My Problem With "Maggie Goes On A Diet"

I discovered Maggie Goes On A Diet during one of my morning rituals (I tend to start my days with a cup o' joe and a few interesting Yahoo! articles). As the above video explains, the book, aimed at girls as young as 6 or 7, is about an overweight 14-year-old who decides to go on a diet after being teased mercilessly by her classmates.

I probably don't have to tell you that Maggie has sparked a lot of controversy. The media has been raving about so-called "mommy bloggers" who are up in arms over how the book mishandles sensitive body image issues, but what I noticed after sifting through the comments on several news articles is a slightly different attitude:

"There is nothing offensive about this book, unless you're living in denial. Girls do tend to obsess about their weight and image far more than boys, so choosing a girl as the main character makes sense." 

"God forbid she take up an activity that causes her to lose weight. What an awful message." 

"This book is a good thing. The last thing this world needs
is more fat chicks."

I'm not usually a fan of chatspeak, but I think that last statement warrants a big-ass smh.

I have no objection whatsoever to children's books teaching healthy eating habits and the value of exercise, but as a former (and current) Fat Girl this book is offensive. Society has always done a bang-up job of making girls feel like crap about themselves, and this book is the icing on the cake — or should I say, the no-calorie sweetener on the high-fiber oatmeal?

What could have been an uplifting book about a girl eating wholesome foods, having fun playing outside, and ultimately feeling good about herself (without other's approval) turned into a social commentary about the unacceptability of being overweight in our society. Maggie is a loser when she's fat. Nobody likes her. The boys all point and laugh. But then she drops X number of pounds and people are putty in her hands. She becomes the star of the soccer team, people know her by name and want to be her friend, and boys even think she's cute — the ultimate triumph! *gags*

I'm not denying the fact that there's an obesity problem in this country and I'm certainly not knocking the importance of a balanced diet and exercise. But there's a way to deal with these issues without telling little girls that their physical appearance and value as a person are inextricably linked.

Feminist TV Club: Commander in Chief

One of my feminist/blogger friends had the rather smashing idea of starting a weekly Feminist TV Club! Check out what she has to say about it; hopefully you'll feel like joining in the discussion!

Books are great, but they sure are time-consuming. And when you belong to a book club, there’s a certain anxiety that comes with finishing the book on time and reading carefully. You know what’s more fun? Watching TV. You know what’s even more fun than that? Talking about feminism in TV shows with fellow young feminists!  

Which is why I, Becka, am starting a Feminist TV Club. Simply watch one episode of a certain TV show a week (20-45 minutes), and we’ll discuss it in the comments of a blog posting on my blog. 

The Details:

• First TV Show: Commander in Chief (2005-2006)

• Available on Netflix Instant or on Sidereel. Starting with Season 1, Episode 1.

• The blog post summarizing/discussing the episodes will go up every Monday starting August 8th, 2011 on my blog, Becka Tells All.

• Any and all suggestions are welcome! Please shoot me an e-mail at: becka.e.wall@gmail.com to talk about potential TV shows to use (they can be a whole series, an episode, or one season of a long-running TV show that deals with a particular issue), how to structure this endeavor, or general tips to improve awesomeness.  

See you on Monday! 

Miss Representation (Documentary Trailer)

For Teens: Why Talking About Birth Control Matters

This post is for a blog carnival called "Birth Control: We've Got You Covered," which is being sponsored by the National Women's Law Center. Soon the Web is going to light up with who-knows-how-many bloggers, each giving their own two cents on no-cost birth control and other related issues. Personally, I want to speak to teens and younger girls about why birth control is so dang important (even if it doesn't figure into all of our lives just yet).

Those ain't no Sweet Tarts!

If you're a relatively new feminist like I am (my glorious "click" moment only came about a year ago), it's easy to get sucked up into the feminist agenda — everything from equal pay to reproductive rights — without thinking too deeply about these issues or considering why they're so pivotal to the women's liberation movement.

New feminists, especially us young'uns, seem to go through a crazed, sugar-rushed phase where we're just so excited to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. We start calling out sexist jokes in the produce department, we start doodling feminist-y things in our school notebooks, and we can't help but pose like Rosie the Riveter each time we catch ourselves in a mirror.
(Tip: Don't do this in public. People will stare.)

