About.com Women's Issues

Placenta as 'Person' - Colorado's Personhood Amendment Ignores Basic Biology and Legal Issues

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:28:59 +0000

Colorado is stepping onto the slipperiest of slopes with ballot initiative 25, also known as the Colorado Personhood Amendment, which will severely curtail the rights of pregnant women by granting full legal rights to the cells of a fertilized egg. Initiative 25 would also extend personhood rights to eggs fertilized asexually, which would impact in vitro fertilization. And it falsely assigns 'personhood' without really understanding human development.

The initiative is less about promoting personhood and more about restricting reproductive choice. It's part of a nationwide effort by pro-life activist organization Personhood USA to introduce similiar legislation in every state in the U.S., a goal they announced earlier today. Founded by Cal Zastrow and Keith Mason, the two men are clear on their intent as they told MetroCatholic.com:

"Our goal has been to serve Jesus Christ and offer support to grassroots pro-lifers," stated Cal Zastrow, co-founder of Personhood USA. "Personhood USA exists to support, encourage, and assist Personhood movements across the country. We are excited to continue this fight against the dehumanization and murder of preborn children."

Attorneys affiliated with Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union say that Personhood USA is essentially opening up a can of worms with little regard for the legal ramifications. In Colorado, initiative 25 would amend the state constitution in more than 20,000 places, opening the door to potential criminal charges being filed against pregnant women who have a drink, are morbidly obese, attempt�suicide, or use the Pill -- all situations that could pose a risk to the fetus. And a woman could be charged with a crime even if she didn't know she was pregnant at the time.

According to the Colorado Independent, the co-founders of Personhood USA could give a hoot about any of the above:

The legal questions surrounding the initiative at this point are not a priority to Personhood USA....

Presented with some of the hypothetical legal and rights issues related to the initiative, Keith Mason...one of the proponents of Initiative 25, said he didn't want to speculate on the particulars of the bill.

"I can't answer that because it's a hypothetical," said Mason. "It's like asking what would happen if a Martian came down and impregnated a woman on Earth. Let's talk about real issues."

Mason said he would "worry about the [legal] details later," after the bill had passed.

Let's talk about the real issues then, as Mason said.

The real issue is that any form of 'personhood' would ban all forms of abortion, even in the case of rape or incest; it would deny women the right to choose; and it would even make illegal many forms of contraception such as birth control pills, which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

Personhood destroys the most fundamental of American democratic concepts -- the separation of church and state, a guiding principle of government that our founding fathers knew was critical to freedom and self-determination. Personhood is far more dangerous than we realize.

Personhood is misogyny wrapped up in the 'you can't touch this' veil of religion and puts forth a faith-based viewpoint which does not even represent the majority of those who are followers of Christianity and/or believe in God or a higher Being.

Looking at 'personhood' from a purely rational perspective, consider this; it's estimated that the human body has between 50 and 75 trillion cells. If we go back to basic biology, you'll remember that when the sperm penetrates the egg, the resulting single cell is called a zygote. At this point, Personhood USA refers to this material as a 'person'...but is it? Read on to refresh your memory about how embryonic development occurs:

The zygote spends the next few days traveling down the Fallopian tube and divides to form a ball of cells. The zygote continues to divide, creating an inner group of cells with an outer shell. This stage is called a blastocyst. The inner group of cells will become the embryo, while the outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish and protect it.

The blastocyst reaches the womb (uterus) around day 5, and implants into the uterine wall on about day 6....The cells of the embryo now multiply and begin to take on specific functions. This process is called differentiation. It leads to the various cell types that make up a human being (such as blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells).

I've bolded the sentence that highlights the biggest flaw in the personhood argument -- a point I have yet to see any anti-choice advocate refute.

In the early stages of fetal development, only a small portion of the cells actually become 'the baby.' The other portion becomes the placenta, the support material that makes a full-term pregnancy possible but is 'thrown out' after birth -- in fact, it's often called 'afterbirth.' Afterbirth arises from embryonic tissue, but it is not a 'person.'

So personhood amendments, in effect, are elevating the cells of the zygote by labeling all of them a 'person' when many of them will never grow into a human being and lack the potential to do so. In fact, can anyone tell the difference between the cells of the zygote that will become the fetus and those that will develop into the placenta?

As for the fetus itself, cell differentiation doesn't begin until after day 6 following conception.

