Hillary Clinton Supporters, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?!?!?!?!

Really? Really?!?! You really are going to go from voting for HRC to McCain? And as if that isn't enough, you are in an ad telling others to do the same?!?!?! I hope your proud of that ad when Roe v. Wade is overturned. When your son (if you have one) is drafted to fight in more war. When you loose your job due to our economy. And don't give me that crap about holding Roe v. Wade over your head. I am sick of hearing HRC supporters say they are being held hostage by the DNC using the argument of Roe v. Wade. It isn't holding you hostage! It isn't holding it over your head! If McCain is the next POTUS, we've lost our right to choose! And with that, the last of our birthing rights will go down the drain too. This is a truth! This is a fact YOU HAVE TO FACE!!!!!!!

She lost. She did not run the best campaign. She assumed she would be the nominee and didn't really work to ensure it. What is that old saying about assuming things? You make an ass out of you and me? She didn't loose because sexism in the media; hell, they declared her the nominee in freaking 2006!* She didn't loose because of the DNC. She lost because she didn't plan on running a campaign after "Super Tuesday".

I'm sick of hearing about how they got the same amount of votes. NO THEY DIDN'T! In PRIMARIES they received the same number of votes. This does not include caucus states. Their individual votes aren't counted in the popular vote. And you CANNOT count MI and FL. Obama's name was not even on the ballot in MI. And while Hillary did "win" in MI, she received 55.23% of the vote. 40.07% of the vote went uncommitted. 238,168 people showed up just to vote AGAINST her (266,089 people if you count those who voted uncommitted and votes for Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel). Not to mention the fact that Hillary herself said MI WOULD NOT COUNT! On New Hampshire Public Radio on October 11, 2008, HRC said "You know, it's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."

I am angry and I am freaking scared to death that McCain could win this thing because of HRC supporters. Come on people, think about the reason you vote for the person you vote for!


*I am not saying that there was no sexism in the media, please understand this.

This one's for Lindsay (and anyone else who has thoughts on the matter)

OK, this is going to be a long one so grab some popcorn and a drink 'cause here we go!

On "Digital Scrapbook #8" Lindsay commented:

Do you think there is an order to Kasl's human value list? it is stated as "gender, race, class, position, religion, age, appearance, ethnic background, physical ability" i recently had a theory about this list and if they are treated equally or if some have more privilege than others and it was based on the outcome of the democratic presidential campaign.

Let me start by saying that I have not read all of Kasl's book. We read chapters from different books throughout the quarter. The list stated above is from chapter 3 "Is Addiction Inevitable? Patriarchy, Hierarchy, and Capitalism" in the book Many Roads, One Journey: Moving Beyond the 12 Steps. Any quotes from Kasl in this post are from this chapter. Also, I'm just guessing and giving my point of view; I am not an expert on this subject by any means. Now that I've gotten my paranoid disclaimer out of the way, I can give my thoughts on the matter.

In terms of a certain order to Kasl's human value list, she has created an illustration of hierarchy and patriarchy in the United States. I don't have an image file for it so just know that it looks like a triangle and at the top is are white men with images implying power and authority. The men are separated from everyone else by a chain-link fence. Below the fence we see everyone else (I didn't type these in any particular order): the white wives of the men above the fence, athletes, criminals, divorce, singers, teachers, the elderly, gay and lesbian couples, single mothers, those on welfare, drug dealers, Native Americans, etc. Here is what she writes about the illustration (emphasis at the end is hers, not mine):

If we look at our illustration of hierarchy and patriarchy, we see people of different genders, ages, colors, races, classes, educations, or economic situations. To survive this system, all of them have been conditioned to lose, bury, or not develop parts of themselves. it could be their ability to love, cry, show tenderness, feel pain, express anger, experience their fear, be assertive, or pursue their personal hopes and dreams. The part that gets lost or buried or never developed depends on where they are in the hierarchy, their particular childhood circumstances, and their personal empowerment. This ties in with our discussions of the human energy system--chakras--that follows.
For example, the white males at the top get to set the rules, but are cut off from their sensitivity and love because they must blind themselves to the fact that they are living off the backs of the people below them. The people who live below the chain-link fence spend a lot of time figuring out the rules of the people who live above them because they have to survive in their world. Thus they may have insight into the workings of the people above them, but they may not have a lot of time left to understand themselves. And the ones on the very bottom are exhausted simply trying to survive. This hinders them from experiencing the luxury of self-exploration and personal growth.
When we have parts of ourselves buried or undeveloped, we feel out of harmony, empty, or off-center, and often experience a sense of alienation that results in an inner void fueling both compulsive and addictive behavior as well as codependency. Gotta fill up the emptiness, gotta get rid of the pain and desperation. Give me money, sex, drugs, food, status, a wife, a husband. We engage in compulsive or addictive behavior so we don't have to feel what's inside. Patriarchy/hierarchy maintains and perpetuates addictive and dependent behavior in order to cover up the incredible losses of self and separateness created by our system.

I type all of this out to show that there does seem to be an order to this list as it relates to addiction. Within the context of the primaries for the Democratic Primaries, I think there are a couple of ways of looking at a potential order to the list. Kasl stresses that "the motivating force behind the white men at the top is often fear of losing their control over others" (73). Keeping this in mind, here are my thoughts.

