research

Judy Bloom "Forever"While each candidate in Wednesday night’s debate gave his stump speech on Roe v. Wade, only Obama mentioned the need for better sex education in the school system, and that was quickly skedaddled by a change in topic. Put another way, as politicians are such fans of doing, the two candidates spent more time discussing whether Obama did or did not launch his campaign in Bill Ayers’ living room than discussing how they plan to battle rising teen pregnancy and STD rates. As Amy Schalet pointed out in a Washington Post article last week, “High teen pregnancy rates result in part from our inability to talk honestly and wisely about teen sexuality.” So where are we left if our two presidential candidates are never asked to talk about it at all?

Of course, part of the problem is that very few people besides the Religious Right, NARAL Pro-Choicers, and well, those who read this blog, are asking these questions. Sure, there are other things on our mind: the economy, Iraq, etc. But our general populace’s inability to ask basic, rational questions about the way their children are taught about sex in schools, and therefore their ceding of these decisions to a minority base, speaks to larger problems in our culture: an inability to approach sex in an individualized and normalized way.

Dagmar Herzog talks in Sex in Crisis about the anxiety with which America adults in the twenty-first century approach sex. In the nineties, most Americans seemed relatively satisfied with their sex lives. Sure it wasn’t always the best sex ever; sometimes there was boredom, or lack or desire, or lack of orgasm, or any of the other minor dissatisfactions that are normal in a human sexuality that can only be as perfect as the person experiencing it. Sometimes there were fears about love and emotional connection. But of course, again, why wouldn’t there be? Now, with articles and drug campaigns asking you whether you are experiencing a tepid orgasm, erectile dysfunction, porn addiction, you name it, American adults are constantly told to compare their sexuality to others and ask themselves, “Is there something wrong with my sex life?” As Herzog writes:

What is going on is an ideological assault on something pretty fundamental: the most intimate and personal aspects of sex. It worms its way into the core of the psyche by playing on the imperfections and emotional confusion that so often accompany sex. Rather than helping people get comfortable with the unruliness of desire, the current trendy idea is to freak people out.

Now, if adults are experiencing this level of anxiety about their own sexual lives, imagine how such over-scrutiny and neuroticism is translated to a population who has long been subject to excessive sexual observation in America. If sex can is psychologically and emotionally damaging for adults, given the especial “unruliness” of the teenage sex drive and a whole life during which this psychological damage can manifest itself, it must be doubly so for teens.

But what if we began to treat not only adult sexuality, but teenage sexuality, as normal? In a qualitative study comparing conceptions of teenage sexuality in the Netherlands and the United States, Amy Schalet documents how American adults dramatize teenage sexuality as hormone-raging, out-of-control, and irrational. (Part of the study is published as “Must We Fear Adolescent Sexuality? at Medscape General Medicine.) Dutch parents, on the other hand, recognize teenage relationships as legitimate and work to normalize sexuality.

Guess which country has the lower teenager pregnancy and STD rates.

more...

Debbie’s post on presidential masculinity in the XY Files got me thinking. My FSC colleague Lisa Eck studies hybridity and postcolonial literature: at the gym the other day, she noted that in our public discourse we don’t have much language to talk about “hybrid” status (some day it won’t be a buzz word: it means multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic). Obama=black candidate, McCain=white candidate is how it goes. We don’t know how to listen, observe, or theorize (eek!) about hybridity. So as I was thinking about what you, and Jackson, and Ellen Goodman, and others have been talking about, I thought, wow, Obama offers a kind of hybrid gender performance to go with his hybrid racial identity, and it is working damn well!

Obama isn’t hepped up on cartoon masculinity like McCain…and yet it doesn’t make sense to think of him as using “feminine” styles in any definitive or exclusive sense. (For cartoon femininity, see Palin, Sarah.) Finally, he certainly is not androgynous in that misfit, uncomfortable “Pat” sense (remember Pat on Saturday Night Live?) But his repertoire is wide, and he is using all sorts of masculine and feminine skills that are working well–and he is avoiding the ones that don’t.

Maybe with the rise of Obama (and other leaders like him?!?!?) we will have the opportunity to sharpen our ability to notice how the plot unfolds when we are observing a candidate who contains and is directly influenced by multiple statuses all at once. And that goes for race as well as gender.

One way that I think about Obama’s successful gender expression comes from social psychology. Research on masculinity and femininity shows that children who are androgynous–that is they use skills that are typically associated with being a boy and those associated with being a girl–have greater social intelligence. They are more effective socially, better liked, more accomplished, and more appealing as partners. When you think about the gender (or race) puzzles unfolding in front of us, remember that what you are seeing is not triumph of masculinity or femininity so much as the triumph of something new, something that works.
 

