Women on HuffingtonPost.com

Kat Vs. Nina As Women Struggle On 'Survivor'

2012-02-23T06:36:27Z

In only the second week of the competition on "Survivor: One World" (Wed., 8 p.m. EST on CBS), the women's tribe continued to struggle with communication. At least they got their leadership situation taken care of by appointing high school teacher Sabrina. She proved a competent and capable leader around camp, but it still wasn't enough.

This season, fans were promised more challenges without Jeff overseeing them, and they got one in the reward challenge. While the women remained competitive in this one until the bitter end, the men once again pulled off a victory. They would continue their winning streak into the immunity challenge as well. This one had them having to squeeze past one another on a narrow balance beam.

While the men quickly figured out a strategy, the women couldn't quite figure it out. They threw blame on their boobs getting in the way, and on Kat jumping into the water needlessly twice, but it came down to a lack of leadership and communication. On this one, Monica had figured out a way for them to do it, but by the time anyone heard her it was too little too late. The women started getting themselves across the beam, but they couldn't catch up to the strong lead the men had established.

So it was back to tribal council for the women, though this time they had a pretty clear target going in. As the oldest member of the tribe, Nina had never quite fit in, and they decided she was a liability. Nina made a strong case for Kat simply because of her ditzy move at the challenge. The women's alliance openly admitted that they basically regretted some of their alliance choices, but they stayed true to the one they'd created and sent Nina packing. Down two, they need to get it together soon if they want to stay competitive in the game.

Find out who gets eliminated next on "Survivor: One World," Wednesdays at 8 p.m. EST on CBS.

TV Replay scours the vast television landscape to find the most interesting, amusing, and, on a good day, amazing moments, and delivers them right to your browser.

Federal Judge Says State Can't Force Pharmacies To Sell Plan B

2012-02-23T05:38:18Z

TACOMA, Wash. -- Washington state cannot force pharmacies to sell Plan B or other emergency contraceptives, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, saying the state's true goal was to suppress religious objections by druggists – not to promote timely access to the medicines for people who need them.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton sided with a pharmacy and two pharmacists who said state rules requiring them to dispense Plan B violate their constitutional rights to freedom of religion because such drugs can destroy a fertilized egg, which they consider equal to abortion.

Washington's rules require that pharmacies stock and dispense drugs for which there is a demand. The state adopted the dispensing regulations in 2007, following reports that some women had been denied access to Plan B, which has a high dose of medicine found in birth-control pills and is effective if a woman takes it within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

State lawyers argued that the requirements are legal because they apply neutrally to all medicines and pharmacies, and because they promote a government interest – the timely delivery of medicine, including Plan B, which becomes less effective as time passes.

But Leighton ruled that the state allows all sorts of business exemptions to the rules. Pharmacies can decline to stock a drug, such as certain painkillers, if it's likely to increase the risk of theft, or if it requires an inordinate amount of paperwork, or if the drug is temporarily unavailable from suppliers, among other reasons.

"The most compelling evidence that the rules target religious conduct is the fact the rules contain numerous secular exemptions," the judge said. "In sum, the rules exempt pharmacies and pharmacists from stocking and delivering lawfully prescribed drugs for an almost unlimited variety of secular reasons, but fail to provide exemptions for reasons of conscience."

The decision comes as contraception has been debated in political and health care circles around the nation. A controversy erupted this month when religious groups protested a new federal rule that required church-affiliated universities, hospitals and nonprofits to include birth control without co-pays or premiums in their insurance plans.

The outcry prompted President Barack Obama to change the rule to shift the burden from religious organizations to insurance companies. Lawmakers in a few conservative states have taken up the fight with proposals that serve as direct challenges to Obama's ruling.

Leighton, in his decision Wednesday, did not strike down Washington's rules, but said simply that the way they were applied to the plaintiffs in this case was unconstitutional.

The state remains free to try to enforce the law against other pharmacies that violated the stocking and dispensing rules, whether for Plan B or other drugs; it remains unclear whether courts would reach a similar conclusion if pharmacies objected to selling other drugs for religious reasons.

"I remain concerned about the impacts on patients if pharmacies are allowed to refuse to dispense lawfully prescribed or lawful medications to patients," said Gov. Chris Gregoire, who insisted on the dispensing rule's adoption. "I am especially concerned about those living in rural areas, many of whom may have few alternatives and could suffer lengthy delays in receiving medication or go without entirely."

The judge, an appointee of President George W. Bush, first blocked the state's dispensing rule in 2007. But a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel overruled him, saying the rules did not target religious conduct. It sent the case back to Leighton, who held an 11-day trial before reaffirming his original decision.

Further appeals were expected, both from the state and from groups that intervened on the state's behalf. Before taking more than an hour to read his 48-page opinion in court, Leighton acknowledged that he crafted it for the benefit of a "skeptical" appeals court.

The interveners included women who were denied timely access to Plan B when they needed it – one of whom cut short a vacation in central Washington to return home to Bellingham, where she knew she could obtain Plan B from her regular pharmacy – as well as HIV patients, who argued that if druggists could refuse to dispense Plan B for religious reasons, some might also refuse to dispense time-sensitive HIV medications.

"The question really is whether the patient's rights come first or the pharmacist's rights come first," said Andrew Greene, a lawyer for the interveners.

Assistant Attorney General Rene Tomisser said Leighton's ruling was "more detailed" but made the same mistake he made in 2007.

Margo Thelen, of Woodland, one of the pharmacists who sued over the rules, said she had to leave one job because she refused to dispense Plan B – and now she can continue working at her new job without fear of being fired.

"Speak to anyone who shops in a pharmacy," she said. "Their product isn't always available."

Two Supreme Court cases guide judges in determining whether laws that infringe upon the free exercise of religion are legal.

In one, the court held that the state of Oregon could outlaw the use of the hallucinogenic peyote for everyone, even though some groups might use it in religious conduct.

In the other, the court held that a city in Florida could not outlaw animal sacrifices for religious purposes, while allowing the slaughter of animals for food, hunting and pest eradication.

Leighton said Washington's rules are akin to the Florida case. Though they appear to be neutral by their plain language, the state allows pharmacies not to stock or sell drugs for various business reasons, he said.

