This is horrific. Absolutely horrific. Please do what you can to raise awareness of and condemn this situation.

Read more on CNN: Activist: Iranian mother of two to be stoned to death

I heard about this from Jessica Gottlieb. Read her post They Are Going To Throw Small Stones At Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani for her suggestions of concrete actions you can take.

If you are like many women, your breasts may not what they used to be.  That’s life. The media gives the impression that we should remain perky forever. A lot of women, however, find that their breasts start to sag over time. But what is the cause?

A number of studies have been done on this issue. The most recent one, “Breast Ptosis: Causes and Cure” (link goes to abstract) by Brian Rinker, MD, FACS et all was published in the May 2010 edition of the Annals of Plastic Surgery. The study found that among women who had been pregnant at least once, the following factors contributed to breast ptosis (sagging breasts):

• age
• history of significant (>50 lbs) weight loss
• higher body mass index
• larger bra cup size
• number of pregnancies
• smoking history

On the other hand, factors that did not contribute to breast ptosis included:

• breastfeeding
• lack of participation in regular upper body exercise

This goes against many of the common beliefs held about sagging breasts. I know that I certainly was told my several fitness trainers that I should focus on chest strength if I wanted to ensure that my breasts didn’t sag. I certainly have heard people say that they didn’t want to breastfeed (or didn’t want their wife to breastfeed) because it would cause their breasts to sag.

With regards to breastfeeding in particular, the study says:

Pregnancy was seen to be a risk factor for the development of breast ptosis, and the degree of ptosis was seen to worsen with the number of pregnancies. However, a history of breast-feeding was not associated with a higher degree of ptosis. Women consulting a plastic surgeon for postpartum body contouring will often attribute loss of breast shape or volume to breast-feeding, and, in published reports, concerns over changes in breast appearance are consistently ranked among the important reasons why women decide to forgo breast-feeding. These beliefs cross cultural and socioeconomic boundaries. In a survey of high school girls in Italy, 30% of respondents expressed the belief that breast-feeding “makes breasts ugly.”4 In a survey of 220 new mothers in the Dominican Republic, concerns over “loss of breast shape” was given as the second most important reason for early termination of breast-feeding.16 Additional studies are needed to better understand the relationship, if any, between breast-feeding and adverse breast shape, but if the findings in this study hold true, women should be reassured that breast-feeding does not seem to worsen breast ptosis, beyond the effects of pregnancy alone.

The authors of the study also express concern that this myth about breastfeeding contributing to breast sagging may be a significant factor in continued low breastfeeding rates and early weaning. I tend to agree. With all of the true barriers to breastfeeding (ones that we need to work hard to dismantle), we really don’t need stupid myths like this piled on top. (and while I’m at it, it is perhaps worth mentioning that not wearing a bra generally does not make your breasts sag more either).

P.S. – I learned about this study on the kellymom.com facebook fan page. If you aren’t already a fan, you should be!

When I was pregnant with Emma, I started having regular contractions much earlier than I should have. I was worried I might be in early labour and went into the Labour and Delivery clinic at hospital where my prenatal care provider was and where I was due to have my baby. As I sat waiting for the doctor to come back with some information for me, a teenage girl and her mother approached the  check-in counter.

“She has an appointment for surgery,” the mother said.

“Of course,” said the nurse. “Can I have her provincial health card please?”

The mother handed over the girl’s card and a few moments later, another nurse came out and led the girl and her mother away to a room.  Her parents didn’t have to remortgage their house to pay for the procedure. She didn’t have to push her way through protesters to go into a special clinic. She certainly didn’t have to take what pennies she could scrape up and trust some person with a knife in a dingy motel. She could depend on the fact that the Canada Health Act and the provincial health care plans that stem from it allowed her access to a full range of choices, none of which would cost her money or risk her life.

It is our right.

But I see that right crumbling around us and it makes me scared for my daughter’s generation and scared for all the women and girls who live in parts of the world where they do not have those same rights.