Don't get me wrong, this "feminist awakening" phase is zealous and incredibly life-affirming, but it can also hurt us if we begin nodding our heads to every single thing our feminist role models say just for the sake of proving our "feminist-ness." (I was guilty of that when I started calling myself pro-choice just because "all the feminists were doing it." I still call myself pro-choice, but now I've got the understanding to back it up. Yea-yuh.)

Support for birth control is one of those feminist ideals that "comes with the job description," but how many times, as teens, do we sit down and actually talk about it, or think about the implications it will have for our futures?

*cricket chirps*

That's what I thought.

Support for birth control has been synonymous with the feminist movement for decades, but when many of our older feminist allies (and I don't mean "older" in a bad way, just literally "older" than those of us born in the Era of Classic Nicktoons) talk about birth control and contraception, the focus automatically shifts to women in their 20's and 30's. Like birth control doesn't also affect our lives.

If you're a young person today, you know about sex. 

Say NO to virgin-whore dichotomy.

Sex saturates every ounce of media that we soak up: it's in books, movies, video games, steamy vampire dramas, the list goes on and on. Parents need to realize that if we're not getting our information from them (via one of those mythical "sex talks"), we're getting our information from less reliable sources — and many times this misinformation is coupled with ridiculous virgin-whore dichotomy (i.e. "good girls don't do that") which makes us even more confused about what the hell is going on with our bodies, about what's acceptable and what's not.

We get it, parents.

It's weird to think about your "babies" as sexual beings (it's weird for us, too, believe me), but that's no excuse to keep us from the realities of sex, contraception, STDs, and pregnancy. And just because we're not on The Pill now, doesn't mean that someday we won't be. As feminists, teens, girls: we need to know that contraception matters.

Right now, the Department of Health and Human Services is deciding "whether or not prescription contraceptives should be available under new healthcare plans without co-pay or other out-of-pocket costs." If the DHHS comes out with a favorable opinion, that could mean no-cost birth control for countless women nationwide. Considering birth control can cost upward of $100 per month (depending on one's method), many women in today's economy have had to choose between contraception and cancer screenings, between contraception and groceries.

In the 50's and 60's, many women were hearing about their
reproductive options for the first time. (Shock!)

The average woman spends three quarters of her reproductive life trying to prevent pregnancy, so yeah, birth control is a big deal. The National Women's Law Center is hopeful that the DHHS will "see the light" on this issue, and ultimately heed the recommendations given by a non-partisan, independent panel of scientific and medical experts at the Institute of Medicine (the panel's recommendations range from providing "yearly well-woman preventative care visits" to "screening and counseling to detect and prevent interpersonal and domestic violence").

For the millions of women who rely on birth control to keep their options open, and for your future and mine, I really hope the DHHS is able to reach a favorable consensus. In teen lingo: I hope they don't screw the heck up.

But until then, let's place our hands on our chins, act cool, and ponder some random facts birth control . . .

• About the time your grandparents were growing up (assuming they were born in the 50's or earlier), birth control was taboo. Many states had laws (i.e. the Comstock Laws) that not only banned people from using contraception, but from distributing any shred of information about it whatsoever. Also in those days, women were often expected to marry at a young age and have large families, regardless of any plans they had for the future.
• Unintended pregnancies can be harmful to women who have preexisting health conditions such as hypertension or coronary artery disease. A true testament to "it's better to be safe than sorry."
• Data shows that between 1990 and 2004, U.S. pregnancy rates declined almost 40 percent among 15- to 19-year-old women. One study attributed 86 percent of the long-term decline in teen pregnancies to increased contraceptive use.
• Planned pregnancies (which, as the NWLC points out, usually require contraception) allow women time to make certain lifestyle changes that will promote healthy babies.
• When it comes to HIV, sex is 10,000 times safer with a condom than without one.
• Birth control allows women to choose whether they want to start families earlier in life, hold off to pursue other endeavors (like, you know, kicking ass in college and the working world), or not have kids at all.