Keep this in mind as we go back and compare the woman with the zygote.

What rational, intelligent, thinking human being would say, "Yes, I agree that the rights of the 50-70 trillion cells of the mother should be superseded by the rights of the 32-celled zygote when it's not even clear which of those cells will become a baby and which will become the placenta which will be thrown out after birth."

That's what Personhood USA is saying, and it's not only an irrational argument, it's an incredibly emotional and uninformed position to take.

I'll support 'personhood' when Mason and Zastrow can look at a multi-celled embryo and tell me which ones will grow and emerge as a baby,� speak its first words, take its first steps, attend kindergarten, learn to read, go to prom, graduate from high school, get a job, pay taxes, marry or live alone, raise children (or not) and eventually die...and which ones will become the placenta and get 'thrown out.'

Because Personhood USA is adamantly opposed to throwing out cells -- it intends to empower them by making them 'persons' at an arbitrary point in embryonic development. But it ignores basic biology and attempts to slap a simplistic, emotionally-laced definition of 'personhood' on a cellular mass of genetic material, some of which may or may not have the potential to become human life.

And there's the rub. When we begin to falsely empower placenta cells -- in an attempt to protect human life and 'unborn babies' -- and trample the basic rights of women in the U.S., then something is terribly, terribly wrong. And smart, intelligent, rational women and men cannot stand aside and let this happen without a fight.

Placenta as 'Person' - Colorado's Personhood Amendment Ignores Basic Biology and Legal Issues originally appeared on About.com Women's Issues on Friday, November 6th, 2009 at 18:28:59.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Beware of "The Numbers - The Fictions - Shaping Public Opinion"

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:22:05 +0000

There are so many monkey wrenches being thrown into Congress' attempt to pass a health care reform bill that it can be hard to separate fiction from fact.

One example is the claim that government funds will be used to pay for abortion. And another is that the government health insurance program known as Medicare is so ill-managed that fraud eats up roughly 13% -- or $6o billion -- of its $456 billion budget; and if Medicare is such a mess, we'd be stupid to extend government health care further. Right?

Few of us have the knowledge, resources, time or energy to fact check every claim back to its original source. But when determined people take the time to do so, it can be disturbing to find out what turns up.

Recently, the well-respected grandparent of all news magazine shows, 60 Minutes, did a segment on Medicare fraud, citing those numbers I mentioned above -- specifically the alleged $60 million figure.� One of my About.com colleagues, Pierre Tristam (who also writes for the Daytona Beach News-Journal), felt discouraged by the story, thinking it was another nail in the coffin for health care reform. So he started calling around to verify the facts, beginning with the producers of 60 Minutes:

It didn't take long for the story to unravel. There are no facts. "60 Minutes" doesn't know how much Medicare fraud there is. You don't know. I don't know. The federal government doesn't know. Nobody knows, because Medicare fraud as a whole isn't tracked. That's why "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft said fraud is "estimated now to total about $60 billion a year." Estimated. Fine. By whom?

Pierre tried to find the original source for that very specific number, and a 60 Minutes spokesperson handed him over to the Justice Department, where they attempted to pass him off to Health and Human Services. He describes his search and his ultimate findings in "Loose With Numbers: Medicare Fraud Report a Fiction" and tells us, "Those are the numbers -- the fictions -- shaping public opinion across the country and public policy in Washington."

What makes this story a women's issue?

Health care reform is in our best interests. If it's passed, we'll see the elimination of many gender inequities that persist in the current system such as charging women more for insurance than men and calling 'domestic violence' a pre-existing condition and denying coverage.

But more important, it teaches us to question everything that's placed in front of us as 'fact.' So many times, women don't trust their own instincts, experiences, or background knowledge. We get shouted down in debates, or feel unsure of our own research and findings, or hesitate to express an opinion for fear that we might be wrong.

When the most honored of investigative journalism news programs gets it wrong, that tells us that the 'facts' can be slanted, or misunderstood, or selectively chosen (or ignored) to support or discredit a position on a key issue. Or a piece of legislation -- like health care reform -- that will enhance women's lives.

Keep this in mind the next time a politician or pundit spews forth a laundry list of facts and figures to back up his or her argument. If there were a fact checker verifying every claim, how much of it would really be ' the truth'?