Abortion and health care reform in the United States

The United States passed historic health care legislation this week ensuring affordable access to health insurance for many people who were previously unable to get insurance. This is a huge step forward. But it comes with a huge step backwards for reproductive rights. Abortion is legal in the United States, but the current legislation may make it unaffordable and inaccessible to most women (you can sign a petition to the Democratic Party in support of reproductive rights here). In his post on the six big flaws that need fixing, Jon Walker wrote:

This bill is a massive rollback of a woman’s right to choose. It would take away the abortion coverage of millions of Americans. The system of exchanges and affordability tax credits could easily be modified to ensure federal funds are not used to pay for abortions, while still not taking away the ability of women and small businesses to buy insurance packages that cover abortion. Having an individual mandate that forces women to buy insurance, but also a law that prevents them from getting insurance that covers a legal medical procedure, is a disgusting abuse of women’s rights.

This is certainly only one of the many ways that the new legislation impacts women. Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check has an extremely comprehensive post that looks at the wins and losses for women’s health in this health care bill and is well worth a thorough read.  She talks about issues like the right to pump breastmilk at work, support for postpartum depression, the elimination of pre-existing conditions, partial (but not complete) removal of gender rating, free preventive care, lack of coverage for immigrant women, and more.

Abortion and Canadian aid for maternal health in developing nations

At the same time as the United States was passing its historic legislation, the Canadian government was debating reproductive rights in its Parliament. No, not the reproductive rights of Canadians, which (for now) will stay intact. Rather, they were debating the details of Canada’s aid package focusing on maternal and newborn health in developing nations. The Conservative government first said that the purpose of the plan was “to be able to save lives” but that it would not include any provisions for contraception or abortion.

The government obviously has a very skewed view of how exactly lives are saved in the world’s poorest countries.  Lack of child spacing options and lack of access to safe abortions is what kills mothers and babies in those countries. Eventually they agreed to include birth control in the package, but said that it was out of the question for Canadian government aid to be used to fund abortions.

The opposition parties (which jointly hold a majority of the seats in the house) filed a motion “asking for the Government of Canada to commit to the position that Canada has held for 25 years, which is to defend women’s right of access to the full range of reproductive health services overseas.” According to the CBC article Contraception motion defeated, the absence of several pro-life Liberal Members of Parliament, as well as the votes against the motion by several Liberal Members of Parliament led to the defeat of the motion (side note: this looks bad for Liberal leader Ignatieff).

The fact that the Liberal party cannot keep their ranks together to vote on something important like this says a lot about the strength (or lack thereof) of the party and its leader. This makes me even more scared about the possibility of a future majority Conservative government, something which scares plastikgyrl too as she wrote in her post Reproductive Health Care Takes Big Hits in North American Politics This Week:

The Conservative picture of an international maternal health strategy leaves me worried about what happens should they ever get a majority government. If contraception and abortion are issues those in power do not want to fund/support internationally, how long would it be before the 1988 overturning of the abortion law is repealed? What about the contraception components of the omnibus bill passed by the Trudeau government in 1969? Will enough people in this country believe that such decisions are in the best interest of the women of this country?

Very scared.

What is women’s health without reproductive rights?

Is it better to have health care while giving up reproductive rights? Yes and no. Certainly the health care legislation in the United States and Canada’s aid to countries around the world helps many women who desperately need health care and do not need abortions. However, it also puts those women who do need abortions at a greater risk than they were at before. It is polarizing and sets dangerous precedents.  Can we rewind to two years ago when Dr. Henry Morgentaler received the Order of Canada? I liked that world view better.

Image credit: Steve Rhodes on flickr

Last week, Margaret Wente from the Globe and Mail wrote an article about the nightmare gender gap in Canada. She concluded by saying:

Unfortunately, these issues won’t be honestly addressed so long as the old-time dogma maintains its stranglehold in academe, labour groups and public discourse. It’s hard to change the conversation when the oppression of women is such a good racket.

Then today, she wrote a column called Why are bloggers male? and said:

Men clearly have an urge to blog that women lack. Like extreme snowmobiling, the blogosphere is dominated by men. Not many women are interested enough in spitting out an opinion on current events every 20 minutes.

…

Sarah and I believe the urge to blog is closely related to the sex-linked compulsion known as male answer syndrome. MAS is the reason why guys shoot up their hands first in math class. MAS also explains why men are so quick to have opinions on subjects they know little or nothing about.

I’m no stranger to having guys try to mansplain things to me, but I certainly don’t think women are lacking in opinions or in a willingness to share them. I do, however, have a partial explanation for that nightmare gender gap Wente was talking about.  When influential women are ignorant to the numerous women’s voices on the Internet (check out the entire BlogHer community and then some), when the voices of many women are dismissed as endearing, cute and girly, and when the voices of those women who are most oppressed are ignored altogether, that gender gap is perpetuated.

