanding, parents still love their daughters even if they have sex. If that embrace allays fears that prompt girls to keep sex a secret from their parents, then the Republican Party may have, inadvertently, facilitated the honest conversations we need to move beyond the myth-only approach to adolescent sexuality.

Given Palin’s especial appeal for the conservative Christian base, I wonder whether Palin speaking openly and warmly about her unmarried daughter’s pregnancy does indeed represent a turning-point in public discourse on the realities of teenage sex and love.

2. And about those realities of sex and love: Part of what I love about the feminist blogosphere community is that it acts in many ways like the consciousness-raising groups of the 70s, except with a very different purpose and outcome. Instead of sharing lived experiences that make women realize we all have similar ideas and problems, what often happens is that we realize the diversity of the female experience.

This happened recently in the comments section of a post Courtney did at Feministing on whether it is feminist to demand a female orgasm. The discussion was extremely interesting, and even got a bit brutal with arguments on what a woman should or should not demand from a sexual partner, and whether we should even attempt to write such rules. I’m starting off with my comment and then a few other representative comments:

more...

Sex Politics and Sensibility: More on Morgan
by Kristen Loveland

Robin Morgan wrote an anti-Palin piece a couple of days ago entitled, “When Sisterhood is Suicide,” which initiated a debate both on Girl with Pen between Deborah and Courtney, and at Feministing between Deborah, Courtney, and the wide feminist world. Deborah loved the content of the piece, but Courtney argued that its sarcastic, snarky tone was alienating. First, let me say that tone matters. I watched the debates last night in a Brooklyn bar with nary a McCain supporter in sight. In that setting there wasn’t a doubt about it: Biden won. He was calm, substantive, and authoritative in his knowledge, and never once attacked Palin personally. The Brooklyn crowd laughed at Palin’s folksky “darn its.” “Gosh darnit gee golly joe,” mocked the guy at the end of the bar. Folksy and “nice” and not snarky, Palin’s tone may have been endearing to some crowds, but it wasn’t to mine.

So tone matters– but audience matters more. Who was Robin Morgan addressing in her piece? I didn’t get the sense that she was trying to reach across the aisle, that this was the opening salvo in a conversation that would end with some congenial beers at the local bar between Morgan and Joe Hockey Mom McSixpack. This is Robin Morgan, after all.
more...

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.

I’m excited and delighted to be part of this panel.

In case anyone is wondering where we got our name, it was inspired by the line from the Country and Western song by Ed Bruce (who also wrote such other classics as “Mamas, Don’t Let Your Babies to Grow up to Be Cowboys”) that goes like this, “There’s girls, and there’s women and there’s ladies. There’s yeses, there’s no’s and there’s maybes.” It makes me laugh every time I hear it. Here’s the whole song; it’s a good example of the C and W storytelling that endears itself to my Texas-born heart in spite of my feminist soul:

There was only me and her and him
The bar was giving last call so I thought I’d move on in
And I was slick and feeling like a man so I took the stool between ’em
And ordered one more round for me and her and him
I placed my arms across the back of her barstool
And I don’t remember what I said but at the time it sounded cool
She pushed her drink away and never looked at me
She just paid her tab tipped the man and left me sittin’ there alone with him
And he said there’s girls and there’s women and there’s ladies
There’s yes’es and there’s no’s and there’s maybe’s
There’s teasin’ and pleasin’ they start learnin’ when they’re babies
There’s girls and there’s women and there’s ladies
Well he pushed his old straw hat back and he grinned
And he said ain’t they all a mystery ha ha sonny it’s a sin
They’re all sittin’ on the world they’re tryin’ to win
Ah but you know I love a mystery
So let’s drink another round to you and me and them
He said there’s girls…There’s girls and there’s women…He said there’s girls…

Language usage is one of the most important elements of any conversation about women in the world today. When Hillary Clinton recently said about herself, “I’m your girl”, she stirred up a little dust. I tend to think we women have simply matured past the need to rail against the word once we had made it our own little joke and/or sign of mutual affection. We took its power back from men who in the past used it as a way to demean and infantilize us. I don’t know whether Hillary’s use of “girl” was contrived, but it strikes me as a bit of self-deprecating humor of the sort that candidates need to use from time to time to show they are human.

What do others think?