Beware of "The Numbers - The Fictions - Shaping Public Opinion" originally appeared on About.com Women's Issues on Thursday, November 5th, 2009 at 00:22:05.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Anti-Choice Democrats Use Abortion to Hold Health Care Reform Hostage

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:58:53 +0000

We all knew that at some juncture in the health care debate, pro-life and pro-choice advocates would confront each other...and abortion would become a sticking point. Several issues previously targeted as potential deal breakers -- including a public option -- have been resolved through compromise and careful negotiation. But abortion has never engendered civil discourse between opposing sides.� One of the prime arguments put forth by abortion opponents is that the issue could derail health care reform...so pro-choice advocates had better back off in pushing for it.

We have just reached the crossroads where push comes to shove.

As the Christian Science Monitor notes, one member of the House claims there are enough anti-abortion Democrats to prevent health care reform supporters from reaching 218 votes, which is the minimum count needed for a majority in the House. That person is Representative Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) who says he has 40 Democrats who'll side with him in opposing anything that might allow federal funds to be used for abortion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received letters (signed by some of those supporters) asking that an anti-abortion amendment to the reform bill be considered.

Yesterday afternoon, Stupak's office released a statement which made clear where he draws the line in the sand: "I will oppose bringing the bill to the floor until an amendment can be offered or language agreed to that will prevent public funding for abortion."

Is this really necessary? As the Monitor points out:

Currently, a federal law known as the Hyde Amendment already prevents the federal funding of abortion. In the drafting of health reform legislation, members of Congress worked to keep the reform "abortion neutral."

In what is known as the Capps Amendment, named for its author, Rep. Lois Capps (D) of California, the reform would allow private health care plans included in a new insurance marketplace to cover abortion, as long as the funds were segregated. In other words, an individual's private funds would be used for abortion coverage, not federal monies....

Advocates of abortion rights argue that the Capps Amendment's provision that separates public from private funds succeeds in keeping the legislation "abortion neutral." Keeping funds separate is a technique already used by the government....[F]ederal Medicaid funds and state matching funds may not be used for abortion, but states have the option of providing supplemental abortion coverage.

Pro-choice advocacy groups such as NARAL believe that Stupak is seeking an outright ban on abortion in the new system health care reform would create. At the very least,� his efforts will reduce the reproductive health care coverage women currently have, as NARAL states 85% of private insurers cover abortion.

Even USA Today supports abortion coverage for women and decries its use as weapon against health care reform. Here's what they said on their opinion page:

As long as abortion remains a legal, constitutionally protected medical procedure, it ought to be covered by insurance plans, private or public. Regardless of how the issue plays out in Congress, though, it mustn't be allowed to scuttle the urgently needed effort to overhaul the nation's dysfunctional health care system.

Anti-Choice Democrats Use Abortion to Hold Health Care Reform Hostage originally appeared on About.com Women's Issues on Wednesday, November 4th, 2009 at 00:58:53.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Beyond the Shriver Report - Ms. Magazine on Changing Work/Life Policy

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:30:27 +0000

The big news in the Shriver Report, subtitled "A Woman's Nation Changes Everything," is that women comprise 50% of today's workforce...and that we've reached that magic number due to current economic woes. Of those laid off during the recession, three-quarters have been men. But where's the change that California First Lady Maria Shriver, author of the report, alludes to?

The sad truth about this "woman's nation" is in the Fall 2009 issue of Ms. magazine, on newsstands today. In the eye-opening article "Paycheck Feminism," authors Karen Kornbluh and Rachel Homer reveal why our current system is dysfunctional in meeting the needs of working women and families:

[C]rucial U.S. government policies that provide economic security to American workers and their families were designed initially during the New Deal to fit that very different era. "Social insurance" programs--which today include Social Security, employer-provided (and tax-subsidized) health care and pensions, unemployment insurance and Medicare -- as well as the 40-hour workweek were first established when only 10 percent of married women were in the paid workforce.

Women are penalized because far more work part-time (25% of women compared to 11% of men) and therefore do not enjoy benefits typically reserved for full-time workers. Kornbluh and Homer say that policymakers were deliberate in crafting legislation that supported men working full-time because "Even as families during the Great Depression were increasingly relying on the wages of a wife or daughter, a backlash was brewing against women working and potentially taking 'men's jobs.'"

As the workplace changed and woman (and men) began to veer away from the traditional work patterns of previous generations, policies did not keep up with these changes. And 30% of households are headed up by women, yet concessions still are not made for women who still bear the burden of caregiving -- for children or elderly relatives -- and have to adjust their work lives to make job and family possible.