To make up for the quiet over here today, I bring you a late-night newsbreaking post from our very own Virginia Rutter. With all the chaos down on Wall Street these days, I’m finding it hard to maintain a sense of the larger larger picture. Virginia offers us that. Read it, and, well, weep. -GWP


How ya doin’?

by Virginia Rutter, PhD

Framingham State College


There’s an awesome new report out from John Schmitt and the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), called “The Reagan Question.” It starts like this:


In his closing remarks during the final presidential debate of 1980, Ronald Reagan famously asked the American people: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”


The CEPR report reprises the question for us today. And, besides having higher blood pressure and a lot of irritatsia, CEPR tells us, on 23 out of 25 economic indicators, we are doing worse.


Among the indicators is employment for women—which is down. So is employment for men. But check this out:

Inflation rate—up from 3.3 to 5.4 percent.

Unemployment rate—up from 4.0 to 6.1 percent.

Uninsured—we got millions more now.

Poverty—we got millions more now.

Personal savings—that we’ve got a lot less of now.


Even the good news isn’t really good news: Family income is better now than before, by a whopping 262 dollars after 8 years. That’s not the irritating part. Here’s the irritating part. Under Bush, our productivity is the other indicator that is up. Our productivity grew by 22 percent in the past 8 years. In 2000, our productivity was up just 16%. That’s good! (Our “fundamentals”—the workers—per McCain.) So, we have become more productive! We’re doing great! But wait, where are the profits? Where are all the advantages? Not with us. Check out “real wage growth”: under real wage growth wages were up in 2000 8.2 percent. In 2008, wages were up 1.8 percent. Feh. Feh. Feh.


Do take a look at this report. It is carefully constructed (lots of great citations to the data at the end) and above any of the particulars, you get the point. How ya doin’? Not so great.

GWPenner Elline Lipkin is trying to collect girls’ responses, as well as responses from their mentors, for her forthcoming book with Seal Press on Girls Studies by October 15th. Please take the survey for girl mentors, pass it on, and pass the other survey links onto the girls in your life!”

Survey for Girls Mentors

Survey for Girls ages 6-10

Survey for Girls ages 11-18

It’s my delight, as always, to bring you this guest post from GWP regular Virginia Rutter, prof of sociology at Framingham State College, to whom I send out a big batch of xxoo! -Deborah


At the American Sociological Association meeting this past weekend, Pepper Schwartz, Barbara Risman, and I spoke on a panel on gender and the media: The case study of the “opt out” story—covered here at GWP recently—helped get everyone on the same creepy page about how reportorial anecdotes get transformed into a mythic cultural truth…until the facts finally get the light of day.


Quick recap on opt-out: In the opt out story, the narrative was that women were choosing to leave the work force and join the mommy track. Heather Boushey and

others did the research to show that first, the work force is the mommy track—more than ever before mothers of small children—college-educated even more so than others–go to work. But there’s more: our crash and burn economy currently means that women, like men, are getting laid off and losing jobs. Women aren’t opting out, there are fewer jobs for them, just like men, to opt in. Evidence trumps myth.


But, as I reminded the little crowd at our ASA talk, there is a lot that goes right in our media in terms of making gender a mainstream topic, not an academic buzz word. The women and science debate set off by remarks Lawrence Summers made at Harvard has caused us to look explicitly at gender bias (thanks Larry!) and then of course to detect it in our imperfect public conversations about it. Hillary Clinton’s campaign also brought about a platform for everyone to think about gender. The thinking is sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes ugly (check out the Women’s Media Project’s sexism sells video), but it is mainstream, as this public editor essay from the Times shows us.


So, on Sunday, it felt good to read Jennifer Finney Bolan’s op-ed in the New York Times on “The X-Y Games.” She gave us a textbook lesson on gender and sex. She reports that:


Last week, the organizers of the Beijing Olympics announced that they had set up a “gender determination lab” to test female athletes suspected of being male. “Experts” at the lab will evaluate athletes based on their physical appearance and take blood samples to test hormones, genes and chromosomes.


Bolan, who is an English Professor at Colby College, provides a history of sex tests at the Olympics (nudity worked in 776 BC, ocular assessment was the tool in 1968, and now we do chromosomal tests). The stories she tells are fascinating. But the lesson is crucial: even sex—what we think of as our biological profile as “xx” or “xy”—doesn’t fit neatly into boxes, what with chromosomal anomalies and transgender and transsexual people. This reality with respect to biological sex reminds us that gender, too, doesn’t fit neatly into boxes. (Pepper Schwartz and I write about this in our book, The Gender of Sexuality.) We can’t, for example, determine whether someone is a man or woman by what they wear, who they love, whether they have babies or whether they can have babies or whether they like babies.


