The national leadership of Delta Zeta sorority has filed a lawsuit against DePauw University — less than three weeks after the university severed ties with the national organization following the sorority’s “membership review.”

That review, you might recall, led to the eviction of almost two dozen sorority members, some of whom claimed selection was made based on appearance and popularity.

The New York Times earlier this month reported that Delta Zeta national officers said they would no longer be communicating with news organizations, but they’re making a big PR effort now.

“The wrong message is out there about Delta Zeta,” Cindy Menges, executive director of the sorority, told USA Today. “I am disappointed that there is not as much interest in the facts as there has been interest in a story that’s been created by the public at our expense.”

Menges also responded to questions in this Q&A. Asked whether decisions had to do with physical appearance, Menges responded: “These women are proud of who they are, but this campus created an image of Delta Zetas that was unfair, and in that environment our women could not be successful. Never ever would we want that (message) conveyed.”

Huh?

Delta Zeta filed the claim in U.S. District Court in Terre Haute, alleging DePauw of breaking contracts and defaming the sorority. “As a direct and proximate result of defendants conduct, Delta Zeta has incurred substantial harm to its business, including current and prospective financial losses,” the suit contends. The sorority is demanding a public apology, unspecified damages and a return to the university’s Greek System. It also wants DePauw to acknowledge that Delta Zeta “did not make any decision based on appearance and race,” according to media reports.

Senior Katie Holloway, who quit the sorority just before the names of the evicted were announced, said, “The graceful thing would be for the sorority to accept this and let it lie.”

DePauw officials said the suit lacks merit.

“From the beginning, DePauw University has acted to protect its students,” Ken Owen, director of media relations, said in a statement posted on DePauw’s website. “We are disappointed in Delta Zeta’s decision to initiate legal action. We believe that this lawsuit completely lacks merit and have every confidence that the courts will determine that the University acted lawfully and in the best interests of its students.”

E.J. Graff, senior researcher at Brandeis University’s Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, has an excellent story, “The Opt-Out Myth,” in CJR magazine that goes beyond debunking the conventional wisdom about waves of women choosing to leave the workforce to raise children.

Graff deftly weaves together statistics and studies that show how the “moms-go-home” storyline focuses on a “tiny proportion of American women — white, highly educated, in well-paying professional/managerial jobs.”

The stories also look only at the lives of married women before divorce and fail to provide any historical context. “Their opening lines often suggest that a generation of women is flouting feminist expectations and heading back home. At the simplest factual level, that’s false,” writes Graff.

Most importantly, Graff explains the consequences of misleading media coverage :

The problem is that the moms-go-home storyline presents all those issues as personal rather than public — and does so in misleading ways. The stories’ statistics are selective, their anecdotes about upper-echelon white women are misleading, and their “counterintuitive” narrative line parrots conventional ideas about gender roles. Thus they erase most American families’ real experiences and the resulting social policy needs from view.

Here’s why that matters: if journalism repeatedly frames the wrong problem, then the folks who make public policy may very well deliver the wrong solution. If women are happily choosing to stay home with their babies, that’s a private decision. But it’s a public policy issue if most women (and men) need to work to support their families, and if the economy needs women’s skills to remain competitive. It’s a public policy issue if schools, jobs, and other American institutions are structured in ways that make it frustratingly difficult, and sometimes impossible, for parents to manage both their jobs and family responsibilities.

Brandeis’ Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism has posted a more complete version of the story, along with links to the original research and resources.

A late Double Dose …

National Back Up Your Birth Control Day: Today! Feministing has the details. “I just started working at the Institute for Reproductive Health Access and NARAL Pro-Choice New York and have been doing the online outreach of the campaign (it’s a project of the Institute) to remind peeps about the significance of EC and that just because we — as in adults, not minors (except in certain states) — now have OTC (over-the-counter) status doesn’t mean our work around EC is finished. Not by a long shot,” writes Vanessa.

Over at RH Reality Check, Andrea Lynch posted 10 ways to celebrate. Number 1 on her list: “Contact your Senator and ask her/him to support the Prevention First Act, which would ensure that survivors of sexual assault receive factually accurate information about EC (they often don’t).”

Funding Restored: The FDA finally decided to fully fund the agency’s Office of Women’s Health. The Washington Post last month reported that agency insiders said more than one-quarter of the $4 million operating budget had been removed.

From the Post: “‘It is disappointing that on the important issue of women’s health, FDA had to be persuaded to simply maintain the funding level that was requested by the administration and provided by Congress,’ said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), chairman of the House appropriations committee that funds the FDA. At the same time, she said, ‘It is very gratifying that the FDA reversed course.’”

A Day Without Feminism: University of Wisconsin Oshkosh imagined what it would be like. Check out what the school website might have included in the early 1900s.

