Girls Aren't Dumb (no shit)

Last week, the Associated Press reported that a recent University of Wisconsin study shows girls' math scores are now on par with those of boys, proving what most of us already knew. The study used data from over a million test scores in 10 different states with children grades 2 through 11. The concept of males having a natural or innate ability to understand the complexities of math and science is a long-standing myth that scientists and researchers can and will squash.

American men and women have long been socialized to believe that men can more easily excel in math. In 2005, many Harvard scholars were shocked and offended when their President, Lawrence Summers, stated that one of the reasons women do not hold higher positions in engineering and science fields is due to certain innate differences between the sexes. He later responded by stating that he does not believe "that women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of math & science."

This seems to be a very prevalent opinion: that women are capable of achieving the same status as men, but that in order to do so, they must overcome some natural cognitive handicap. Women are continually dumped into the weaker category.

Identifying these myths and attempts to make women feel inadequate obviously has serious social and psychological effects. In the past, girls have performed very well on math tests in elementary school, but scores have dropped off as they moved into high school. Many teachers and educators cling to the archaic notion of a natural male math ability, resulting in the discouragement and unequal treatment of girls in the classroom. Outside of the classroom as well, girls become socialized to think that boys "get math." (Barbie says "Math class is tough.")

Women need to recognize that indeed both sexes have brains- the same human brains. They both can perform well in all fields of study. Thus, we cannot be told that we are in any way cognitively inferior. As women (and men) come to realize this, we can assume that the negative effects of socialized "dumbness" will diminish.

Gender testing for female Olympians

Article from Feministe

New York Times article

This was forced on female athletes until 1999, when it was determined to be invasive. But the Beijing Olympics wants to reinstate the testing for women whose gender is in questions. Men are not being tested. The testing also does not take in to account chromosome abnormalities.

picked on.

These beautiful summer days have brought me lately to a host of beautiful summer evening outings. To bars, mostly, I mean. For some reason I've been meeting friends over food and a drink more nights than not lately and while it has been an incredibly fun experience for the most part, but I've got to say I noticed an unsettling trend in the nights. unfortunately the tricky part about going into public is the chance hazard of meeting new people.

Each time I was out with one other female friend at some point in the night we were approached by a new smiling face. umm, ok, I'm totally social. buy me a drink? well how nice of you, you don't have to do that! what? oh NO! oh crap. you're talking all weird. thanks, my name is pretty? I guess. what? am I married? Oh so that's what this conversation is for. you're trying to pick me up. Take me home or something. oh geez. that's not what I signed on for! I'm just talking to my friend about terribly personal things over here and you are, yes, you're interrupting.

So this is something I've been wondering about. Meeting new people is usually quite nice, I love getting to know them and learning something new about the world and city where I live. It's these strange interactions, when the conversation becomes controlled by one party and morphed into something that makes me feel awkward, objectified, squirming to get out, that I hate. I've been struggling to find the most tactful, straightforward way to rebuff. What's your strategy?

As If I Am Not There

The arrest and indictment of former Serbian nationalist leader Radavon Karadžić reopens the painful and lingering scars left by the genocidal Bosnian War of the 1990s. The experience of women in war, especially a war with genocidal characteristics, is often lumped into the collective tragic effects war has on civilians, but it is a unique and critical aspect. The suffering of the mothers and daughters left with destroyed families, pushed into camps, or exploited for their sexuality (or all three), is generally overshadowed by the seemingly more dramatic shuffle of armies and state boundaries. Remarkably, women and their bodies are often politicized to serve as the terrain for conquest, ownership, and destruction.



In her 1993 novel, "S.: A Novel About the Balkans," Slavenka Drakulic offers a voice on behalf of women whose lives the Bosnian War irrecoverably changed. She tells the story of S., a young woman from the city living in the country as a teacher who is caught up in a raid by Serbian soldiers. S. is taken to a prison camp, and she soon learns the horror and dehumanization of war as she is kept in the "women's room." There, women's bodies are treated as land, acquisitions to be overtaken and roughly conquered, laid to waste. In this way the Serbs implemented violent rape and sexual humiliation as a war tactic, dehumanizing primarily Muslim and Croatian women and often impregnating them, as if to plant Serbian seed in enemy soil.

Through S.'s experience, Drakulic tells the story of thousands of women who endured the Bosnian War and found no semblance of their previous life when it ended. S. herself is an amalgam of survivors interviewed by Drakulic, her experience is representative of many true horrors lived out by these women. Drakulic writes of S.'s post-camp life, thrust back at her as she is left to grapple with it as a Sweedish refugee. She is pregant.

