The advertising geniuses over at Stayfree, a Johnson & Johnson Company, have come up with the “unique” idea of hawking maxi pads via soft core porn.  Okay, so I am exaggerating—a little.  It’s not really porn; it’s more along the lines of the really terrible romance novels that can be found in someone’s grandma’s guest bedroom.  Think thumping bare chests and terrible pick-up lines.  Oh, and swooning.  Lots of swooning.

They fine folks over at Stayfree have launched their new ad campaign online. The ads, featuring three hard bodied men, are called “A Date With Stayfree.”  In each of the three videos, the men Brad, Ryan, and Trevor, find a reason to remove their shirts and do a highly creepy absorbency test on three different …

… maxi pads.   By far the most notable aspect of each video is the use of these men to spew ultra-cheesy and clichéd comments geared to wow women.   For instance: “Laundry is my guilty pleasure,” or “I just love a clean house!”  And “Hey there.  I wasn’t expecting you so soon — I was just vacuuming those hard-to-reach places.” And last, but certainly not least, “I’m just putting the finishing touches on this rosemary-sunflower risotto.”

You get it right?  It’s just, like, sooo hilarious!  It’s the epitome of every woman’s dream, isn’t it?  Who wouldn’t love the idea of a man doing “women’s work” while selling maxi pads?!!   Stayfree is so unbelievably clever!  They really have women figured out!

Cripes.

I understand that these ads are meant to be highly tongue and cheek, but I find them so ridiculously marginalizing and borderline offensive to women. Although I have to admit, if Stayfree  had decided to choose a waify male model in a cardigan and cute Buddy Holly-style glasses reading a Dave Egger’s novel, I just might be all over this.  Is that hypocritical of me?  Probably.  But what can I say — beefy and too-good-looking bare chested dudes performing chores don’t do it for me personally.   Nice try Stayfree, but stick to what you know — women in yoga pants.

What do you think of the ads?  Clever?  Cheesy?  Better if there were different men in the ads, not talking? [Ed. Note: I'm not going to lie. Brad, is it? Yeah, Brad. He can talk to me about pads or whatever he wants any-fucking-time.]

The “smoking baby” quits smoking — but he’s obese. [MomLogic]

Indianapolis woman claims that her miscarriage was due to police brutality. [The Curvature]

Evan Bayh says Democrats will lose election. [Wonkette]

Mississippi:  ”We will erase young people who do not conform to gender norms.” [Menstrual Poetry]

New Miss Universe for marriage equality! [Advocate]

I’m not ashamed to admit that I enjoy the hell out of Glee. Yes, it’s cheesy and corny and silly and sappy, but it’s not pretending to be anything other than an hour of campy musical television.

Which is why when I heard that Glee’s resident choir-director-cum-rapping-whiteboy, Mr. Schuester (Matthew Morrison), was going to wear a gold lamé speedo for an upcoming episode (almost certainly for the Rocky Horror Picture Show tribute), I thought, “That sounds hilariously cheese-tastic” rather than “That sounds hot.” I assume …

… this is going to be played for laughs, not swoons. It’s a combination of the tone of the show itself and the article of clothing in question.

It’s not that Morrison isn’t physically attractive — although he’s not my cup of tea, the above picture certainly isn’t bad — it’s just that it seems as though a man in next to nothing is silly, effeminate, even “gay” — but not necessarily sexy. An attractive, fit and bikini-clad woman is provocative, sexy — even inappropriate. But a quick Google search reveals that most people equate Speedos either with homosexuality or older, hairy European gentlemen. A man in a towel can be hot, but a Speedo hardly has me reaching for my smelling salts to ward off “the vapors.”

There hasn’t been much reaction to this story yet on the intertubes, and for the most part, the only source appears to be The Daily Beast (your source for signs of divorce,  French women smoking, sexcessories and other hard-hitting news) which doesn’t quote Morrison or anyone from Glee directly, so it does seem somewhat suspect. However, regardless of the veracity of the story itself, the article alternates between drooling over the image of Morrison in an American Apparel bodysuit and making light of the concept of Mr. Schue in a banana hammock on national TV.

And, ultimately, that’s the real question — whether you find the concept of Mr. Schue in a mankini sexy or silly, why is it that women can be endlessly paraded around in bikinis on TV or in film without it causing much stir, but a man being placed in a similar scenario is newsworthy?

What’s your take? Should we want Matthew Morrison to be objectified in the same way a woman would be? Do straight men look silly in small items of clothing like Speedos, and why?

Three Canadian Royal Canadian Mounted Police (yes, those same Mounties as the brave Dudley Do Right) and three civilian prison employees have been suspended after watching two recently arrested drunk women engage in lesbian sex in a Kamloops, British Columbia jail. A fourth Mountie present is still being investigated and remains on the job. Beyond the aspect of creepy voyeurism, the reasons for the suspension are that at least one of the women was too intoxicated to provide consent, thus this could be construed as instance of statutory rape that was not prevented. This lack of prisoner protection could be potentially very embarrassing and damaging to the RCMP’s public image, as the Kamloops division just last year won several international awards for its crime prevention strategies. While this is certainly one side of the story, the voyeurism is perhaps that which deserves a closer look.

Not only did these police and prison workers (all male, by the way), not stop the sex, they watched for at least seven minutes, some over a security camera feed. In effect, this viewing became the ultimate male fantasy, a lesbian porn movie come to life. No doubt, these men also enjoyed their roles as masters of the show, possibly living out the common pornographic motif of horny female prisoners looking for punishment from their captors. Indeed, while the security tapes will likely never be released to the public (nor should they be), I would not be the least bit surprised if the men were not only watching the sex happen, but may have in fact been egging on these clearly intoxicated women on, a la Girls Gone Wild. Although there are many stereotypes about female law enforcement personnel, especially prison guards, being lesbians, I think, and perhaps I am being too optimistic, that if the guards present had been women, they would have stepped in to stop the sex from happening. Whether the sex was consented to or not is immaterial, this was clearly a case where at least one, if not both, of the women had impaired judgment and could not understand the full ramifications of their behavior. Thus, it was up to those charged with guarding them to make sure they remained safe and uncompromised, not a part of a prurient sideshow.

The NYT Picker, a blog devoted to goings-on in and about the New York Times, published an interesting piece this week regarding obituaries in the NYT. The NYT Picker reports that, in the month of August 2010, the NYT published 78 obituaries – and only six of them were for women. For the year to date, 698 obituaries had been published in the NYT thus far– 606 of them for men, 92 for women.

This is a totally bizarre statistic, considering that there are more women than men in the US population, and that population numbers of women and men are pretty much equal worldwide. But this extraordinary disparity between genders in newspaper obituary coverage has gone on for years – which is also bizarre, considering that the US granted full equality to women decades ago, and has seen women take more prominent roles in society ever since.

Obituaries go first and foremost to the famous – that’s a given. But the fact that the life stories of more famous men are being published in the NYT makes it clear that Western society is still dominated by a power structure that is, predominantly, male. This is also a bit of a given really– but women have been making valuable …

contributions to society for some time now. Whilst we might expect there to be more men in the obituaries currently, as notable women’s contributions have obviously increased as society has allowed them to, the ratio of male to female obituaries in the NYT at present does not recognise the advances made by women who have already passed.

So what’s going on here? Are the world’s prominent women – the women deserving of obituaries in the NYT or other quality newspapers – living much longer than men? Have there been no notable women who’ve died this year? I doubt it very much. What makes these number plain, and kind of shocking, is that the NYT evidently just doesn’t make the effort to dig out the stories of important women’s lives. The obituary columns in the NYT are filled with only the most obvious candidates for coverage – and those whose life stories are easily available to write up. In my mind, the reason more women aren’t covered in the NYT obituaries is laziness.

As the pinnacle of quality American journalism (so I’m told – I live in the UK, so it’s not one I read often), it is my opinion that it should fall to the NYT to actively seek out and chronicle the lives of women who deserve attention in their obituary column – women whose notable achievements and rich lives rightly warrant the honour of recognition in quality journalistic publications after their death. In having obituaries published, these women will in addition have their lives chronicled and archived for future generations, who have a right to explore the lives of the notable men and women who will have shaped their generation.

At the end of the day, it’s time for the NYT to start directing its obituary writers to seek out the stories of the lives of noteworthy women – women that will give the obituary pages well-needed balance – and more accurately reflect the contribution women have made to US society in the recent past.