Another Blast from the Past: “The Making of a Militant,” from The Nation: “This article originally appeared in the December 1, 1926, issue, inaugurating a feature called ‘These Modern Women,’ ‘a series of anonymous articles giving the personal backgrounds of women active in professional and public life.’ The editors explained, ‘Our object is to discover the origin of their modern point of view toward men, marriage, children, and jobs. Do spirited ancestors explain their rebellion? Or is it due to thwarted ambition or distaste for domestic drudgery? The next article is by a woman who, though willing to fit into the conventional picture, found herself unable to do so.’”

Despite ‘Mommy Guilt,’ Time With Kids Increasing: Back to the present, The Washington Post reports on a new University of Maryland study: “In 1965, mothers spent 10.2 hours a week tending primarily to their children — feeding them, reading with them or playing games, for example — according to the study’s analysis of detailed time diaries kept by thousands of Americans. That number dipped in the 1970s and 1980s, rose in the 1990s and now is higher than ever, at nearly 14.1 hours a week.” Also see the related story on fathers.

The Girls Are All Right: Mike Males, a senior researcher for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, sees a lot of good in health and crime statistics and education and employment reports concerning teenage girls, despite the fact the media “reverberates with fears that teenage girls are more violent, disordered, miserable, mean, promiscuous; in short, worse every day in every way.” Plus: Also see Gina Piccalo’s review of “Unhooked,” by Laura Sessions Stepp.

Project Girl: Males also writes, “[Every] new study (check the latest by UCSC’s and other researchers) claims popular-culture images — underdressed starlets, violent heroines, skimpy fashion models, misogynist ads, music and games — are vastly more women-objectifying, preteen-pornographying, drug-glorifying, fashion-mongering and anorexia-inducing than any previous generation faced.”

Enter Project Girl, a Madison, Wisc.-based arts initiative that helps girls become active media critics and informed consumers. The Capital Times recently ran a good story about Project Girl and the organization’s first multimedia art show, which is on exhibit at the Sonderegger Science Center at Edgewood College through April 22.

Plus: The art show opening celebration included a talk by Lyn Mikel Brown, author of “Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters from Marketers’ Schemes.” I was excited to see that Brown is presenting at the WAM! conference in Cambridge on March 31. Check out the full line-up here. OBOS’ panel, “Our 21st Century Bodies, Our Multimedia Selves” is scheduled for Saturday, at 11 a.m.

The culture wars against homosexuality are failing, most notably with younger demographics. So what’s an evangelical pastor to do? Switch tactics. Claim homosexuality is biological. Put the blame Adam and Eve (heck, why not?) and suggest curing homosexuality in the womb with an infusion of hormones.

Oh, yes, he did.

From The Seeker, the Chicago Tribune’s blog on religion:

Earlier this month, [Rev. Albert Mohler Jr.], president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, acknowledged that homosexuality might be biological, adding it should come as no surprise.

“Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found,” Mohler wrote on his blog. “After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God’s judgment.”

Citing scientists who claim they can change the sexual preference of lambs before they’re born, he challenged his flock to imagine the possibilities of detecting homosexuality in the womb and a hormone patch that could change it.

Conservatives cringed at Mohler’s suggestion that babies might be born with a sexual orientation, a significant departure from the church’s teachings. Meanwhile gay rights activists bristled at Mohler’s relentless quest for a “cure.”

You know, we can’t say we’re all that shocked by the reverend’s ignorant suggestions. But more disappointing is that Chicago Tribune chose to make his intentionally provocative comments the basis of an online poll that asks, “If you could know your baby is gay before birth, and hormone treatments were available to change the orientation, would you use them?” Followed by: “Do you think it is morally justifiable for others to use such treatment?”

What if the reverend had suggested being born black was a curse? Or a type of disability? Would the Trib have parroted that language? Why is it OK to treat homosexuality as though it were a genetic disease?

The comments that follow are the predictable back-and-forth about the origins of homosexuality, what the bible supposedly says, etc. There are some who think being gay is just so god-awful that the patch would be a blessing.

“If such a test and treatment was possible I would absolutely take advantage. Why would anyone want other than the best for their child? Being born gay may not be a ‘sin’, but why force someone to deal with the difficulties that would certainly arise? If science is showing a way to identify the spcecific [sic] gene that makes someone gay then a method to remedy this is not far off – and I say that’s a very good thing,” wrote Jon, who added he’s expecting a son in May (editor’s note: Hey, good luck!).

There are also plenty of comments from readers who find the whole issue offensive.

“Could you also post a poll to survey the public about whether any of us would choose to cure offspring of being straight? That only seems fair!” wrote David Greene.

Or, as AL simply noted, “Too bad there isn’t a patch for intolerance.”

The American Prospect has outdone itself with a massive issue that is, quite literally, the Mother Load.

“Why Can’t America Have a Family-Friendly Workplace?” the cover asks. Inside you’ll find a special report on work/family politics that grew out of a 2006 conference titled “Who Cares: Dilemmas of Work and Family in the 21st Century,” sponsored by the Council on Contemporary Families.

The American Prospect website includes almost every article in full, along with related reports and advocacy, research and blog links. Web-only stories on work/family issues will be posted throughout the month, so keep checking back for new content. This is a must-save resource for current and future discussions.