Bolan gave us a great lesson until her conclusion. She argues gender isn’t what’s on the outside, it is on the inside, which means it is about how we feel and think about ourselves. But, remember the opt-out narrative? Here’s the deal: no woman has to feel any particular way about herself or her identity in order to be subject to 1. cultural narratives that place her in a box or ascribe meaning to what she’s doing or 2. economic forces that make her more likely than men to be impoverished or to earn a lower wage or 3. a whole bunch of other social forces that mean that gender is not just about identity but about group membership and social class. Same for the boys: No man has to feel a particular way about himself in order to be subject to 1. the threat of violence based on homophobia or 2. workplace sanctions—formal and informal—for using family leave for domestic caregiving.


But the bigger lesson is this: we’re talking about gender—not in code (at least some of the time its not in code) but in direct, clear, and therefore debatable terms. We’re not just talking about it in academia (which from my academic point of view is also a great place to talk, just different). We’re talking about it all over the place. And learning as we go along. So give me xx/xy and I’ll give you xxoo.

My organizational alma mater, the National Council for Research on Women, has two open positions and I’ve been wanting to help them spread the word. If you or someone you know seems right for these, please let them know.

POSITION 1 – Director of Research and Programs

The Director of Research and Programs will report to the President and will take primary responsibility for overseeing and implementing the organization’s programmatic and research agendas and its policy-oriented programs, including working groups, convenings, research reports and relevant advisory committees. A primary responsibility will include bringing the work of the Council and its network of Member Centers to inform public debate and policies, and manage and oversee the Council’s rapid response function. The Director of Research and Programs will also oversee the work with the Council’s 116 Member Centers. This will include developing stronger relationships among the centers, organizing conferences and convenings, assisting centers with identifying funding sources for their research, and providing technical assistance where needed. The Director will also work with and manage relations with relevant Board Committees.

The Director of Research and Programs will also help provide vision and strategic direction to the Council’s programs, and help to ensure the organization’s fiscal health through program-related fundraising, proposal writing, internal and external communications, and the use of technology to meet the needs of its various members, and other partners. The Director will also ensure that diversity and inclusion are core values and a strong component of all our strategic goals. The position also entails managing, training, and supervising staff and interns.

This is a unique opportunity to play a central role in shaping the work of a prestigious organization that is making substantial and significant contributions to the women’s research movement. The new Director will be expected to strengthen the programmatic focus and direction of this growing organization and improve the ability of the Council to implement quality programs. The ideal candidate will be detail-oriented, self-motivated, informed, committed to success, deadline-driven and a team player capable of and committed to contributing to the senior management team’s strategic thinking about the Council’s future direction. She/he will also have excellent writing and research skills and the ability to translate research across various arenas. A social science or public policy background is preferred.

Ideal Experience and Qualifications
We seek a sophisticated professional with five years of experience in program development and management, preferably in organizations that share the Council’s commitment to women’s empowerment and to using research to promote social change. The ideal candidate will be expected to have general familiarity with the broader areas of women’s research and policy related issues. S/he will also have the managerial and strategic planning acumen to accomplish policy program goals and objectives. In addition, the candidate will have the following qualifications:

· Self-starter with a demonstrated ability to identify priorities, work independently, and prioritize multiple activities and tasks;
· Extensive knowledge of public policies at the state and federal level
· Intellectual flexibility to engage a dynamic array of issues;
· Successful experience translating vision and ideas into working programs, creating networks and collaborations, and building partnerships with people of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, personalities, and talents;
· Proven track record in creating and implementing programs dealing with issues related to the Council’s mission and a demonstrated commitment to social change;
· Track record and experience with international issues and issues related to race, class, ethnicity, and other markers of difference is highly desirable;
· Successful experience managing or coordinating a research agenda/program; overseeing and coordinating the activities of advisors, consultants, and other participants;
· Expertise in developing publications, positions papers, and reports; organizing meetings, conferences, and other events; overseeing logistics and programs;
· Excellent verbal and written communication skills and the ability to represent the Council to a broad public;
· Credibility and experience to connect the Council to resources and opportunities outside the organization;
· An MA or Ph.D. in a related field (public policy, law, human rights, political and/or social sciences). Some experience in the nonprofit sector is desired.

POSITION 2 – temporary, part-time Researcher

The temporary, part-time researcher will be responsible for gathering critical data and research at the national level and in battleground states on the BIG FIVE issues*, especially data produced by our network of Member Centers and partners. The researcher should have the ability to identify multiple and reliable sources and develop fact sheets that will lay the groundwork for position papers that will be developed by the lead researcher, under whose supervision the temporary researcher will work. The content gathered will be a centerpiece of the campaign and will be used by advocates, thought leaders, and stakeholders to amplify the voices of women and girls in the upcoming election cycle. This is a Temporary, Part-Time position that could expand into additional opportunities, depending on the candidate’s abilities, and the Council’s needs.