Thank you, Margaret, for proving your own point about how hard it is to change the conversation.

Update: On Friday, March 19, 2010 at 12:00pm EST, Tamara Plant (from MOM Magazine) and I will be taking on Margaret Wente in a live chat on the Globe and Mail’s website. See Women Bloggers Take on Margaret Wente and join in! I hope you’ll come back here afterward to share your perspectives on the discussion.

Is this how the world sees moms? It is how the New York Times sees them.

Jennifer Mendelsohn wrote an article in the New York Times on mom bloggers, called Honey, Don’t Bother Mommy. I’m Too Busy Building My Brand. I thought about writing a parody about journalists in response to it. But then I reconsidered. I realized that I do not need to diminish others in order to prove my own worth.

There are good journalists and there are bad journalists. There are journalists who do nothing more than turn around stuff written by public relations staff and there are journalists who do investigative journalism and cross-check their sources. There are journalists who write about things I consider frivolous and boring and there are journalists who write about issues I think are of critical importance.

The same is true in the blogging world. The blogs that I find interesting, intriguing, thought provoking or therapeutic, someone else might find boring, stupid or threatening. The blogs other people find interesting, I may find boring, frivolous or unethical corporate shills.

We are a diverse community. Diverse enough that there are moms who write about making crafts, tutus, felt food, or slings. There are moms who write about natural birth, potty training, sleep, and postpartum depression. There are also moms who write about corporate ethics, politics, feminism, health care issues, nutrition, social media, and more.

I don’t think it is any more appropriate to poke fun at moms writing about teaching your baby to read or hiding vegetables in their children’s food, than it would be for me to poke fun at journalists who think that this spring’s latest lipstick shade or some celebrity’s extramarital affairs are worth writing about (despite the fact that they make me yawn and roll my eyes).  If there is an audience, it is worth writing about and in the world of blogs, there doesn’t even need to be an audience for it to be worthwhile since just the therapeutic act of getting your thoughts down on the screen may be enough for some bloggers.

So when Jennifer Mendelsohn wrote an article peppered with mommy stereotypes in a tone that seemed to belittle the work of mom bloggers (although I hope and suspect that isn’t what she intended to do), it is no wonder that there was a rash of protest. Every writer chooses the wrong words sometimes. I know I do. But I don’t have an editing team to catch me before things go public. The New York Times does and this article should not have been printed without some significant revisions.

Here are some of the fabulous voices on this article, ones that demonstrate a thousand times over the greatness of moms who blog:

• Newspaper Bias Against Mom Bloggers (Kelby Carr): Kelby (also known as Type A Mom) writes about the condescending and insulting tone the article uses to describe mom bloggers. She points out that mom blogging is an industry, not just “something we cute adorable widdle mommies do to share diaper stories” and that there are a number of reasons why we are being marginalized by traditional media.

• Honey, Don’t Bother Mommy. I’m Writing a Mildly Annoyed Letter to the New York Times (Mom101): Liz suspects that Jennifer’s intent probably wasn’t to slight mom bloggers, but that many will not “get much past the opening snark, which continues to affirm all the negativity surrounding the word mommyblog.” At the end of her post she links to some of the many diverse voices and issues that can be found in the mom blogging community.

• This is kyriarchy in action: the New York Times on “Mommy bloggers” (Raising My Boychick): Arwyn takes things beyond the analysis of Type A Mom and Mom 101 and addresses the fact that while some moms are being belittled in this article, others who don’t fit the stereotype described in this article are being ignored altogether.

• Mommy is Busy Blogging (Motherlode): Lisa from NY Times very own mommy blog put up a brief post about the article. There isn’t much to the post, but there is plenty to read in the comments if you are interested in a rather diverse set of opinions on this article.

• Don’t Bother Mommy She’s Rabid Right Now (Jessica Gottlieb): Jessica writes about the value of blog conferences like Bloggy Boot Camp and muses about what Lisa Belkin’s (from NY Times Motherlode) thoughts on the article might be.