"Her body lies in the bed inanimate object, an empty bellow or shopping bag. Nothing has changed with her departure from the camp. Her body is still in their power, even more so now. Only now does S. understand that a woman's body never really belongs to the woman. It belongs to others - to the man, the children, the family. And in wartime to the soldiers."

It is a harsh story, harshly written and unsentimental. S.'s anonymity is essential, her story terrifying because she is so much like me, like many of us. She's just a young woman, educated enough and out on her own, exploring and growing at her own pace. With the intervention of war into her life all control is taken from her as she becomes a commodity like so many seized crops, factories, and livestock. Within the space of a year her life is changed forever by insane political forces over which she has no control. "S." portrays the horrifying results of nationalistic sentiment gone exponentially amok from an acute and distressingly accessible angle.

Related:

First Chapter, S
The Prisoner
A Reckoning for the Women Victims of the Bosnian War?
Women's Action - Bosnia-Herzegovina: Mass Rape, Forced Pregnancy, Genocide
Rape and Sexual Abuse of Women in International Law

American Female Soldiers and Sexual Assault

The Associated Press reported today that 15% of all women soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan reported being sexually assaulted while serving. That is just what has been REPORTED. I started to do some further research, but I feel particularly troubled by this issue am unable to properly articulate my thoughts. I will rather send you off to some links....

http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=11162

http://www.feministing.com/archives/009855.html

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/

Contraception = Abortion?

I just got off of a call that sought to demystify Health and Human Services' soon-to-be-proposed expansion of the definition of abortion for us non-legal/policy people. Should the proposed changes be adopted, abortion would include oral contraceptives, emergency contraception and the IUD with regard to refusal as it applies to federal grant recipients.

What?

RH Reality Check did a good job of summarizing the proposal here, at least in terms of how HHS arrived at this new definition, but failed to clearly define the real-life consequences of the proposal in the event that it becomes policy. Feministing, with a more provocative and exciting headline, touched on just that.

In short (and only in theory) this what could happen:

• The regulations could allow federally funded health care centers to refuse to provide important reproductive health services, including common forms of birth control.
• In spite of various state laws that protect a woman's right to get birth control from her pharmacy or ensure that insurance companies cannot discriminate against women by refusing to cover birth control, the regulations could allow pharmacies and insurance companies to refuse services and coverage that would fall under the expanded definition of abortion. The regulations could also over-ride state laws that guarantee sexual assault victims' right to emergency contraceptives at the emergency room.
• Perhaps most alarmingly, as if all of this isn't alarming enough, the regulations could force federally funded family-planning centers to hire people who are unwilling to discuss or provide contraceptives.

As of right now it's all a guessing game. I'd like to think this is a cruel joke designed to keep us on our toes but it seems to be more like a parting gift to women from the Bush administration.

Update: Hillary is on top of it.

8th Circuit Rules: Shackling is fine!

Not an ideal first post.

I've been riding on the high of Philadelphia County's first anti-shackling policy which promises to be one of the most comprehensive in the nation. The policy, once in effect, will prohibit the shackling of Riverside Correctional Facility inmates during labor, delivery, and while the mother is breast feeding and bonding.

According to Friday's edition of Northwest Arkansas's The Morning News, the 8th Circuit Court has determined that shackling incarcerated women during labor is constitutional, and does not violate a person's 8th Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

Dana Sichel, a young attorney working in Philadelphia doesn't agree.

The ruling is based on a case in which the woman's restraints were removed during birth. In my opinion, the case and the subsequent ruling fail to adequately represent and consider the experience most incarcerated women face while housed in prisons and jails that shackle during every stage of birth and delivery.

Nationally, The Rebecca Project is working on this issue. Locally, concerned and interested persons with relevant organizational affiliations are encouraged to attend the Working Group To Enhance Services for Incarcerated Women, hosted by the Penn Prison Society.

Supporting the Maternity Care Coalition, which is housed in Riverside and provides pre-natal care and counseling, in addition to doula services for incarcerated women, is a great way to help out locally.

And to end on a positive note, The Seattle Times reported on the amazing and inspiring group The Birth Attendants and the Residential Parenting Program in Seattle - something to work toward, and programs we should all hope will be replicated around the country. (Thanks to Miriam at Radical Doula for the story!)