One small note: Currently, the only aspect addressed by a male writer deals specifically with the role of fathers. There’s no shortage of male bylines in general, of course, but there always seems to be a paucity when the coverage is about work/family issues — even though both sexes are affected by the lack of institutional support and by damaging gender and cultural stereotypes.

Just as we crave women’s voices in traditionally male journalistic and political realms, we also need men to represent themselves on what traditionally have been considered “women’s issues.” This is essential not only to demonstrate that men have a real stake in these public policy debates, but also as a reference to male readers that this is an important political conversation.

Carnival of the Feminists: The 33rd Carnival of Feminists is up at The Greatest Blog You’ll (Probably) Never Read. Another terrific, don’t-miss mix.

Of Books & Bodies: Before the word “vagina” became an issue, there was “scrotum.” I first read about the controversy over the Newbery Medal-award winning children’s book, “The Higher Power of Lucky,” by Susan Patron, last month, but can still appreciate this spot-on column by David Hawpe, who also identifies what’s really obscene in America.

Speaking Out: Parents are accusing a suburban Chicago high school of “promoting a homosexual agenda by allowing gay students to speak before freshman classes about their personal experiences, cite research and invite questions,” reports the Chicago Tribune. One of several comments by an upset parent that left us gaping: “I don’t think they should be treating [homosexuality] in the same way they treat conditions that are immutable and carry no behavioral implications, like race, sex, ethnicity and disability.”

Designer Vaginas: Referring to cosmetic surgery’s “new frontier,” laser vaginal rejuvenation, Caitlin E. Borgmann asks, “Is this kind of surgery really such a far cry from female genital mutilation?”

Want To Pay $1,200 To Hear A Bunch of Men Pontificate About The Future?: I stole Ann Bartow’s title. Go read what you get for your money. Also check out Alicia Shepard on All Men, All the Time, in News Business.

Three Positive Steps: Jaclyn Friedman’s essay at Women’s eNews outlines three steps to address sexual assault against women, starting with what should be obvious but isn’t: hold boys and men responsible. “[If] we want to raise awareness about the links between drinking and rape,” writes Friedman, “we should start by getting the word out to men that alcohol is likely to impair their ability to respond appropriately if a sexual partner says ‘no.’ When was the last time you read that article in any kind of publication?”

Child-Care Crisis: Washington Post columnist Leslie Morgan Steiner reports on the best and worst states for child care, as identified by a state report card issued by the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA).

Seeking Submissions: Make/Shift, a new magazine produced by an international community of feminist writers, artists, academics and activists, is seeking submissions for its second issue (Fall/Winter ’07).

Enough of the Diva Duels: “‘Who’d win,’ demanded AOL, ‘if Beyonce, Jennifer threw down?’ In the story line of the diva smackdown — AOL’s term — it’s not enough that female stars are feuding; we in the audience have to lay bets and pick sides and flash our own claws,” writes Mary Schmich.

The American Psychological Association Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls issued a report this week detailing the omnipresence and damaging effects of sexualized images of girls and young women in American culture.

While much of the first part of the report confirms what most media observers already suspect, it is still enlightening to hear such a precise and thorough analysis. The APA report breaks down the consequences on multiple levels, looking at the effects of sexualized images on mental and physical health, development of a girl’s sexuality, and the development of general attitudes and beliefs concerning femininity and sexuality. The research links sexualization to three common mental health problems among young women: low self-esteem, depression or depressed mood and eating disorders.

It also explores the impact of these images — not just on young women, but on men and society at large. And while the report focuses on advertising and media representations, it also discusses how a girl’s interpersonal relationships with parents, other authority figures and peers often reinforce the media’s portrayals.

The task force summarizes its findings emphatically:

In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized. These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate.

The most intriguing part of the report, though, discusses the sweeping impact these images have on all aspects of a young woman’s life:

Psychology offers several theories to explain how the sexualization of girls and women could influence girls’ well-being. Ample evidence testing these theories indicates that sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality, and attitudes and beliefs.

Although most of these studies have been conducted on women in late adolescence (i.e., college age), findings are likely to generalize to younger adolescents and to girls, who may be even more strongly affected because their sense of self is still being formed.

Report contributor and psychologist Sharon Lamb told the Washington Post: “I don’t think because we don’t have the research yet on the younger girls that we can ignore that [sexualization is] of harm to them. Common sense would say that, and part of the reason we wrote the report is so we can get funding to prove that.”

Eileen Zurbriggen, an associate professor of psychology at UCSC and co-author of the report, told UCSC Currents Online that part of the impetus for the report came from APA staff concerns.

“Like a lot of parents, they were worried about what they were seeing around them — thong underwear for 7-year-olds, pole dancing for girls on television,” said Zurbriggen.

And in film, and on the internet and in games that promise to teach kids how to pole dance at home. The images — and messages — are ubiquitous. And corporate denials insisting it’s all in good fun just seem pathetic. From the Washington Post:

Isaac Larian, whose company makes the large-eyed, pouty-lipped Bratz dolls, says, “Kids are very smart and know right from wrong.” What’s more, his testing indicates that girls want Bratz “because they are fun, beautiful and inspirational,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Not once have we ever heard one of our consumers call Bratz ‘sexy.’ ” Some adults “have a twisted sense of what they see in the product,” Larian says.

