Monthly Archives: December 2011

Fun Friday: Happy New Year, Grandma-Style


Posted on December 30, 2011 by

Happy Friday! There’s another holiday weekend coming up and I hope you’ve got awesome plans for New Year’s! Don’t forget to stay safe – after all, if you can text your grandma by mistake at 3am, you can do a lot…

(Seriously, watch this video all the way to the end – it’s totally worth it.)

(Thanks to the Minnesota Planned Parenthood Advocate for the original post!)

Follow us on Feronia

Why I Love Sesame Street


Posted on December 29, 2011 by

I freaking LOVE Sesame Street. I loved it when I was a kid and now I DVR it for my own kid. We watch it together and while she’s learning to count with me and Elmo, my feminist heart is doing fist bumps with my feminist brain. And even when her attention span only gets her through the first five minutes, I can’t stop watching it. In the most recent episode I saw, actor Paul Rudd was playing a “storybook prince” who appeared every time Rosita, Abby and a penguin were confronted with a challenge during their game of Princess. In a last ditch effort to prove himself useful, he pulls out his trump card and, when that fails, a pity party ensues. If you have a few minutes, watch this clip.

Awesome, right? As a feminist, I love it when something on TV actually aligns with my value system and supports my parenting efforts. I also love when Sesame Street takes a dig at Disney. I don’t have to write about why feminists don’t enjoy Disney – the blogosphere has already taken care of that for me. I just can’t support its woman’s-worth-based-on-that-of-the-male-character stories. I like that Sesame Street has female characters who use logic, creativity and teamwork to get the job done, just as the male characters do. The messages of independence and girl-power are ones I can support and reinforce with real-life lessons at home. I love when Rosita asks, “How is kissing her feet going to get her out of the mailbox?” Duh Prince, your silly little kisses don’t save lives or get people out of sticky situations. Even puppets know that.

As an educator and a parent, I have a deep respect and appreciation for Sesame Street. I love that Sesame Street isn’t afraid to create episodes that incorporate ethics, emotions, respect, problem-solving, diversity, character, relationships, and tough social issues. Their crafty team of researchers, writers and puppeteers knock it out of the park every episode. Sesame Street has been on the air for over 40 years and has won more than 100 Emmy Awards.

The Problem with Pop Science


Posted on December 28, 2011 by

Science, despite its efforts to be objective, is easily influenced by social norms and expectations.  As science historian Londa Schiebinger points out in Salon, an excellent example of this is the human egg. Once thought to be a passive drifter awaiting a strong swimmer, it was determined in the 70′s to have microvilli on its surface to grab and catch sperm, becoming its own active force in fertilization.  The microvilli were actually discovered in the 1890′s, but not considered noteworthy until the 1970′s, as noted by Salon writer Margaret Wertheim in the same article, “a time when women’s roles in society were themselves being reconceived.”

I bring this up because pop science – what I consider the interpretation of scientific studies into soundbite worthy articles for news sites – is so often used to make headlines by using a study to present some (alleged) fact about men, women, and/or sex. These facts may conveniently be “politically incorrect,” which is the polite way of saying they reinforce conservative notions of gender or sex roles. Often, the culprit is my arch nemesis: Evolutionary Psychology (but more on that in another article).

Once you’ve noticed this trend, you’ll find it’s everywhere.  Just recently reported in August, a study done at FSU by Roy Baumeister found that “countries with greater gender equality have higher rates of sexual activity.”  According to his research, he found that “with [gender] parity comes a greater likelihood of casual sex and more sexual partners.”  Study number two, done by John Hopkins University and reported by the Huffington Post in September, finds that “dominant women have less sex.” The study was a survey of African women, and as co-author Carie Muntifering put it, “[u]nderstanding how women’s position in the household influences their sexual activity may be an essential piece in protecting the sexual rights of women and helping them achieve a sexual life that is both safe and pleasurable.”

I’m not interested in the fact that these two studies found such different results; they were done by different researchers with different subjects in different countries, after all.  What I find interesting is the conclusions drawn from the information as well as the reporting itself.  In study number one, the author uncovered higher rates of sexual activity. He went on to explain that “when women have more access to educational and financial opportunities, they don’t need to hold sex hostage as much, so they relaxed the controls they’ve put on sexuality.” He goes on to state that sex is used by women as an economic force to attain goals and “get what they want from men.”  The article describes the prevalence of increased casual sexual partners as a “mathematical, emotionless” characteristic.