• An Open Letter to the New York Times About Mom Bloggers, Women Writings & the Universe (PunditMom): Joanne, one of my BlogHer 10 co-panelists, wrote that she is “so weary of [the New York Times] attempts to marginalize women writers online who happen to be mothers” that she almost didn’t write her post, but she did because she wants to change the landscape so that her daughter won’t have to fight the same battle we are fighting. She breaks down the language and content of the post and wonders whether primarily male-attended conferences would have received the same type of condescending coverage.

• NY Times Not So Mind Blowing Expose of the Mommy Bloggers (Momma in the Fog): Priscilla  writes that the article seems a bit confuses as to what its point and angle is, but that ultimately it “shows how very unprogressive our thinking is these days if we are still unable to talk about female industriousness outside of the typical stereotypes — the gold digger, the career ‘bitch’ and the vapid homemaker. Let’s call someone a hooker and call it a day.”

• NY Times Article About Mommy Bloggers (The Secret is in the Sauce): The organizers of Bloggy Boot Camp compiled a list of some of the posts about the New York Times article (some of which I’ve included here and others that I didn’t have a chance to read yet).

• Thank you, NY Times, for reminding me why I blog (Sharing the Journey):  The author of this blog about life after postpartum depression writes a sarcastic response to the article which completely overlooked many of the motives that she and other moms have for blogging.

• Why did you start blogging? My views on the New York Times article (Little Tech Girl):  Little Tech Girl talks about how some moms have found a way to make some money online while still caring for their family and questions why “when dads bring home work, they are committed and career driven, when a mom does it, she is neglecting her family.”

• An Australian Fringe Dweller (Good Goog): Zoey wrote that she is somewhat removed from the situation, as an Australian blogger, but that she found it off-putting nonetheless. She delves into some of the particularly colourful and not-so-helpful comments on the story.

• Excuse Me New York Times, Don’t Bother Me. Because You’re Absolutely Fucking Right, I’m Building My Brand (Uppercase Woman): Cecily writes about the New York Times history of marginalizing women writers and notes that even if they do not recognize their worth, companies do.

• Honey, Don’t Bother Daddy. I’m Too Busy Building My Brand (Hoyden About Town): Lauredhel does a genderflip of Mendelsohn’s article, which clearly points out how ridiculous it sounds.

• Bette Nesmith Graham, Mommy Bloggers and the NY Times (The Smartmama): Jennifer tells the story of a “mommy” business later sold to a major corporation for $47.5 million.  Can you guess which one? The point being that to dismiss and belittle this “diverse group of very powerful, very passionate, very invested, very active women” would be a huge mistake.

• A Blog of One’s Own (Child Wild): Sierra, who also responded to the article in a post on Babble’s Stroller Derby, writes about the hard work mom bloggers do and the difference they are making in the world.

• She is Vast, And She Contains Multitudes (Her Bad Mother): Catherine writes about how the important advocacy work she is doing for her sick nephew Tanner was belittled in the article, about how diverse mothers are,  and also about the silliness of the big (male-dominated) SXSW conference that she just attended.

• Tear Down that Wall? (Work. Life. Balance): Chrysula writes about the expectation that we will have clearly delineated lines between our professional and personal lives and about the trend away from that towards a more integrated life.

Rather than just complaining, I’d like to put a challenge out. Is there a journalist who would like to write an article for a mainstream paper that would present a balanced view of mom bloggers? Or is there a mainstream paper out there that would like a writer who could write one (because I know a few people who could take that on). Let me know.

After posting about Disney princesses yesterday, I was chatting with Rebecca from A Little Bit of Momsense and she pointed out that she was She-Ra for Halloween when she was little. I responded saying that I was once Wonder Woman. The conversation got me thinking about the female heroines of my youth and I realized that none of them are the Disney Princess types. Sure, I liked Snow White, but it was the story that intrigued me and not the Snow White character in particular (I loved the dwarfs!). I also played with typical girl toys like My Little Ponies and Strawberry Shortcake, but I would say that the majority of my childhood media influences were either strong heroines or were male. Not all of my  heroines are the perfect feminist ideal, but they are certainly not the typical princess type that is so popular today. Here is a sampling…

She-Ra – Princess of Power

Yes, she’s a princess, but certainly not your typical Disney Princess.

Wonder Woman

Nancy Drew

ShellyS on flickr

Pippi Longstocking

Caitlin Ryan on Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High

Charlie’s Angels

Ramona Quimby

Elizabeth Wakefield from Sweet Valley

Peppermint Patty from Charlie Brown

The girls from the Facts of Life

I loved the girls from the Facts of Life, except the pretentious Blair of course.