___

Newt Gingrich Calls Obama An 'Extremist' Who Supported 'Infanticide'

2012-02-23T02:40:27Z

The Republican presidential candidates Tuesday night, during a GOP debate in Arizona, took shots at President Barack Obama for his pro-choice history.

Newt Gingrich deflected a question about Obama's recent decision mandating that employers' insurance plans cover contraception by pointing out that Obama voted in favor of a law that protected abortion providers during his term as state senator of Illinois

"You did not once during the 2008 campaign ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide," Gingrich said. "If we're going to debate about who is the extremist on this issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies.

Mitt Romney lambasted Obama's new requirement that insurers of faith-based organizations who object to birth control must offer the coverage to those groups' employees for free.

"I donât think we've seen in the history of this country the kind of attack on religious freedom we've seen in Barack Obama most recently requiring the Catholic Church to provide for its employees and its various enterprises health care insurance that would include birth control, sterilization and the morning after pill," he said. "He tried to retreat from that, but he retreated in a way that was not appropriate, because these insurance companies have to provide these same things, and now the Catholic Church will have to pay for them."

In fact, the Catholic Church is exempt from Obama's contraception mandate.

Santorum, asked about his previous comments on the "dangers of contraception," refused to engage in a discussion about birth control at all, going on a tangent instead about children born out of wedlock.

"What we're seeing is a problem in our culture with respect to children being raised by children, children being raised out of wedlock, and the impact on society economically with respect to drug use and all host of other things when children have children," Santorum said. "And so yes, I was talking about these very serious issues."

Would You Rather Have A Long-Distance Friendship Or Relationship?

2012-02-22T22:35:26Z

You love your job in New York, but you're in love with someone who lives in San Fransisco -- and he feels the same way about his job and city. Which one of you picks up everything and moves across the country?

Neither, perhaps. Increasingly, couples are opting for plane tickets over moving vans: USA Today reported this week that 3.5 Million married Americans are living apart.

With Skype providing free video chats, the "Kissinger" robot making a long-distance kiss a reality (you have to see this one to believe it), and pillows that glows and pulses with you lover's heartbeat, there seem to be more and more potential for people to maintain meaningful relationships with people who live far away (or at least invest in some really cool gadgets in the name of love).

As a favorite band of ours, Menage a Twang, points out in a song of theirs aptly titled "LDR," there are both advantages and disadvantages to long-distance dating: While it helps avoid conflict with your partner: "my mind has erased all those annoying little traits until all i can remember is your handsome face," and "there is very little fighting when your dates are all in writing," it also has its downsides: "no one here to help with the groceries, the rent or the high-speed Internet" and can lead someone to go the way of the song's protagonist, who confesses: "I've stopped shaving and started misbehaving."

The Frisky offers a variety of ways to avoid letting distance come between you and your partner -- and many of the tips on making love work long-distance can also be applied to maintaining healthy long-distance friendships, such as mixing up how you keep in touch (supplementing texting with snail mail, for example) and finding creative ways to show your friend they're on your mind. HelloGiggles suggests sending video postcards across coasts.

Would you ever be able to live in a different city or state from your partner? If you're in a long-distance romance or friendship, how do you two keep in touch? Submit your long distance stories below or tweet @HuffPostWomen with #DespiteDistance

WATCH: 'LDR'

Fighting The 'Gimmies': Getting Kids Away From Materialism

2012-02-22T22:32:07Z

Marc and Craig Kielburger are the co-founders of Free The Children and Me to We, a social enterprise. They are authors of "The World Needs Your Kid: Raising Children Who Care And Contribute," with journalist Shelley Page.

"They're not so much children as what I like to call 'evolving consumers'."

You could be forgiven for thinking this was a classic line from Mr. Burns in The Simpsons. But it's actually attributed to well-known (real-life) marketing executive Elliott Ettenberg. And he's not alone -- fellow advertising guru Nancy Shalek famously told the Los Angeles Times, "Advertising at its best is making people feel that without their product, they're a loser. Kids are very sensitive to that. If you tell them to buy something, they are resistant. But if you tell them they'll be a dork if they don't, you've got their attention."

Maybe it's over-dramatic to say there's a war going on for the souls of our kids, but it's definitely a struggle. On one side: the 20,000 commercials that Canadian kids see each year (60 per cent of which promote sugared cereals, candy, fatty food and toys), armed with the latest research in child psychology. On the other: Mom and Dad, armed with "You're still cool to me, sweetheart."

Studies abound on the inverse relationship between materialism and happiness, including among kids. Professor Tim Kasser, author of The High Price of Materialism, asked 206 middle- and high-school students what they would do with $100, cross-analysing their answers with measures of their self-esteem, happiness, anxiety and high-risk behaviours.

He found that the kids who would save the money had higher self-esteem and didn't smoke. Those who would donate to charity were happier and less likely to smoke, use alcohol or get into trouble. And those who would spend more on themselves had lower self-esteem and greater anxiety. Professor Kasser validates the conventional wisdom linking self-esteem to materialism: "If a young person is driven by insecurity, they will shop. They are only doing the best they can to meet their needs."

We certainly weren't angels when it came to material pressure. Our mom loves telling the story about Marc hiding in the car in the parking lot of discount store Bi-Way, refusing to go inside or to wear anything she bought for him there. Mom took action a few weeks later during the holidays, bringing Marc along on a visit to the Chans -- a single-parent, recently arrived family whose daughter was Mom's student. Aware they were struggling in their new country, Mom did what she could to help.

On that Christmas gift run, Marc noticed that their small apartment in a run-down building was sparse but spotless. The kids had on their best clothes, and the cookies they served were clearly a luxury. After tea, Mrs. Chan handed Marc a small gift and said, in broken English, "You are our best friends. And best friends are so important to us. Thank you."

The words cut through Marc's cool veneer and showed him how fortunate our family was, and how Mom's small gestures of kindness and friendship could make a difference in the lives of an isolated family of newcomers.

Parents want their kids to be happy, and being accepted is a big part of happiness in childhood and adolescence. But when birthday party invitations stipulate that gifts must be worth at least $35, or include a private concert by Aerosmith, it's gotten out of control.

