Robyn Urback tackles the same issue I addressed yesterday:

It’s quite reasonable to suggest that Taylor’s shirt wasn’t exactly the most professional choice of clothing for an interview, but I’ll let his employer reprimand him for that. It’s less reasonable to suggest that a shirt — a shirt — can drive women away from pursuing careers in science and technology… Taylor’s critics have also claimed that his clothing creates a toxic work environment for women. That may be true; again, I have no idea. But I’d wager it’s more toxic to suggest that women are so frail, of such feeble resolve, that they can be derailed from scientific careers by a printed T-shirt. […]

Whatever point Taylor’s critics are trying to make about workplace social climate is being overshadowed by how ridiculous the whole thing seems: man achieves remarkable scientific feat, social justice warriors complain about his T-shirt. The unintended consequence is that it reinforces all the negative stereotypes about privileged Western feminists; that they are humourless, hysterical and forever sweating the small stuff, with few “real” issues of equality left to worry about.

The outrage over Matt Taylor’s wardrobe will certainly change people’s actions; I assume most scientists will stick to a jacket and tie from now on. But will it change perceptions of feminists; this fury over Taylor’s error — ill-timed, and ill-delivered as it was? I’d say certainly not. Indeed, I suspect it will do just the opposite.

Oh, Western feminism. Find your way home again. There are some battles – real battles – for you to fight.

In May, I released a long sigh of frustration over “feminist” fights against “sexist” dress code policies which prevent girls from showing their black bra straps at school. I should also note that dramatic eye rolling accompanied the sighing. I’m not going to re-hash how much of the “feminist” debate over dress codes is rather ridiculous. There’s a good article by Trent Horn which examines the fallacies involved in the “dress code debates.” I’ll let Horn do the talking.

Rather than telling society that women need to kill their children in order to be equal, or arguing that high school girls must be allowed to show their bra straps in order to experience equality, perhaps as feminists we could chose to fight other battles. And perhaps we could teach our daughters, those who are organizing rallies and talking to the press about their ‘right’ to wear short shorts at school, about real human rights violations and sexism being experienced by women. We could help them focus their energies on calling for change that would save women’s lives and protect them from abuse. What a thought.

The following articles raise practices or trends that feminists could call out, and encourage others to join their fight. Some feminists are already raising their voices in support of women and girls affected by the atrocities and practices mentioned in the articles below. I hope that those women fighting for the right to wear short shorts in Western high schools feel compelled to refocus their energies.

These three stories were published in the last few days:

Child marriages draw scrutiny from Ottawa: “The most recent report by New York-based Human Rights Watch interviewed 135 girls and women across Tanzania and concluded that the practice of forced marriage – involving girls as young as seven in some cases – was causing serious harm because of gaps in the country’s child protection system.”

Fighting Female Genital Mutilation: “Egyptian government figures put the rate of female genital mutilation among women ages 15 to 49 at 91 percent. Among teenagers 15 to 17, it is 74 percent.”

Winnipeg conference to examine ‘pornification’ of kids: “The message to girls is that the way to show they’re liberated is to just take it. Whether someone feels any pleasure is irrelevant in a pornified context.”

These stories make the black bra strap fights look rather silly, don’t they?

photo credit: Tamara Álvarez via photopin cc

This is a message you don’t hear very much anymore: men and women need to take equal responsibility for their actions.

From Rosemary Bottcher, in her essay, Feminism: Bewitched by Abortion, which was published in 1987:

Women who think they can’t be equal without their abortions forget that the law expects and requires that a man provide for his children, even though doing so may cause him much inconvenience. A man cannot demand that he be excused from his duty because his career might suffer. He can’t say, “I’m not ready for children,” or “I have enough already,” or “I don’t want that child.” He knew what he was doing when he did it and he should expect to be held accountable. Men are expected to be mature, and the mark of maturity is the willingness to accept the consequences of one’s actions, even though doing so may cause sacrifice and even hardships. Women who want equality can demand no less of themselves.

Rather, we now hear that men and women should be equally irresponsible for their actions.

From Elizabeth Brake, in her essay, Fatherhood and Child Support: Do Men Have a Right to Choose?, published in 2005:

The main point will be that if women’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a resulting child.