Birth control gives "power to the people," or rather, it gives women the opportunity to make choices that are right for their personal, individual lives. We're all different, life is short, and we should all be given the choice of how we spend our time — raising a family, going to work, or maybe even both. 

Nothing should be off-limits to us.

Pro-Choice is Pro-Life (By Amelia G.)

This article was written by Amelia G., a woman who describes herself as "an undergraduate, feminist, seafood enthusiast, bookworm (and, more recently, blogworm)." She writes for Plenty of Otherwise!

"If you can't trust a woman with a choice,
how can you trust her with a baby?"

The other day I came across an article in the Michigan Messenger about how Thaddeus McCotter, a Republican running for president in 2012, signed a "Pro-life leadership pledge." This means that if elected, he'll "nominate pro-life judges, select pro-life cabinet members, de-fund Planned Parenthood and support legislation that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy."

That news didn't exactly surprise me, but it still pissed me off, especially given the fresh batch of anti-choice news that has popped up in the U.S. this week. The Executive Council in New Hampshire just voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood. And yesterday, a federal judge blocked a law that would have required Crisis Pregnancy Centers, or CPCs, to disclose particular information about themselves, such as whether they employ licensed medical personnel.

CPCs pose as abortion clinics, but do not provide abortion or contraceptives (nor do they refer women to organizations that do). As the Ms. article points out, CPCs are notorious for providing false medical information about abortion in order to scare women out of considering it as a viable option that might work for them.

I'm really uncomfortable knowing that I live in a country whose government damn near shut down over an argument about whether to de-fund an organization that does as much good as Planned Parenthood. And it hurts even more to learn that people are actively working to ensure that the nation's laws are on the side of CPCs that flat-out lie to women who come to them for help and comprehensive information.

As someone who cares deeply about reproductive justice and people in general, I'd like to take this opportunity to explain — to Representative McCotter, Judge Pauley, and everyone else behind all of the legislation that has come up since the last election — that pro-choice is pro-life.

A lot of people will be surprised to hear this, but I didn't always identify as pro-choice.

Yeah, really. Because let's face it: the rhetoric sounds great. Don't kill babies. That's something I could totally get behind, you know?

Neither of my parents are U.S. citizens, so they can't vote. Therefore, politics just weren't discussed in our house when I was growing up. I've read that statistically, parents have a great deal of influence over their children's political views. That wasn't really the case for me. I had a few opinions, but those were based shallowly on what I felt to be common sense.

So, when asked for my views on abortion, I would proudly declare that I was pro-life and thought abortion was wrong.

But once I got to high school, I noticed that a lot of people I really respected were especially passionate about their pro-choice views. And important things were going on at the time that forced me to seriously reevaluate my stance. In 2006, when I was a junior, my school district considered adopting an abstinence-only sex education program, to replace the comprehensive one that was in place.

People went apeshit. Friends of mine spoke out against the proposal at school board meetings. Medical professionals came in from out of town to voice their opinion, too. And in the end, we stuck with a comprehensive program.

I was pleased with the school board's decision not to adopt an abstinence only program (even though I didn't believe in abortion, I wasn't quite that conservative; I've always fully supported birth control). But I still could not understand how or why my friends felt so strongly about the abortion issue in particular. And because I knew my friends to be intelligent, compassionate people, I wanted to understand their point of view, so I started researching the topic.

I don't remember a specific moment when I "became pro-choice." I do know, though, that I kept finding instances where I could see myself agreeing that abortion was an acceptable option: rape, incest, poverty, etc.

But what won me over fully in the end were the personal anecdotes. By reading tons of stories about women's experiences with pregnancy, I discovered that it was impossible to put them into boxes marked with the aforementioned labels. It hit me that I couldn't call myself pro-life without taking women's lives and diverse experiences into consideration.

The Supreme Court's upholding of the "partial birth abortion" ban in 2007 (the year I graduated from high school) is the event that both tested and solidified my new pro-choice views. I was furious with the decision, even though when George W. Bush had signed the bill four years prior, I hadn't had a problem with it. That's because on the surface, "partial birth abortion" sounds awful; it evokes images of selfish women who, after 35 weeks of pregnancy, suddenly freak out and realize that they don't want to carry the pregnancy to term. So they go out and have an abortion.

