On the Shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and Violent Political Rhetoric

(Flickr/kevin.asher)

As the country tries to digest the violent shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) that left six dead and 14 others wounded, the language around political discourse has come under scrutiny. Giffords is believed to be the first female American politician that has undergone an assassination attempt. Giffords is still in critical condition as of this writing.

Victims in the shooting included Judge John Roll, a 63-year-old state appeals court judge who had recently received death threats for a ruling that found ranchers holding people at gunpoint upon crossing the boarder were acting illegally, and Christina-Taylor Green, a 9-year-old girl who was born on 9/11 and already showed promise as a potential leader since she was recently elected president of her class. The alleged shooter, Jared L. Loughner, is in custody and faces federal charges for an assassination attempt.

Shortly after news of the shooting broke, material from Sarah Palin's PAC revealed Giffords had been one of the electoral "targets," and the campaign materials used gun sights as imagery. Jessica Valenti published a piece in The Guardian that notes that Palin's PAC may have used such imagery thanks to a surge of "man up" rhetoric in politics recently:

In a country that sees masculinity – especially violent masculinity – as the ideal, it's no wonder that this type of language resonates. But it's a sad state of affairs when women in politics have to resort to using the same gendered stereotypes that kept all women out of public service for so long.

Discussions following the violent shooting on Saturday left those on the right reiterating that there was no connection between violent rhetoric and the actions of one mentally ill individual (Jill did a great job of explaining why simply blaming mental illness is bad). Those on the left insisted that violent rhetoric put forth by the Tea Party and others is creating a culture that deranged individuals might tap into.

This reminds me, oddly of the debate that came after the fatal shooting of Dr. George Tiller, a late-term abortion provider in Kansas who was shot to death in his church by Scott Roeder. Many of Tiller's colleagues noted the sustained and repeated harassment they and Tiller received over the years. Tiller's name was a rallying cry for the anti-choice right. Many were shocked that those on the right claimed that their often violent rhetoric toward Tiller wasn't connected to Roeder's actions.

The causes of violence are complex. The truth is we really don't know what makes someone attempt violence of this nature on another person. I'm not ready to blame Palin or others on the right personally, especially as details of the shooting are still getting sorted out. But would it hurt to make our political rhetoric more civilized and less violent? Definitely not.

Kentucky Steps Up Scrutiny of For-Profit Schools

Kentucky has been stepping up its scrutiny of for-profit schools in the state. Now, state legislators are proposing legislation that would increase accountability and oversight of for profit schools, and the state’s attorney general, Jack Conway, is opening up an investigation into the practices of the industry.

A joint education committee meeting between the state’s house and senate convened last fall to hear from students of for-profit schools. In an interview with Campus Progress, Rep. Reginald Meeks (D), the sponsor of the proposed legislation, described the testimony of students at the hearing. Students testified said that some of the state’s for-profit colleges were leaving them with high loads of debt and sometimes unemployable. Some students testified that they didn’t realize their schools weren’t accredited and some schools were dishonest in the claims they made when students were recruited, Meeks says.

Unfortunately, such stories aren’t uncommon. Last year the Government Accountability Office released an undercover video and report that documented for-profit recruiters making false claims about the school’s programs and encouraging students to lie on Federal Aid applications. A Bloomberg investigation reported last year that some for-profits were recruiting students from homeless shelters. (This video from Campus Progress summarizes abuses found in those and other investigations.)

Currently for-profit students account for about just 10 percent of all students, yet they account for about a quarter of federally subsidized student aid and nearly half of all loan defaults. Some for-profit schools have alarmingly high default rates for their students; a recent Senate committee report found 12 for-profit schools they examined had default rates higher than 50 percent.

After hearing testimony from students, Kentucky legislators asked to hear from the then-chairman of the State Board of Proprietary Education (SBPE), Mark Gabis. (Kentucky is one of few states that has such an oversight board.). But Meeks said Gabis’ testimony “raised more questions and concerns than it answered.”