Fortunately, the report, which is supposed to be a guide for psychologists in their own practices as well in their collective public advocacy, also offers a series of specific recommendations, including emphasizing the need for “co-viewing” of media with informed parents and as part of school’s official curriculum and encouraging girls to become cultural creators and critics:

Girls and girls’ groups can also work toward change. Alternative media such as “zines” (Web-based magazines), “blogs” (Web logs), and feminist magazines, books, and Web sites encourage girls to become activists who speak out and develop their own alternatives. Girl empowerment groups also support girls in a variety of ways and provide important counterexamples to sexualization.

If you ask me, a good place to start might be About-Face, Girls, Women + Media Project or My Pop Studio. You can find an annotated list of other sites at Women, Websites and Body Image. More media literacy resources are available here. As for magazines, I highly recommend New Moon for girls 8-13 and Teen Voices for early teens.

In the Washington Post article, author Stacy Weiner does an admirable job of personalizing and historicizing the APA findings. She includes many interviews with girls and their parents — and she talks to experts who place the sexualization we are presently seeing in a fascinating context:

When do little girls start wanting to look good for others?

“A few years ago, it was 6 or 7,” says Deborah Roffman, a Baltimore-based sex educator. “I think it begins by 4 now.”

While some might argue that today’s belly-baring tops are no more risqué than hip huggers were in the ’70s, Roffman disagrees. “Kids have always emulated adult things,” she says. “But [years ago] it was, ‘That’s who I’m supposed to be as an adult.’ It’s very different today. The message to children is, ‘You’re already like an adult. It’s okay for you to be interested in sex. It’s okay for you to dress and act sexy, right now.’ That’s an entirely different frame of reference.

At another point, Weiner cites Wheelock College professor Diane Levin’s argument that much of the consumerism problem can be traced back to the deregulation of the children’s television in the 1980s — when product placement really began.

With the rules loosened, kids’ shows suddenly could feature characters who moonlighted as products (think Power Rangers, Care Bears, My Little Pony). “There became a real awareness,” says Levin, “of how to use gender and appearance and, increasingly, sex to market to children.”

And companies have run with it. As Peggy Orenstein all too briefly touched on in her recent New York Times story, “What’s Wrong with Cinderella?” Disney seems intent on selling purity via pink princess culture, until girls grow up and naturally move on to “Dark Tink” panties — as in Tinkerbell — described as “the bad girl side of Miss Bell that Walt never saw.”

“We need alternatives to the predominant message that says, ‘You are valued only because you’re sexy,’” Zurbriggen, the report’s co-author, told UCSC Currents Online. “We have to ask ourselves if corporate profits are really worth the damage we’re doing to the next generation.”

Lamb, who is also co-author of “Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters from Marketers’ Schemes” (St. Martin’s, 2006), notes that the particular representation of sexuality that children are exposed to is damaging in itself.

“The issue is that the way marketers and media present sexuality is in a very narrow way,” says Lamb. “Being a sexual person isn’t about being a pole dancer [...] This is a sort of sex education girls are getting, and it’s a misleading one.”

Every day I receive summaries of newly published or about-to-be-released medical research and have to decide what I should write about on this blog. Sometimes it’s obvious: a study’s findings are of such urgency that they must be publicized immediately. Other information is more nuanced and requires some deliberation before commenting publicly.

It’s an ongoing process — and one that newspapers face every day.

Timothy J. McNulty, the Chicago Tribune public editor, leads off his most recent column with the question: “When does a story on medical research deserve to be on the front page?”

The answer, based on editors’ decisions at the paper over the past year, “is neither science nor art but the result of strong and sometimes impassioned debate,” writes McNulty.

He offers recent examples of studies that prompted newsroom debate, including the study recently published in the British Medical Journal indicating that moderate amounts of caffeine did not cause premature or low-weight births:

Some editors argued to put it on the front page. The study had sure readership value, especially among women who had given up coffee during pregnancy because they worried about premature delivery and low birth weight.

Another editor countered that coffee is a popular research topic and reports are often contradictory. The science behind the study under consideration was excellent, but the real test would come only when other scientists replicated the results. The editor opposed giving the report an implicit stamp of approval by putting it on the front page.

In the end, editors split the difference, making a teasing reference to the story on the front but placing it on Page 9.

And here’s a look at how the Trib editors handle other popular — and controversial — topics:

Stories on new heart drugs, hormone replacement therapy and how often women should get mammograms are assessed not only for the science behind them but for their importance in relation to other studies on the same topics.

A Dec. 15 front-page story headlined “Breast cancer cases plunge, study finds” with the subhead “Drop in use of hormone therapy a likely reason” was an interesting story about statistics compiled by the National Cancer Institute. But was it significant?

Again, there were competing views about whether it actually told readers anything useful. For the second year, the number of new breast cancer cases declined, but some argued that did not constitute a trend and even the raw numbers did not signal that the tide had turned.

Other editors insisted that a drop in cases for the second year, for whatever reasons, was news enough because it showed there was movement in the dismal fight against these diseases. Their arguments prevailed. The article became the lead story that day.

In addition to posting columns like McNulty’s that provide a window into the newsroom decision-making process, more newspapers (and magazines) should take the Washington Post’s lead and publish the story placement online (section and page number) whenever possible. I read a lot of newspapers on my laptop, and I find it helpful to know whether the story was worthy of A-1 or if it was buried in a feature section.

Photo by Techne / view original

As we noted last week, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation is rebranding itself as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, complete with a new edgy marketing strategy.

The New York Times this week spotlights the $1 million campaign and talks with Komen and advertising executives about the branding tactics.

“The campaign is indicative of how nonprofit organizations are significantly revamping the methods they use to reach out to consumers, not to mention the tone of their messages,” writes Stuart Elliott. “Just as marketers of consumer products have had to rethink the way they pitch a new breed of restless, cynical, hard-to-reach shoppers, so too have charities, foundations and other fund-raising organizations.”

We get that times have changed, but take a look at the new tone:

Gone is a profile in silhouette, evocative of a bygone century, next to the words “The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation” written in pink.

In their place are a stylized pink ribbon, the symbol for breast-cancer awareness, next to the words “Susan G. Komen for the Cure” and an additional phrase, “We’re on a mission.”

The campaign also takes a far more modern and assertive approach. Gone, for instance, are ads that showed a woman tying a shoe to take part in a Race for the Cure, which carried this headline: “For over 20 years, we’ve operated on a shoestring.”

Contrast that with an ad appearing in newspapers and magazines and on posters, which declares: “We only focus on one thing. Or, depending on how you look at it, two.”

Or take another print and poster ad, showing a woman wearing a tank-style undershirt on which these words appear: “When we get our hands on breast cancer, we’re going to punch it, strangle it, kick it, spit on it, choke it and pummel it until it’s good and dead. Not just horror movie dead but really, truly dead. And then we’re going to tie a pink ribbon on it.”

If that does not sufficiently convey the foundation’s new spirit, try the message that will appear on T-shirts to be sold to raise money for its work against breast cancer.

“If you’re going to stare at my breasts,” the T-shirts read, “you could at least donate a dollar to save them.”

Chris Orzechowski, director for brand marketing at the Dallas-based foundation, said, “We felt there were missed opportunities, opportunities to affect lives in a greater way and be more inclusive … We felt like we weren’t serving younger audiences and more ethnically diverse audiences.”

“What I love about the new name and logo is that they’re a call to action,” she added, “an opportunity to remind people what we’re about.”

It’s not clear to this reader why anyone not familiar with Komen’s work would take the organization seriously after this. And it’s difficult to imagine how focusing on the bodies of fit young white women — featured in the print and poster ads — is an effective way of reaching out “to more ethnically diverse audiences.”

The punch-cancer-out ad, which debuted Jan. 22, is disturbing on multiple levels for how it sexualizes violence. As Jessica at Feministing observes: “… I was driving and saw the ad on a bus shelter, and all you can really make out from far away is a picture of a woman’s torso with the words, ‘Punch it, Strangle it, Kick it,’ etc. So, ugh. Plus, the headless woman is yet another example of how the Komen Foundation always seems to imply ‘save the boobies!’ rather than ‘save women’s lives!’”

Twisty at I Blame the Patriarchy has written a superb critique: “Thus it is through the narrowed eye of resigned cynicism that I view this pornalicious poster: the chest-o-centric pose, the decapitation, the mood lighting, and of course, the snuff film script. …” Go read the rest now.

The print ads are running in People magazine and USA Today. The posters will appear in the following major markets: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles, New York, Orange County in California and metropolitan Washington, including Montgomery County, Md.

Related Reading: When topics like this arise, we can’t resist pointing to Barbara Ehrenreich’s critical examination of breast-cancer culture and pink kitsch, “Welcome to Cancer Land.” Last year, we took a critical look at the think-and-buy-pink commercial messages that dominates the month of October. And for more resources, visit Breast Cancer Action, where “educate, agitate, organize” takes on real meaning.

The always spectacular Women, Media & Action conference, co-sponsored by The Center for New Words in Cambridge, Mass., is scheduled this year for March 30 – April 1, and the deadline for early registration is fast approaching.

Register by Jan. 31 and pay only $125 ($35 for students and $65 for seniors) for full weekend access — all keynotes, workshops and panels, as well as Saturday breakfast and Sunday brunch. (Scholarships are available for those with limited income.) The fee goes up to $155 on Feb. 1, and to $195 on-site, so what are you waiting for?

Keynote speakers at WAM! 2007 include Ellen Goodman and Thenmozhi Soundararajan. Here’s an early peek at the schedule and the presenters and sessions.

Getting personal for a moment, the brilliantly titled “Our 21st Century Bodies, Our Multimedia Selves” is, you guessed it, about “Our Bodies, Ourselves” in the new millennium, online and in translation around the world.

This panel includes yours truly along with Ayesha Chatterjee, OBOS’ global translation/adaptation program assistant who will share the experiences of women’s groups around the world who have developed culturally adapted translations of “Our Bodies, Ourselves” in book and alternative formats; Elana Hayasaka, publications program assistant who introduced Our Bodies Ourselves to the world of on-line social networking and video (have you checked out OBOS on My Space lately? 1,267 friends and counting!); and Akilah Jefferson, a former OBOS intern and current graduate student at Georgetown who has designed interactive workshops based on material from “Our Bodies, Ourselves” for college-aged and midlife women.

I’m also doing another blogging/tech workshop with the truly amazing Deanna Zandt (she’ll be the smart one in the room).

Check out the conference site for more information. See you at WAM!

Of Condi, Rush & Feminism: Tara Lohan writes that the best commentary she’s seen on this sad and absurd situation comes from Elijah Emily Nella. Check it out at AlterNet.

Winning for Best Title: “Hey, hey! Ho, ho! This mottled neck has got to go.” In the battle between feminism and femininity, women are their own worst enemies, writes Shelley Page in The Ottawa Citizen.

20 Movies and TV Series Later …: “Jane Eyre” may not be the first feminist novel, but it is certainly one of the most enduring,” writes Alessandra Stanley in this literary analysis and review of Masterpiece Theater’s “Jane Eyre,” a two-part series that will air this Sunday and next on PBS.

Women Over 40 Steal the Lights: Writing in The Observer (UK), Jason Solomons considers Hollywood’s new first ladies:

The Oscars have always been a popularity contest but in recent years the Academy has been particularly keen to reward youth over experience, which has not been difficult because it has long been the case that there are few substantial roles for women once they hit 40. Now, it seems, moviegoers and voters have decided that it might be time for a change.

“I think it’s fantastic for all these women, especially Helen Mirren. The Queen is a beautiful film about a woman that is not about her sexuality or being naughty. But it is about a serious adult player on the world stage,” says Ariel Levy, the American author of Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. “I like to think that audiences crave depictions of women as complicated human beings. With every passing year as women make more progress, it becomes preposterous that movies don’t capture women in their full humanity or cover their lifespan. If you were a Martian and came down to watch a Hollywood movie you would think all women dropped dead at 45.”

The Oscar nominees, by the way, will be announced Monday, Jan. 23.

Be Ugly Campaign Much More than Skin Deep: Mary McCarty of the Dayton Daily News knows it’s a marketing ploy, but she’s still encouraged by the “Be Ugly in 2007″ campaign tied to the Emmy-award-winning TV series “Ugly Betty.”

If you visit the Web site at beugly07.com, you’ll see ABC’s Ugly Betty holding up a sign: “Be Real/Be Smart/Be Kind/Be Honest/Be True To Yourself.”

Here’s the “Be Ugly” manifesto: “It’s a fact that society has an unfair and unrealistic definition of beauty, but many people still struggle daily to achieve it. What’s the result? Most of us continue to feel less than beautiful.”

When was the last time our daughters got that message?

In a Jane Austen novel, probably. They’d be hard-pressed to find it anywhere in our popular culture, even in supposedly highbrow magazines.

Art, Gender and Agency: “Is there such a thing as ‘women’s art’? Do we any longer need to think of women as a special group? Should there be a prize for women artists?” asks Iwona Blazwick in The Guardian. She continues:

For many, the terms female and male are simply cultural. They may also seem dangerously binary and — in the context of prizes or exhibitions such as a forthcoming show celebrating Margaret Salmon, the first winner of the MaxMara art prize for women at the Whitechapel — likely to create a ghetto of Otherness, a special pleading that supports the old patriarchal order.

At least 50 per cent of art students are female. Why is it that over the 19 years of the Turner prize, only three winners have been women? At least 50 per cent of architectural students are female. Why is it, then, that the architectural profession remains dominated by men? Why in the world at large are there so few women leaders? And why is it that, in the 21st century, violence continues, as artist Barbara Kruger depicted in an installation at the Glasgow Gallery of Modern Art in 2005, to “kill or incapacitate more women aged between 15 and 40 worldwide than cancer, malaria, accidents and war combined”. Most would agree that we should not define ourselves in terms of gender, but the context in which we live and work remains profoundly structured by it.

Is “Quick” Enough?: Are health clinics at stores like CVS, Wal-Mart and Target good for your health? Writing in the Washington Post, physician Ranit Mishori looks at the pros and cons.

Also from the Post, an AP story on the first national studies to tally hospital charges related to birth defects — $2.5 billion per year.

