If contraception is abortion… August 14, 2008

then so are breastfeeding and exercise. William Saletan at Slate draws out the consequences of the proposed definition of ‘abortion’. A sample:

Thousands of people working at hospitals, lactation centers, maternity-product retailers, drug stores, and supermarkets are presently required by their employers to participate in breast-feeding, either by teaching it or by providing products that facilitate it. Those who refuse can be terminated at will. They endure this discrimination despite clear scientific evidence that breast-feeding poses the same abortifacient risk as oral contraception.

Thanks, Rachel!

Contraception: Makes women choose ‘wrong’ partner August 13, 2008

I’m not making this up, though I wish I was. And it’s not in some right-wing paper either. I imagine we’ll be hearing a lot about this. (Thanks, BTPS.)

“I’ve Never Been To Me” August 11, 2008

Wow. I’d never actually listened to the lyrics of this song. Certainly didn’t know it was about how we chicks all need babies to make us complete, and how bad sexual freedom is. And now it’s gonna be stuck in my head all day. Damn.

Do female academics have fewer kids? July 9, 2008

This study (of anthropologists) suggests that they do– as compared to women in other professions with similar training times. Many interesting puzzles to be found in the data, but I’ll never get this book written if I get started on them here! (Thanks, Sally!)

Mentoring and Diversity June 9, 2008

Sophia Wong has posted a short essay on “how to mentor someone who doesn’t look like you”, but as she notes the issues are much broader than those related to appearance– how, for example do you mentor a student with kids if you don’t have kids?  Or a trans person if you’re not trans?  A disabled person if you’re not disabled?  Since under-represented groups *are* under-represented, people from the better represented groups need to do some thinking about how to be good mentors to those unlike them.  And Wong lists some simple, useful tips.  Go check it out!

Women Still Not Running for Public Office June 2, 2008

For the American version of the Fawcett report, see the recent Brookings Institute report which surveyed thousands of men and women in public service, to produce “the first comprehensive investigation of the process by which women and men decide to enter the electoral arena.”  The good news is that by most measures, women perform as well as men in office and once on ballots.  The less thrilling news is that women are far less likely to run.  This is for both internal and external reasons, e.g., women report feeling less ambitious with respect to high office, but in addition, women are asked less often, seeming to occur as options less often to recruiters. (Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post immediately noticed the difference between women in public service primarily responsible for house- and child-care, 60%, and men in public service primarily responsible for house- and child-care, 4%.  One might call that a significant difference!) 

If only my dad were in a position of power. When I asked him to imagine candidates for vice-president, all he could come up with in either party were the names of women. I suggested, oh, about 80% of the U.S. Senate, to which he replied, “Nah.”  Way to go, Dad!

Reproductive Justice Victories in the UK May 21, 2008

Good news all round today, as the BBC tells us that the 24-week limit on abortion has been upheld (despite moves to lower it to 22 or or even 12 weeks); and that fertility clinics are no longer being required to consider the need for “a mother and father” when deciding whether to offer treatment. Instead, they will be required to consider the need for “a loving family”.

US readers may experience a bit of culture shock when they learn that the Tory leading the charge against the latter move said the following about lesbian parents: “I hope, like everybody else, we would want any such relationship to prosper and the child would benefit.” There certainly is homophobia over here, plenty of it– but totally blatant expressions of it are far less socially acceptable than in the US.

Mother’s Maiden Name? May 19, 2008

There’s recently been a discussion on the FEAST mailing list about the fact that the APA uses as its online security question, “what is your mother’s maiden name?” And you know, despite all my years of teaching feminist stuff about language usage, I’d never reflected much on the problems with that very standard security question. (And that shocks me, as I’ve thought a lot about marital name change issues, which are obviously closely related. Really a nice demonstration of how something can be taken for granted no matter how vigilant we try to be.) Some problems are obvious, like the fact that it’s based on the expectation that all women change their name upon marriage; and the assumption that all mothers are married. Feminists have spent a lot of time on the problems with this sort of thing, so I won’t rehearse that here. But allow me to mention the really BIG one, which should convince even those who don’t see a problem with expecting women to change their names.

This is meant to be a SECURITY question, which asks for some information that’s not readily and publicly available. More and more women are not changing their names upon marriage, and more and more women are having children without getting married. Mother’s name before marriage is very easily accessible in the first case– especially if it’s THE SAME AS THE CHILD’S– and nonsensical in the second. Times have changed, and the question needs to change too– it’s currently providing lousy security. (And bad politics.)

Update: You know, I even failed to realise what terrible security it is FOR ME: My mother’s maiden name is my middle name, and that often appears on credit cards, etc. (Whenever I’ve been asked, I’ve felt mildly annoyed, but usually set that aside because I was trying to get something done and didn’t want to get distracted from that. So I never thought it all through.)