In study number two, though the study author seemed to indicate that less sexual partners was a positive sign of increased sexual control for the African women, the writers of the article chose to frame it quite differently. They reported that “empowered women…could be losing out on sex” and that “the more decisions made, the less physical intimacy” they experienced, a decidedly negative-sounding side effect.  The important similarity between the two articles is this – both articles placed a negative connotation on women’s sexual freedom. The women who experienced increased sexual activity were mathematical and calculating, the women who experienced decreased sexual activity were missing out.  Looks like women can’t win!

Sometimes it’s not just the journalism you must look at with a skeptical eye, but the study itself.  The University of West Scotland did a study on the way women walk and their history of orgasms – particularly, vaginal orgasms.  16 subjects were analyzed for their gait and their history of orgasm. (I admit the article already lost me here – I’d never put much faith in a study with such a small sample size anyway.) They found that a “trained sexologist” could tell which women had vaginal orgasms based on the longer stride and increased vertebral rotation. They supposed that women who had vaginal orgasms may “feel more confident in their sexuality, which might be reflected in their gait.” They went on to discuss the studies implications for sexual dysfunction therapies. My issue with this? Lack of vaginal orgasm is not sexual dysfunction. The utter lack of discussion on the clitoral orgasm reinforces the long-standing cultural notion that vaginal orgasms are superior to clitoral ones and frankly seems a little insulting towards women who can only have the clitoral kind.

My point isn’t to judge anyone; they’re all looking for a human interest story, and all they have is their cultural mores and values to draw upon.  I just think it’s important to draw attention to how science, no matter how rigorous the method used, is vulnerable to our own cultural perceptions when we try to interpret it.  This has huge implications for what we consider true, as well as where we choose to get our information from. The next time you see a study in the news, pay careful attention to the dissonance between the data and the words used to describe it, and above all – stay skeptical.

Cheers to a Safe, Sexy New Year!


Posted on December 27, 2011 by

It’s that time of year again: endless cookie trays, wrapping paper rolls, and holiday cheer (or stress!). So, whether you’re spiking the eggnog under mistletoe or popping champagne to your own fireworks, here are some tips for staying safe and sexy.

Boozing 101: Alcohol reduces inhibitions, and can lead people to do things they wouldn’t while sober (this is probably why we drink it). Along with safer sex practices, we want you to arrive home safely. Every thirty minutes someone is killed by drunk driving. Holidays are no exception.

Date Rape 101: Not to yellow your snow but every 2 minutes, someone in the United States is sexually assaulted. About 2/3 of assaults are committed by someone the victim knows, and 38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance. Oh, and 80% of victims are under 30 years old.

Ways to protect yourself? Stay vigilant! Know your boundaries, and be clear about them. If an assault takes place, CALL THE POLICE!

Spiked Drinks 101: Drugs like Rohypnol (“roofies”) or Gamma-Hydroxybutyerate (“GHB”) are clear, tasteless, odorless chemicals that are sometimes slipped into drinks to help an attacker subdue their victim before an assault. Within 5-10 minutes of ingesting wither of these drugs, a person’s inhibitions will become impaired, often leading them to “black out,” or have short-term amnesia. This gives an attacker the opportunity to assault their victim with less chance that the victim will remember the encounter or be able to report it. These drugs leave the blood system within 72 hours, and are often hard to detect in toxicology reports.  So, how do you keep yourself safe?

  • Watch your drinks ALL NIGHT LONG.
  • Never accept a drink from a stranger.
  • Never leave your drink with friends or strangers.
  • Avoid the community spiked punch bowl – you never know what’s inside.
  • Have a “buddy system” if you go out. Let friends or partners know where you are, who you’re with, and how you’re getting home.

Safe Sex 101: Getting hot and heavy tonight? Pack ahead! Remember to bring your contraceptive method with you if you’re away from home this season. Packing ahead can prevent some awkward interactions, like getting hot and heavy…then realizing you don’t have protection.

So pack ahead and remember that if an accident happens, you can buy emergency contraception in all 50 states without a prescription (if you’re over 16) – you just have to ask a pharmacist or come to a Planned Parenthood.

Live well, love well, and drink responsibly this holiday season. (I personally think I’ll skip the booze all together in exchange for Strawberries and Champagne lube!)