In her illustration, the image of "two Black adult men being admired by a little boy" is farther down in the hierarchy than any of the images representing middle or upper-middle class white women. For the image of Black men, Kasl says that "by the age of eight, this inner-city boy realizes that he is unlikely to have access to the mainstream United States privileges of education and respect, so he is finding his heroes. Who are they? The local drug dealers." (70). Because of Obama's race and his admitted issues with drugs, one could argue that he would be more oppressed. If he is able to climb over the chain-link fence, he might give other Black Americans the idea that they could too, thus threatening the status quo. On the flip side, because middle and upper-middle class, white women are closer to the chain link fence, they could be perceived as a bigger threat to the men above the fence. Some of these women are directly below the fence, specifically the wives of the men in power. Therefore, Clinton would face more opposition as she grew up as a white, middle class girl and she is also the wife of one of the men above the fence, making her the bigger threat.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an Obama supporter and have been since the end of February. I started off as an Edwards supporter.

Before the primaries got underway, my only problem with Clinton was that, for a majority of my life (all but 7 years), there has been either a Bush or a Clinton in office. This just doesn't sit right with me. As the primaries started, I began to actually dislike Clinton. When I would listen to her or her supporters speak, I felt like she had a sense of entitlement; that the Presidency was somehow owed to her. The tactics she resorted to sickened me. I felt like she was willing to risk a Democrat loosing in November if it wasn't her name on the ballot. And I feel like her behavior and actions hurt women more then it helped advance us. But these are my issues with her. Do I think this is why she didn't win? Perhaps it played a role in it.

I don't think she ran her campaign as well as Obama did. Again, going back to the issue of entitlement, she was the presumptive nominee before a single ballot had been cast. She didn't campaign as much as she should have in the months running up to the first primaries because everyone figured it was in the bag. It seemed like her campaign didn't even have plan beyond February 5th (Super Tuesday).

In the end, the thing that bothered me the most was her insistence that, including Michigan and Florida, she had more popular votes than he did. The problem here is that the popular vote count doesn't include the caucus states, which mostly went for Obama. So, every vote should count, but only for states who hold primaries and not those who hold a caucus? And her including Florida and Michigan after she herself said their primaries shouldn't count? Of course this was when she thought it was in the bag, there was no question she was going to be the nominee.

This is not to say I think Obama is perfect, I don't. But he ran a very different campaign because no one assumed anything. And, perhaps because he didn't need to, I don't feel like he resorted to the type of dirty tactics that she did. He was certainly doing his fair share of mud slinging, but Clinton went several steps farther. In the end, Obama ran a better campaign.

Did she loose because of sexism in the media? No. I'm not saying the media wasn't sexist in some of its coverage, certainly there were sexist remarks made. Just as there were racist remarks made. But this same sexist media is the very same media that declared her the presumptive nominee months before the primaries started.

I think I'll end this here for now but I would love to hear what others think, regardless of if you agree with me or think I'm full of shit. I love talking politics!

When Doulaing, College and Motherhood Collide

Any one of these things on their own can be stressful. And when they collide into one another the results can be overwhelming. To make matters worse, I am a procrastinator. I try not to be, really I do. I try to look at my week and spread things out and then, all of the sudden, it's 3:30PM on Friday and I have a blog due at 5PM and my kids are begging for some attention but the 13 year old won't play with them, the phone is ringing, people are hungry, the dogs are barking, and I'm wishing I had one of those "easy" buttons from Staples, but one that actually works. I guess my point is that I realize much of the stress of this week was my own doing by procrastinating and I own that.

This was my final week of summer quarter. I have one final next week then I'm done. The final week of the quarter is often when final papers and projects are due. Typically it is a good idea to not schedule too much else for this week, and, because I know this, I didn't schedule anything else for this week. Apparently I forgot that you can't schedule life, 'cause it just happens whether you want it to or not.

After working all day on Sunday, I came home to a very upset husband. He and one of his daughters, the very same one who watch Cole and Lydia during the week for us, had an argument about babysitting and other chores. In the end, it was decided that she would no longer be watching Cole and Lydia, leaving us trying to find childcare for 8:30 the next morning at 10pm Sunday night. I guess God thought we did such a good job handling the situation because it was only the beginning.