Gabis is also the president of Owensboro-based Daymar College, a college that is currently the defendant in a lawsuit brought forth by former students that alleges that the school left them unprepared for the job market. Gabis has since stepped down as chairman of the SBPE.

Meeks noted that Gabis admitted the board hadn’t done an internal audit and hadn’t responded to students’ requests for help from the state’s $500,000 Student Protection Fund.

Kentucky’s Attorney General Jack Conway (D) announced an investigation into industry practices on Dec. 15 for potentially violating the state’s consumer protection law. Conway issued six subpoenas to for-profit schools, but declined to list the schools that are under investigation. Rep. Meeks also requested an audit of the SBPE from Kentucky’s state auditor, Crit Luallen, on Dec. 29.

Meeks is proposing legislation that aims to provide greater oversight to these for-profit schools. It would place them under the authority of the state’s council on postsecondary education, bringing the schools under scrutiny similar to that of other state-funded institutions. Right now, the State Board of Proprietary Education is dominated by individuals with financial or other ties to proprietary schools.

“There’s a sense that the fox is guarding the henhouse,” Meeks says. “The decisions [the board] have made protect the schools more than the citizens of the commonwealth of Kentucky.”

The groups that work on behalf of the for-profit schools in Kentucky say they are reserving their judgment on the legislation. "We are still processing the substantive provisions of Rep. Meeks' bill, but we will be happy to work with him and his colleagues toward a mutually acceptable solution," says Brenda L. Gargano, Executive Director of Kentucky Association of Career Colleges & Schools.

Still, Meeks says he recognizes that for-profit schools serve a purpose, and there are some that have close affiliations with other non-profit institutions or with industries that are doing a good job of preparing students. But others he says “may not offer the panacea that they claim they do.”

Cross posted.

Blue Valentine and Choice

(Publicity still for Blue Valentine)

I watched Blue Valentine this weekend. (Spoilers ahead, though the film isn't so much driven by plot.) Though I kept hearing the film was so depressing since it was about the end of a heterosexual relationship, I didn't really come out of it feeling that devastated.

The film is ultimately about people more or less trapped by circumstances. Both of the main characters, played by Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, are working class people who have potential. Williams' character, Cindy, says she'd really love to go to medical school and be a doctor. Gosling's character is more content with his life in manual labor though apparently has some skill as a musician and an artist.

We see the characters in two parallel story lines, one in which they are falling in love and the other in which they are falling out of love. When the two meet, Cindy is in the midst of a breakup with another boyfriend who we witness having sex with her and coming in her without her consent. The act ultimately destroys her relationship with the previous boyfriend. She then meets Gosling's character, and the beginning of their relationship coincides with the messy end of another. The scenes in which the two characters fall asleep are touching, making the contrast with the second storyline a sharp one.

It seems clear throughout the film that Williams isn't on birth control in that first storyline. Her partners also don't seem to use condoms. When she discovers she's pregnant, she can't say for sure that Gosling's character is the father. But contraception isn't discussed in the film by any of the characters.

The film then includes a scene in an abortion clinic, in which Williams' character gets to the point of receiving anesthesia and then asks to stop the procedure. We don't know why Williams' character decides she doesn't want an abortion, but the film leads us to believe that it is he pain and discomfort of the procedure that causes her to change her mind. (I'd be interested to hear from women who have undergone the experience to examine how realistic the discomfort is depicted.) Afterward, they decide to stay together and "be a family," as Gosling says, the scene is tragic because we've been watching end of their relationship at the same time in the parallel storyline.

Still, I didn't come away from the movie feeling sad. Their relationship ran a natural course. It is just because of circumstances that they were tied together by a chil, an adorable girl named Frankied. But because it seems that they would each honestly be happier apart than they would be together, and it seems that they ultimately love and care for Frankie.