Having a Homebirth – Fosgood’s Story


Posted on December 26, 2011 by

Fosgood, Ana, and Midwives

Fosgood, Ana, and Midwives

The most empowering, humanizing experience of my life happened on a steamy Florida July afternoon when I gave birth to my daughter, Ana. She was born in our home with me squatting, holding onto our bedpost, pushing with every ounce of strength left in me after ten-and-a-half hours of labor. She was swooped up by the very capable hands of one of our two midwives, wiped off and placed on my chest. She soon began her first tentative attempts to nurse and I fell in love in a way I had not experienced before. I felt like I grew a second heart to hold all the love that swelled to overflowing in just a moment’s time with the first look into her face where I saw my father’s and my own face reflected back at me. It wasn’t until much later that I realized I hadn’t even thought about the need for pain medications or medical intervention.

I knew I wanted to be a mom from a young age. I’ve always been, and still am, drawn to

Midwives, Fosgood, Ana & Laura

Fosgood, her daughters Ana & Laura, and Midwives

children and animals. The idea of a home birth evolved over time. Fresh out of college, unable to get a job teaching, I started work as a nurse’s aid. Some of the things I saw and heard made me very afraid of a hospital stay. I met a friend whose partner was planning a home birth and the idea began to sprout. I read everything I could find about the history of natural childbirth, which was limited to the library and the few people I could find to talk to that didn’t think I was being extremely reckless and crazy.

Since I can remember, I’ve been a strong-willed, independent thinker who could care less about convention. My dear mother was often aghast at what would come out of my mouth. I became a vegetarian before it was fashionable and learned to ask my body what it needed. I began to look at my body as something designed to carry and deliver a child. I trained my body like an Olympic athlete. I trained my mind to turn fear of pain or negative consequences to thoughts of my body doing what it was designed to do. I saw an obstetrician during my first and last trimester and was regularly monitored by a team of highly experienced lay midwives. If there were any indications of potential problems, I knew I would deliver in a hospital. My husband was a first generation Italian who, along with much of his neighborhood growing up, had been born at home. I knew the risks and responsibilities.

I’ve had many amazing experiences in my life that have moved me to tears of joy or

Ana & Laura

Fosgood's Daughters, Ana & Laura

wonder, but nothing remotely compared to the euphoria I felt when giving birth to Ana. I grew a third heart to hold all the love I have for her sister, Laura, born at home 3 years later. I still have room to grow several more if I’m fortunate enough to have grandchildren.

Although I didn’t experience an orgasmic birth, it was painful and intense, but nearly 30 years later I still feel like Wonder Woman.

(Watch this video if you want to learn more about orgasmic births and the power of positive thinking during childbirth.)

Fun Friday: The Antler Surprise


Posted on December 23, 2011 by

Happy Friday! You may be off of school or off of work or even taking that last day before Christmas, but here at the Feronia Project, we hope you have an awesome holiday, no matter what you celebrate or whom you might celebrate with! Just don’t get distracted when bells are jingled, like this reindeer here:

Celebrating the Winter Solstice


Posted on December 22, 2011 by

Solstice comes from the Latin word “sol,” which means sun, and “sistere,” which means to stand still. Due to the earth revolving around the sun and the changing tilt of the earth’s axis, there may be a huge difference in the amount of daylight during the summer or winter months, depending on how far you are from the equator. The Winter Solstice represents the transition from darkness to light as the days slowly become longer. Think northern Alaska in winter when the sun rises around 10:00, merely half way up the sky, and sinks back below the horizon by 3:00. Compare that to Ecuador where the days and nights are the same 12 hours long all year round.

Many cultures past and present celebrate the solstice as a sign of death and rebirth. In ancient Greece, the festival was called Lenaea, “The Festival of the Wild Women.” A man representing the harvest god Dionysos would be torn to pieces and eaten by a group of women. Later in the ritual, a birth was celebrated. By classical times, the human sacrifice was replaced by a goat!

What we like about the solstice is that many cultures and religions celebrate in various ways around this time of the year. In other words, it’s a celebration for everyone, and at The Feronia Project, we like the idea of being inclusive. To learn more about Winter Solstice celebrations click here or for ideas on how to celebrate, click here.

Will you be celebrating the Winter Solstice?

Outdated: Binary Categories of Sex and Gender


Posted on December 21, 2011 by

Today is a guest post from one of the other members of our affiliate, who has a background in sociology, that wanted to share something creative with the internet.

One of the most informative and compelling factoids that I have ever heard regarding the difference between sex and gender states that, “sex is between your legs, gender is between your ears.” This idea immediately stuck with me because it did an excellent job of summing up some of the basic differences between sex, a category of biological distinction, and gender identity, the byproduct of social and cultural influences and power relationships. Up until the mid-1950s, the notions of sex and gender were used interchangeably. They both served to categorize people in a binary system; you were either a man, or a woman. You were either masculine or feminine. Without a doubt, these models are extremely outdated. People and their interactions just aren’t that simple.