What needs to change? The Ms. article comes up with five recommendations "for revamping U.S. work/life policy to take into account women's lives, the variety of way they work and the value of that work." Just the first one alone would be a significant cultural shift in the workplace: "Stop making unemployment, retirement and other benefits contingent on steady, full-time work." The others also address specific concerns of working women and, in the long run, would lead to a stronger economy and more flexibility for the American family. You can read all five recommendations in the Fall 2009 issue of Ms.

Beyond the Shriver Report - Ms. Magazine on Changing Work/Life Policy originally appeared on About.com Women's Issues on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 at 21:30:27.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Will Washington Posts's "Next Great Pundit Contest" Alter Gender Disparity in Op-Ed Pages?

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:29:10 +0000

On the surface, the Washington Post's "America's Next Great Pundit Contest" seems to be taking steps to correct a terrible gender inequity that stares at us from the pages of major American dailies -- the lack of female voices on the op-ed page. This is an ongoing issue and was a big bone of contention back in 2005 when syndicated columnist Susan Estrich got into a shouting match with then-editor of the Los Angeles Times� Michael Kinsley over this inequity.

At that time, WaPo noted the discrepancy between men and women opining:

In the first two months of this year, about 19.5 percent of op-ed pieces at the California paper were by women, 16.9 percent at the New York Times and 10.4 percent at The Washington Post. Only a handful of female columnists -- Maureen Dowd, Ellen Goodman, Molly Ivins -- are nationally known.

Today, I'm happy to report that WaPo appears to be deliberate in its decision to feature female voices in its "America's Next Great Pundit Contest." Out of 4800 entries, the paper chose 10 finalists, half of whom are women. We the readers can look over their entries, and over the course of two days (November 7-9) vote our choices into the next round.

The contest's tagline, "You have an opinion, but do you have what it takes to be heard?" speaks to a deeper issue at the heart of the gender op-ed debate: fewer women submit op-eds than men because many feel they lack the 'qualifications' to express a noteworthy opinion worth publishing.

Catherine Orenstein, who's published a number of op-ed pieces in leading newspapers across the country, decided it was time to counter this with specific training for women to prove this idea false. She founded the Op-Ed Project on a simple premise. As Orenstein explains:

It's a teachable form....It's not like writing Hemingway. You show people the basics of a good argument, what constitutes good evidence, what's a news hook, what's the etiquette of a pitch....

I try to convey the idea that there is a responsibility....Op-ed pages are so enormously powerful. It's one of the few places open to the public. Where else is someone like me going to get access? It's not like I can call up the White House: 'Hello?'

The above example of a conversation with the White House isn't so far-fetched. Orenstein tells Op-Ed Project participants that a week after her opinion piece on Haiti was published in the New York Times, she was meeting with President Bill Clinton's Latin American policy advisors.

Whether that sort of opportunity will present itself to any of the 10 finalists is anybody's guess. But having sat in on an Op-Ed Project presentation with a twenty-something writer and teacher, Courtney Martin -- who is now one of WaPo's 10 finalists -- I can absolutely vouch for the fact that if you give a woman the opportunity, the training, and the conviction that her words have merit, she will use what she's learned to speak out and push for change.

With more women on the op-ed pages, the line between work and life will become more "porous" as Martin notes in her contest entry, "Between work and life." One contest anointing one winner won't make a huge difference. But WaPo's decision to put five women on equal footing with five men in its own fantasy op-ed competition means that we're finally at the table we've been fighting to sit at -- a place where our opinions are of equal weight and value. And if they can do it, why not you?

Will Washington Posts's "Next Great Pundit Contest" Alter Gender Disparity in Op-Ed Pages? originally appeared on About.com Women's Issues on Monday, November 2nd, 2009 at 16:29:10.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Philanthropy Friday - Gender-Based Blindness and the 'Flying Eye'

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:09:18 +0000

I remember being terrified as a kid by a stunningly cheesy B-movie called The Crawling Eye, in which a radioactive cloud on a mountaintop hides a deadly secret.

But the Flying Eye is much more benevolent. It's a world-class eye hospital built right into a DC-10 aircraft, and it's run by ORBIS International, a non-profit organization dedicated to saving sight worldwide. Earlier this month, World Sight Day was observed on October 8th, and I'm kicking myself for not blogging about this earlier since this year's theme was Gender and Eye Health -- equal access to care.