Apparently, allergic reactions from an allergy shot, which requires racing your 13 year old to the ER, don't care that you've got a project and a paper to finish. When you are the 7th & 8th grade volleyball coach for the non-competitive team, you don't get much of a say for when to hold tryouts. To be fair, none of the coaches do, we are all at the mercy of the gym the tryouts are being held at. And then, as I was just starting to get caught up with school work, my last doula client went into labor early Thursday morning. Again, I take full ownership on this one. I didn't have to take a client who was due at the end of the quarter. Maybe I was hoping that because she was a first timer and not due until the 24th I would be pretty safe. I was wrong. So after struggling to find someone to watch the kids (Jim had already taken two days off this week and had a meeting in Dayton he couldn't reschedule) for a couple of hours I headed to be with my laboring clients. I brought my work with me in case I got the chance to get some of it done but that was wishful thinking. The labor and birth was awesome. Mom did an amazing job, as did dad. Their birth was was just fan-freaking-tastic! But shortly after the baby was born into the hands of his mom (with help from the doc), he started having trouble breathing. He ended up going to the nursery for oxygen and further evaluation. The doctor and nursing staff debated on if he needed to be transfered to Children's Hospital. Side note: the hospital mom birthed at has a nursery and the ability to stabilize babies who aren't doing well, but they don't have a NICU. This means if their son hadn't started to show any signs of improvement within a certain time frame he would have to go somewhere that could do more for him. By midnight baby was doing better, not great, but better. After convincing mom and dad to go to bed and get some sleep, I too went home to get some sleep. After tossing and turning most of the night, I got out of bed by about nine this morning to hungry kids. Made them waffles for breakfast as I called my clients to check in on them and returned some other calls. After breakfast I sat down to finish my paper for History. My kids had other plans. They were being wild and crazy and driving me nuts. Now don't get me wrong, I totally get that they were acting this way because they were in desperate need of my attention after not seeing me much for almost two full days. I knew and understood why this was happening. But that doesn't mean my history instructor who has already given me an extra day because of the birth will understand. We finally work something out and I get my paper finished a little after 3 this afternoon. Thinking I'm done, we run out for some Chipotle. When we get home around 4 I check my email and see a reminder about my final blog post for Women's Studies that is due in an hour. I start working right away but still have the kids to deal with. An hour and a half later I publish the post just in time to take one of my stepdaughters to crew practice.

And now here I sit, doing something just for me for the first time this week after snuggling with my little ones until they ran outside to play with friends. I didn't get all of my school work done but I believe I did the best that I could with what I had. I'm short two digital scrapbook postings for Women's Studies and one reading response for History, but it isn't the end of the world. Regardless of my grades in these classes, I learned so much from the classes themselves. Grades are just letters and numbers, knowledge is way more valuable.

Final Blog for Women's Studies 326 Women and Addiction

I want you to reflect on your experience in the class-- How has your understanding of addiction changed? Are you able to integrate what you have learned in your real life or your major? Has the way you talk about, feel about, empathize towards addiction/addicts changed?

Before taking Women's Studies 326: Women and Addiction I though I understood addiction, maybe even a bit more than the average person. Now, after almost 10 weeks of reading and discussing addiction, I realize just how little I knew and understood about addiction, especially the relationship between addiction, patriarchy, hierarchy, and capitalism. Without a doubt, Charlotte Kasl's "Is Addiction Inevitable? Patriarchy, Hierarchy, and Capitalism" and Dr. Northrup's "The Patriarchal Myth and the Addictive System" are my two favorite readings from the quarter. Both of these readings are from the first weeks of the quarter, when I realized just how little I understood. I don't remember if I really even had an opinion on why people resort to addictive behaviors before this class. I think I felt like the reasons were mostly personal. Now, nothing seems personal to me. Everything seems so much more connected to the world in which we live, even how people behave and interact. Kasl's piece really helped me to see this. She writes (emphasis mine):

"Patriarchy, hierarchy, and capitalism create, encourage, maintain, and perpetuate addiction and dependency. Patriarchy and hierarchy are based on domination and subordination, which result in fear. This fear is expressed by the dominators through control and violence, and in the subordinated people through passivity and repression of anger. The external conflict of hierarchy between dominants and subordinates becomes internalized in individuals, creating personal inner chaos, anxiety, and duality. To quell the inner conflict people resort to addictive substances and behavior."

Kasl's talk of psychic numbing and dissociation really helped me to understand how people with addiction issues don't see that the problems they face in life are caused by the addiction and not something else. While listening to the news or hearing other people talk about the problems we face as a society, I find myself thinking of her illustration of hierarchy and patriarchy and I've even yelled at the TV "outside solutions don't work for inside problems!" (yes, I know the people talking on the TV can't hear me).

Dr. Northup's writings really spoke to me as well, probably due to her talking about how women don't trust their bodies anymore, especially in relation to birth. Every time I teach, my main objective is to get women to trust their bodies and their inner wisdom.

I could write for hours about these two authors but since this blog was due 7 minutes ago I won't. I do want to end with an example of how my deeper understanding about addiction helped me at work.

Last week I took a young woman expecting her first and her mother on a tour of labor and delivery. The pregnant mom was very quiet and seemed very uncomfortable. While showing them a postpartum room the soon-to-be grandmother asked how long after delivery her daughter would be able to go downstairs and smoke. Ten weeks ago I would have been appalled. While I would have done my best to hide it, I know my feelings would show on my face. But I wasn't appalled. I answered the mother's question. The young woman then opened up a little bit and said she had tried to quit but wasn't able to give it up completely because everyone around her still smoked; her boyfriend, sisters, and parents. I told her that her situation makes it that much harder to quit. She seemed to perk up a bit more and said that she was able to cut back quite a bit. Her mom told me she was really surprised at how well her daughter was taking care of herself since becoming pregnant and that she was proud of her. I excitedly told the pregnant mom that she was doing awesome; that her cutting back was helpful, and, in taking better care of herself and eating healthier foods, she may be able to minimize some of the risks associated with smoking. We continued the tour and the pregnant mom seemed so much more comfortable with me. She even starting asking questions about the rest of her pregnancy, labor and birth. Had I not reacted the way I did to her mom's question, I think the situation would have been very different. But I didn't judge her and I didn't blame her, which is so often what I see others in the medical field do. This class did changed that for me.

Thank you, Ms. Genetin. Your class was awesome.