*The BIG FIVE Campaign will bring together the Council’s 117 Member Centers, and strategic partners, to interject a gender lens and voice in the presidential campaign and the next Aministration. Specifically, the campaign aims to influence national debates and shape public policies that directly impact the lives of women and girls by highlighting the critical issues that face them. These issues encompass economic security, health, immigration, violence, and education.

Responsibilities
· Undertake in-depth research for the BIG FIVE campaign focusing on economic security, immigration, health, violence and education.
· Synthesize data and develop fact sheets for each of the BIG FIVE issue areas.
· Work under the direction of the lead researcher.

Qualifications:
· A Bachelors degree, with preference given to Ph.D. candidates or those with a Masters in a relevant field (e.g. public policy, government, economics, health, immigration, women’s studies, education)
· 2-4 years research experience
· Excellent research skills, preferably in a non-profit environment
· Attention to detail and excellent organizational, written, and oral communication skills
· Strong electronic and word processing skills including, website maintenance (CMS, Dreamweaver), Constant Contact, email campaigns, blogs and on-line social networking. Working knowledge of Donor Perfect, HTML, PowerPoint, and Excel ia plus
· Ability and willingness to work in a diverse environment
· Exceptional interpersonal communication skills and ability to network comfortably and effectively in both public and private sectors
· Flexibility, patience, a willingness to take on multiple tasks, efficiency, a friendly disposition, sense of humor, and problem-solving skills
· Interest and commitment to women’s rights and feminist issues

Applications will be reviewed as received. Applications, which will not be reviewed without a cover letter describing your interest and qualifications, your resume (in Word or PDF format), a writing sample, and salary history, should be sent to: jobs@ncrw.org. In order to expedite the internal sorting and reviewing process, please write your name (Last, First, job title) as the only contents in the subject line of your e-mail.

For a fuller (!) description of the positions and who they’re looking for, please email the Council at ncrw@ncrw.org.


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.

NCRW Plenary – Post #7

Ok, it’s Q&A time—generally the best part of any panel IMHO. And here we have Sandi Morgen taking the mike, expressing deep frustration about the “down tone” of this panel. We have an African American running for President, people! Applause. Says Morgen, “Women’s organizations that take a down tone right now are not helping to build the coalition that we need right now to build.”

Kim Gandy responds, asking for recognition that it’s only been a few days, and that there’s a group of people who are hurting out there (HRC supporters), and in a little bit of mourning—just as it would be in the case of the reverse. She calls for an understanding of that. And then she references a column she wrote last night about her daughters who were too young to pay attention to the 2004 election, but who were engaged in this one. Says Gandy, “They saw a woman and an African American run against each other for President. For them, forever, that’s what a Presidential election is. That’s who runs for President. My daughters will grow up never knowing a time when only white men could be considered serious candidates for president. And that is truly groundbreaking.”

Interesting convo about race and gender follows….Feminism’s uncomfortable history with race….How did women of color make their choices in this election?….An audience member says that Frederick Douglas was the only one of all the people at Seneca Falls to truly address a human rights agenda and frame women’s rights as human rights….

Ok, I’ve got to sign off. ‘Til tomorrow!

NCRW Plenary – Post #6

Marie Wilson, The White House Project, who has a history of being a good trend predictor, predicts that this is the cutting edge of the women’s time. (Agree? Disagree?) Snippets:

“This election has been research on the hoof, if you will.”

“Things have changed permanently because of HRC’s run. To begin with, we’ll never have to poll the question ‘would you vote for a woman president?’ again. Because they did!”

“If HRC had come out of the gate talking about bringing people together, it wouldn’t have worked for her. It worked for Obama. But HRC had to come out ‘tough’ and ‘competent.’ She got into fierce mode—‘I will fight for you.’”

“The sexism in America came flat out. So now at least you can talk about it. That’s always a step forward.”

“Because of HRC, three-year-old women are talking about politics.”

“We need research. The Humphrey Center in Minnesota is doing research now on a new women’s political movement, and that we need to do much more.”

NCRW Plenary – Post #5

Diana Salas, Women of Color Policy Network at NYU, is working to teach young women of color about how to influence policy and become “research advocates,” teaching them, in other words, to collect data in ways that are truly representative. Snippets:

“We need to frame our issues in terms of a human rights agenda, and human development—the notion everyone has the right to live in dignity.”

“The abortion rights message has not been working for women of color.”

“We cannot ignore the issues of women who are too young to vote.”