Biological sex refers to the organs, chromosomes and hormones that you possess and can measure objectively. Being a male means having an Adam’s apple, testes, a set of XY chromosomes and, if everything works correctly, the ability to impregnate females. Being female means having a vagina, ovaries, a pair of X chromosomes, and the ability to bear children. However, models which suggest that every Homo sapien falls neatly into either one of these categories exclusively is outdated and overly simplistic. These models fail to recognize the existence of millions of intersexed individuals, whose sexual or reproductive anatomy doesn’t fit binary definitions of male or female. According to the Intersex Society of North America, “Intersex is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.” For more information regarding the prevalence of intersex, I suggest visiting this informative website.

For example, an intersexed individual might appear to be a female on the outside, but has mostly male anatomy. Or a person might be born with genitals that seem to be in between the usual male and female types. A boy might be born with a noticeably small penis, or a girl might be born with a noticeably large clitoris. Sometimes these differences won’t manifest in a person until they hit puberty; sometimes they won’t go noticed at all.

Dichotomous categories that lump people into one or the other are a product of our language, worldview, and the institutionalization of these ideas – which is to say, these classifications aren’t inherent or innate. We just see them reproduced every day, which normalizes our culturally acquired view of society. What makes these categories so compelling, and so seemingly natural, are the routine mechanisms embedded in society which enforce this type of thought. We experience these categories every time we use public restrooms marked ‘men’ and ‘women.’ We encounter it in print on official documents from the United States government, on the federal and state level, where we have to mark whether we are a man or a woman. People that would fall under the category of intersex get left out entirely. This is no fault of their own, but instead, a problem of the way that we think about biological sex in relation to one another and the ways in which these thoughts translate into action in the public sphere.

Like biological sex, gender identities are enforced by the categories of ‘men or women,’ ignoring the reality that there are millions of gender-queer people that don’t fall into either category. Gender-queer is a term indicating an individual doesn’t identify exclusively with the expectations and social norms associated with being a man or a woman. Some gender-queer also identify as transgender. There are two main components of gender, its ideological construction and a behavioral component. Gender is constructed ideologically when men and women believe that certain qualities characterize one gender rather than another. Gender is constructed behaviorally in the activities men and women do, the way they do them, and the way they are experienced during interpersonal interactions. This is a great resource for relating to the concepts of sex, gender and sexual orientation.

Men and women make themselves by actively constructing their gender identities within a social and historical context, defined largely by cultural norms and power relationships. Gender gets expressed by individuals through a performance of symbolic gestures learned through previous interactions, called scripts. One’s sex might be male, for example, but his gender identity is developed through a complex process of interaction with his culture, where he learns which gendered scripts are considered to be appropriate to his culture, and in his attempt to modify those expectations to make them attainable to him. Your gender identity is actively forged by the behaviors you engage in, and how you think about yourself in relation to those around you. How you perceive yourself regarding the societal roles of ‘woman,’ ‘man’ or somewhere in between the two is your gender identity.

The problematic aspects of having binary systems of categorization regarding an individual’s sex or gender comes from the fact that they implicitly create and subsequently disempower the people who fall into these categories. By presenting these fallacious dichotomies and regarding them as being legitimate and ‘natural,’ millions of Americans become regarded as ‘unnatural.’ These dehumanizing categories are still heavily stigmatized; something which can affect people’s interpersonal relationships. Like we discussed in earlier posts, people identified as being in nontraditional categories can be met with vehemence and violence. This type of foul behavior, stemming from ignorance and prejudice, cannot be tolerated on any level. People’s sexual and gender-related differences are natural, and they should be accepted with open arms and a greater understanding.

Pregnancy: Factoring in the Rh Factor


Posted on December 20, 2011 by

Need a reason why science is amazing? I’ve got one for you. In 1940, the blood from Rhesus monkeys helped find a factor in the blood that plays a critical role in maternal and fetal health, greatly increasing the chances of a healthy pregnancy.

It’s called the Rh factor (Rh after rhesus, get it?).

What Is It?
The Rh factor is one of many antigens that protect your blood cells from foreign or internal substances. However, the Rh factor can be a complication in pregnancy.

How Does It Work?
You can either be Rh negative or Rh positive (antigen is not present in your blood vs. antigen present in your blood). You’re tested for this blood factor between 24-28 weeks or if you decide to have an abortion. If you’re Rh positive? You don’t have to worry about it. However, if you’re Rh negative, it’s a problem.