But for one thing, "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term; it was coined by right-wing politicians. And secondly, come on, there have to be reasons for women to get an abortion that late in the game.

And damn good ones, at that.

One woman's story has really stuck with me over the years. It appears on page 14 of  The War on Choice by Gloria Feldt:

We were awaiting the arrival of a son. I'm diabetic, so I had more prenatal testing than most women. At twenty-five weeks I had an ultrasound and the doctor's exact words were, "Vick, you are disgustingly normal and so is the baby." At thirty-two weeks I went in for another ultrasound and my world came crashing down. They discovered that [the fetus] had not grown past twenty-five weeks, and further testing revealed that he had nine major anomalies, including a fluid-filled cranium with no brain tissue at all. He could never have survived outside my womb. My body was the only thing keeping him alive, and I chose to remove my son from life support. I'm a mom. I had three beautiful children, and in fact I have a new baby boy who's here with me now. Who are the people on the anti-choice side to judge me? They've never been in my shoes. I never in my wildest dreams thought something like this could happen, but it happened to me.

The abortion she had in 1996 was made illegal under the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Her experience reminds me of the woman in NE who, earlier this year, was denied an abortion and forced to watch her baby die in her arms shortly after giving birth.

So this is why I feel so strongly that lawmakers should not get between a woman and her doctor. As NARAL's Speak Out for Choice Award recipient Katie Stack said earlier this year during her acceptance speech: "Women's experiences with abortion are nuanced and complicated. But . . . if [we are] given the opportunity to share these diverse realities, we can begin to challenge the stereotypes and falsehoods that are promoted by the anti-choice movement."

Pro-choice is pro-life. That's something I firmly believe and discovered simply by being curious and open. By reading. By trusting/caring about people, and respecting their personal opinions and choices.

I don't think that's too much to ask of humanity.

A Modest Proposal (Abortion Edition)

Last year in class we read A Modest Proposal (1729) by Jonathan Swift. It's a satirical piece in which Swift suggests that the Irish should eat their own babies rather than tackle problems of overpopulation and poverty head-on. We were asked to write a similarly satirical piece about an impassioned issue, so I chose abortion rights. [WARNING: The keyword here is "satire," people!]

Which side am I really on?

Written October 9, 2010

Abortion has been one of the most fiercely debated topics of the 21st century, and frankly, I’m tired of hearing about it. If right-wingers truly believe abortion is a sin, and the women who choose to abort are evil, heartless murderers, it’s time to do something rather than settle for bad picket signs and expect anything to happen. What, are we just going to say “no more abortions!” and wait for them to disappear like rats up a drain pipe? We need to get to the root of the problem.

First, we need to ask ourselves: what drives women to have abortions? Are these women simply born with demonic souls, or are they driven to kill after years of reckless partying, drinking, and hardcore drugs (because obviously, any woman callous enough to get an abortion must be sniffing the Big H)? 

Some will have you believe that the decision has less to do with a woman’s lifestyle, and more with what she can expect for the future of her baby. If a woman becomes pregnant, these pro-choicers cry, and her partner is irresponsible, refuses to pay child support, or just gets up and leaves, she may not have the means to provide for a child. Pro-choicers want us to think that if a woman has a dead-end job, absolutely no support, and struggles just to find her next meal, it’s okay for her to choose an abortion rather than let her child suffer. 

Evil, right?

I propose three solutions to the abortion epidemic in this country. First, we must outlaw condoms and sex education. By exposing children to the mechanics of sex and pregnancy prevention as early as middle school, we’re basically telling them (a) it’s okay to “get jiggy with it,” and (b) there are ultimately no consequences because any mistake (i.e. pregnancy) can simply be undone (i.e. abortion). By outlawing condoms, couples will know that their actions may result in an unwanted pregnancy, and they’ll refrain from doing the deed in the first place.