Digital Scrapbook #8

"Shroud" by Ani DiFranco

I had to leave the house of fashion
And go forth naked from its doors
'cause women should be allies
And not competitors

In our patriarchal and capitalist society women often find themselves competing with each other, which only serves the maintain the status quo. Charlotte Kasl's piece "Is Addiction Inevitable? Patriarchy, Hierarchy, and Capitalism" explains that "because patriarchy assigns a secondary position to women, it creates a hierarchy, in which human value is determined by gender, race, class, position, religion, age, appearance, ethnic background, and physical ability" (55). These groups can either unite or compete for the highest position available. Kasl identifies the weapons of patriarchy to be "segmenting, separating, and isolating people" (60). When trying to escape isolation we may have to rely of self-destructive behavior in order to dissociate from our inner wisdom, what Kasl describes as "short-term relief from pain is exchanged for long-term destruction. This follows the model of patriarchy and capitalism, which is short-term economic gain at the price of long-term destruction of the ecosystem and people's spirits" (60). In the context of the this song, women are destroying other women to feel better about themselves.

And I had to leave the house of god
Because the cross replaced the wheel

This refers to the destruction on non-Christian religions, specifically pagan faiths.

And the goddesses were all out in the garden
With the plants that nurture and heal

Kasl refers to this as the Patriarchal Switch. She writes "historically, between 10,000 and 3,00 BC there is considerable evidence that we moved gradually from a Goddess-worshiping culture that revered life, nature, creation, and harmony to patriarchy" (60). The reference to the plants references the movement to modern medicine and away from maintaining health naturally.

I had to leave the house of privilege
Spent Christmas homeless and feeling bad
To learn that privilege is a headache
That you don't know that you don't have

Capitalism can only exist by "making people feel insecure, unlovable, and ashamed in order to have them purchase all kinds of things to make them--allegedly--attractive, lovable, and powerful" (Kasl, 62). But all of this stuff can't make us feel happy or loved, we only think it can.

And I had to leave the house of television
To start noticing the clouds
It's amazing the stuff you see
When you finally shed that shroud

We've become what the media wants us to be. Because so much time and energy is spent watching TV, we aren't allowing ourselves the time for reflection within ourselves.

I had to leave the house of conformity
In order to make art

In class, while discussing the drop in self-esteem when girls reach adolescence, we learned that their art work also changes as drawing is now seen as childish. Even girls who really enjoy creating art may feel pressure to fit in with the other girls and walk away from her love.

I had to be more or less true
To learn to tel the two apart

I think this means that life isn't black and white or absolute. There are shades of gray and periods of uncertainty.

And I had to leave the house of fear
Just about as soon as I could crawl
Ignore my face on the wanted posters
Stuck to the post office wall

In order to live life one cannot fear life. This is contrary to patriarchy and hierarchy as they "are based on domination and subordination, which result in fear" (Kasl 53).

I had to leave the house of self-importance
To doodle my first tattoo
Realize a tattoo is no more permanent
Than I am

The ability to realize you're not perfect nor will you ever be perfect and realizing your own mortality.

And who ever said that life is suffering
I think they had their finger on the pulse of joy
Ain't the power of transcendence
The greatest one we can employ

We have the ability to go through life with a positive or negative attitude. But if all we see is suffering, then we will only ever experience suffering. This doesn't mean a person with a positive attitude never experiences pain or suffering, they do, they just navigate through it with a brighter outlook.

Digital Scrapbook #7

“Obama and McCain: Where They Stand on Addiction Issues” by Bob Curley

The Presidential Election of 2008 has been underway for several weeks now. We often hear about the candidates’ views on major issues such as taxes, war, education, terrorism, and health care. We also hear about their views on made up issues like who is and who isn’t wearing a flag lapel pin or who is more American. Rarely do we hear political discussions based on each candidate’s stance on addiction issues. And really, the more I think about it, I don’t recall ever hearing a question about these issues in presidential debates. It seems the media only gives air time to addiction when they are examining if the candidates themselves have any addiction issues. And this year, both McCain and Obama have a history of addiction. McCain has dealt with heavy drinking, though I don’t believe he considers himself a recovering alcoholic. He also has a family history of addiction as his father was an alcoholic and Cindy, McCain’s wife, was addicted to prescription drugs in the 90s. And because Cindy heads an Anheuser-Busch distributor, McCain recently recused himself on votes regarding the alcohol industry. Obama has been open regarding his use of cocaine and marijuana as a youth. And both McCain and Obama are former smokers. This is pretty much where the similarities end.

Obama has pledged to pass a universal healthcare plan that is similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). While he doesn’t specifically discuss treatment for addiction, it is implied by his referencing the FEHBP as it requires parity coverage of addictive diseases. He also recognizes the need to increase funding for disease prevention. By funding prevention, Charlotte Kasl’s illustration of hierarchy may begin to break down. He also wants to see first-time, nonviolent drug offended serve out their sentences in a drug rehabilitation program. Obama recognizes the disparities in drug sentencing laws and wants to address these issues. He also wants to provide more support for ex-offenders to fight crime and poverty—this seems like inside thinking to me. He relies on solving other inside problems with inside solutions by calling on parents to be the first line of defense regarding drug and alcohol abuse and he wants to create “Promise Neighborhoods” in cities. Obama is also supportive of doctors prescribing medical marijuana.