How does sight relate to women's lives? Here's what I learned from ORBIS International:

[N]early two thirds of blind people worldwide are woman and girls....In many places, men have twice the access to eye care as women....But equal access to eye care could reduce the rate of blindness in poor countries. An estimated 45 million children and adults�are blind worldwide...and every year between 1 and 2 million more will lose their sight.

It's reported that 75% of these cases are due to preventable blindness; and many could have their eyesight restored with access to proper eyecare. Without some form of intervention, it's� estimated that by the year 2020 blindness will affect more than 76 million people.

The Flying Eye Hospital offers that kind of intervention through volunteer medical professionals who train local medical teams to provide care. Inside the Flying Eye Hospital, local doctors watch and learn from surgeries involving the latest medical techniques. They then take that knowledge back to their own communities.

Close your eyes and imagine a day of work without sight. Women worldwide are tasked with caring for their families, cooking, cleaning, raising children; think how much harder it would be to do all that without benefit of vision.

ORBIS has put together Eye Reports to show the work of the Flying Eye Hospital. Like any other non-profit, they appreciate donations, but interestingly enough they can also accept donations of frequent flyer miles from United Airlines and AsiaMiles, enabling an ORBIS doctor to travel and perform sight-saving work.

Philanthropy Friday - Gender-Based Blindness and the 'Flying Eye' originally appeared on About.com Women's Issues on Friday, October 30th, 2009 at 13:09:18.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Scariest Thing This Halloween? Extreme Gender Bias Against Women in Politics

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:10:26 +0000

Want to hear something that'll chill your blood? Then listen to the way female politicians have been portrayed in recent days by their peers and by the mainstream media. The National Women's Political Caucus (NWPC) offers a round-up just in time for Halloween:

Gender-stereotyping goblins and ghosts are lurking in the corners of the media and political arena, looking to demean our accomplishments and our women representatives at every turn with a sexist quip.

Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi expresses her opinion on a press conference and the NRCC [National Republican Congresssional Committee] releases a statement saying that she should be "put in her place."

[Maine] Senators [Olympia] Snowe and [Susan] Collins cast their votes on health care reform, and rather than attacking the choice itself they are called "jezebel," and [Rush] Limbaugh quips "women, damn it."

Martha Coakley, who has the potential to be Massachusetts's first female senator, is stereotyped as an "ice queen" and "mean girl."

Some ([Minneapolis radio host] Chris Baker) go so far as to say that they are "not that excited about women voting."

The frightening fact [is] that women - despite comprising over half of the US population - make up only 17% of the House and Senate.....[W]omen get paid only 80 cents for every dollar a man makes! And isn't it shocking that we still haven't been able to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed?!

Want to change the ending of these horror stories? Your opportunity comes just three days after Halloween, on Election Day, when you have the chance to vote.

The NWPC identifies two key races in which highly qualified, competent women are running -- candidates who are not merely 'gender picks' but are best suited to serve the needs of their constituents:

the Massachusetts Senate race (to fill Ted Kennedy's vacant seat) with Democratic candidate Martha Coakley who is currently that state's first female Attorney General. If elected in the January 19, 2009 special election, she'll also be the state's first female Senator.
the New York 23rd Congressional District race with Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava who breaks with her party in declaring herself to be pro-choice and pro-marriage equality. She'll be running in the general election on Tuesday.

Whether or not you can vote in these two races isn't the issue. What matters is that women go to the polls, even in an 'unsexy' off year, and support candidates who will go forth and legislate on behalf of women.

With only 17% of the House and Senate seats filled by women, of course we're not going to find our needs met.

We need to be pro-active and run for public office, support other capable and qualified women in our hometown races, and get inside the system so we can fix what isn't working.

Scariest Thing This Halloween? Extreme Gender Bias Against Women in Politics originally appeared on About.com Women's Issues on Friday, October 30th, 2009 at 12:10:26.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

A Generation After Title IX, Some Still Think 'Women Can't Play Sports'

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:14:31 +0000

It's been 37 years since Title IX was passed, opening doors for women and girls in higher education and sports. Yet you'd never know it from the views of some college students.