Next, we must set up a national fund to pay women for choosing life over murder. If a poverty-stricken woman is given a choice between having an abortion or receiving a lump sum and letting her baby live, she’ll definitely choose the money. Thus, dinner is served and she can live happily ever after — guilt and problem free — with her bouncing bundle of joy.

Finally, we must make it illegal for two people to have “relations” without first signing mutual contracts in which they provide vital information, including (but not limited to): their name, age, sex, complete medical history, social security number, financial records, and high school transcript. By making the intimate details of our medical histories accessible to the public, we will know at once who has heart conditions, bladder control problems, hemorrhoids, STDs, clinical baldness, etc. and can thus make better decisions about our sexual partners. Not to mention, women will never be in the position of deciding whether or not to keep her child because of an irresponsible partner — she will already have access to his bank account! It’s the perfect solution!

As long as we’re willing to give up any shred of privacy whatsoever and allow the government to have free reign over our personal lives, we can eradicate abortion in America once and for all.

Sure, we could take the easy route and assume women are intelligent and conscientious enough to make their own decisions about their own bodies; we could have faith in the fact that women don’t take abortion lightly, that they think about it long and hard, and are affected by it each and every day for the rest of their lives; we could even focus on better sex education and allow free access to birth control to lessen the chance that couples would have to face an unplanned pregnancy in the first place.

But we’re Americans, and we don’t like to take the easy route.

From the Curious Depths of My Backpack #3

If you haven't been following this post series, this is where I pull random crap from my backpack and post it (yay)! I wrote this particular piece for my AP Language and Composition class. We were given a list of "wacky laws" and told to write a fictional story about one of them. I chose a law that says women in Corvallis, Oregon can't drink coffee after 6pm. (I apologize, there's one typo near the end.)

Written February 8th, 2011

Other posts in this series:

• From the Curious Depths of My Backpack #1: Where I'm From
• From the Curious Depths of My Backpack #2: My Life in Six Words

Life According to Google (Men vs. Women)

Is Google an elusive window into the complex minds of internetizens, 

or just an annoying friend who likes to finish all your sentences?

What does being a girl mean to you? (By Becka W.)

Becka W. wrote this piece in response to a question I posted under my Writers Wanted tab: "What does being a girl mean to you?" Becka blogs about feminist issues and her work has been featured on Fbomb multiple times – check her out at Becka Tells All!

Being a girl takes guts. 

I can walk with my feet 3 inches off the ground for the whole day. I walk down streets alone at night in a short skirt even though so many in my society tell me that it’s dangerous for a girl to be out alone, that a man may take advantage of her – and that it’s her fault if she doesn't cover herself up. 

I dream of careers in comedy or media or politics, despite the fact that all of those areas are notorious boys’ clubs.

  

Being a girl takes compassion and the will to act. I hear stories of other women’s rapes or fights with the healthcare system and I want to help them out. I hear about inequality and injustice in the fight for LGBT rights and I remember how rough it was – still is – for women to be accepted as powerful figures in our society, and I fight with them. I hear about a blood drive, or a cancer research walk, or a charity benefit and I feel compelled to participate. I don’t hate men, I just hate some men who don’t care about girls. I don’t hate conservatives, I hate that they’ve co-opted religion as their defense against women’s reproductive rights. I know how to see shades of gray. 

Being a girl takes confidence. We’re told to look a certain way, to behave a certain way, to like certain things. The fact that I am heavier, hate sitting with my legs crossed, and like Star Wars, Star Trek, comic books, and raunchy comedies more than I enjoy chick flicks doesn’t make me less of a woman. 

It makes me a more complex one. 

Girls are told to be one way, and to be any other way takes guts and confidence and independence and faith in oneself – and every girl is different from that image, that stereotype.

  

Being a girl means being awesome, intelligent, fantastic, strong, independent, fun, adventurous, kind, smart, and great.

____________________________

I'm curious to know what "being a girl" means to YOU. Send your response to teenagefeminist@gmail.com, and I might just post it!

A Video that Summarizes My Views on Gay Marriage

This video perfectly — and I mean perfectly — summarizes my feelings on gay marriage. Watch it (the actual thing starts at 0:28), and I'm pretty sure you'll figure out where I stand. 
If you like Nineteenpercent, check out her other video Beyonce - Run the World (LIES)!

