Saturday November 28, 2009
Black Friday came and went without my contributing significantly to the economy. But my 16-year-old daughter did some internet shopping, buying from the same youth-oriented clothing retailers she sees at the mall. Each online catalog showed items cleanly displayed against a white background. For Em, shopping online is about product, not about image. But we can all remember printed holiday catalogs from the past that sold much more than 'product.' They sold us a lifestyle, a fantasy world, and a dream of how the other half lives. Some even sold us 'image' in ways that skirted the edge.
My daughter Em is too young to remember, but six years ago one teen-clothing retailer published a paper catalog so sexist and controversial that several national groups threatened a boycott The retailer quickly pulled that catalog from the stores and eventually discontinued its publication.
Who was the retailer and what was the catalog some described as softcore porn? At the Gender Ads project, you can see the 2003 holiday catalog that featured topless women in layouts mimicking group sex, and find out more about the groups responsible for getting the catalog pulled. And at the National Review online, writer Ann Morse examines the controversy and what it took to get a major retailing chain to stop "deliberately aiming its porn and damaging lifestyle advice, not at dirty old men, but at kids."
Have you seen any particularly sexist ads or images this holiday season? Do you think the objectification of women in advertising is getting better...or worse?
Tuesday November 24, 2009
She hasn't even left the building yet...and she won't until September 9, 2011. But the announcement that Oprah is ending her syndicated TV show has every A-list talk show host (not to mention every wannabe and has-been) crawling out of the woodwork to say, "I can do that."
The most recent pitch to hit my inbox is from Paula Abdul, who tells the celebrity gossip TV show Extra, "I feel I would be really good at it. I have the ability to connect with people on a level....I've proven to pierce the heartstrings, but also to be celebratory and bring out the best in people."
I'm sorry Paula, but I'm cringing at the thought.
The thing is, Oprah never made it seem like it was all about her. Her success rests on her ability to convince us that it's all about the guests, the audience, and the viewers.
Before Oprah, TV talk show hosts were predominantly white, predominantly male, and if they were women, predominantly blonde and slender. Many of the shows were confrontational and the farthest thing from 'feel good' TV. At various times Oprah was up against Jerry Springer, Maury Povich, Phil Donahue, Sally Jesse Raphael, and the infamous Jenny Jones, whose show on secret crushes led one male guest to murder another after he claimed he was humiliated on national TV.
Oprah ran a slow and steady race with her eyes firmly fixed on the prize. She promoted her book club despite naysayers who said viewers watched -- they didn't want to read. She went positive at a time when the prevailing trend was to go negative. Guests wanted to come on her show, knowing that an Oprah appearance could change their lives. Just getting in to see the taping of her show became a hot ticket because of Oprah's largesse. The unexpected and often spectacular giveaways she became famous for culminated in her most memorable show -- one in which every audience member received a car.
By encouraging viewers to live their best lives, she made change an adventure in self-improvement. And at the same time, she always let us know that she herself didn't have the magic bullet to make everything better; her fluctuating weight showed us that even Oprah had issues with eating, exercise, and self-esteem.
Most important, Oprah showed us -- without ever saying it out loud -- that a woman can be successful, loved, and respected without having a man in her life, or without having children. Her single, child-free existence flies in the face of conventional behavior, but none of us ever seemed to be bothered by that. In fact, it has allowed her to become what Forbes says is the world's most powerful celebrity.
She didn't have it easy as a child. Shuttled from grandparent to parent to parent, raped by a cousin at age 9 and then sexually abused later on by a family friend and an uncle, she was never able to talk about the abuse. When she found out she was pregnant at age 14, she hid it from her family but gave birth prematurely and lost the infant son two weeks later.
How did she move beyond so much early trauma to become a media pioneer and the first female African American billionaire? She believed in herself with a quiet confidence that we're seeing in all the Oprah retrospectives that have been on television in the past week since her announcement last Friday. Without bragging -- but with sincere conviction -- Oprah stated that she believed good things would come to her, even as early as those first few weeks when her Chicago-based talk show went national.
She still has over a year ahead of her before she goes off the air. Once she does, we'll have OWN -- the Oprah Winfrey Network, which will begin broadcasting in January 2011 -- to keep track of what Oprah is doing. But her size 10 shoes will be big ones to fill, and many pundits are already saying that after Oprah leaves, no one will ever come close to that kind of talk show success ever again.
Monday November 23, 2009
In tackling health care reform and abortion, the Senate has wisely embraced the old adage, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."
They've opened debate on a health care bill that contains none of the controversial language of the Stupak Amendment -- an anti-choice compromise measure that would have severely restricted abortion coverage for anyone purchasing a government insurance plan or using government subsidies to obtain private insurance. Instead, the Senate is sticking with the existing restrictions on abortion imposed by the Hyde Amendment -- restrictions that have been in place in one form or another since 1977.
Why isn't the Senate with Stupak?
My colleague Tom Head, About.com Civil Liberties Guide and a staunch women's rights advocate, credits the efforts of activists: "[T]his was a pro-choice victory bolstered by one of the largest grassroots lobbying efforts in the history of the movement. We flooded our senators with calls, emails, and letters--and so far, it appears to be working."