Thoughts?

Anthony Lozano of Hanford California, not to be confused with the other Anthony Lozano, the super-awesome Honduran football player, has reportedly been arrested for kidnapping, bounding, and torturing his girlfriend over a Facebook post.  That’s right — a Facebook post!

Apparently Lozano became so enraged over messages his girlfriend sent and received from another man via the social media site, that he imprisoned her for four days.  It’s being reported that the abuse took place in front of the couple’s three-year-old child and another older child belonging to the victim.

According to the Kings County Sherriff’s Department, the victim was tied up, dragged by her hair, choked with a rope and a towel, and violently beaten by Lozano.

“Lozano repeatedly struck her all over the body and actually at some points tied her up and bound her and tortured her with the repeated strikes on a daily basis … He threatened to kill her several times throughout the several days she was held against her will.  Some of the false imprisonment was by force and fear — he told her that if she tried to leave he’d kill her.”

Perhaps psychopants could’ve taken a step back from his computer, heaved a deep breath, and — I don’t know — discussed his feelings rationally with his girlfriend?   Maybe instead of torturing her he could’ve simply broken up with her?  Those seem like far better options than flying into a jealous rage that lasted for 4 days!  Let’s hope that Mr. Lozano serves some serious time for his atrocious actions.  People like this should not be allowed to integrate with the general public.

And on a less serious note, can you imagine how annoying this must be for the other Anthony Lozano?  I imagine it causing all sorts of confusion. Distant cousins are probably gossiping about his violent tendencies and football fans Googling his name are disappointingly finding out that their favorite footballer is a violent jerk.  What a terrible case of mistaken identity, for crying out loud.

Kind of reminds me of the girl that attended my high school who was super annoying and also happened to have the name Siobhan.  To my dismay people always confused us.  But luckily, she was not an abusive nut job.

Anita Diamant, author of The Red Tent, among other things, wrote an article that ran in the Huffington Post describing her vehement opposition to her daughter’s tattoo. She describes the tattoo her daughter has:

My daughter has the Hebrew letters Chet, Zayin, Kuf on her right shoulder blade. This spells chazak, which means “strength.” She says, “I like this because it’s a word used when you finish reading one book of Torah and go to the next. It reminds me that we go from one thing to the next in strength.” She’s been planning this tattoo for nine years, since she was enrolled in a semester-long high school program. “Israel was a time of transition for me, and I feel like it reinforces that message of strength that is inside me forever and ever. “It’s more than just a tattoo,” she explains. “It’s a sense of pride, a display of who I am that you might not be able to tell by just looking at me.”

Well that sounds kind of cool to me, honestly. It’s something that clearly has meant a lot to her, and defines her core values in relation to her religion. What’s not to approve of, mom? Well, plenty:

Tattoos are a 21st-century industry, a fashion statement, and a fad. When I see women in their 50s and 60s with big ink on their shoulders or chests or ankles, I look away, embarrassed. It’s like they’re wearing tube tops — always a bad idea — only this is a mistake that stays with you to the grave. But tats on pretty young flesh make me wince, too. What will they look like in 50 years’ time …

… as skin weathers and wrinkles and ultimately withers? Will the future hold regret and laser removal? Clearly, I don’t like tattoos. But disapproval aside, hearing the news of my daughter’s tattoo made me feel…sad.

Admittedly, I don’t have a lot of background on what a tattoo would mean to a Jewish mother (she does make references to Nazi Holocaust victims’ number tattoos, which would be understandably an abrasive point of reference for tattooing in general), since I am not Jewish. However, I did come from a strong religious background in which tattoos of any kind were strictly prohibited. I could perhaps extrapolate to a small degree, but I don’t think her issue here lies with her religious conviction. I think her issue, as she clearly states, is that she doesn’t think that women in general should have tattoos (and it’s clear that she wouldn’t be alone in this belief). Now, did she just mention women because her daughter is a woman, or do you think she has an aversion to all tattoos? I have a sneaking suspicion that she just believes women shouldn’t have tattoos, and she probably feels just fine about men having them. In that case, it sounds like she’s using her religion to cover the fact that she just doesn’t think it’s appropriate, for whatever reason, for women to tattoo their bodies.