In an opinion piece for today's edition of the San Jose University Spartan Daily, staff writer Angela Marino admits to overhearing a male student complain about women's sports, adding that he doesn't think women can play sports. Marino points out that it's a common perception, and one that she's run up against:

A woman athlete...not only compet[es] against competitors during games, but...has to combat the entire male dominated sports media to receive its respect and get adequate coverage.

I have experienced this first hand.

I began playing golf when I was 10 years old. I was surrounded by older men who were more than a little skeptical of my presence on the course.

Today, when I go to the driving range I still receive awkward looks as I set up on my mat.

Male golf players stare at me as if I should have spent my Saturday afternoon shopping.

As a point of reference, Marino looks at the salaries of two top basketball players, one from the WNBA and one from the NBA. It's like comparing apples and oranges. The woman earns $87,000 while the man earns $20 million. Yet both play the same sport.

Marino writes, "Female athletes have the ability to be as influential as male athletes if given the same opportunities that male athletes have been given." She believes that bias exists because men are regarded as the dominant source of physical strength.

Can a man handle a strong woman? I think many can. Back in July I heard from a male reader whom I'll call Tom. He wrote to me directly, asking for advice:

Over the years summer ice hockey teams I played on would round out the� roster with a female or two. It was always a great addition to the� experience. I found a few of the women attractive, but I was married� at the time. My former wife and I split nearly two years ago....

One of my [current] co-workers played hockey [in college]....She� has a lot of the traits I found attractive in my former female summer� hockey league teammates....These women...have character and a good sense of themselves; it is easy to respect� them and be with them. Where can I find....women� who like hockey, appreciate good education, and the other traits these� women have?

According to the Women's Sports Foundation, Tom's observations pick up on a key difference between women who play (or played sports) and those who did not participate in team play:

Girls and women who play sports have higher levels of confidence and self esteem and lower levels of depression...[They] have a more positive body image and experience higher states of psychological well-being than girls and women who do not play sports.

We have an entire generation that has grown up enjoying the benefits of Title IX, yet some outdated ideas still linger.

So why does Tom value his co-worker's sports-oriented background while Marino's male student belittles women's sports? Possibly because he's still a student and has yet to understand the value� that women who possess 'team sport' skills bring to the work environment.� As Donna Lopiano argues in an article for the Women's Sports Foundation:

Women without sports experience are disadvantaged in the work setting....It is no accident that 80% of the female executives at Fortune 500 companies identified themselves as former ""tomboys"" - having played sports.

Whether or not women who don't play sports are disadvantaged at work, one fact is true -- women's sports continue to grow; and as more strong, capable, and fierce competitors like Serena Williams emerge from the world of women's sports, their talent and abilities will be close the gender gap Title IX has fought against for a generation.

A Generation After Title IX, Some Still Think 'Women Can't Play Sports' originally appeared on About.com Women's Issues on Monday, October 26th, 2009 at 19:14:31.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Philanthropy Friday - Pass It Forward and "Be That Woman"

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:57:54 +0000

In tough economic times, how do you inspire people to give? Especially when you're an organization that supports the nebulous concept of "economic empowerment of girls and women"?

The Washington Area Women's Foundation (serving the District of Columbia area) realized that animation might speak louder than words. So the group put together a� 2 minute YouTube video entitled, "Be That Woman." Simple, straightforward, yet powerful, the animated short shows how programs that provide childcare, training, education, and other services create a safety net for women in need. Financial support for these programs ensures that no woman will fall through the cracks.

Mariah Craven, Director of Communications and Marketing, explained, "The idea behind the phrase 'Be That Woman' was that it represents women who not only help other women, but inspire those other women to be agents for change, too."

Communications Committee member Beth Johnson, president of RP3 Agency, volunteered her company to take on the project. Candy Guard, a celebrated animator in the UK, brought the concept to life with endearing stick figures, and members of the Baltimore Symphony performed the score.

Although "Be� That Woman" was commissioned by the DC-based women's foundation, it is not agency-specific and thus has universal appeal. Its broad message promotes women's philanthropy and conveys a key point: help a woman get back on her feet, and she's likely to pass it forward.� As Johnson notes, "This tale of one woman's journey from a position of need to one of strength shows the power of investing in women and girls."

If viral videos of dancing hamsters and babies, exploding bottles of Diet Coke, and overnight sensations like Susan Boyle routinely make it big on the internet, why can't one like this catch on?� Watch "Be That Woman," and if you find yourself tearing up like I did, then do what I'm doing. Pass it forward.