Would the characters been happier had Williams' character not gotten pregnant? Maybe. It's certainly true that the end of the relationship might not have been as fraught with consideration for a child and they possibly may not have rushed into getting married so quickly. But in the end, these were the choices they made. That's the thing about giving women the choice of having an abortion. She might choose not to have one. Sometimes that's the better choice and sometimes it isn't. It's unclear how we're supposed to feel about Williams' characters choice. Some may come out of the movie thinking so, others may come out of it thinking she made the right one. But ultimately it's important that she's allowed to make that decision.

Friday Links: 'Math Is Hard. Let's Go Shopping.'

(Flickr/Bindaas Madhavi)

• This is a really fantastic slideshow that refutes the "men are just better at math" idea. My favorite quote? "Math is hard. Let's go shopping." [Geek Feminism Blog]
• Most sports reporters are white (and, I might add, male) and it's hurting sports coverage. [Colorlines]
• Miller Lite runs a sexist ad campaign. Again. [Bitch Blogs]
• Planned Parenthood Arizona does some good work, but this writer thinks it's still firmly entrenched in the white "mainstream." [The Feminist Wire]
• As the comic industry hems and haws about what their female readers want, one blogger took it upon herself to ask a bunch of women who read comics what they want. [Okazu]
• Boardwalk Empire has brought prostitutes to premium cable again, and this blogger interviews an extra who played one. [Abortion Gang]
• London was once the home of a ruthless all-female gang called Forty Elephants in the 18th century. [The Guardian]
• A stay-at-home mom can't sleep because she's given up decades of earning power. [Salon]
• New Yorker's fiction writers are mostly male. [The Millions]

Teens Critical of Sexual Health Information Online

(Flickr/ChepeNicoli)

Via Guttmacher, a new study conducted by Guttmacher's own Rachel K. Jones and Ann E. Biddlecom of the United Nations Population Division discovered teens are wary of information about sex they find on the internet (or Internet, if you're the AP Stylebook). It's almost as if they discovered that information found on in the interwebz is sometimes unreliable! Instead they'd rather rely on advice from family members, teachers, or -- gasp -- their doctors. It's almost as if these savvy teens recognize that sexual health is related to other health.

Seriously, though, I think this study reveals that teens are just as smart (or smarter) than the rest of us. It's not that there isn't good information out there on the internet (Scarleteen, Sex, etc., Planned Parenthood's teen site, AmplifyYour Voice, and It's Your Sex Life are all great resources), but teens have figured out that information on the internet varies based on the writer's bias. The Guttmacher press release noted that, "The teens indicated a distrust of online information because it is often user-generated and could therefore be incorrect." Reading information on the internet is much like encountering information in the rest of your life. You have to figure out what information reliable and what information isn't. Sometimes, it's harder to tell than other times.

Teens are turning to people they already trust because, well, they already trust them in other aspects of life. But like anything, the folks you trust to get you to school on time or teach you algebra theory might be a great resource -- or they might not. The important thing for teens to do as they suss out information on sex, whether they are thinking about becoming sexually active right then or want to wait until later in life, is to use their critical thinking skills and look for sources that are trustworthy, whether online or in real life (IRL for you teens!).

Most important, there should be an abundance of good information out there. One grad student in public health admitted on a listserv I'm on that she sometimes killed time by responding to sexual health-related inquiries on Yahoo! Answers. It's a great way of contributing in a small way for those teens who may not feel comfortable going to family members or other adults for information.

So if you have the expertise, this seems like an easy way to help tilt the scale toward good information online.

Why Vaginal Steam Baths are Bad

(Flickr/greenmelinda)

Apparently some women are going to spas to get their vaginas "steamed" at Korean spas. The LA Times reported last month:

Vaginal steam baths, called chai-yok, are said to reduce stress, fight infections, clear hemorrhoids, regulate menstrual cycles and aid infertility, among many other health benefits. In Korea, many women steam regularly after their monthly periods.