What do you think about her sweeping disapproval of all women with tattoos? Do you think it’s based on her perception of gender roles?

Also, can you imagine having her as a mother? Can you imagine telling her about your tattoo? Props to the daughter, that couldn’t have been easy.

In this day and age of limited consequences and wishy-washy at best enforcement of rules (and unfortunately parents who actually don’t enjoy spending time with their children), a lot of kids have the run of their family. When his …

…. high school junior daughter Kirstin broke curfew, however, Texas father Robert Rausch decided to get creative.

Rausch recently appeared with his daughter on CBS’ Early Show to discuss the issue.

I have to say, this was a pretty original punishment. Taking out a newspaper ad saying that Kirstin had misbehaved and, as a consequence, would be providing thirty hours of free babysitting is one I’ve definitely never heard before. Chalk one up for uniqueness, Robert Rausch.

I am very worried about the younger generation. I’m not one of those “It’s the damn internet” people, but the fact remains that children are almost forced through their exposure to “the real world” into growing up quickly.

No parent wants to be the bad guy, and I envy my own father’s ability to stick to the “I don’t care if Jenny’s father said it’s okay for her to play in traffic, you WILL NOT be joining her” line. And with all the gadgets, gizmos, and status symbols out there today, it seems almost cruel to deny your child a cell phone, an iPod, a laptop, and so on.

Just to use my own adolescent daughter as an example, she has had a cell phone since she was in fifth grade, her own computer since she was eight or nine, and received an iPod shortly after they became available (and she’s now on her third).

And no, I don’t consider her spoiled, by the way.

There are two reasons for this.

First, this kid, at fifteen, has regular chores that she does with minimal complaint. The most significant of these chores is being responsible for her younger sister a fair amount of the time. She is an Honors student, was recommended for National Honor Society as a sophomore, and is extremely active in school activities. She volunteers at a library, babysits regularly, and has a “real job” lined up as soon as she turns sixteen. I don’t mean to brag—and please know that she has plenty of faults—but I see her modern-day “toys” as external rewards to go along with the intrinsic ones of unconditional love, attention, and a listening ear (oh, and staying on top of what’s going on at her school, which she might not see as a reward quite yet).

Secondly, and pragmatically, it’s great leverage. If I take away her laptop and make her use the old desktop dinosaur for school purposes (no internet allowed), she is reminded that she needs to toe the line. She lost her birthday party a few days before the big event was supposed to take place when she was in first or second grade for raising a baseball bat to the neighbor’s kid. She knows the concept of consequences very well (as well as my strict adherence to making sure that a punishment is carried out fully, which is I suspect the biggest parenting problem out there).

Of course, she’s also a pretty mellow kid by nature … I suspect that parenting my six-year-old, who knows her own mind and is not afraid to share it with anyone, is going to be a completely different experience …

Anyway, my problem with the Rausch situation is fourfold:

1. The punishment seems a bit extreme for the transgression. Robert Rausch openly admits that his daughter is in general a well-behaved, dependable kid … was public humiliation truly necessary?

2. Kirstin Rausch did not seem particularly repentant … you could almost see the stars in her eyes at being on television. I don’t blame her—she’s just a kid—but this could backfire in a huge way as parents try to outdo themselves to get their families in the news. The media is a strange creature.

3. Putting your phone number out there advertising the “babysitting” services of a young, attractive teenager seems subliminally stupid to me. Who knows what kind of skeevy creepers could crawl out of the woodwork?

4. As a parent, I might be hesitant to hire a babysitter that I found through an advertisement in the paper basically calling her irresponsible.

So … your thoughts on the Rausch story, the concept of effective parenting, or both?

But what about “female circumcision?”

Well, it’s not the same thing. Female circumcision involves at the very least removing the clitoris, and at the very most, removing the clitoris and outer labia, as well as sewing the vagina shut and leaving small openings large enough only for urine and menstrual fluids.

It is aptly also known as female genital mutilation.

We never really hear about FGM because it doesn’t typically occur in the Western world. However, it was brought to my attention through an African …

… news outlet that recently reported that a number of HIV infections were the result of female circumcision. Why? Because the procedure is typically performed by “traditional medicine men and birth attendants who have no knowledge if sterilization and the basics of disease prevention.”