It's natural for kids to want certain things, but why not balance their needs with the needs of others? Here are some tips from Prof. Kasser and other parents we've met who have found that balance by tackling materialism head-on:

1. FIGHT THE GIMMIES
The Kassers limit their sons' screen time to 30 minutes a day and encourage alternatives that foster creativity and physical activity. Since it's nearly impossible to avoid all commercial advertising, it's also a good strategy to instill media literacy, like our friend and The World Needs Your Kid co-author Shelley Page, who taught her two daughters to "ad bust" from age four.
Whenever they saw an ad together (watching TV with your kids helps), Shelley and the girls deconstructed the message, "What are they selling me? Why are they selling it to me? What are they claiming it'll do for me? Is it true?" Now at ages nine and 12, the girls are informed consumers on whom ads have little effect. "They think ads for make-up, brand-name clothes, medicine, cars -- the list is long -- are ridiculous. We have great bonding time mocking commercials," says Shelley.

2. A BOOSTER SHOT OF SELF-ESTEEM
Vernon, BC-based child psychologist Dr. Kevin Murphy is author of The Jendorra Boxes -- a fantasy trilogy for adolescents that promotes positive social values through fiction. Over four decades working with children, teens and their parents, he's found that the key to building sustainable self-confidence in the early teen years is to "value not just final outcomes but also their effort and learning." Regular, constructive feedback on a child's progress toward an objective are more valuable than generalizations.
"Comments such as 'But I love you' may be true, but not necessarily all that useful," says Dr. Murphy, who also advocates encouraging kids to contribute to the household and community: "If a young person can do things of value for others then it becomes easier for them to value themselves and resist commercial efforts to exploit the uncertainty-based drop in self-confidence that is generally associated with the early teen years."

3. GIVE TIME, NOT STUFF
Many parents work harder and longer to provide a 'better' life for their families. The catch is that often the more parents work to provide, the less time they spend with their kids. In lieu of presence? Presents -- an exchange that teaches kids that stuff is more important than time spent with family. Instead, let the birthday girl or boy (parents included) choose the family activity and meal plan for the day, and volunteer together on holidays like Thanksgiving, Christmas and Hannukah. If you must give a gift, consider a coupon book with tokens for a movie night, a lift to a friend's house, or a week off from putting out the garbage.The Kassers make a point of collecting experiences instead of things, through family adventures such as Semester at Sea, a sailing school where Professor Kasser taught a psychology course and brought his family along to see the various countries they visited.

4. SPELL IT OUT: YOU'RE LUCKY
Like our mom did for Marc at the Chans, make sure your kids know that having more or better stuff isn't the most important thing in the world. From a very young age, start dinners with a round of thanks: to the sun, earth and farmers for growing the food, the grocery store clerks for stocking it, and the person who prepared it. Later, bring them to volunteer at a food bank or soup kitchen. Trace the journey of your kids' clothes and toys -- note the discrepancy between their lifestyle and that of the workers in China or elsewhere who made their stuff. Of his kids' experience with Semester at Sea, Professor Kasser said: "They have now seen poverty and know what real poverty is. They know how privileged they are. What they want isn't really what they need."

5. MODEL IT
Like any other habit, it's hard to expect your kid to avoid the trappings of materialism if you spend your Saturdays draped with a rainbow of boutique bags at the mall. If you want to take a preventive approach, try taking family challenges like a TV Turn-Off Week or a Buy Nothing Week. Take a chance at your local second-hand store -- there's a range of options from fashion-conscious consignment stores, to mid-range Value Village, to the 'Whatever You Can Fit in a Bag for a Buck' church basement thrift store. Our friend and co-author Shelley has adopted the '3-Way Allowance Split' -- spend, save and charity -- and has a spare change jar in the kitchen that, once filled, goes to whatever charity the family chooses.

My Fat, Beautiful Body

2012-02-22T22:16:55Z

By Jenn Leyva | Role/Reboot

Without fail at noon on every Friday, 30 minutes before my beginning ballet class starts, a mixture of fear and dread ooze into my mind. It starts when I think of getting dressed for class. Despite a well-stocked closet, I am never content with my choices. I spend 20 minutes scouring my closet for a garment that doesn't exist - I am looking for something that will make me invincible. Exasperated, I leave wearing the same men's gym shorts and oversized t-shirt. My nerves don't get any better once I get to class. I am scared to look at my body in a mirror; I am scared to compare my body to my peers. I try to stand in the back rows as far away from the mirrors as possible, and I still occasionally catch a glimpse of my double chin. Or my belly escaping the drapery of my shirt. I am scared that even after working at accepting my body and fighting tooth and nail to get those around me to change their actions and opinions, I will see something repulsive. I can't get through a weekly dance class without having to give myself pep talks. It takes all that I can muster to remind myself that I am beautiful and, more importantly, worthy of being in that class. It takes all that I have to remind myself that I love my body and that I can take pleasure in moving it. I can take pleasure and find beauty in my body.

I loathe classifying these problems (yes, I acknowledge that they're problems) as "body image" problems. "Body image" isn't really about the image of bodies. It's about the holistic relationships we have with our bodies. It's about how bodies look, how they move, what they feel like, and how we treat them. Even if we ignore semantics, conversations about body image almost always come down to health. Most conversations I've had about body image blame the media and advertising for exposing young girls to impossible standards in order to sell products. But more than selling products, these images drive people to unhealthy habits - crash diets, disordered eating, and sometimes even more dramatic actions like diet pills and self-harm.

And yet many of these behaviors have been recommended to me by health professionals. You see, I'm fat. Not "does this dress make me look fat?" fat, but eligible-for-weight-loss-surgery ~~morbidly obese~~ deathfat. I've been fat for as long as I can remember, but the first time I remember my size being an issue was at a check-up. I was 8 years old, and after plotting my height and weight in one of those grids, my pediatrician had one of those "talks" with my parents and me. I was too heavy for my height and age, so he presented me with a Xeroxed list of 10 "helpful tips" for eating.

It was meant to be innocuous, but I became obsessed with that sheet of paper. It was the first time I saw my body as a personal failing, and that list was the way to redeem myself. I followed the rules to a tee, and yet I didn't get any smaller. That simple piece of paper was only the beginning. My adolescence was filled with appointments with doctors and nutritionists, medically facilitated crash diets, and crying fits in dressing rooms. My doctors pathologized my body, and I believed them. I believed that my fat body meant that I was overeating, even when I would leave the dinner table hungry. I believed that I was lazy, unkempt, untrustworthy. I couldn't trust myself.

I can't rely on a conventional understanding of health to fix my body image issues because my body image issues stem from those conventional understandings of health. To find peace with my body I've had to reject mainstream medical wisdom. I screen my health care professionals, and I set firm boundaries. I am not interested in weight loss, and I will not step on a scale. I don't care about a new diet regimen; I care about eating. I've learned to love my body - I love the look of my body; I love the way my squishy, soft flesh feels. I have embraced my fat. I do this because I care about my body. I care less about the image of my body, and I care more about my relationship to my body.

When I stand at the barre to begin my weekly ballet class, I am reminded that loving my body is both difficult and important. As we go through the usual warm-up routine I feel my muscles stretch and flex. I am present in my body, and I appreciate the grace and flow of movements. As we transition into leaps and jumps, I am reminded of that power in my body. My hearty legs can push my body in the air again and again in rapid succession. I land easily each time.

I am still scared that even after working to accept my body I will catch a glimpse of myself in the mirror and find something ugly. So far, I've only seen my body. My fat, beautiful body.

When Jenn Leyva was 16, her dad told her that he'd buy her a car if she lost weight. She cried, finished her calculus homework, and is now a New York based fat activist and a senior at Columbia studying biochemistry. She authors Fat and the Ivy, a fat blog about social justice, feminism, science, health, and fa(t)shion.

This post was originally published on Role/Reboot.

More from Role/Reboot:

Hunting For Bear: Love, True Love, And Breaking Up

The Five Reasons Why Men Should Control Women's Reproduction

Bad With Men: Going Off The Rails

Brown Backs Women In Combat

2012-02-22T22:14:44Z

WASHINGTON -- Following the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the military has faced increasing pressure to open its most dangerous combat jobs to women. On Wednesday afternoon, that effort gained a prominent supporter when Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta urging him to lift restrictions on women in combat.

"We have an obligation to expand the professional opportunities available to women, especially considering their sacrifices. Doing so in my view would improve military effectiveness, not detract from it," he wrote in the letter. Brown is a lieutenant colonel in the Massachusetts National Guard, where he serves as a military lawyer.

Women have long been officially barred from what the Army terms "combat arms" -- jobs like infantry, armor, and artillery that engage the enemy directly. But many of the 255,000 women who've serve in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen combat in those fluid environments, and in some cases have been more explicitly placed in harm's way. In a notable example, the Marine Corps created small teams of female Marines to patrol and interact with local women, a concept now in the Army's plans as well.

Last week, the Department of Defense loosened restrictions on women serving in combat arms units. While they still cannot serve as infantrymen or tank crewmen, for example, a female medic or intelligence analyst would now be able to serve in a unit that previously wouldn't have included women at all. The new rules will take effect this summer.

But Brown claimed that even those changes are inadequate, saying that the new rules neither correspond to the reality of modern combat nor allow women equal opportunity within the military. âClosing these opportunities to women affect[s] their ability to develop a career path in the military and advance to higher ranks,â Brown wrote.

In calling for such opportunities, Brown places himself at odds with at least one major Republican figure. Earlier this month, Rick Santorum made widely criticized comments questioning the prudence of women serving in combat.

"I do have concerns about women in front-line combat. I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved," he said in an appearance on CNN. "It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat, and I think that's probably not in the best interest of men, women or the mission."

Yet polling shows that the public -- and many Republicans -- share Brown's stance. When asked by the Washington Post in March 2011, 73% of respondents and 58% of self-described "strong conservatives" said they approved of allowing women in combat.

The Globe speculated that Brown's stance could be motivated by his re-election fight with Democrat Elizabeth Warren. "It is an issue for women voters because it is a way to say these are positions women now have access to," said Elisabeth Armstrong, a professor of women and gender at all-women's Smith College, to the Globe.

Amy Shiner: A Kinky Family Reunion

2012-02-22T22:02:00Z

I have always said that I have blood family and chosen family. My blood family, which, depending on the day of the week and the moon cycle, might not be talking to me, is eclectic. My chosen family, which is made up of close friends from my kink and church communities, as well as random people I meet at the bus stop, is eclectic, but I rarely get to see it.

A few weekends ago I traveled to Providence, R.I. for a "family reunion." The winter 2012 Fetish Fair Fleamarket (also known as FFF, or simply the "Flea"), held by the New England Leather Association (NELA) every year since 1992, is what I call a perfect reunion. One weekend a year (for the past few years it has been held near Valentine's Day), 6,000 members of the kink community gather for three days of workshops and panels on different kinks, fetishes, and relationship issues. From the common "Rope 101" classes to workshops on monogamy, which many community members feel is being outnumbered by polyamorous relationships, to classes on tickling and age play, there is something for everyone.

This was my second Flea, the first one being in the winter of 2007. To sum up my experiences from the first conference, I joke that I went to the Flea and all I brought home was Eric. But really, whether you've been in the community for 25-plus years or are new to the experience, Flea is not just about the toys and workshops; it's about coming together as a strong community, a community that I support, and one that has in turn supported me through medical problems and coming-of-age issues.

At this last Flea, I had the pleasure of attending classes on different forms of communication and fetishes. The familiar snap of a whip brought my attention to the bullwhip lounge, one of the two specialty rooms that NELA offers to Flea-goers who want to practice their skills. At the same time, a class on monogamy caught my attention. Admitting to myself that I have very little knowledge of monogamy, I felt compelled to go.

All walks of life come to the Flea, though: monogamous and non-monogamous couples, polyamorous couples, "bigs" and "littles" (that is, people who take part in age play, a fetish that involves taking on a role as a younger or older being, mentality, emotionally, and in spirit), "furries," and people who focus on one or two strong areas come together to create a welcoming community. Over the three days of the Flea, I had access to five floors of vendors, organization booths, and classrooms offering different information and opportunities.

So where do I fit into the realm of things? I will admit to a few things, working my way from the most simple to the most detailed. Please feel free to skip to the next paragraph after you have read enough:

I am Amy.

I am Amy Shiner, a sex-positive blogger.