What are your feelings on chivalry?

My friend Erika asked me this question a while back, and I think it's an important one. We all know that one gross misconception about feminists is that we all hate men*, so it's probably also a preconception that feminists despise chivalry, or "special courtesy afforded to women by men."

I honestly had a heckuva time coming up with an answer to this question. I mean, if a boy insisted on opening my car door, pulling out my seat at dinner, whatever - would that go against my beliefs as a feminist because, in all actuality, I'm perfectly capable of doing all of those things by myself?

As they say, this issue is a double-edged sword. If a feminist woman denies chivalry, people will call her a man-hater (just check out the shirts that say "Chivalry is dead, and women killed it!"). If, on the other hand, a feminist woman accepts chivalry, people will call her a hypocrite.

We just can't get a break, can we?

Well, here's my answer to this brain-bending question. You might agree, you might not, but either way I'd love to hear your opinion.

Q: "What are your feelings on chivalry? Legitimate, heart-felt, pure chivalry?"

A: First of all, interesting question! But it makes all the difference that you said "Legitimate, heart-felt, pure chivalry." I think there's a huge difference between a boy doing something nice for a girl because he expects to "get something" in return, and a boy doing something nice for a girl because he genuinely cares for her. 

But I also don't think chivalry is necessarily something that a man should do for a woman* - it's common courtesy that all people should exhibit. It's the little things you do each and every day for people to show respect: holding doors and elevators, helping somebody with their groceries, giving somebody the bigger slice of pizza . . .

So, am I against a boy holding a door open for a girl? No way. But tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that, I would expect that same girl to hold a door open for the person behind her, that person to hold a door for the person behind him, and so on.

In the long run, everybody deserves respect. Guys should respect girls, guys should respect guys, girls should respect guys, girls should respect girls . . . and I'm pretty sure I should respect you, and you should respect me. Because we're all people, right?

________________________

*Don't get me started on the "feminists hate men" stereotype . . .

*Yes, I know the official definition of chivalry is "The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women." But we're not in the 10th Century anymore. If knights are characterized by bravery, courtesy, and honor, women sure as hell can be modern-day "knights"!

Stereotypes about femininity got you down . . . ?

About a month ago a woman from HighWire, a program at Lancaster University in the UK, contacted me about a video made by some of her students. On top of earning PhDs, they're part of something called the "EmpowerMe" project. How cool does that sound?

The video advertises a new (and fictitious) product called Gendolene, a bleach of sorts that can be used to eradicate femina stereotypica, or stereotypical femininity, via the color pink.

The video's only a minute long, but it's a clever commentary on the "pinkification pandemic" that's taken the world by storm. Here's what the makers of Gendolene had to say on their website:

"The power of Gendolene isn’t something that comes in a bottle. It’s our collective ability to resist and reverse the tide of pinkification that has gradually washed its way across so many toys, clothes, accessories and household items targeted at girls and young women.

Our goal is to challenge the production and marketing of items that simply reinforce restrictive and damaging stereotypes about what it means to be a girl.

The culture of pink segregates boys and girls into different aisles. In one it’s cool to be active, adventurous and explore the world; in the other it’s cool just to look pretty and explore as far as the next pair of shoes or shade of lipstick.

We think it’s about time manufacturers and retailers join the 21st century and find new ways of engaging with our young people that promote equality and empowerment for all, irrespective of the body we happen to be born into."

I can already see somebody reading this and thinking "so that's what feminists want, to get rid of all the pink in the world?" Puh-lease. The video is speaking to the fact that when institutions such as "femininity" and "masculinity" are rigid and narrowly defined, everyone is affected - men and women alike!

Update (1/11/2011) - Becci from the EmpowerMe Project would like to add:

"I think that its really important for children's toys to inform and prepare children for the diverse and complex world that lies ahead. We should therefore be providing our children with a wide range of toys which not only support their physical and cognitive development, but that also develop their understanding of how 'real' men and women look, behave and interact with the world, as opposed to distorted and often unobtainable representations."