Some are celebrating the Senate version. Others are fuming, saying the bill is no better than the House's Capps Amendment and "nothing but an accounting mechanism."
Even if the Senate passes a version that remains free of Stupak's restrictive abortion language, the final version to be hammered out by the House and Senate is still vulnerable to further erosion of women's reproductive rights. For both pro-life and pro-choice activists, the ongoing health care reform battle remains a waiting game.
More on the Hyde and Capps Amendments including an explanation of each:
More About.com perspectives on the Senate version sans Stupak:
Friday November 20, 2009
Asking a cancer survivor if you should listen to the new mammogram recommendations is like asking a mega-million dollar Powerball winner if you should buy a lottery ticket. You're going to get a very biased answer.
I should know. I'm a cancer survivor -- an ovarian cancer survivor -- diagnosed at age 33 when I was a stay-at-home mom with two little girls 9 months old and 3 years old.
If my cancer hadn't been caught early, I wouldn't be writing this today. Statistically speaking, I wouldn't have survived five years. This year, thanks to early treatment, I celebrated my 15th year of cancer survivorship.
That's why when the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) came up with new guidelines that contradicted everything women have been told up until now, I waited a long time to respond. Why?
The USPSTF consists of medical professionals who see this in clinical terms. I'm just another woman surviving cancer who sees this in personal terms.
'Clinical terms' means doctors and medical professionals can look at available data and figure out cost effectiveness, efficacy of early diagnosis and treatment, and measure the few it helps against the many it does little for. One prominent physician not on that task force -- noted breast cancer expert Dr. Susan Love -- came out early to strongly support the new recommendations, while I -- a not-so-prominent survivor also not on that task force -- waited to share my thoughts. *
'Personal terms' aren't so easily assessed and are significantly less important to clinicians, task forces, health care panels, and policy makers. But that doesn't mean they don't matter.
As we've seen, those who see the issue through 'personal terms' have come out in full force. A massive groundswell of angry opposition to the recommendations has the Obama administration backing away from it and pushing Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius forward to say that the findings aren't part of government policy.
'Personal terms' differ with the person telling the story. My personal terms are simple and have a numeric value attached; they are the 15 years I've lived since my early cancer diagnosis.
They have been years deeply appreciated...well-lived with meaning and purpose.
I've seen both my daughters grow from sticky-faced toddlers to beautiful, funny, effervescent young women. I've cared for my mother in my home during her final weeks of life. I've picked up the pieces after my father's death, clearing out both his room in the nursing home and the house he shared with my mother for many years. I've brought significant women's issues to the table, first through radio and television shows I've produced and hosted, and now here on this site. And I've shared it all with a husband who has been with me through the good and the bad of 21 years of marriage.
I don't want to try and attach a monetary value to the productiveness of those 15 years of my life, but I'm sure I've contributed more to the U.S. economy than I've consumed in terms of medical care and treatment.
So, yes, I had a strong and instinctive reaction to the new recommendations announced Monday, and even after sitting on it for more than three days, my initial response hasn't changed, even after reading the opinions of phyicians, clinicians, pundits, politicans, and other survivors like me.
But I'm mindful that this an American perspective. In Europe, routine mammograms are not recommended for women under the age of 50. And other American journalists who report on health care and know this topic well say the new recommendations are extremely valid.
The irony that all this is happening during health care reform hasn't escaped me. I have enjoyed my 15 years because I had access to medical care and availed myself of the best diagnostic services and treatment options.
But during those same 15 years, millions of other women haven't been so lucky. They haven't had health insurance and haven't been able to pay for a doctor's visit, a mammogram, or other service that might have led to an early diagnosis. They lack the access I (and many others) take for granted -- access to essential medical care.
So even as Republicans warn of the perils of "rationed care" and point to the new breast cancer screening guidelines as proof, as a women's issues advocate I'm mindful that while gender inequity hurts, health care inequity kills.
Do I support the new breast cancer guidelines? No. But I also don't support not having universal health care in the United States. In the end, women who have health care coverage still can exercise their free will. They don't have to listen to government panels that say do this or don't do that as long as their health insurance covers their care. I'll echo what Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius advised women: "Go on doing what you've always done."
But as a country, we simply cannot afford to go on doing what we've always done. We need health care reform for all women, so that every woman can access the necessary treatment and care that will give her the same 15 years -- or more -- of life that I've enjoyed. Even with those crazy recommendations, we still have a choice. Millions of other women won't...unless we push panels, politicians, and policy to expand health care coverage to include anyone who wants it.
* Ironically, both Dr. Susan Love and I are listed in the National Cancer Survivor's Day Speakers Bureau Directory. In fact, her entry is directly above mine. She earns between $30,000 and $50,000 for each speaking engagement; I'd be happy to receive 1% of that and call it a day. She's been educated and trained in the field of oncology and has practiced and written books about cancer care. Me? I just lived through it.
Related articles:
