Planned Parenthood- Protecting Health and Reproductive Rights

Planned Parenthood is an organization that has consistently fought for woman's health and reproductive rights. This has often been met with controversy, considering one of the reproductive options provided by Planned Parenthood is abortion and abortion referral (which is interesting because only 3% of all Planned Parenthood's health services are abortion services.)

However, whatever your bias may be, the services and education Planned Parenthood provides to the community are extensive, and go beyond what most people expect.

Planned Parenthood offers SEVERAL services however, to name a few: General health care (including different kinds of screenings, tests, and vaccinations),sexually transmitted infection tests and treatment, birth control services, a variety of male and female health services (from pap tests and infertility testing to cancer screenings), abortions and abortion referrals, LGBT services, and education. To me, this represented a diverse range of needs for all kinds of people, and Planned Parenthood tries to fill this large roll.

Currently there are 840 centers in the United States, and statistically speaking 1 in 4 women will go at least once in her life to a Planned Parenthood facility for some kind of service.

One woman in particular, Margaret Sanger, is largely responsible for much of the birth control liberties, individuals enjoy today. Sanger was born in 1879 and was the sixth of eleven children. She studied to become a nurse, and became extremely interested in female reproductive rights, because she felt that more education would greatly improve the lives of women.

Margaret Sanger
In 1921 Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in Brooklyn, NY which later changed it's name to Planned Parenthood in 1942. She faced much adversity, considering this was very controversial at the time, however she felt that women needed more control over their bodies and their reproductive choices.

Overall, one of Planned Parenthood's largest contributions to society is the promotion of safe contraceptives, as well as emphasizing healthy and intelligent sexual choices. Yet, it has branched out to include several comprehensive health care services, and this should be recognized.

Although it is not without controversy, Planned Parenthood is a necessary haven for both genders alike to receive proper information and to make educated choices about their health. It is necessary in today's society, because it advocates for women and educates the community.

Until Next Post,
G.


Below is a map illustrating the Planned Parenthood locations in the state of Ohio:


View Ohio Planned Parenthood Locations in a larger map

Just because life is short, does not make adultery acceptable.

The Internet is a playground for social networking. One of the most notable contributions to this bubbling landscape is the idea of Internet dating sites. Yet, with these new dating models gaining more popularity, entrepreneurs are coming up with new and more ‘innovative’ ideas to reach different groups of Internet users.

One of these entrepreneurs is Noel Biderman, who is President and creator of The Ashley Madison Agency, an Internet Web site that is essentially a dating service for married individuals looking to commit adultery. The Web site was made available to the public in 2002, and currently boasts having over two and a half million members. Its tag line says enough “Life is short, have an affair.”

This begs many ethical questions. However, some may make the argument that it can help a marriage, because monogamy is “against human instinct.” I am not saying that I agree with this, but statistically speaking if you were to compare divorce statistics, the United States (a country that generally frowns on infidelity) has a rate of 4.95 divorces per 1,000 people, and a country like Italy (where infidelity is more common) has a rate of .27 divorces per 1,000 people. The argument could be made that having an extra- marital affair may be what is needed to hold the family together.

I want to say that I truly believe in marriage. I think monogamy is great, however with sex scandals constantly in the lime light (Tiger Woods comes to mind?), I think it’s important to examine how our culture is currently looking at the institution.

I do not agree with the Ashley Madison philosophy, and do think that it promotes cheating by creating an environment where it is considered acceptable. Yet, I have to consider that if people in committed relationships want to cheat so bad as to pay for the service, if this site was non-existent would they just pose as unattached lookers on a legitimate dating site for singles? Who knows…

Yet, in my opinion the problem with Ashley Madison is not only their promotion of desperate housewives and dick-brained husbands, but how they choose to advertise their service. I have seen a few commercials, and find them misogynistic. I suppose for a site like this the punch line has to be raunchy and memorable, yet even their print ads are in bad taste(70% of the clientele are male users, so this is not a surprise).
Below are a few examples:




Overall, I believe in a person’s right to choose how they want to live, yet if you are so desperate as to turn to such a site, I think that couples counseling would be the better option. I hope that no one ever anticipates being unfaithful to a spouse prior to entering a marriage, but I am sure some people do, so to those individuals the message is simple: DON’T EVER GET MARRIED.

And, if the marriage is beyond repair, counseling does not work, and the only option left is to get your rocks off on a site like this, I think it should be clear that you don’t only need to register for the Web site, but for a divorce attorney as well.


Good Morning America talking about real "Desperate Housewives."


You should go home to your wife dumbass!

Until Next Post,
G.

The Magnificent Magnification Difference between Pink and Blue Telescopes

It does not take a scientific study to prove that males and females are socialized differently from the time of birth. What do I mean by socialized? Simply, the idea that girls are introduced to the world of pink tea sets and dolls, while boys are given their toy trucks and blue microscopes.

Recently there was been much debate and published studies on whether or not girls are just biologically ‘wired’ to prefer pink, and boys blue.

I do not dispute this research, yet I think the impact of socializing girls into pink, goes a lot further than just the eye’s pigment preference. For instance, most toys that cater to young girls promote very stereotypical female values. You have dolls, tea sets, vanity’s, easy bake ovens, princess wear, ect. While boys play with more science and engineering oriented toys.

Surely this is no surprise to anyone who has ever stepped into a toy store aisle, yet I think it is important to discuss.

I recently read an article titled "Girls Learn Math Anxiety from Teachers," that touched on the fact that girls may learn to be uneasy about math from their female teachers who have anxiety about the subject. I am unsure if I agree with this research, I feel more information needs to be gathered. However if it is true, we have a big problem. Women need to feel confident in their math and science abilities, but this can be challenging considering we have been conditioned to think and feel otherwise.

There is a stigma placed on girls to not be interested in math or science because those are ‘boy subjects’, and rather to focus on reading, which is traditionally where females thrive. Yet, I can’t help but think this is due to what females are exposed to and brought up to think acceptable, beginning as early as the easy bake oven days.
An interesting Web site I stumbled upon from the United Kingdom is called Pinkstinks. The sites core message is as follows:

“Pinkstinks argument is that while toys for boys encompass every avenue imaginable - construction; science; adventure; role play; physical and educational – in the so-called ‘pink alleys’ of toy stores choices for girls are much more limited – and limiting.”

I tend to agree with this message, because the toy choices for young females are far more limiting and often lack serious educational value. For instance looking at the microscope section of the Toys r Us catalog, says enough. There are three microscopes and three telescopes, and the pink ones (aka the girl ones) both have the LOWEST magnification. That sends a pretty big message about the general perception of girls and science; even from the Toys R Us age.

Observe the colors and the magnification levels (the pink microscope is 600, while the red is 900, and the black is 1200) ...coincidence? Probably Not...


I am not saying that we should burn everything colored pink, yet I believe that there should be more promotion for females to have an interest in science at an early age, as well as EQUALITY in these gender colored toys.

Until Next Post,
G.

The Female Perspective

I wanted to talk to women from my generation to find out their views on family life, work, and females in the media. I found some consistencies during the interview process that were surprising. Each female that I spoke with brought up the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. Yet, there were some disparities in opinion about the effectiveness of the campaign. One female thought that it was working well, while another found it a good effort, yet not taking hold within our culture.

The questions that were asked were very general and each interviewee had the opportunity to answer however she saw fit. Some replies were generalized responses, while others gave insight into personal experience.

I would say that I mostly agree with the content of the video. As far as family life is concerned, I feel that it is solely the woman’s decision on whether or not she wants to be home with the children full-time. Yet, I also think that in today’s society men need to assume half the responsibility in regards to household tasks and childcare, specifically if his wife is employed.

It is becoming more of a commonality to have women working a second shift, after the typical nine to five day. With gender roles evolving, the old 1950’s system also needs to change to fit a more modern day family structure. This means that mommy is not the only one changing diapers, driving to after school functions, and cooking dinner.

As for single parents, it is important that communities and employers offer resources like adequate child care facilities and support systems to assist single mothers and fathers.

I feel that there is still a glass-ceiling issue in the workplace, considering on average women still earn around .70 cents to a mans dollar. It is my hope that in the future the ceiling will shatter and that the “boys club,” will recognize the worth and perspective that women can bring to a company.

Lastly, I feel that the media does oppress our gender as far as setting a very unrealistic and unhealthy level of beauty. Yes, this “all American girl,” image can be obtainable if I want to fake in bake my body, so that one day my skin will be reminiscent of my faux gator hand bag, or dish out some of my hard earned bucks to have my chest sliced open and a pair of plastic D’s put in.

Yet, this is clearly not the reality for most women, and I think that the media could do a much better job of accepting other types of beauty, regardless of hair color, skin tone, bust size, or waist. Things will only change, if perceptions shift and this is only achievable through visibility efforts.

Thoughts from Females:



Until next post,
G.

Let's Talk about Date Auctions

Some people consider date auctions controversial. An article published around this time last year in The Post titled"Can buy me love: Date Auctions prompt ethical, safety concerns", accused date auctions of being reminiscent of prostitution and the slave trade.

I was personally in a date auction just this last Thursday, for an organization that I am a part of on campus. The event donates the majority of its proceeds to the American Cancer Society. This year we grossed over $2,000 dollars at the event.

It is important to note that we auctioned off relatively equal numbers of males and females, and that there was a social afterward which was considered “the date,” for safety purposes. I think that a date auction, if done properly, is not always anti-feminist or dangerous. It is a good way to raise money for a worthy cause and a fun experience for group members. I felt that The Post article was unfair and a narrow minded assessment of date auctions.

A slide show of the event, which was themed Valentine's Day:




Until next post,
G.

Not a touchdown for Women's Reproductive Rights

When you think about commercials that air during high-profile sporting events, like the Super Bowl what comes to mind? Perhaps beer, bimbos, cars, and family values? This past Super Bowl, a controversial ad aired which promoted “Focus on Family,” with Heisman trophy-winning football star Tim Tebow and his mother.


Focus on Family Ad

The ad funded by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, touched on Pam Tebow’s difficult pregnancy with Tim in 1987, when doctors advised her to obtain an abortion, due to expected health complications. She did not listen to doctors, and surprisingly gave birth to a healthy child. The ad has a pro-life message. It is controversial because in the past major networks like CBS have refused to air hot-button issue ads, especially during large events.

CBS commented stating "We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms," said spokesman Dana McClintock. "In fact, most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time."

This is a new policy for CBS, considering they refused to air an ad in 2004 released by the United Church of Christ, extending acceptance to homosexuals and others who may feel unwelcome in more conservative congregations.

Women’s advocacy groups like NOW (The National Organization for Women) and Planned Parenthood were upset with the coverage. It seemed to give the message of “don’t listen to your doctor.”

I think it’s great that Pam Tebow made a choice that was right for her, even if she did not listen to medical experts. Doctors are not always right, as is proven in this instance, yet their opinion does have value. I think if CBS was going to release such a pro-life ad, they should also air pro-choice and pro-woman commercials, obtaining a balance of opinion in their advertisements.

It is also important to note that if you are pro-choice, you can still have family values. To focus on your family means to make educated decisions about family planning. I respect Pam Tebow’s choice, but also feel like it’s a very personal decision, that only the woman can and should make.

Planned Parenthood released a short ad in response to the Tebow’s. I prefer their ad, because it seems to respect all decisions whether they are for life or choice.



Planned Parenthood's Ad

To air such an ad during a large event like the Super Bowl, only asks for controversial backlash.

What do you think?


Until next post,
G.

A link to Palin's interesting response to the Focus on Family advertisement.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32187.html

Nothing delightful, just tacky.

Do you ever see someone walking down the street, and automatically make a judgment or assumption about them? I am not saying this is a good thing to do, however as human beings sometimes an automatic judgment is made on another, solely based on their appearance. I will instantaneously think a little less of someone, is if they are sporting a certain shirt with brown and orange colors (and no this is not another joke about the Cleveland Brown’s poor season) , I am making reference to Hooters apparel.

Often around campus I see individuals both men and women proudly gallivanting around Court street in Hooters shirts. Generally a look of bewilderment forms on my face, while I wonder what kind of statement this individual planned on making to the world .Whether we like it or not, we are judged for the clothes on our back. Most of the time I will never look at someone’s outfit and think “Wow, that was a real miss,” except in the instance of the Hooters tee. I could never picture myself waking up one fine morning, puttering over to my dresser and saying “Geez, how should I represent myself in public today? Oh look! My Hooters wife beater tee…perfect."

I honestly would only wear set shirt if I was totally joking, and in that case I would not go light on the body glitter, nor would I hesitate to take a Facebook default photo complete with pursed lips and a sideways peace sign. Overall, it would be classy.

I just can’t see the appeal of advertising a chain restaurant with mediocre food on my outfit. You rarely see people in restaurant T-shirts yet, clearly there is another reason to wear the Hooters shirt. Obviously the restaurant hires woman workers for an atmosphere that caters to the idea of “the bigger the tits, the bigger the tip.” So essentially, the only reason why patrons purchase this apparel is that they feel some identification with the brand and the idea that they were served a platter of wings by a large breasted waitress. Obviously, that is something to share with the world.

It’s just interesting the popularity of Hooters shirts and not Chili’s tees or Harry Buffalo hats. It’s like the shirt is a symbol of pride that an individual was able to sit in a restaurant and pay to eat and stare at little orange shorts. Apparently it was worth $15.95, to purchase a shirt because the meal was so delicious.

I find it a bit misogynistic and extremely low- class to walk around and wear such an outfit with pride. I feel that men who wear the tee’s are juvenile and trying to reflect an image that they are cool, and probably trying to compensate for some kind of short-coming. Women on the other hand probably wear them to try and appeal to men as “sexy” because they are not confident in their own skin.

Some may think this a harsh analysis, but I feel it does reflect part of our culture. From the Hooters Web site “Hooters of America, Inc. is the Atlanta-based operator and franchiser of over 450 Hooters locations in 43 states in the US, Argentina, Aruba, Austria, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Columbia, Costa Rica, England, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Korea, Mexico, Paraguay, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Venezuela and the Virgin Islands. The privately held corporation owns 122 units.” This demonstrates the chains popularity in the US and abroad, clearly a part of society to some capacity.

The idea that the Hooters Web site has a section dedicated to women in the “Hall of Fame,” who were “the elite of that sorority,” says it all. It has made a definitive brand for itself that hosts pageants and pool parties, prints calendars, and places the worth of a woman is one central location, and I think it’s easy to guess that it’s not her mind.

In a culture that promotes plastic surgery at such an alarming rate and in certain cases, sets the self-worth of a woman based on her chest size and tanned skin, it makes me wonder about the future of the land of the free.

Until next post,
G.

Pumping Problems (And this is in no Reference to Fists)

With the recent devastation in Haiti, several groups are responding with help, including organizations like The International Breast Milk Project and The Human Milk Banking Association of North America. These organizations released an urgent call to all nursing mothers to donate milk to be sent to Haitian infants in need. There is currently an infant care unit being housed on the naval carrier U.S.S Comfort anchored near Port-au-Prince. The need for milk stems from babies that have been abandoned or separated from their mothers in the tragedy. Powdered formula is not practical in countries like Haiti, because there is not much clean water available to mix it with.

Recently close to 500 ounces of milk was elaborately transported from the United States to the U.S.S Comfort, first through a special shipping company that packed the bottles in dry ice for quick air travel, then by military helicopter.

The U.S.S Comfort

Retrieved from http://www.radiomelodyfmlive.com/newsadmin/_files/Image/MARCH%202009/USNS%20Comfort.jpg

The breast milk arrived safely, yet now it cannot be utilized and is said by some to be “unnecessary.” Relief groups and organizations like The World Health Organization, UNICEF and the United Nations World Food Program, say that the current infrastructure in Haiti cannot accommodate the donations. Babies on the ship have been fed some milk from Navy mom’s who were lactating, yet the current coolers on ship do not have space to store shipments of breast milk.

There is not electricity to cool the milk, nor the means of transporting the bottles on mainland. There is also the issue of cleaning the supplies used to distribute the breast milk, not to mention the worries The Red Cross has with donor health screenings (which are very routine with breast milk donations, usually involving blood tests, etc.)

Not only is breast milk proven to contain more antibodies for babies than formulas milk, it also is better in emergency situations. As an article in Time Magazine articulately pointed out,

"Formula is a recipe for disaster in emergency situations," says Cathy Carothers, who serves as a spokeswoman for the U.S. Breastfeeding Committee, a coalition of more than 40 organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics that promotes breast-feeding. "In emergencies, babies who are not breast-fed are more likely to die because of issues of lack of water or contaminated water and inability to sterilize feeding tools.”

It will be interesting to see if the infrastructure can gain enough strength to eventually take additional breast milk donations, but for now the donated milk is not of much use, and will go sour in the current conditions. Only time will tell.

Keeping Haiti in our thoughts and prayers, I would now like to briefly discuss breast- feeding right here in The United States. There is definitely a strong breast -feeding culture present in maternal networks online and in lactation classrooms cross- country.

As someone who has never breastfed, I don’t mean to be overly critical, yet I cannot imagine that the latching, biting, waking up a few times a night, and the leaking would feel anywhere near natural. But, there seems to be a popular belief that good mothers breastfeed because it is healthier for the baby and creates this angelic bond between mother and child. I am not denying that this is truthful, yet when in public I admit that if I see a woman who has it all out there, I find it in bad taste.

For example, if you are in a restaurant, I do not feel there is anything “natural” about me looking up from my pasta dish to see a breast spilled over the table across the room with a child enjoying their dinner. I hope the milk was tasty little one, because my appetite has been calmed.

I am in strong support of Lactation rooms (there is one in Baker Center) and areas in public designated to breast feed. I think that it is great to offer women a comfortable place to feed their child, in a more private setting. I think that chairs and SPACE should always be provided in female/ gender-neutral public restrooms for this purpose.

Most states have very friendly public breast feeding laws, yet I feel that there should be additional legislation but in place about requiring more facilities to be “breast -feeding friendly.”

I feel that it is a woman’s total choice as to whether or not she wants to breast- feed and I can definately see the pro’s and con’s of the decision. Most pediatricians say a woman should breast feed for at least six months because the nutrients in a mother’s milk are good for the baby.

A Breast Pump
Yet, we live in an age where formula is advancing and women have FULL-TIME JOBS. It would be very hard to feed for six months while trying to work, when a baby eats (pending on its age), around seven to twelve times a day. One feeding can take an hour, so clearly this can prove exhausting to a mother who has other responsibilities outside the home.

Another excellent point that was brought to my attention in the article "The Case Against Breastfeeding,” ” from The Atlantic was the fact that when a women breast- feeds it immediately sets the precedent that she is doing most of the work for the baby. In our enlightened “we split the check society”, it would seem a slippery slope that the woman always be feeding, waking up at night to comfort, etc. Just something to think about.

So what do readers think? Public feeding okay or unnecessary? Breast feeding magical or outdated? Share your thoughts!


Until next post,
G.
Check out these related articles:

From MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35134523/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

Another great piece from Time

http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2010/01/28/will-donating-breast-milk-help-haitian-infants/