McCain doesn’t discuss addiction issues with as much detail as Obama, partially due to his longer voting record in the Senate where he’s actively worked against the tobacco industry. Within the context of his campaign, he only makes pledges in regards to smoking-cessation products. His healthcare plan mentions chronic diseases but addiction isn’t specifically mentioned. He would also cut underperforming programs which mean a number of addiction-related programs will be eliminated because they are currently identified as nonperforming. I wonder if he’s considered that these programs may not be performing well because they aren’t being funded. Cutting these programs will only maintain the illustration of hierarchy and the status quo. He also opposes the use of medical marijuana. There is no mention of community programs to help fight addiction.

Digital Scrapbook #6

From The American Journal of Bioethics “Substance Abuse in Pregnancy: Where Does the Blame Lie? How do health care providers, and society at large, approach a pregnant woman who is substance abusing? By Jennifer M. Cohn

Our medical system is rooted in patriarchy and hierarchy. Dr. Northrup, in “The Patriarchal Myth and the Addictive System”, writes that “our culture gives girls the message that their bodies, their lives, and their femaleness demand an apology…If we must apologize for our very existence from the day we are born, we can assume that our society’s medical system will deny us the wisdom of our “second-class” bodies. In essence, patriarchy blares out the message that women’s bodies are inferior and must be controlled” (4). Furthermore, Cynthia Downing tells us in “Sex Role Setups and Alcoholism” that “literature in the mental health field has empirically documented characteristics associated with femaleness to be seen as less healthy than those considered masculine. Consequently, women can be considered as a kind of deviant group in that they possess characteristics that are negatively valued and stigmatized” (47). And because reproduction is the responsibility of the woman, any behavior seen as irresponsible on the part of the pregnant woman is seen as a prime example of a woman’s deviance. And if the pregnant woman is also an addict, she is viewed as the lowest of the low and deserves to be punished. Such punishment is justified as a way to protect the child, but the goal of punishment is not to protect the child, rather, punishment “operates more to maintain a social distinction between insiders and deviants” according to Iris Marion Young in her piece titled “Punishment, Treatment, Empowerment: Three Approaches to Policy for Pregnant Addicts”. Jennifer M. Cohn argues that in putting the needs of the fetus before the needs of the woman, society and the medical system has compromised a woman’s control over her own body. While mother and baby are two lives they are one being. But because there are two lives, society has shown a “willingness to criminalize substance abuse during pregnancy” according to Cohn.

Cohn points out that in order “for an act to constitute a crime, it must be both harmful and intentional” and it can be difficult to prove “harm that was caused directly by drugs” and “intentional harm is even more difficult to prove…the consequences of drug taking during pregnancy are rarely anticipated by the mothers”.

Cohn also sees a double standard in how our society expects mothers to preserve their fetus’s life but we allow women to go without access to medical care, which can counteract the effects of drug abuse, as we offer little community aid to the pregnant woman. We also allow women to be exposed to toxic fumes and chemicals in the workplace. Where are the anti-abortion activists when the pregnant woman attempts to leave an abusive relationship, when she is at greater risk of being murdered by the abuser?

Cohn and Young seem to be very much on the same page. Punishment doesn’t work. Treatment isn’t always accessible. What does work is referred to as empowerment by Young, and the role Cohn believes the physician must play goes hand in hand with empowerment.

Digital Scrapbook #5

“Underneath pop Star Scandals is a Serious Message about Young Women and Addiction” by Courtney E. Martin

Everywhere we look we see images of young pop stars and Hollywood actresses. TV shows, gossip columns, tabloids, magazines shower us with images of these often sickly thin and addicted young women. These girls are often the only images young women see of other women their age, thus they are, by proxy, who we are suppose to emulate and admire. And this, according to Martin, has normalized addiction for many young women. I’ve heard people argue that girls and young women should know that this elite class of Hollywood women does not serve as good role models; but they are the current focus of our media culture.

In “The Patriarchal Myth and the Addictive System” Dr. Northrup tells us that we all unconsciously inherit and internalize beliefs and assumptions about our bodies from our culture. She stresses that women cannot reclaim our “inherent ability to create health without first understanding the influence of our society on how we think about and care for our bodies” (3). If our society is sending us only one message about young women, we have only that message to learn and we have already begun to see the impact of that message. According to Martin, young women are “more diseased and more addicted than any generation of young women that has come before”. And because the images of women in magazines are perfect, even though the models in the magazines don’t really look like their pictures, we face a great amount of pressure to be perfect as well—we attempt to achieve the impossible with devastating results.
More and more women today have eating disorders and the rates of binge drinking and drug use is increasing as well. And now, according to Martin, we are noticing a strong link between eating disorders and alcohol abuse. Martin cites data from The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University that says that “up to one-half of individuals with eating disorders abuse alcohol or illicit drugs, compared to nine percent of the general population, and up to 35 percent of alcohol or illicit drug abusers have eating disorders compared to three percent of the general population. In “Still Killing Us Softly: Advertising and the Obsession with Thinness” Jean Kilbourne also points out the link between eating disorders and cigarettes, as well as just about every other product marketed to women only. In her film Still Killing Us Softly 3, Kilbourne also points out that images of women in print advertising places emphasis on women being thin, innocent, and sexy. One print ad with a picture of a very thin model reads “The more you subtract the more you add” implying that the thinner a woman is the more she has to offer.