Velma and Daphne from Scooby Doo

Lisa Simpson

Note: Most of these images and the corresponding links are from Amazon because I was having trouble finding good Creative Commons images of the heroines of my youth and Amazon provided a good alternative. Clicking on the links and purchasing the products from Amazon does provide me with a much appreciated yet small affiliate payment.

My partner is a stay-at-home dad and he sometimes fills me in on the deep conversations he has during the day with our little girl. Ones like this:

Emma: Daddy, what are you thinking about?

Daddy: I’m thinking about putting the tiles on the backsplash. What are you thinking about?

Emma: I’m always thinking about princesses.

Such is the life of an almost three year old girl.

As a thirty-something feminist, I don’t expect to spend a lot of my time thinking about princesses. But these days, it does seem like I’m spending a lot of time thinking about them. From princess books, to princess movies, to princess birthday parties and princess pretend play, princesses are invading my home, my life and my thoughts. As if that wasn’t enough, when I try to escape into the world of adult conversation and news, I find princesses, princesses, and lots more princesses.

I don’t really like princesses. At least not the popular image of a princess. I don’t like how focused they are on their looks. I don’t like that their life’s goal is to meet and marry a rich and handsome prince. I don’t like their completely impractical clothing. I don’t like the fact that every single girl in Julian’s preschool class was a princess for Halloween. I don’t like the entitlement attitude. I don’t like the lavish lifestyle. I don’t like the snobbery. I don’t like the daintiness.

Since I’m not a huge princess fan, you would think I would welcome news from Disney that it is trying to make its next big animated movie less princess-focused. But I don’t. At least not the way they are doing it. According to the Los Angeles Times article “Disney restyles ‘Rapunzel’ to appeal to boys“:

After the less-than-fairy-tale results for its most recent animated release, “The Princess and the Frog,” executives at the Burbank studio believe they know why the acclaimed movie came up short at the box office.

Brace yourself: Boys didn’t want to see a movie with “princess” in the title.

This time, Disney is taking measures to ensure that doesn’t happen again. The studio renamed its next animated film with the girl-centric name “Rapunzel” to the less gender-specific “Tangled.”

But that isn’t all. In addition to changing the name of the movie, they also introduced a new male character, an infamous bandit Flynn Rider just to appeal to boys. A character that isn’t there in the original. The New York Review of Books A Girl in the Tower article on Rapunzel stories explains:

In the Grimms’ tale of “Rapunzel” (though not in the Pentamerone), the prince is a fairly ineffective figure. After he climbs Rapunzel’s hair into the tower and is confronted by the witch, he jumps from the window in despair and is blinded by thorns. Both he and his beloved then wander about alone in misery for several years, but at last they are reunited and when Rapunzel’s tears fall on his eyes his sight is restored.

The NPR’s blog on this topic, called “Dear Disney: Boys Aren’t Stupid, But Renaming ‘Rapunzel’ Is” explains that other Disney princess movies like the Little Mermaid did fine at box offices [emphasis mine]:

There are princess characters who do just fine with boys, but I think the word “princess” now carries an implication of passivity and romantic fixation and therefore a lack of interest that Disney has created, not discovered.

The blog post goes on to explain that Alice in Wonderland is expected to do well despite not being called Hatter! and that Up would probably not have failed if Russell had been a girl instead of a boy.

I recognize that Disney’s primary goal is profit and not ensuring an appropriate cultural education for my children, but I wish that instead of keeping the princess and adding a “cool guy” on top, that Disney would think about what role it can play in deconstructing gender stereotypes and showing girls that they don’t have to be princesses and boys that they don’t have to be charming machos. As a feminist, I don’t object outright to girls wanting to pretend that they are princesses, but I do object to them being consistently brainwashed with the princess mentality. As a pacifist, I don’t object outright to kids playing with swords and guns, but I do object to them being consistently brainwashed into thinking that violence and war is a way to solve problems. We need some balance. Balance that allows all kids to experiment, use their imagination, and have fun without being told “girls don’t do this” and “boys don’t do that“.

My challenge to Disney: Instead of thinking about how to appeal to girls and appeal to boys, think about how you can create strong characters that help to break down the gender stereotypes you’ve invested so much money into building.