Low-Dose Pill = Higher Pregnancy Rates?: Kaiser reports on a Wall St. Journal story available to subscribers only about pregnancy and the pill:

FDA in documents released Thursday announced it is reconsidering its standards for reviewing the failure rate of new oral contraceptives with lower doses of estrogen and progestin, the Wall Street Journal reports. According to the Journal, higher pregnancy rates in studies of new low-dose oral contraceptives have instigated the agency to reconsider what represents an “acceptable failure rate” for new drugs. The agency uses a measurement called the Pearl Index, which calculates a contraceptive’s failure rate by measuring the amount of time women are exposed to a given product and the number of unplanned pregnancies that result.

According to FDA documents, the agency in the 1970s set a policy that it only approved oral contraceptives with failure rates less than 1.5 per 100 “woman-years,” or the number of years a woman has used the drug. FDA has recently approved some pills with failure rates of more than two per 100 woman-years, the Journal reports.

More Work Needed to Improve Lung Cancer Care — Particularly in Women: So say leading researchers and health advocates in the January issue of the journal Lung Cancer. Lung cancer, which is responsible for 30 percent of all cancer deaths for men and women, kills more women annually than breast, ovarian and uterine cancers combined.

“Emerging data indicates that there are differences between women and men in lung cancer susceptibility and prognosis,” said Sherry Marts, Ph.D., one of the report’s authors and vice president of scientific affairs for the Society for Women’s Health Research. “Based on the trends we are seeing, it is important to explore these differences and develop new treatment options that are appropriately responsive to factors such as sex and gender. That will lead to better care for all patients.”

Scrubs Does Good by Mothers: TikVah Girl explains why the NBC series “Scrubs” is her new hero:

The storyline essentially followed Carla from the moment she came home with her beautiful baby — you know, the time when we mom’s are supposed to be blissed out and beautiful, wallowing in o-so-natural mamahood?

Except she wasn’t. She was a bawling, sad pile of mess. And her husband, to the writers’ credit, was not clueless and stupid or neglectful and frustrated. He kicked it into high gear – he immediately encouraged her to get help, go see a doctor, and continually told her it was normal to have those feelings. When she protested it was just “the weepies”, he assured her it seemed more like postpartum depression.

Ahhh, knowledgeable television. I know I seem overly excited about this. But here’s the thing. Towards the middle of the show when she was really, really losing it and clearly could not cope, her husband and his colleague – himself with a wife that had suffered through PPD- conspired to get them together so that Carla could hear firsthand that PPD was not only normal but common – from another mother!!

Apologies for not posting yesterday due to technical trouble. Here’s Thursday’s post with a double dose to follow shortly.

Edward Melmed, a Dallas surgeon, has written one of the most convincing essays I’ve come across about the dangers of silicone breast implants. His recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times opens with the subject line of an e-mail he and thousands of other surgeons received in November from a breast implant manufacturer: “Let’s toast this monumental occasion.”

The reason for such joy? The FDA decided to allow silicone breast implants, which were banned in 1992, back on the market.

Melmed said he’s one plastic surgeon who isn’t pouring champagne. After three decades of enlarging women’s breasts, Melmed reevaluated his pro-silicone position in the early 1990s when women started coming to him complaining of hardened and painful breasts. Here’s his experience:

In the last 14 years, I have removed implants from almost 1,000 women. I have found roughly 50% of their implants have ruptured within 10 years, and more than 70% have ruptured within 15 years. We are still not sure of all the places where the micro-droplets of silicone end up, though I have found it in lymph nodes. [...]

Most plastic surgeons vehemently deny any connection between health complaints and leaking silicone implants. But I have seen a disturbing number of patients with symptoms, including fatigue, short-term memory loss, joint and muscle pains, skin rashes, disturbed sleep patterns, depression and hair loss, that clear up when implants are removed.

Last year, I completed a review of the last 500 gel implant removals I performed, and found that more than half the women had similar symptoms, ranging from mild to debilitating. According to the manufacturers’ own literature, one in four women has additional surgery within the first year. Many women have multiple surgeries.

“Women deciding to have these implants need to be prepared to have additional surgery,” cautioned Dr. Daniel Schultz, head of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA.

The FDA is requiring manufacturers to spend 10 years studying 80,000 women who receive the implants. Apparently our government’s policy has become, “Approve now, test later.” At current implantation rates, these devices will be in the bodies of 5% of U.S. women within a decade. As I now see it, grossly outsized artificial breasts are a deformity that flouts medical standards and even the plastic surgeons society’s own definition of “cosmetic” — all too often encouraged by the media, which celebrates these water balloons for self-esteem.

Though I do approve of the use of implants for breast reconstruction, when there is no other option, I no longer perform cosmetic breast augmentation. But let’s raise a glass of bubbly for the manufacturers and the plastic surgeons. This will be a happy and prosperous year, for them.

Plus: Need more background? Our Bodies, Ourselves has quite a bit of information about silicone implants.

So much in the news this week — here’s an early round-up:

Afghanistan’s Efforts to Boost Women Falter: Ministry created to right wrongs has upped awareness, but achieved little else, reports the Chicago Tribune.

Spanish Minister Cancels Speech at Saudi University Because of Ban on Women Reporters. How much do we admire Prime Minister José Luis Rodríquez Zapatero? Let us continue to count the ways … (p.s. Feministing readers suggest sending flowers.)