Both Dr. Northrup and Martin agree that in order for women to begin to heal, our culture must change. But we live in a capitalist society and those at the top make more money with our culture the way it currently is. As long as women are unhappy with the way they look, they’ll keep buying more and more products with the hopes of achieving the impossible. If the media shifted their attention elsewhere and, in turn, women began to love themselves the way they are, there would be no need to advertise products to improve looks thus no need to advertise. A capitalist society can’t function without consumerism; therefore, I don’t see changing coming any time soon.

Digital Scrapbook #4

American Medical Association Press Release: Teenage Girls Targeted for Sweet-Flavored Alcoholic Beverages: Polls show more teen girls see “alcopop” ads than women age 21-44

In a 2004 press release, “the American Medical Association (AMA) released the results of two nationwide polls that reveal the extent of underage consumption and marketing exposure to “alcopops” or so-called “girlie drinks.” The AMA expressed concern that hard-liquor brands are using these sweet-flavored malt beverages as “gateway” beverages to attract less-experienced drinkers”. According to the Marin Institute, an alcohol industry watchdog organization, alcopops are especially popular with young teens and middle schoolers and they are designed to look just like non-alcoholic lemonade and energy drinks, but contain about the same amount of alcohol as beer. Alcopops also has a high sugar and, sometimes, caffeine content to diminish the flavor and affect of the alcohol. This new product is especially alarming as the AMA reports that “the percentage of girls who drink is on the rise faster than boys” and we know the role drinking plays in a person’s life is vastly different for girls than for boys. Even the health effects are different. The AMA press release states that “according to the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, women drinking at the same rate as men, continue to be at higher risk for certain serious medical consequences of alcohol use including liver, brain and heart damage”.

In “Sex Role Setups and Alcoholism” Cynthia Downing looked at the work of Dr. Sharon Wilsnack to explore why women drink. Dr. Wilsnack “hypothesized that women may drink to resolve sex role conflicts connected with their inability to attain the unattainable feminine ideal as prescribed by the culture” (50). Downing asserts that women tend to hide their alcohol use much more than men do. And if a woman’s drinking develops into an addiction to alcohol, the fact that the addiction is hidden can lead to the woman being inaccurately treated or untreated for the primary disease.

There are many other issues that stem from the increase use of alcohol by females that surface before the female is even classified as an alcoholic. The polls released by the AMA found that “nearly one in six teen girls who have drunk alcopops in the past six months have been sexually active after drinking”. We saw examples of this very issue in Spin the Bottle and Smashed. Some of the young women in Spin the Bottle admit that they drink to feel sexy. If a young woman’s judgment is impaired from drinking and she’s feeling more relaxed and sexy, she’s much more likely to engage in sexual activity. The consequences of having sex are not openly talked about in our society, and when they are, women are often blamed or told that they asked for it while young men will be given a pass because the alcohol clouded his judgment.

To me, the most alarming piece of information from the AMA press release deals with the marketing of alcopops. According to the press release “a study released earlier this year by the Center for Alcohol Marketing and Youth revealed that girls ages 12-20 saw 95 percent more magazine ads for alcopops than women of 21”. The target audience of alcopops is women 21-34 but the study found that they were less exposed “magazine advertising for alcopops and peer than girls aged 12-20”. Spin the Bottle revealed that the ads used to sell alcohol to young women send the message that women need to be drinking more by implying that if women drink like men then they will inherit man’s power. As mentioned earlier, the health effects of drinking the same amount of alcohol as men do are much greater for women.

Digital Scrapbook #3

Drug-Free Action Alliance: Children Vote Beer Commercials among Their Favorite Super Bowl Ads

Neither my husband nor I are pro-football fans. None–the-less, we look forward to watching the Super Bowl every year, though not for the football—for the ads. Advertising companies realize that the Super Bowl is their time to shine. They spend more and more money every year to produce bigger and better ads, competing with other ad companies to have the “Best Super Bowl Ad”. Advertisers also want their ads to be memorable; after all, the reason for the ad in the first place is to get you to buy whatever it is they are advertising. Some adults, me included, can simply watch and enjoy the ads without feeling the need to buy into what it is marketing. I’m capable of understanding that advertisers use any tactic they can think of if it may persuade you to purchase their product, including sex. But what affect do Super Bowl ads have on children? Most of what they are trying to sell isn’t for children, so a person might assume that the kids tune out or don’t pay attention to the ads. This would be especially true for alcohol ads. But when the Drug-Free Action Alliance surveyed 6,300 Ohio youth in middle and high school about their favorite Super Bowl ad, they “selected commercials for alcohol, specifically beer commercials, among their favorites”. When students specifically named their favorite commercial, the Anheuser-Busch commercials took “three of the top six most-remembered ads”. I know many adults who don’t see this as an issue, after all, kids cannot just go out and buy beer; they just enjoy the ads. But more and more research is showing the negative impact alcohol ads have on kids.

In “Defining Addiction: Patterns of Chemical and Psychological Addictions” Charlotte Kasl examines the personal experience of addiction starting with predisposing factors which can determine whether a person will become addicted to a substance. The first of these predisposing factors is the availability of the substance; meaning, “repeated exposure to a drug or substance increases the changes of using that substance” (94). Kasl emphasizes the “need to recognize that exposing children and young people repeatedly to alcohol and alcohol ads that equate alcohol with being sexy, glamorous, cool, and watching sports may make it harder for the people with alcoholic chemistry to abstain because they keep getting presented with a trigger to their unconscious pleasure center” (94).

In the film Still Killing Us Softly3, Jean Kilbourne stresses the need to take advertising seriously. We need to realize that the goal of the ads is to tell us who we are and who we should be. She also emphasizes that not only are the ads defining us, but they also keep us trapped in strict roles of masculinity and femininity. These are the messages being sent to our children, who are very impressionable, by the advertisers because they need to convey their message early and often to the future consumers. And their selling tactics work; if they didn’t, advertising would not be a $130 billion industry (in 1994). Kilbourne, in “Still Killing Us Softly: Advertising and the Obsession with Thinness”, the “advertising industry is a powerful educational force in America. The average American is exposed to over 1500 ads every day and will spend a year and a half of this or her life watching television commercials. Although the individual ads are often insipid and trivial, they have a serious cumulative impact” (395).

In terms of alcohol addiction, the impact of the alcohol commercials was revealed in a study published in Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in January of 2006. According to a press release from the Drug-Free Action Alliance, the study “found that youth who saw more alcohol ads on average drank more than those who did not see the ads. It is noteworthy that in 2007, Anheuser-Busch is estimated to have spent nearly $20 million on commercials that aired during the Super Bowl according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest”.

In 2008, more than 17 million Super Bowl viewers were under the age of 21.

Digital Scrapbook #2

A Drug-Free Action Alliance Program: Parents Who Host, Lose The Most: Don’t be a party to teenage drinking

In the 1980s and 1990s, many of the movies about high school shared a similar scene: the parents have gone out of town for the weekend; the teenager throws a wild party; many of the teens at the party are drinking, smoking, or using illegal drugs (or sometimes all three) with no major consequences; sometimes the parents would come home early; and sometimes the parents never find out. And certainly this type of party was not reserved just for movies, many teens hosted, and still do, parties like these all the time. But there is a new trend in teenage parties that has sparked national attention, new legislation, topics for daytime talk shows, and a new slogan: “Parents Who Host, Lose The Most: Don’t be a party to teenage drinking”. That’s right; parents have starting hosting parties where they allow the teens to drink. Some parents even supply the alcohol. According to a newsletter article from the Drug Free Action Alliance, an Ohio-based nonprofit prevention agency, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University surveyed parents and teens and found that “one-third of teen partygoers have been to parties where teens were drinking alcohol, smoking pot, or using cocaine, Ecstasy or prescription drugs while a parent was present. By age 17, nearly half (46 percent) of teen have been at such parties where parents were present”.

Given the possibly life-threatening side-effects of drinking, especially teen drinking, some may question the parenting skills the host-parents have. But the parents who host these parties do not feel they are doing anything wrong, quite the opposite, they feel they are keeping kids safe by allowing them to drink openly and under adult supervision. Many of these parents believe that teens drink whether they allow it or not and therefore they aren’t going to stop them from drinking. In Smashed: Story of a Drunken Girlhood, Koren’s mother has this same line of thinking. If Koren is going to get wasted, her mom would prefer she does it at home because it is safer. While I don’t agree with this parenting philosophy, I’m not the one parenting those teens. The bigger problem, however, is when parents host parties and allow other teens to drink without their parent’s knowledge, much less consent. I also strongly disagree with the theory that the teens will be safer because they are being supervised by a parent. Maybe I would buy this argument if there were no more than four or five teens at the party, but this doesn’t seem realistic to me. The number of teens at the average high school party is most likely going to exceed the number of teens one or two parents can reasonably be responsible for.

I was channel surfing one day and came across the Montel Williams Show. The topic that day happened to be “Parents Who Host”. I don’t know why I decided to stop and watch the show, I wasn’t a parent yet and I didn’t attend parties like these when I was in high school. In fact, this was the first time I had heard of these parties. The main guest was a mother who allowed her daughter to go to a party because she knew the parents were going to be home. She thought she was doing her job as a mom to confirm that the party was going to be supervised by parents. As I’m sure is true with many parents, she assumed that parents at home equates to no drinking. Sadly, this was not the case. Her daughter died that night after drinking too much. Like other parents who host teen drinking parties, the host parents felt that by allowing drinking in their home they could keep the kids safe. They couldn’t. The mother of the girl who died begged other parents who might be watching to not just confirm the presence of parents at parties but to also specifically ask if there would be alcohol available to the teens. I have not forgotten her message and either my husband or I make a phone call to parents before letting our teens go to a party.

In thinking about this issue in relation to the casual attitudes the college students had towards drinking in Spin the Bottle, I’m curious if there is any correlation to the increase in college binge drinking to the increase in parents hosting drinking parties. In hosting these parties, do parents give their kids the impression that drinking, especially underage drinking is not a big deal? That the underage drinking laws serve more like guidelines than actual laws?

Digital Scrapbook #1

"And Now, Back in the Real World: A report from the front in the never-ending war on drugs" by Claudia Kalb for Newsweek

Generally speaking, our society views drug use to be a criminal offence. In the 1970s, our government declared a war on drugs, and every year our prison systems house more and more drug offenders. But some in the criminal justice system are starting to realize that this approach to fighting drugs fails to recognize that those who use drugs often do so because they are addicted, and drug addiction is a disease which can be treated. In Nashville, Judge Seth Norman opened a residential addiction program in an effort to move nonviolent drug offenders away from the prison system and to treat their addiction. According to Claudia Kalb’s Newsweek article, states across America are beginning to look “for new ways to steer drug offenders away from prison cells and into treatment.”