Philanthropy Friday - Pass It Forward and "Be That Woman" originally appeared on About.com Women's Issues on Friday, October 23rd, 2009 at 18:57:54.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

The Shriver Report - "A Woman's Nation" Still Has Far to Go

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:21:20 +0000

For me, the fuss about Maria Shriver's report brings to mind Halley's Comet, an event that only happens once in a lifetime.

What I'm talking about is this: California First Lady and former NBC correspondent Maria Shriver spearheaded a nationwide study on the changing roles of contemporary women, conducted in collaboration with the Center for American Progress. Last week, they released the Shriver Report, subtitled "A Woman's Nation Changes Everything," and yesterday, the Free Press (an imprint of Simon and Schuster) published the Shriver Report as an eBook exclusive.

The Shriver Report prompted me to think about the legendary comet because -- unlike viewers of the once-every-75-years phenomenom -- I've lived to see two (reportedly) groundbreaking studies on the status of women.

The First Time Around

In 1961, the year of my birth, President John F. Kennedy created the President's Commission on the Status of Women and put Eleanor Roosevelt in charge. And now, nearly 50 years later, his niece has returned to this issue with her own take on how American women and families are doing.

The Second Time Around

What does the Shriver Report say? Half the workforce is female. Nearly two-thirds of working mothers are either breadwinners or co-breadwinners in their households. Over 80% of men and women believe that businesses that don't adapt to the needs of modern families risk losing good workers. And 70% of men are comfortable with women working outside the home. Those are verifiable facts.

But it's the assumptions accompanying the Shriver Report that have me worried -- assumptions trumpeted to the world in the first 13 words of the press release announcing the study: "The Battle of the Sexes is over. Now it's Negotiations Between the Sexes."

It's a great soundbite and an optimistic take on where women stand in society. But it's more rooted in PR 'good spin' sentiment than any honest assessment of the lives of working women today.

Equal Number of Women, But Not Equal Benefits

Though attitudes may have changed, workplace policy and gender polity haven't advanced at the same pace as women's entry into the workforce. Just because there's an equal number of men and women doesn't mean they earn the same wages, hold the same positions based on merit and skill, are promoted in equal numbers and at equal rates, and enjoy the same benefits in terms of health care, paid leave, and retirement.

The quantity of female workers may be the same as male workers, but the quality of their work experience still falls short of what men enjoy on the job:

Look at what women CEOs earn -- much less than men.
Look at the experience of Lilly Ledbetter, who was shortchanged hundreds of thousands of dollars on her earnings simply because she was a woman, and had to go to court to fight for her fair share.
Look at the women who faithfully worked for AT&T for many years, never realizing that the company regarded maternity leave as different from any other medical leave and basically reset the clock on their pensions so that they were considered "new hires" after they returned to work, thus earning far less in retirement benefits.
Look at how insurance companies regard women, denying them coverage because of "pre-existing conditions" such as domestic abuse and c-sections.
Look at how David Letterman 'treated' some of the women who worked for him.

Is this what workplace equality looks like?

A Kick in the Pants

The battle of the sexes isn't over. Instead, a temporary cease-fire is in effect, while those who oversee big-picture strategy figure out if change is necessary now that half the troops are women.

If anything lasting comes from the Shriver Report, it won't be a pat on the back that we're doing okay, but a well-placed kick in the pants that propels us to reconfigure the workplace to address the needs of working women.

Third Time Around?

If 80% of men and women believe that businesses will lose good workers if they don't make the necessary changes, what is the private sector waiting for? Hopefully not a third go-round over the status of women in America, because I highly doubt I'll be around in 50 years for that one.

More on the Shriver Report and whether it accurately addresses the issues of women in the workforce:

WowOwow (The Women on the Web) with the Shriver Report press release
New York Times on NBC's special week of coverage on women
PunditMom Joanne Bamberger on the report and a conversation with Maria Shriver
Women's Media Center and Gloria Steinem's take on a Woman's Nation
Huffington Post and Jesse Kornbluth on the gloomy trends the report reveals
AAUW on why women should read the online summary, if not the entire report itself
The Shriver Report website including that online summary

The Shriver Report - "A Woman's Nation" Still Has Far to Go originally appeared on About.com Women's Issues on Wednesday, October 21st, 2009 at 17:21:20.

Permalink | Comment | Email this