Your Rh negative factor is usually not a problem in your first pregnancy as very little blood between the mother and the fetus is exchanged during the pregnancy. But maternal and fetal blood can be exchanged during the delivery or during an abortion procedure – and that’s where the Rh problems come in.

If you’re Rh negative and your partner is Rh positive, there’s a 50% chance that your fetus is Rh positive. (Scroll down on this link from the Mayo Clinic to see a helpful chart for how this all works.) So, when your Rh negative blood mingles with the fetus’ Rh positive blood, your own blood can produce antibodies that will attempt to repel your next Rh positive pregnancy by treating it as something that will harm you, sometimes resulting in miscarriage or by giving the baby a life-threatening illness, HDN (hemolytic disease of the newborn).

Luckily, we’ve got great medical remedies to solve the Rh problem.

What Can Be Done?
If you’re Rh negative, an injection called RhoGAM is given to you so that your Rh negative blood does not produce antibodies against your potentially Rh positive fetus. You’ll also receive another shot of RhoGAM within 72 hours of delivery if the baby is found to be Rh positive. You will also receive shots of RhoGAM in all of your subsequent pregnancies to make sure the problem is solved.

The Rh factor was once a leading cause of infant mortality, and today the problem’s virtually been eliminated from the developed world.

Isn’t science great?

Plan B One Step: Too Complicated for Some, Limited Access for All


Posted on December 19, 2011 by

The week before last, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius blocked the recommendation from the FDA to lift age restrictions on Plan B One-Step (emergency contraception that helps to prevent fertilization from occurring up to 72 hours after unprotected intercourse – not the abortion pill).

What that means is that the FDA, after years of careful review and analysis, had decided that there was no scientifically indicated reason why the medication should require a prescription for users under 17 (and remain behind pharmacy shelves for the rest of us). This highly anticipated recommendation would have allowed Plan B to move (without prescription) from behind the pharmacy counter to where it would be most effective: on store shelves next to the condoms and pregnancy tests.

As someone who has had to resort to “Plan B” after my “plan A” failed at age 16, I feel personally outraged that the Obama administration has supported the HHS and blocked Plan B, an easy-to-use and incredibly important medication that has less physical risk than Tylenol or tampons!

Despite the FDA’s 10 years of scientific investigation on the medication, Sebelius’s rationale was that 11-year-old girls might not follow the directions correctly and, thus, need continued formal medical oversight (a clinician to tell them to take one pill as soon as possible within 72 hours after unprotected intercourse).

What?! In a nation where just about half of all pregnancies are unplanned, where too many of our teenagers are pregnant, and where millions of women lack health insurance, you’re ignoring their needs because the 1% of 11-year-old girls who might be having sex might take the one pill incorrectly?

Medical experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics have come forward recommending that Plan B be made available for all ages without prescription; experts in the field agree the directions are simple enough, the medication is safe enough, and that there are no legitimate scientific or social reasons why this prescription/behind pharmacy counter barrier should continue to exist.

Experts aside, what if that eleven year old did take Plan B incorrectly? Logic and science tell me that:
1. The medication would be ineffective and her chances of pregnancy would not be decreased.
2. The medication would be ineffective and her chances of pregnancy would not be decreased.
3. The medication would be ineffective and her … should I go on??

Either she would reduce her chances of becoming pregnant or not. And if we are taking the “common sense” approach that Obama cited, my common sense tells me the physical, emotional  and societal risks of an 11-year-old becoming pregnant and having a child are more realistic than her misreading instructions that say “take this pill within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse.” What are the real-life consequences of a girl taking the medication incorrectly? Well, pregnancy!

My “common sense” tells me this decision is not about 11-year-old girls. My unfortunate suspicion is that the Obama administration is buckling to the demands of conservative political opponents and, recently, the Catholic Bishops. I understand that I’m ignorant to behind-the-scenes politics, but I do know that the decision contradicted this administration’s policy to choose science over policy To quote the President in 2010:

“… In this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions.”

In the spirit of his conservative predecessors, politics trumped science again; and in the spirit of systematic patriarchy, ideology trumped women’s health again.

With Obama entertaining an exemption to the Affordable Health Care Act that would allow religious affiliations to reject contraception coverage for their insured employees on moral grounds, and the stunning blow to Plan-B accessibility, it’s almost like the President has forgotten that it’s election season and WOMEN ARE WATCHING.