While I’m thrilled that we are beginning to offer alternatives to prison for nonviolent drug offenders, part of me questions the motives behind it. In “Is Addiction Inevitable? Patriarchy, Hierarchy, and Capitalism” Charlotte Kasl examines the way drug addiction is being used as a political issue. While the public perception is that our government is trying “to help those below them”, they are “actually perpetuating their oppression—which, of course, maintains the status quo” (72). Kasl questions the sudden concern from those at the top of her illustration of hierarchy and patriarchy has with drug addiction. Is their concern truly for those “dying from drugs and related violence” or for themselves; “has the drug problem started to threaten their personal safety or the odds for re-election” (72)?

While reading the Newsweek article I found myself asking these very same questions. And in fact, there appears to be motivation beyond helping drug addicts get the help they need. According to Kalb, by putting drug addicts in treatment programs, rather than in prison, millions of taxpayer dollars will be saved. But Kalb also notes that, quite often, the treatment our system offers to drug offenders isn’t very good due in large part to lack of funding. And while our government accepts that treating the addiction, not incarceration, is the better option for nonviolent drug offenders, the budget has yet to support the shift. The federal government continues to place a higher monetary value on “stopping drug flow and enforcing drug laws than it does for treatment and prevention”. This year’s budget allocates almost twice as much for the enforcement of drug laws ($8.3 billion) then it does to treatment and prevention programs ($4.6 billion). If we know that good treatment and prevention programs work, why are we not funding them? Why are we not shifting some of the “millions of taxpayer dollars” saved by keeping addicts out of prison to the programs that allow us to “save” that money in the first place, in-turn making the programs better and even more effective? After all, these programs are a way for our leaders to, as Kasl says, “help those below them” (72). Or are they?

I believe that, in our society, there is a correlation between the level of importance and monetary value. By giving more money to the enforcement of drug laws, our government is telling us that this is more important than prevention and treatment of the drug addiction. And through drug law enforcement, those at the top of the hierarchy are able to maintain control over those who are addicted to drugs, and “fear of losing their control over others” is the motivating force behind the white men at the top of the hierarchy. As long as “women, African Americans, or Native Americans are sick, poor, and hooked on drugs and alcohol, they can’t threaten the status quo or stage a very effective revolution” (73).

Thin

My thoughts after viewing Laura Greenfield's documentary Thin from HBO.

I understand that eating disorders are not about the food itself. I used to have one, so I do get this. However, I do think that, while at an in-patient treatment center, it is important to have good foods available and also to include the patents in the preparation of their food. I don't know if it would make a difference or if it would help, it is just a theory that I have.

While watching the documentary Thin in class I couldn't let go of this theory. The food given to the women and girls at Renfrew Center looked horrible and not at all appetizing. At one point, one of the staff is trying to get Polly to eat a piece of pizza. The staff member asks her if she can just think of it as bread and Polly says no. My question, would the staff member be willing to eat the pizza? I wouldn't be! I even borrowed the film from the library and showed my husband and stepdaughters that part and they all agreed. The food doesn't look at all appetizing much less healthy.

There was no mention of the patents helping to create their menus, either. We did see patients meeting with the nutritionist but there was no talk about the type of foods they were eating or how to make good food choices. It is possible that these conversations ended up on the editing room floor but I would hope Greenfield, the director, would have kept at least one or two of those conversations in the film. I'm more inclined to believe that there isn't much emphasis on nutrition as their nutrition program isn't even mentioned on their website. I looked at over two dozen other in-patient centers across the States and every other facility mentions the nutritional aspect of recovery. A few even include my theory of involving the patients in meal preparation as well as meal planning and even grocery shopping. From what I can see the biggest difference between these programs and Renfrew is cost. While no facility website included the cost of their program they all had pictures, except for Renfrew. From the photos, I'm going to guess that these places are not cheap, not that Renfrew was but it is certainly more affordable than the other places. Which brings up the issue of the cost of recovery and insurance.

Three of the four women that the film focused on had to leave treatment before they felt they were ready because insurance would no longer cover it. One of the women, Polly, was fortunate to have a parent who was willing to pay for a few more days of treatment at Renfrew but this is not something many people are able to do. But what if eating disorders weren't seen as an disorder but as a disease like cancer? Insurance wouldn't stop paying for a treatment that is working for someone who has cancer, yet, it is OK for them to do so with someone with an eating disorder even though the person could die without the treatment. And many of the better treatment centers are very expensive. Are they saying only those with money are worthy of healing and getting healthy? If someone doesn't have enough money they have to go somewhere like Renfrew where, in my opinion, they aren't getting the best care or even decent care. I wonder what the difference in the relapse rate is between the higher end facilities verses places like Renfrew? Or if there have been any studies done comparing treatment centers in countries with national health care to countries without it and their rates of relapse? Trying to get better is challenge enough, but then when the cost of treatment is added into the mix the stress felt by the patents must be overwhelming as we saw with Polly when she found out that her insurance was done paying for treatment because she had gained enough weight. I wonder if she would still be alive today had she been able to be at a better center and for a longer period of time.

New York Times on Katie Reider

Here's an article from the New York Times about Katie.