There is folk wisdom — and even some logic — to support the idea that the carefully targeted steam may provide some physiological benefits for women. But there are no studies to document its effectiveness, and few American doctors have even heard of it.

There are lots of reasons why this is a bad idea. First, steam can cause more severe burns than boiling water and I'm guessing few women want burns anywhere near their vajayjays. Ow.

Second, at best this treatment is designed to achieve the same goals as vaginal douching. And if you don't know how bad that is for you already, you should read this article.

In short, never let anyone put steam anywhere near your vagina. Just don't.

Looking at the Source on New 'Study' That Says Women Want to 'Marry Up'

(Flickr/Mr. Physics)

I was all set to write a snarky blog post about this recent article in the British Telegraph that says a new "study" finds that women don't really want equal pay and a career. Instead, says Dr. Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics, that women really just want to "marry up." But then I realized that this was an actual News Article published in a serious Newspaper and that people might take it seriously. Sometimes folks think the British are more trustworthy -- possibly because they add extra letters to words and have authoritative accents.

Let's start with the newspaper that published the article. See, Brits don't have our weird American obsession with objective journalism. Instead, they adopted long ago what we have adopted more of today. According to NPR's helpful map of British newspaper ideology, The Guardian is back by the UK's Labor (liberal) party, while the Telegraph is backed by the conservatives. This quote from a conservative member of parliament pretty much says it all:

"If a Guardian journalist were to interview me, I would definitely assume that they would be trying to penetrate into areas of weakness in what the government is doing ... or particular policies that they are very worried about," says Nick Boles, a Conservative member of Parliament from England's East Midlands region. "Whereas with The Telegraph, they'd probably be more likely to be ... looking for ways in which the government was betraying the Conservative cause."

So I guess the Guardian is more similar to the American Huffington Post while the Telegraph is more similar to more conservative news outlets like the Daily Caller or the Weekly Standard.

Meanwhile the place that published the study mentioned in the Telegraph article is the Centre for Policy Studies, which is basically a conservative think tank. It was founded, according to its own website, to "'convert the Tory Party' to economic liberalism." It also looks like the think tank has picked up more of a socially conservative bent over the years. From CPS' page on "social policy/family":

The family is at the heart of society. Evidence from a wide range of UK and US sources show that children who experience family breakdown or who grow up in fatherless families are at much higher risk of poor outcomes: from educational failure to drink and drug abuse, from crime and teenage pregnancy to unemployment and relationship breakdown.

UK fiscal policy should be reformed to support marriage through the tax system and to remove the welfare penalty on two-parent families. State intervention in family life should focus on protection of vulnerable children; it should not extend to managing their day-to-day lives and removing responsibility and judgment from parents.

CPS also held an event last March titled "How the sisterhood fails mothers." And the title of the study cited in the Telegraph article is actually titled "Feminist Myths and Magic Medicine," and the text of the study itself sounds a lot like gender essentialism from the days of yore. Hakim notices that few women are high economic achievers, so she concludes this must be because women don't want to be high economic achievers. In short, the research seems to conclude that feminism has been around for a few decades and we don't have gender equality yet, so it must not work!

Sounds like pretty standard social conservatism here in America. In other words, it sounds like citing a study about women in the workforce put out by CPS would be similar to one put out by the Heritage Foundation.

One of Heim's key findings in the study she put forth is that "Despite feminist claims, the truth is that most men and women have different career aspirations and priorities." She simply observes a pattern and doesn't delve into why women "want" different things from careers than men and doesn't spend much time diving into what forces might shape those different desires.

Hakim herself is known for criticizing feminist theory, and has recently put forth work on "erotic capitol" or the idea that sexual appeal can result in economic capitol. This is yet another gender essentialist idea that at best makes feminists uncomfortable.

So next time you see an article that puts forth claims that new research finds women don't actually want equality, it might be useful to spend some time thinking about who is saying that and why.