Great. So not only are infants having their most private space mutilated and having the capability for sexual pleasure taken away from them, but they are also being subjected to infection, disease, and HIV.

African government official Iyabo Obasanjo Bello has ideas on how to fix this, though. She says:

“We must shine the light on this hidden ritual and talk about it openly. We must understand the thinking of the perpetuators and try and enlighten them by debunking each of their reasons for continuing this outdated and unnecessary custom. Reasons usually given for continuing the tradition include preventing promiscuity, for genital cleanliness, to safeguard virginity as well as for curing illnesses…Why each of the reasons is illogical must be explained and the dangers associated with the practice must also be explained. Preventing FGM through education and enlightenment must become part of primary health care delivery”

Obviously, I agree with her. As you probably know, I’m a huge advocate for sex education and demystification of all sex-related topics. I really appreciate that someone in a position of power recognizes that the practice of FGM is not only a physical health risk, but an outdated practice that causes emotional harm and deprives women of control over their own bodies.

And I really want to leave it at that. But I can’t. Because, as it is in so many other cases, putting an end to something like FGM that is so deeply engrained in a particular culture can be near impossible. This is something that has been a part of a culture for hundreds of years, and someone coming into your life and trying to tell you that your beliefs are wrong … well … that can be disastrous.

This doesn’t mean that efforts should not be made to put an end to this despicable practice, though. Government recognition of these types of issues is an important step in improving the nature of women’s empowerment and rights in developing countries. I hope to see more progress soon.

On Monday August 30th, California’s state assembly passed Chelsea’s Law unanimously, 72-0. Chelsea’s Law calls for mandatory life sentences for violent sex crimes committed against children in California.  The bill will now be sent to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has already agreed to sign it.

The law received its name from slain San Diego teen, Chelsea King, who was murdered and raped by John Gardner III in late February of this year.

Back in February, I found out from a bagger at my local grocery store that the body of Chelsea King had been uncovered.  For days before, her picture had been splashed all over the local papers and her story was a staple on all the local news stations.  She had been missing since going for a morning run at a local park.

My daughter was searching for the perfect candy bar when the pimply-faced teen asked the cashier “Did you hear they found Chelsea Kings remains near Lake Hodges?”  In unison, the cashier and I let out a sigh.  The woman behind me voiced her disgust with a colorful array of words.  My instinct was to reach down and swoop up my daughter, as if to protect her from some unseen and menacing force.

Within the next few weeks, the body of another girl, 14-year-old Amber Dubois, a teen who had been missing for over a year, would be discovered.  We would learn that John Gardner III was the killer.  Gardner was a sexual offender who had recently been paroled, his monitoring device removed despite 5 parole violations.   He was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting and beating a thirteen year old girl.  Of the six years, he served only three, receiving 5 years of probation instead.

By far the saddest part of this story is that the deaths of Chelsea and Amber could have been prevented, as most deaths of this type are.   Luckily, Chelsea’s Law will be helpful in preventing similar cases.

Chelsea and Amber’s story haunt me, adding fuel to my already intense paranoia of something similar happening to my own children. Being the victim of a childhood sexual assault, I still carry the wounds with me.  I’m not sure it’s something I will ever recover from.  While most people are afraid of things like heights, small spaces, and spiders I am afraid of sexual predators.  So much so that back in high school I was scared to death of walking down the empty corridors of my school’s hallways, to walk my dog alone around the block, or worse, eye appointments in which all the lights in the room would be off, the only light coming from the eye chart across the room.  I once cried during an eye exam to the bewilderment of my optometrist.  I couldn’t help it, with the doctors face so close to mine and the room so dark I was certain something terrible was about to happen.

It probably goes without saying that I view Chelsea’s Law as a victory, and I take a very personal stance on issues of this type.

Chelsea’s Law is something that will let me heave a sigh of relief.  While the Kings no longer have their daughter, I admire them for protecting other children in their daughter’s name.  Kelly King, Chelsea’s mother, was quoted as saying:

“My personal promise to all the children, all the mothers and all the fathers is that I will do all I can to protect other daughters and sons and other mothers and fathers in going through this incomparable nightmare that I’m walking through.”

I appauld the King family for having the strength to turn their tragedy into something remarkable.