It seems that we’re willing to sacrifice ourselves and our children in the name of sexual autonomy. We’re killing our children through abortions, shirking our responsibilities as adults and parents, and forfeiting our character, just to ensure that we can have sex any time with anyone. We do this in order to pretend that there are no life-changing consequences that can result from each sexual encounter, such as pregnancy and STDs.

Crazy charting of a natural family planning method, see photo. It’s not always easy, but it’s better than the alternatives. And what it does is make a couple aware of their fertility, which is dictated by the woman’s fertility, because of the way biology works. In this article, a man testifies to the benefits. Imagine that. One of them being that you could actually get to know your wife:

Hormonal contraceptives have this weird effect of putting women in an artificial state, as if they were pregnant all the time. It flattens the normal ebb and flow of hormones and thus of their energies and moods. They’re not themselves. Imagine yourself on steroids all the time. If she’s been on the pill ever since you’ve known her, you may have yet to meet your spouse.

He then goes on to itemize other benefits of natural family planning for men. I like the way he ends:

I’m not in your shoes, and the information I presented above can easily be picked apart. I realize it’s a quick overview of a complex topic. All I am suggesting is for you men to consider this option very seriously and don’t be absentminded or passive about the topic. There is a better world out there, and it’s worth checking out.

The bold struck me as critical. Getting pregnant or pregnancy prevention is not, should not be, the sole purview of the woman. The Pill and “my body, my choice” has made it so for the current era. It’s a burden for many women, and that burden ought to be shared. I’ve often wondered about men who are so adamant they don’t want children… are they equally adamant about remaining chaste? Because guess what? One thing (sex) leads to another (children), often enough.

Let’s start the morning off with some controversial and depressing news:

Unfortunately for the more than 10 million American women who take oral contraceptives, hardly anyone reported that the World Health Organization also classified the combination Pill as a carcinogen. In fact, the Pill continues to be the most popular method of contraception in this country, particularly for women under the age of 30.  A little over a year after the World Health Organization announced its findings, the prestigious medical journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings published an article called “Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis.” This analysis assessed the results of 34 studies conducted since 1980 to examine the possible association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer risk in women younger than 50, and came to following conclusion: “Consistent with the recent International Agency for Research on Cancer classification of OCs as group 1 carcinogens, this meta-analysis suggests that OCs are associated with an increase in premenopausal breast cancer risk, especially among women who use OCs before FFTP [first full-term pregnancy].”

Even more recently, a 2009 study funded by the National Institutes of Health found that “a year or more of oral contraceptive use was associated with a 4.2-fold increased risk of triple-negative breast cancer for women 40 and under.

This spring marks the 55th anniversary of the birth control pill. I think it’s a good opportunity to talk about the link between the pill and breast cancer. If we’re truly pro-woman, we need to be pro-informed consent. Being left in the dark about the pill’s very real side effects isn’t empowering or liberating.

I came across Brain, Child Magazine this summer. Someone sent me a link to an adoption article they published, and I was hooked. The article was a quality piece and I was challenged by what I read.

Today I received my first email newsletter and it included a link to this article. I think it’s important to read the author’s note before reading the article itself:

I recently held my first grandchild in my arms and looked at his mother—my daughter and the subject of this essay. Although we talk constantly, there is a point at which no words can convey what we have been through. My daughter is experiencing her own version of that incredible connection of mother to child. Seeing her as a strong, loving adult fills me with a hope that I want to pass on to other mothers with troubled children. With my daughter’s encouragement, I have submitted this essay for publication.

I’m not sure why I’m sharing this article. It’s a sad read. It’s not about abortion. It’s about a mom dealing with a reality she never thought she would have to face with and for her daughter. It ends on a hopeful note.

I take a deep breath and ask why. She fiddles with her hair and says she is tired of part-time, minimum wage jobs that require the intellectual capacity of a mentally challenged baboon. She says she has an obligation to strike a blow for Third Wave Feminism. She says she is morally responsible to use her sexuality as a weapon against the property owning capitalist powers that would subdue the proletariat. She says this is something she has to do—to feel in control. She says she doesn’t know why.

We’re living in such a broken world.

Oh Satire. How I love Thee. Courtesy of The Onion, a biting look at the ridiculousness of egg freezing as a supposed perk:

As part of their efforts to accommodate women who wish to delay parenthood, Facebook officials announced Wednesday that the company will offer financial assistance for female employees to freeze their newborn children.