Image credit: Express Monorail on flickr

Most days, I’m proud to be Canadian. Whether I’m talking about our health care system, our maternity and parental leave programs, feminist leaders, or other topics close to my heart, my country usually makes me proud (even if it isn’t perfect). Today, however, my heart sunk. I was hit with bad news and then slapped with some more. I was disgusted by my country.

Association for Research on Mothering: CLOSED

I am a mother. I am a feminist. Despite not currently being enrolled at a university, I consider myself an academic and a researcher. I love the Association for Research on Mothering. I love what it stands for. I love its books. I love its journal. I love the fact that it brings thought leadership to the important role that mothers play in society.

Today, I learned that it is closing next month. York University, where it is located, is continuing to refuse to provide any base funding to the association and no one else is stepping up to provide it a home either. You can read the details in a letter from Dr. Andrea O’Reilly over on the Parentopia blog.

I am so much in shock over this that I can’t come up with anything intelligent to say about it, but I am devastated. I own a couple of the books published by Demeter Press and had put the rest of them on my Christmas wish list this past year. They are apparently going to be going on sale at a discount on their website and I plan to buy each and every one that I don’t own already.

But I’m disappointed that there will no longer be a place to bring together the important research on mothering and to foster the research and thinking on this topic. I’m heartbroken that I may never get to read some of the forthcoming books, like Mothering Canada (Spring 2010),  Disability and Mothering (Spring 2010), Giving Breast Milk (Spring 2010), The M Word: Real Mothers in Contemporary Art (Fall 2010), You Say You Want a Revolution: The 21st Century Motherhood Movement (Fall 2010), The Palin Factor: Politican Mothers and Public Motherhood in the 21st Century (Fall 2010), Adoption and Mothering (Spring 2011), Latina/Chicana Mothering (Fall 2011), Queering Parenting (Spring 2012), Living Feminism Through Mothering (Spring 2012), and Being a Mother Academic: Theory and Narrative (Spring 2012).

Is there someone out there who can save the Association for Research on Mothering? Please tell me there is. This is too precious to lose.

Mention of Gay Rights in Immigrant’s Guide: REMOVED

Homosexuality was decriminalized in Canada in 1969. Gay rights are protected under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2005. But shhhhhh…..don’t tell the immigrants. Today CBC reported that Jason Kenny, a Conservative Member of Parliament and current Immigration Minister removed all references to gay rights in the study guide for new immigrants who are learning about Canada in preparation for their citizenship exam.

According to the CBC’s article Gay rights section nixed for immigrant’s guide:

Internal documents show an early draft of the guide contained sections noting that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and that same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2005.

But Kenney, who fought same-sex marriage when it was debated in Parliament, ordered those key sections removed when his office sent its comments to the department last June.

Senior department officials duly cut out the material — but made a last-ditch plea with Kenney in early August to have it reinstated….In the end, however, Kenney’s view trumped that of the bureaucrats. The 63-page guide, titled Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship, was released with fanfare last November and contains no mention of gay and lesbian rights.

While Canada welcomes the diversity that immigrants bring to this country, there are certain core values that we will not compromise on. The rights of all Canadians, especially minorities, are protected under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ensuring that immigrants are aware not only of their own rights but of the rights of everyone they share this country with is key to achieving harmonious diversity. The removal of those sections amounts to silencing or hiding the rights of Canada’s gay and lesbian communities. This is yet another example of the Harper government’s further attempts to marginalize what it considers to be “fringe groups“.

I’m disgusted and I won’t shut up

I’m disgusted by the announcement on the Association for Research on Mothering. I’m disgusted by the removal of references to gay rights in the immigration guide. I’m disgusted, disgusted, disgusted. Will you join me in expressing your disgust?

Ugh.

I won’t stand by and watch Stephen Harper’s Conservatives continue with their plans to marginalize what they consider to be “left-wing fringe groups” (yup, people like women, gays, minorities, people with disabilities, francophones, or basically anyone who isn’t an English speaking heterosexual white male).

I’ll continue to express my disgust here on this blog and I’ll stand up to tell you all more about why I do this and why you should too when I speak about being a Radical Blogging Mom with Joanne Bamberger (Pundit Mom) and Stephanie Roberts (Picture Hope) at BlogHer 10 in New York this summer.