Yet another rule April 22, 2008

That mothers must adhere to, for fear of risking their children’s health. As recently as, oh, probably last week, the wisdom was that breastfeeding must be on demand rather than on a schedule– or else the milk will never be properly established. And babies must be allowed to feed on one breast until it’s emptied– otherwise they will miss out on the most nourishing milk. Now it seems the opposite is true– babies need schedules and no more than 10 minutes per breast. When I went to breastfeeding classes a couple years ago, we were taught about how people used to believe just that, and taught that this was the reason for so many breastfeeding failures in the recent, unenlightened past. Looks like the pendulum’s getting set to swing again… Just as it did with age of first solid food (Must be 4 months! Must be 6 months! Grave danger if rule not followed!). And with drinking (Must give pregnant women intravenous alcohol! Must not even have a bite of rum-flavoured ice cream!). And with fish for pregnant women (Must eat lots! Must avoid at all costs!). And peanuts (see fish rules). And co-sleeping (Terrible– potential physical and psychological disaster! Mandatory for psychological and physical health!). And pregnancy weight gain (Must be strictly minimised! Must be embraced!).

Maybe, just maybe a bit of epistemic humility is called for– an acknowledgement of uncertainty and variation, and a respect for women making their own decisions in light of ALL available information, rather than just whatever is favoured by the dogma of the time. And perhaps genuine, open discussion of all this. (My NHS midwife wasn’t even permitted to discuss the possibility that anything other than demand feeding might be worth consideration, though she found ways to implicate that.) Thanks, Mr Jender, for the link.

A Pregnant Man April 6, 2008

 The story of a man (an FTM trans man) having a baby has got a lot of press.  Rachel McKinney was right, though to write and urge us to get feminist philosophers talking about it, as it really is great food for thought– and for messing with all those traditional sex and gender binaries. McKinney writes at her blog: 

I like the situation discussed in the Advocate article because it can be interpreted as evidence that reproductive capacity as a sufficient condition for sex distinction is not uncontroversially true.

And it can also serve to make one really wonder whether it’s a sex distinction or a gender distinction at issue.  Or how each of these should be drawn.  (Think of definitions of ‘woman’ as a gender term that include as sufficient the experience of being pregnant; but also of those that focus on self-identification; or those that invoke how one is perceived by others.  Think of definitions of ‘female’ as a sex term that focus on reproductive organs; now think of those that include secondary sexual characteristics like facial hair.)  And, as I realised when I went to click on categories, about the categories of maternity and paternity. (This father will in all likehood give birth in a maternity ward.) This is one of those cases one can keep going back and forth with, realising the inadequacies of our current categories. Its also a really lovely tale of a couple managing to have their much-wanted child despite both infertility problems and the additional problems of truly vile discrimination that they encountered. Though the latter is pretty depressing to read about.

Having a baby? Get yer coat! April 2, 2008

Thought those days of being sacked because you were pregnant were long gone? Think again. A new report on sexism in the workplace revealed that over 30,000 women each year lose their jobs because they become pregnant. The report also reveals that 18 per cent of sex discrimination awards are for sexual harassment, two-thirds of low paid workers are women, and that women working full-time are paid on average 17% less than men. Here’s the Guardian article.

Gender Pay Gap Triples After 30 March 19, 2008

Some dramatic figures which illustrate phenomena probably already well-known to many readers, from the BBC.

Mr Barber [General Secretary of the UK's Trade Union Congress] said: “We all expect our wages to increase as our careers progress. But women’s wages start to stagnate as early as their 30s.”Despite girls outperforming boys at school and at university, too many employers are still failing to make use of women’s skills.”The TUC study found that women of all ages earn less than men and that woman are twice as likely as men to be poor…Fawcett’s campaigns officer Kat Banyard said: “At every level in UK workplaces women are being paid less than men.”The paucity of senior flexible roles and the long working hours culture shuts women out of the boardroom and forces then into lower-paid, lower-status jobs when they have children.”

One thing I like about the TUC approach is the way that it highlights both the injustice to women and the loss to employers. Students all too often react to figures like these by insisting that it would be too impractical for employers to accommodate the needs to parents with heavy childcare responsibilities. It’s well worth noting what employers miss out on by not doing so.

Minister for women Harriet Harman said the government planned “tough new measures” in an Equality Bill to be published later this year.

Hope these measures really are both tough and new.(Thanks, Jender-Parents!)

Trading housework for sex? March 6, 2008

From the AP’s article “Men Who do More Housework Get More Sex”

American men still don’t pull their weight when it comes to housework and child care, but collectively they’re not the slackers they used to be. The average dad has gradually been getting better about picking himself up off the sofa and pitching in, according to a new report in which a psychologist suggests the payoff for doing more chores could be more sex.

The article reports on what sounds like an all-around good trend: more equitable division of household labour and more sex. What’s not to like? Well, one thing not to like is the assumption that sex is a reward for men– a thing that women give to them in exchange for labour. Has it ever occurred to the article’s author or the headline writer that sex might be, well, desired by both partners? Or that if it’s happening and it *isn’t* desired by both partners that’s something *bad*? (Thanks, Jender-Parents!)

Strange and Disturbing Statistics January 25, 2008

From an improbable source (a NYRB article  on global warming), I’ve learned:

that between 1992 and 2004, the percentage of Americans who agreed with the statement “The father of the family must be the master in his own house” went from 42 to 52 percent. But at the same time, the percentage who agreed that “taking care of the home and kids is as much a man’s work as women’s work” rose from 86 percent in 1992 to 89 percent in 2004.   

What did I find so striking about this? Well, if I’d only seem the second set of figures, I might well have thought that 89% of Americans in 2004 had abandoned the idea of traditional gender roles within the family– it sounds great that 89% think “taking care of the home and kids is as much a man’s work as women’s”. And it is great. But the shocking thing is that at the very same time 52% still think the man must be “master in his own house”. If I’d read this one alone, I would have thought over half of Americans supported traditional gender roles in the family. So I found this quite an important lesson regarding how crucial it is not to just look at one set of figures and think we have the full picture. (In fact, it makes me want to go look at the rest of the study– who knows what might be in there?– but I haven’t had the chance.)

Another surprise: if I’d been told that there was a big difference in answer to the two questions, I would have guessed that more people would be willing to say that taking care of children is women’s work than would be willing to say that a man should be “master in his home”. After all, the first fits well with rather widely accepted claims about innate differences between men and women, and the second sounds (to me anyway) like a very obvious endorsement of male dominance. I would have expected the latter to be less socially acceptable and so less likely to be agreed to.

The final surprise: the number assenting to the “master of his house” claim went UP. Eek.

Getting tenure first January 19, 2008

For women who want to have children, an academic career in a tenured position can seem unfairly problematic.  One approach to the problem is to hold off trying to have children until you have gotten tenure.  The alternative of late motherhood is explored in Elizabeth Gregory’s new book,  Ready:  Why Women Are Embracing the New Later Motherhood, which is based on interviews with over 100 moms who chose this option. Using both anecdotal and statistical evidence, Gregory delivers what may be unexpectedly good news about later motherhood, which amazon.com lists as:

-Stronger family focus: Having achieved many of their personal and career goals, new later moms feel ready to focus on family rather than trying to juggle priorities
-More financial power: New later moms have established careers and make higher salaries
-Greater self-confidence: New later moms have more career experience, and their management skills translate directly into managing a household and advocating for their children
-More stable single-parenting: New later moms who are single have more resources
-High marriage rate: On average, 85 percent of new later moms are married, lending stability to the family structure
-Longer lives: Evidence indicates that new later moms actually live longer than moms who start their families earlier

( Gregory’s blog lists another advantage that applies to lesbians.) 

The downsides of waiting are all too familiar; the advantages can now be considered too.
You might also want to look at Gregory on the Huffington Post here and here.  A review is here. 

(Required disclosure: the author is a friend of mine.)

Outsourcing Pregnancies to India January 4, 2008

You know, this one just renders me speechless. And yet I feel somehow I should have expected it.

Anand, India– Every night in this quiet western Indian city, 15 pregnant women prepare for sleep in the spacious house they share, ascending the stairs in a procession of ballooned bellies, to bedrooms that become a landscape of soft hills. A team of maids, cooks and doctors looks after the women, whose pregnancies would be unusual anywhere else but are common here. The young mothers of Anand, a place famous for its milk, are pregnant with the children of infertile couples from around the world. The small clinic at Kaival Hospital matches infertile couples with local women, cares for the women during pregnancy and delivery, and counsels them afterward. Anand’s surrogate mothers, pioneers in the growing field of outsourced pregnancies, have given birth to roughly 40 babies….Commercial surrogacy has been legal in India since 2002, as it is in many other countries, including the United States. But India is the leader in making it a viable industry rather than a rare fertility treatment. Experts say it could take off for the same reasons outsourcing in other industries has been successful: a wide labor pool working for relatively low rates.  Critics say the couples are exploiting poor women in India — a country with an alarmingly high maternal death rate — by hiring them at a cut-rate cost to undergo the hardship, pain and risks of labor.  ”It raises the factor of baby farms in developing countries,” said Dr. John Lantos of the Center for Practical Bioethics in Kansas City, Mo. “It comes down to questions of voluntariness and risk.”  

(Thanks, Jender-Parents, for the link.)

Women and Minorities in Philosophy December 14, 2007

There’s currently a huge amount of momentum around the issue of improving numbers of women and minorities in philosophy.  A major catalyst for this has been Sally Haslanger’s incredibly important paper on the topic.  I know that many women just starting out in philosophy found that paper a very depressing read.  But the extremely good news is that it’s serving as a real catalyst for discussion and action, and there’s actually a lot of optimism and energy. There’s a nice example in this post from Evelyn Brister:

In the last decade, at least half of U.S. college graduates have been women. But less than a third of philosophy majors have been women. Women have not reached workplace equity at the beginning of the 21st century, but there are only a few places and ways in which they are not reaching educational parity. Philosophy—the discipline that takes as its subjects ethics, justice, consistency, and self-reflection—is one of those places.What does this gender inequality indicate about our discipline? Some have taken it to indicate that the material itself is gender-biased, that the methods of argumentation reflect masculine psychology, or that philosophy is a bastion of cultural traditionalism that incubates sexist practices.That assessment is too negative, in my opinion. As an optimist, a meliorist, and a pragmatist, I think that it indicates first and foremost that philosophers, unlike other analytic disciplines, have not made gender parity a priority.       

Brister argues for greater attention to undergraduate recruitment and retention. If you have thoughts on this, head over to her post and share them! Sharon Crasnow suggests that those of us from under-represented groups who have persevered or even thrived in philosophy should reflect on what helped us to do this and to talk about this. If you have stories on this to share, go tell Sharon. There are also some very important data collection efforts getting underway– more on those in a later post.

One thing that’s struck me is that there actually are a lot of genuinely well-meaning people in philosophy who would like to improve recruitment and retention of women and minorities in philosophy, at all levels, but who need some guidance about how to do so. I’m going to be working on providing a document with such guidance, and would appreciate any suggestions you may have. One thing I’d particularly like to hear about is what sorts of techniques actually help one to correct against the very unconscious biases that Haslanger and Valian have drawn our attention to. But I’m really interested in hearing about any ideas you may have– or reports of efforts, even those that haven’t worked. Please put them in the comments!

Note: Categories have been updated as a result of comments.

What Every Baby Needs: Disembodied Hands December 11, 2007

Aside from the OH MY GOD IT’S SO CREEPY factor (not to be underestimated), and my view that we all need a laugh at this point in the semester, this is actually relevant to our blog. Because those are apparently the MOTHER’S hands being simulated (who else’s could do the job?) And yes, Mom does seem required to be beige.  But I’ve just got to leave you with the tagline: “It’s like leaving a part of you with the baby.” Really. That is actually the tagline. (Thanks, Mr Jender!)

Sad and Embarrassing December 6, 2007

The NY Times reports that in the US the birth rate among teenagers has risen for the first time since1991.

The birth rate among teenagers 15 to 19 in the United States rose 3 percent in 2006, according to a report issued Wednesday, the first such increase since 1991.

The finding has “fueled a debate about whether the Bush administration’s abstinence-only sexual education efforts are working,” thank goodness.

It may be that the changes track a lessening of fear about aids; however, the US figures are out of line with the “developed” world’s.

Kristin A. Moore, a senior scholar at Child Trends, a nonprofit children’s research organization, said the increase in the teenage birth rate was particularly alarming because even the 2005 rate was far higher than that in other industrialized countries.

A spokesman from the conservative heritage foundation tells us that the teenagers wanted to get pregnant, but

Dr. Santelli of Columbia said that many abstinence-only educational efforts tended to emphasize that contraceptives often fail. “They scare kids about contraception,” he said

“Gay Rights Have Gone Too Far!” December 6, 2007

A likely response, I expect, to news that a UK man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple, now separated, is being required to pay child support.   The truth, actually, is precisely the opposite.  (1) If the couple had obtained sperm from a donor bank, the man would have no legal responsibilities.  But donor banks are currently permitted (though not required) to turn away lesbian couples because of the absence of a male role model.  (2) If the non-birth-mother had been legally recognised as a parent, the man would not have had any legal responsibilities.  So really what’s needed is MORE gay rights.  Changes to the law are currently being considered: 

Proposed legislation, at committee stage in the House of Lords before passing to the Commons, would give equal parenting rights, including financial responsibilities, to both members of same sex couples, but the change will come too late for Bathie, who is lobbying for the laws to be made retrospective and for him not to be seen as the legal parent of the children, now aged two and four.   

A really nice illustration of interconnectedness. Lesbian rights help heterosexual man!