War Zone Midwives Deliver: More on Iraqi maternal and infant health: “As gunmen increasingly target hospitals and clinics in Iraq’s deepening civil war, expectant mothers rely on the country’s 2,000 midwives, or qabilas, and 3,000 lower-skilled rural ‘birth attendants’ — all of whom the state no longer licenses or trains, in an effort to steer women to government clinics,” writes Molly Hennessy-Fiske at the Los Angeles Times. Midwives now deliver half the country’s babies, though Iraq’s Health Ministry stopped licensing midwives and training birth assistants in 2003.

51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse: “For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results,” writes Sam Roberts. “Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.”

How We Talk About Women: “There’s a term for the way the media deals with women in powerful positions: ‘skirtiny,’ a severe scrutiny harsher than what men experience — one that focuses on hair, hemlines, and husbands and lies in wait for mistakes,” writes Betty Spence, founder and president of Equal Voice. Here’s her assessment of Chris Matthew’s comments regarding Sen. Hillary Rodam Clinton not yet announcing whether she’ll run for her party’s presidential nomination:

Cut back to Matthews, who asked, “When is a politician like Hillary Clinton or anyone else going to admit they have the ‘A’ word, ambition, and stop with this coy thing … and just like a strip tease … saying she’s flattered by all the attention?”

Strip tease?

This is how people talk about women. With lightning speed, Matthews had sexualized the conversation via an out-of-context image. Why? It doesn’t take an analyst to figure it out: a woman in the world’s most powerful position — now that’s scary; but a stripper, well, we can handle that.

Pap Test, a Mainstay Against Cervical Cancer, May Be Fading: “It will not disappear for many more years, if ever,” writes Andrew Pollack. “But a newer genetic test that detects human papillomavirus, or HPV, which causes cervical cancer, is starting to play a bigger role in screening. And other genetic tests are being developed. At the least, some experts say, women will no longer need Pap smears as often.”

The Academy for Eating Disorders on Wednesday issued guidelines for models at odds with the fashion industry’s own recommendations. “The response of American fashion designers to the problem of dangerously thin models on the runway is to propose educational reform and better working conditions,” writes Eric Wilson in The New York Times. “The response of eating disorder professionals is to suggest that those models should not be on the runways at all.”

The 13-point list released by the Academy calls for a minimum body mass index:

For women and men over the age of 18, adoption of a minimum body mass index threshold of 18.5 kg/m2, (e.g., a female model who is 5’ 9” [1.75 m] must weigh more than 126 pounds [57.3 kg]) which recognizes that weight below this is considered underweight by the World Health Organization.

For female and male models between the ages of 16 and 18, adoption of a minimum body mass index for age and sex equivalent to the 10th BMI percentile for age and sex (weight below this is considered underweight by the Centers for Disease Control). For example, applying this criterion to a 16 year old female model, the minimum required body mass index would be 17.4 kg/m2, for a male model 17.7 kg/m2. A 16 year old female model who is 5’ 9” [1.75 m] must weigh more than 117 pounds [53.3 kg].

“Too many models have died from eating disorders. These guidelines will help the industry take responsibility for the health and well-being of models,” Dr. Eric van Furth, AED president and clinical director of the Center for Eating Disorders Ursula in Leidschendam, the Netherlands, said in a statement, adding, “Recent tragic deaths highlight the urgent need for industry regulation.”

Two models in South America died last year of complications from anorexia nervosa.

The guidelines address other aspects of the fashion industry, from setting a minimum age threshold (16) for models to “an overall ban of the use of photographic manipulation techniques that artificially slim images of fashion models throughout the entire fashion industry” and “inclusion of models of varying weights and body types on both the catwalk and in fashion magazines so that these images — and the message that women and men of differing body types can look good in a variety of fashions — become part of our collective view of what constitutes beauty.”

The Council of Fashion Designers of America is issuing its own set of recommendations that emphasize healthier behavior and working conditions. As The New York Times reported on Saturday:

According to participants at the meeting, the recommendations are likely to include scheduling fashion-show fittings with younger models during daylight hours, rather than late at night, to help them get more sleep; urging designers to identify models with eating disorders; and introducing more nutritious backstage catering, where a diet of Champagne and cigarettes is the norm. [...]

More than two-thirds of respondents to a questionnaire on Elle magazine’s Web site last month said they wished that American designers would follow the recent examples of fashion show organizers in Milan and Madrid in banning overly skinny models.

But the American designers rejected that option as unworkable.

“It is important as a fashion industry to show our interest and see what we can do because we are in a business of image,” said Diane von Furstenberg, the president of the designers’ council, the industry trade group. “But I feel like we should promote health as a part of beauty rather than setting rules.”

Plus: Slate’s Torie Bosch answers the question: Is it possible to have a very low BMI and still be healthy?

Three New York Times stories worth reading and discussing:

What’s Wrong With Cinderella?

Nanny Hunt Can Be a ‘Slap in the Face’ for Blacks

Gender War à la Française Shakes Up Political Arena