Cathy from Nurture Store asked me whether we should parent boys and girls differently. In a perfect world, I think there would be very few differences in terms of how we should parent boys and girls. As I wrote in my post on the Bias Against Boys:

Are boys are girls really that different?

There are two camps when it comes to gender differences. There are those that insist that the differences between boys and girls are biologically hard-wired. And there are those that insist that the differences are learned. Lawrence Cohen, author of Playful Parenting, summarizes existing research on the subject by saying that while inborn differences do exist, they are quite small but they are then nurtured and exacerbated by the way we treat girls or boys. The small difference that does exist is that boys are slightly more likely to seek out power and girls slightly more likely to seek out connection. And then society takes over and reinforces these differences rather than minimizing them. Generally, despite being a girl, I think I have tended more to seek out power than connection. But becoming a mother changed that and I have become very nurturing with my kids. I believe that each human being has the capacity to be powerful and connected and I challenge parents to help their children, both boys and girls, become confident and caring individuals.

So boys and girls are not that different. But then enter society. From the colour of the nursery, to the choice of toys and activities, to the types of emotions that are considered acceptable, society treats boys and girls differently. I am not aware of any society or culture that treats girls and boys the same.  So to answer the question, I think unless you live in the woods, cut off from society, and homeschool your children, you do need to parent boys and girls differently.

We need to teach our girls:

• That there is more to life than meeting your prince
• That big rigs, trains, dump trucks, and fire engines are pretty cool
• That boys are not dumb
• That no one is allowed to hit them ever
• That they can play hockey, box, and ski jump (even if the Olympics doesn’t think so)
• That they can be political and business leaders
• That math, engineering, science and information technology are great careers
• To not let anyone tell them to cover up or strip down
• That their health issues are important, even if research and care for them is underfunded
• To say no

We need to teach our boys:

• That it is okay to cry and it is good to express your emotions
• That they can like pretty colours, flowers, sunsets, and cute furry animals
• That girls are not sissies
• That violence is not an acceptable way to resolve disputes
• That women and girls are people, not objects
• That they can be stay at home fathers
• That they can play with dolls
• That their health issues are important, even if society tells them that only the weak see a doctor when they are suffering
• To respect no

The lists could go on, I’m sure. So yes, I think we need to parent boys and girls differently to counteract the negative messages that society sends them. But more than that, I think we need to parent each child as an individual. We need to look at their personality, their strengths, their weaknesses, and the way that society impacts them, and then parent accordingly. We need to consider what will help each child to be happy and meet its potential as a human being.

Photo credit: Billie Hara on flickr

Remember what your parents told you? Remember what your teachers told you? No one can touch you down there without your consent. Turns out, someone forgot to tell our country’s medical professionals.

Yesterday, I was sitting in a middle-aged male client’s cubicle discussing a project we are working on, when tweets from @sassymonkey started popping up on his screen, including:

A few minutes later, back at my own desk, I found out what all the fuss is about. According to a Globe and Mail article, medical students in Canada routinely practice doing internal pelvic exams while women are unconcious for surgery. Pelvic exams unrelated to the surgery they are having. Apparently, the logic is that the students need to practice and women theoretically wouldn’t consent if asked, so it must be done without their consent while they are unconcious.

I am glad I’ve never had anything but dental surgery.

I hope to hell this practice is ended before I ever do need surgery.

I have allowed students to do pelvic exams on me before while concious. I would allow it again. But the idea of not knowing how many people or which people were probing my nethers does not appeal to me. It is not appropriate. Just like mom and dad taught me. Just like my teachers taught me. I must consent. Some people are calling this the medical equivalent of a roofie.

What can you do? Write to your MP, your MPP, the Minister of Health, the Canadian Medical Association, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Make your voice heard.  You can also:

Sign this petition started by Her Bad Mother

Want to read what others are saying about this?

• Sassymonkey – Not without my consent
• Three Seven – I think I might throw up
• Bad Moms Club – Bad Moms don’t Like Non-Consensual Nether-Probing
• Living My Social Work – “Implied” Consent
• Coffee with Julie – A pelvic exam without my consent?
• Chaos Theory – Does the Canadian Medical Association Support the use of Roofies too?
• Refashionista – Consent = Control
• The Unnecesarean – Yes, It’s True: Med Students Perform Pelvic Exams on Anesthetized Women
• Womanist Musings – A Pelvic Exam Without Permission is Rape