I am Amy Shiner, a sex-positive blogger and a geek.

I am Amy Shiner, a sex-positive blogger, geek, and submissive.

I am Amy Shiner, a sex-positive blogger, geek, submissive, and masochist.

Those are five statements I feel comfortable making to anyone, even those who attend the Flea. You may ask why I'm not explaining what my submission and masochism is. I do not want to give even the perception that this is only for one person or another. The community, which is made up of all sorts of people who believe either that everyone has their own identity or that they have all the answers (what we call the "twue" dominants and submissives), does not need me saying why I fit in.

GOP Lawmaker Seeks To Make Birth Control 'Obsolete And Outdated'

2012-02-22T21:29:27Z

A Republican lawmaker in New Hampshire has proposed repealing the state's requirement to provide insurance coverage for birth control by attaching the measure to a bill aimed to repeal "obsolete and outdated" laws.

State Rep. Andrew Manuse (R-Derry) has proposed the amendment to end the contraception law to a piece of routine legislation clearing older laws off the books, the Concord Monitor reports. Manuse's amendment, first proposed Tuesday as the routine legislation was being heard by a legislative committee, would exclude both religious organizations, along with private companies that have religious objections, from the requirement to provide birth control.

The Monitor reports:

Current state law, passed in 1999 with bipartisan support and no objection from the Diocese of Manchester, requires insurance companies to cover contraceptive care. Employers, including churches, can bypass the requirement by self-insuring, and that is what the diocese does.
Manuse's repeal of that mandate surfaced publicly for the first time yesterday as an amendment to an unrelated bill that eliminates "obsolete or outdated" provisions from various state laws. The housekeeping bill Manuse chose -- which does not deal with insurance, contraception or religious exemptions -- was scheduled for a public hearing and a vote yesterday by the recodification committee.

Manuse's proposal, which is co-sponsored by House Speaker Bill O'Brien (R-Mont Vernon), did not surprise legislative Democrats who are planning a floor fight to stop the bill. Senate Minority Leader Sylvia Larsen (D-Concord) said that Manuse had stated his desire to repeal the provision, but they were surprised with the bill he choose. Larsen said the original law passed a Republican-controlled legislature before being signed by then Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D).

"He's tacked it on to a deadwood bill," Larsen told HuffPost. "It was meant to be an uncontroversial housekeeping bill. Now it's a nightmare bill."

Larsen said that O'Brien has already ruled the amendment -- which will be heard by a state House committee later this week -- as germaine. The "obsolete and outdated" bill that would be amended contains repeals of a variety of laws that state officials have deemed ready to take off the books. Among the two dozen measures contained in the bill are the repeal of laws relating to the training of campus security officers, a report on school accounting standards, a certificate of need for a Strafford County nursing home and the retirement age of probate court judges. No contraception or abortion related legislation is in the bill.

Manuse and O'Brien's spokeswoman did not return calls for comment.

Kevin Donovan, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester, told HuffPost that the diocese did not have a position on the amendment but confirmed that an attorney who worked with the diocese did provide advice to Manuse on the drafting of the amendment. He said the advice was limited to providing wording from a similar proposal in Missouri.

The amendment comes the same week that the Tea Party-controlled New Hampshire House passed a resolution calling on the Obama Administration to repeal the federal birth control requirement for religious organizations. The resolution's passage came after a committee hearing where one Republican lawmaker said that birth control causes prostate cancer and another GOP lawmaker said that married couples should practice abstinence except when they want to conceive.

Larsen said that she believes Manuse's amendment can fail in the Republican-controlled state Senate, which she said is not as conservative as the House. She noted it is likely Gov. John Lynch (D) will veto the bill if it contains the amendment. She also had an opinion on Manuse wanting to call the law "obsolete and outdated."

"If they consider that outdated," she said, "I would consider them outdated."

Margie Omero: What Do Women Want (in a Candidate)? Don't Ask Men!

2012-02-22T21:27:50Z

The War on Women is burning on a few fronts (even including a War on Girls), with some Republicans charging up the hill and others wisely quitting and running. But a Quinnipiac Poll released today shows men more likely to think the GOP candidates understand the problems and needs of women. Women, however, know better.

When asked if the President "understands the needs and problems of women," men and women agree he does, with no gender gap (63 percent of men, 65 percent of women). But there is real disagreement about the GOP field's ability to understand women. Half of men say Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum understand women's problems (48 percent for each), but among women only about a third agree (34 percent Romney, 36 percent Santorum). And while even men feel Newt Gingrich doesn't understand women's needs and problems (48 percent does not understand), women are more sure (55 percent does not understand).

Despite all this, it's probably still a bit early to tell how voters are reacting to Santorum's recent anti-woman bender, even in the primary. In the same Quinnipiac poll, he has a slightly larger lead over Romney among Republican men. And as this New York Times blog story notes, Arizona polling shows Santorum losing ground with Republican women. Some (but not all) recent Michigan polling shows a similar gender gap opening up, with women moving away from Santorum.

It's important to remember voters are going to move a bit slower than political junkies. And women in particular may be less engaged. In the Quinnipiac poll, Republican women are more likely than men to be undecided in their primary, and overall, women are less likely than men to know enough about Santorum to have an impression (independents are even less familiar with him).

While women haven't yet enlisted in the culture war raging on cable news all day, those who have can already sense the President is almost twice as likely to understand their needs and problems. The next step is to convince men what it means to understand women's problems, and why that's important.

Monika Mitchell: Leadership: It's a Female Thing

2012-02-22T21:10:53Z

Last week, I found myself on Manhattan's West Side in an exquisitely decorated loft owned by Winds of Change philanthropist Shamaya Gilo. Sixty powerhouse women were gathered together for wine and cheese and to strategize about how to support women's leadership through cold-hard cash. The loft was filled with talented and accomplished women of wealth -- women who were personally wealthy or those who pulled the strings at some of New York's top financial institutions. Present in the room were wealth managers, venture capitalists, fixed income and equity traders, professional investors, lawyers, quants, mutual fund managers, bankers, heads of family foundations, philanthropists and market makers of all kinds and a couple of token (and sympathetic) males thrown into the mix. We had one thing in common: the drive and ambition to push more capable and accomplished women into the ring.

What is the "Ring?" It is the corporate boardroom, the C-Suite at Fortune 500 companies and top levels of financial institutions. The ring includes politics, finance, business and generally anywhere that women have been traditionally marginalized, which let's face it, is everywhere that matters aside from the home front. The question we are asking is why are women deliberately kept out of key roles in world affairs and what can we do to change that?

The New York gathering of high-powered women, organized by Criterion Ventures under the direction of the indefatigable Jackie VanderBrug, encouraged women to invest in each other. Speaking to the crowd of well-heeled power women were Nada Jain (Golden Seeds), CJ Juhasz (ISIS Fund/Women's World Banking), Jo-Ann Tan (Acumen Fund), Georgie Benardete (Multicultural Capital), Sally Boulter and Noelle St. Clair of Calvert Foundation who detailed each organization's mission to empower women. The event marked a shift in action -- we are tired of waiting for men to open the door for us. Ladies and gentlemen ... in the 21st century, we are opening the doors for ourselves.

What makes the world go around is money. The Criterion Ventures model aims to put money behind women-centric ventures and entrepreneurs. (Women investing in Women.) We have seen how money in the wrong hands, evidenced by the global economic crisis, has thrown the scales of power completely out of whack and left behind whole portions of the population on both sides of the Atlantic. Women, it may come as no surprise, have fared worse than average. The poor are getting poorer and the majority of poor in the U.S. and around the globe are women. They are the last to get hired and earn substantially less than their male counterparts.

I am not going to pretend that I don't think women should have seats of power. I am not going to play nice and say it doesn't matter. I am not going to quietly and apathetically marginalize my own gender by politely acknowledging that men are wonderful and capable of handling world affairs without us. Yes, many men are wonderful and ladies what would we do without them? But what we would do with them as co-creators of the world is the real issue.

The first and critical question is: What would men do without women? I'll start by answering that from my home turf in the U.S.

In the last twelve years since the end of the 20th century and the birth of the new, America has started two wars that have cost millions of people their lives and changed the world order permanently. We have given birth to a devastating global financial crisis that has plunged millions of innocents into starvation, joblessness and homelessness. The wars and the economic collapse have resulted in international chaos and unrest and launched movements of desperation like the 99 and 1 percent. All of these disastrous events occurred under male leadership-- without the help or input of women. Gentlemen, you have done such damage to the world we share, why you continue on that path and do not see the wisdom of incorporating women into top leadership positions is beyond logic. Yet women continue to be disenfranchised.

So enough. Enough of testosterone-fueled aggression whether it is the violence of economic greed or the guns of bloody wars. It is time for western civilization to enter the enlightened age. Women are the key to a more sustainable world in the new millennium.

Why are women the key to changing the world for the better? Because very simply: we are the life-givers, not the life-destroyers. It is in our DNA to create and nurture life, not desecrate it. Yet somehow, despite the fact that we carry, create and protect life, women are raped, murdered, mutilated, marginalized and humiliated every second of every day somewhere in our world. The issue becomes which kind of world do we want to carry forward -- one that destroys life or one that creates it? If the choice is the latter, then the inclusion of women is essential.

In my work at the United Nations over the past several years, I had the honor and privilege of knowing one of the great men in this world and a true champion of women: Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury. As President of the Security Council in 2000, the Ambassador introduced Resolution 1325 which endorsed urgently needed economic and educational opportunities for women. The resolution was the result of his experience as a diplomatic leader in Bangladesh where women were routinely violated physically and materially. His work has greatly advanced the plight of rural women around the globe.

Yet our work in this decade necessitates more than helping women. In very direct ways, the world desperately needs women to help it. We need every bit of TLC for people and our planet we can muster. For women, this is second nature. Strength is no longer measured in an enlightened world by brute force. True courage can be seen in the stoic stamina, tolerance, patience and big-picture vision of women.

Something Ambassador Chowdhury once said stuck in my mind. He explained that at UN mediations to resolve global conflicts, the men at the table invariably wanted to know, "What's in it for me?" They would ask how the solution would affect them personally in power and privilege before giving their consent. Women, according to the Ambassador, were more concerned with what kind of world they were leaving for their children.

The stark difference in thinking jolted me and I realized this was true. Women naturally think in terms of creation and cooperation, not domination and aggression. These qualities, however, are a double-edged sword. In one way, this is precisely the reason we have been held back. In many ways, we have held ourselves back. We have not fought tough enough or hard enough to say: This is our world too; you don't have the right to destroy it for me or my children.

In this century of women, we -- the feminine gender -- and the men who see us as friend, not foe, need to pool our resources, money, votes and support and put these behind women in leadership roles. Only with the direction and input of women can we build a more sustainable world based on mutual cooperation and constructive solutions.

We are proud of the women on the world stage handling the complex chaos around them with grace, brilliance and courage: the Hillary Clintons, Christine Lagardes, Angela Merkels and Ellen Johnson Sirleafs. But they can't do it alone. They need our help -- every one of us, male and female.

Hillary Clinton said of empowering women, "It's not just the right thing to do; it's the smart thing to do." Jackie VanderBrug explains why: "Gender diversity [in companies, on corporate boards and in leadership roles] works for all of us. It allows you to see things that you would not otherwise see."

The time to step up, step out and make our voices heard is now. Not a moment should be lost, because without our help and the feminine sense of balance and wisdom we naturally bring to problem solving, the world is a sad and sorry place. Our only hope for a better future lies in the power, appreciation and inclusion of women.

Monika Mitchell is the CEO of "Good-b," New York's award-winning CSR and sustainable business news journal and the co-author of a ground-breaking new book, "Conversations with Wall Street: The Inside Story of the Financial Armageddon and How to Prevent the Next One."

Not Just Head Pain: Women With Migraines May Also Have Higher Depression Risk

2012-02-22T21:01:00Z

Women who currently experience migraines or who have suffered from them in the past may be at a greater risk for developing depression than those without migraines, according to a new study. It joins a growing body of literature linking the two conditions and attempting to better understand the possible connection.

"We don't want to scare patients, and we know that migraine sufferers suffer a lot because of the migraines themselves," said Dr. Tobias Kurth, a neuroepidemiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and one of the study's authors. "But this highlights the need [for doctors and patients] to talk about the possible risk of depression."

In the new study, which will be presented in April at the American Academy of Neurology's 64th annual meeting, researchers looked at more than 36,000 women who were enrolled in the Women's Health Study -- a trial designed, primarily, to evaluate the effects of vitamin E and aspirin in preventing cardiovascular disease and cancer in women.

At baseline, approximately one in six women indicated they had migraines or had experienced them in the past. None of the women said they had a history of depression. However, over an average of 14 years of follow-up, nearly 4,000 of the women developed depression.

Overall, the researchers estimate that women with migraines or a history of the severe headaches were approximately 40 percent more likely to develop depression than women without migraines.

Since the new research has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it should be regarded as preliminary. However, additional research has also linked migraines and depression.

Last fall, a study out of Calgary -- published in the journal Headache -- found "substantial evidence" that migraines are linked with subsequent development of major depressive episodes. It also found some confirmation that depressive episodes are associated with later migraines, but it was not a causal link. When the researchers took into account factors like stress and childhood trauma, that link disappeared.

The new presentation may help shed light on which condition typically comes first -- migraines or depression.

"This doesn't prove that migraine itself caused depression, but there certainly seems to be a strong link," said Dr. Jason Rosenberg, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, who was not associated with the research.

"What this adds is the order in which this tends to happen -- that migraines start first, which may predispose you to depression later," he continued.

Kurth explained that the current research cannot, and does not, indicate the mechanisms behind the seeming connection between migraines and depression.

It could be that because both migraines and depression relate to the brain, similar biological concepts are at play. For example, neurotransmitters that are responsible for one could also trigger the other. It may also be that migraines negatively impact people's mental health and happiness, possibly leading to depression, Kurth hypothesized.

"How it works is anybody's guess at this point," agreed Rosenberg, who stressed that co-occurrence does not necessarily indicate causality, or even linkage. "Is it chemical? Are people worn down and sad because they're getting these headaches? Is it something you're born with that's underlying both?"

As researchers attempt to address these questions, the current message may simply be that the possible connection should be on patients' and health care providers' radars.

"We can't advise anyone, 'Just don't get headaches,'" Rosenberg said. "But as a physician, it's good to be aware of this and maybe screen patients."

BJ Gallagher: Women's Sexuality and Men's Fear

2012-02-22T21:00:42Z

Years ago, Mother Teresa was invited to attend an anti-war rally. She declined, reportedly saying something to the effect that: "Anti-war protestors are some of the most war-like people I've ever seen. I have no interest in participating in war. But, if you ever hold a pro-peace rally, let me know."

I recalled that apocryphal story last week when I received an RFP (Request For Proposals) from a large, nationally-know women's organization. The entire RFP was a rallying cry for women to get into action to combat the "Republican War on Women." I cringed and deleted the email.

Is there really a "war on women" going on? Or are we simply experiencing a never-ending barrage of fear mongering and over-the-top rhetoric being blasted from both political parties -- as well as from religious institutions, women's organizations and the media? I think it's the latter. I don't believe Republicans are waging a war on women, and neither are men.

Male-bashing doesn't get us anywhere -- we don't need to be anti-men in order to be pro-women. Republican-bashing doesn't get us anywhere either -- there are millions of good people in the Republican party who simply have genuine differences of opinion about what's best for the country. Demonizing men -- and/or demonizing Republicans -- is not helpful in finding solutions to our vexing national problems. Hating the opposite sex and/or hating the other political party only breeds more hate.

I'm with Mother Teresa: I'm not interested in speaking the language of war nor participating in war-like gatherings of women. Why do I feel this way? Let me provide some background:

About fifteen years ago, I visited a fascinating exhibit on the "History of Sex" at a prominent museum in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. On a business trip to Southeast Asia, I allowed some extra time to take in some of the local culture. The sex exhibit struck me as odd, since my impression of Muslim countries was that sexuality is severely repressed. But perhaps I had been mistaken, since I really didn't know much about Muslim cultures. This gave me more than one reason to check out "Sex" at the Malaysian museum.

When I arrived, what first caught my attention were groups of young schoolgirls touring the exhibit. Dressed in pastel-colored blouses over long skirts, with matching scarves covering their heads, the girls looked like flocks of lovely little pastel birds flitting from one part of the exhibit to another. Each group was monochromatic -- a flock in robin's egg blue outfits, another flock in flamingo pink, still another in canary yellow -- so sweet and pretty, talking quietly among themselves as they took notes. I was struck by the visual anachronism of these young, innocent girls touring a museum exhibit on sex.

The "History of Sex" was a terrific exhibit, with well-researched timelines, archeological artifacts, artistic renderings and scientific writings by archeologists, anthropologists, historians, biologist, physicians, sociologists and psychologists, as well as enriching contributions from the arts. The entire exhibit was very well curated.

And the Malaysian schoolgirls weren't the only ones who were learning a lot from the "Sex" exhibit. My own "ah-ha" came from a display that explained: "Throughout human history, men have always had a vested interest in controlling women's sexuality -- and they've found many different ways to do it." The museum display pointed to everything from mechanical devices such as metal chastity belts, to modesty clothing like burqas, hijabs and abayas, to laws proscribing what women were allowed to do, be and have. My mind boggled at the myriad ways men have exercised control over women's sexuality and reproduction throughout the entire course of human history.

Why? Why are sex and procreation so important to men? As a social scientist, I'd surmise that part of the answer can be found in biology: Much as a male lion will kill the cubs of a lioness in order to sire his own cubs with her (thus perpetuating his genes), the human male wants to sire his own children, and he's worried about unwittingly raising any offspring sired by someone else. His biological imperative is to perpetuate his own genes in the human species, not the genes of another. This instinct is hardwired into the human animal just as it is in the lion ... and many other species as well (though not all).

I'd also argue that another part of the answer can be found in sociology and psychology: One of the worst misfortunes that can befall a human male is to be cuckolded by an unfaithful mate. What men want and need most is respect -- but a man whose wife or girlfriend has sex with another man is pitied, ridiculed, disrespected and diminished in the eyes of society. Such a threat to his masculinity and self-esteem must be prevented at all costs -- making many men hyper-vigilant in protecting their women (and their self-respect) from potential rivals.

(Sidebar: I remember how my father often smiled and said, "It's always reassuring to the father when the children resemble him," when people would remark, "Your daughter looks just like her daddy.")

There are undoubtedly other factors fueling the urgent need men feel to control women's sexuality. Economics plays a part -- as providing for a family is expensive (assuming the women isn't the primary breadwinner or at least contributing). Relationships and marriage are an investment of money, time and energy. Males are understandably skittish about making such a big commitment if there is any doubt about the wisdom of his investment. Even a hint of unfaithfulness can trigger intense feelings of betrayal and the desire for financial retribution.

The Malaysian museum's "History of Sex" exhibit reminded me how complex and multi-faceted human sexuality is. We would do well to take a step back from the heated rhetoric of the "war between the sexes" and take a more thoughtful, rational, contextual look at our gender differences. Studying and understanding human sexual behavior from the point of view of ethnobiology, zoology, sociology, history, psychology, economics, anthropology, political science, theology, and the arts as well can help us understand ourselves better. In so doing, we can make progress in finding solutions to our most vexing people problems -- including gender and sex problems.

Who knows? Perhaps more thoughtful people will come to realize that no one is "waging war on women." Perhaps, as the exhbit suggest, men (well, some men) are simply acting out an instinctive biological imperative -- reinforced by thousands of years of history and tradition -- going to any lengths to control women's sexuality. The bottom line is: Men feel the need to exert control over women essentially because they're afraid.

Men and women both have a vested interest in putting a stop to the "gender war" - in America and around the world. Isn't it time to declare a cease-fire? Isn't it time we learn to live and work together in peace? Let's begin by calling a truce in the war of words.

Clay Farris Naff: Speeding Tickets For Embryos? As Personhood Bills Proliferate, Could Be

2012-02-22T21:00:10Z

Remember the "Defense of Marriage" ballot measures?

Ah, those were simpler, more innocent days. Back then, the religious right contented itself with trying to scare up backwoods voters with church-basement videos about the "Gay Rights Agenda" and gay recruiters in high schools. It all seems so Bush-league now. The dark forces of Old-Time Religion have moved on to a more sophisticated campaign.

"We need to get back to the respect for life that we used to have in this country that's been lost," Virginia pol Robert Marshall tells CNN. Respect for life, eh? Perhaps he was thinking of Virginia's 1928 anti-lynching statute, put in place nearly 50 years after white mobs began the habit of dragging black men to a public square, torturing and then hanging them. Not that the law was often enforced, but you can see how it would show a due respect for life.

In any event, Marshall is the proud sponsor of a bill that would give fetuses the same rights as "other persons" from the moment of fertilization. The implications may be mind-boggling, but the GOP-dominated House of Delegates sent it sailing through nonetheless. If the Virginia Senate follows suit, life in the Old Dominion state will never be the same.

In future elections, will pregnant women vote twice? Once for themselves and once for their embryos? And if a pregnant lady is pulled over for speeding, will the cop have to ticket junior along with mom? After all, the bill states that "unborn child at every stage of development [shall have] all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this Commonwealth."

But let's not descend into silly conjecture. After all, the real implications of this bill and its companion piece mandating pre-abortion vaginal probes are outrageous enough. To enact into law the religious dogma that a person springs into life at conception is to do violence to women, medicine, science, religion and a rational civilization.

If doctors are legally bound on pain of possible murder charges to consider a fetus at any stage the equal of its mother, then a number of women will die horrible and unnecessary deaths. Pregnancy is dangerous. Our evolutionary history (rather than any alleged misdeed by Eve) has made human pregnancy the most dangerous of all. In places where modern medicine is unavailable, women have a one-in-16 chance of dying in childbirth. Doctors sure as hell don't need fanatical lawmakers tying their hands as they try to treat women with life-threatening pregnancies.

Of course, if the religious zealots were right -- if there really were two fully realized people in one body from the moment of conception -- it would be a different matter. But they are wrong. Deep down, they must know this, for they rely on selective quotations from the Bible and then hitch them to selected trimmings from science.

You've probably seen this snippet, usually with an attribution to God: ""Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee." It's presented as a biblical argument for personhood from conception. Just one problem: the whole quotation clearly shows that God is talking not about babies in general but about one Jeremiah, whom He has specially selected to be a prophet.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

What's more, it's not God talking directly, it's Jeremiah recalling what God supposedly told him. (Much as God supposedly told GWB to invade Iraq.) In some places in the Bible, breathing seems to be the criterion of life, and elsewhere "quickening" -- that is, the noticeable movement of the fetus in the mother's belly. It's not my purpose to rehash that whole argument here, but only to point out that pro-lifers aren't above giving Scripture the same treatment they inflict on evolutionists: distortion through selective quotation.

Now, as for science: Pro-lifers, some of them with medical degrees, will tell you science shows that a person forms at the moment a human sperm fertilizes a human egg. "As soon as he is conceived, a man is a man," testified the late Dr. Jerome Lejeune before the state Tennessee legislature. Such pronouncements are bunk, and happily you don't need a medical degree or scientific training to see it for yourself.

The claim that "life begins at conception" trades on a linguistic shell game. It is trivially true that a new and unique genome is formed at conception. A genome, however, cannot possibly be mistaken for a person. To prove this, pluck a hair from your head. You are now holding a unique genome in your hands. But, you will doubtless agree, it is not a person. Otherwise, bald men would be goners.

The switcheroo takes place when pro-lifers use "life begins at conception" to refer to a person, as in the LeJeune quotation above. To see that this is complete nonsense, just click here. You'll find yourself at National Geographic's recent feature on twins. "Identical" twins, it notes, are not really identical. And however similar they may appear, they are certainly not the same person! At the moment of conception, there is not a scrap of science that can tell whether one, two or no persons will result.

So, we're back to religion and politics. In that vein, will someone please remind Rep. Marshall and his band of pro-life, probe-happy fanatics: E pluribus unum does not mean "One dogma to rule them all and in the darkness bind them."

New Breast Cancer Gene Discovered

2012-02-22T20:59:00Z

Scientists have identified a new gene that may increase the risk of breast cancer, according to a new study from Finland. In the study, mutations in this gene, called Abraxas,were linked to cases of hereditary breast cancer.