-
Get your free EC here
Tweet Share on Facebook June 30, 2006 CommentGeez, those abortion-rights folks just won't give it up. Even though EvangelAmerica (sic) is close to overturning Roe v. Wade and seems determined to outlaw abortion, those pesky pro-choicers keep finding "ways around."
-
Equal-opportunity adultery coverage?
Tweet Share on Facebook June 29, 2006 Comment (1)Do the media give equal time to Democrat and Republican recreants seeking the nation's highest office? That's the question posed in the latest issue of the liberal Washington Monthly magazine and making the rounds on liberal blogs such as Alternet.org.
-
Title IX and single-sex education
Tweet Share on Facebook June 26, 2006 Comment (6)Other Title IX changes: When you think "Title IX," you think women's sports. But the imbroglio over changes to the law involves much more.
-
Title IX politics
Tweet Share on Facebook June 23, 2006 CommentFriday, June 23, marked the 34th anniversary of Title IX. OK, so it's not a bellwether number like 25 or even 35. But it's still worth noting on this particular anniversary, Title IX is a shadow of its former self–a landmark law that, like an athlete going into retirement, has lost a lot of muscle. And I'm not just talking about its power to promote women in sports.
-
The "manny" revolution
Tweet Share on Facebook June 21, 2006 Comment (26)What's a "manny"? you might ask. Remember nannies? Now it's mannies. Celebrity mom Britney Spears is making headlines with her new male nanny, Perry Taylor. But she's not alone.
-
Pre-pregnant, pregnant, or retired
Tweet Share on Facebook June 19, 2006 Comment (10)By 2010, the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services wants all new mothers to be breast-feeding for at least the first six months. Six months of breast-feeding is a tough proposition for the majority of working new moms because fewer than one third of companies have a private area for mothers to breast-feed, and fewer than 10 percent offer child care.
-
"Born to be Breast-fed"
Tweet Share on Facebook June 16, 2006 CommentThe federal government's "Born to be Breast-fed" campaign is sparking controversy even as it winds down. Click here and prepare to be reviled. You'll see one of several public service television announcements prepared under the auspices of the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services. It shows a floridly pregnant woman bouncing and flailing about on a mechanical bull (a second ad shows two late-term preggers log-rolling). As the bull rider buffets wildly, belly and all, the message to women is, this type of risky behavior during pregnancy is as bad for fetuses as NOT breast-feeding is for newborns.
The ads are winding down a two-year run, but they are now sparking renewed criticism from women's groups who believe the administration isn't doing enough to promote breast-feeding, is caving into baby formula company censorship, or, at the other extreme, is portraying women as walking wombs.
In and of itself, promotion of breast-feeding is a good thing. Whether it's the province of the federal government is quite another matter. Promotion of breast-feeding is also not a new thing. Children's health experts have long touted breast-feeding as a major health benefit because breast-fed babies are less likely to develop ear infections, respiratory illnesses, and diarrhea.
But critics say this campaign goes too far because it actually guilt-trips new mothers. It could make mothers who cannot or choose not to breast-feed feel guilty. Considering that 60 percent of new mothers work, breast-feeding is simply not feasible for all of them.
UP NEXT: Why all new mothers can't breast-feed, and Bush's HSS is strapped with a problematic message.
-
"Laur" and "Hill" both seek middle ground–each in her own way
Tweet Share on Facebook June 14, 2006 CommentWhat a pair those two first ladies make–-the present and the former, that is. Each has her own special way of trying to stand on that quickly disappearing parcel of American terra firma, the middle ground.
-
Economic preferences in college admissions, or how to close the gender gap
Tweet Share on Facebook June 12, 2006 CommentThe debate over male affirmative action in Ivy League admissions is nonexistent because the ratio of male to female students at the nation's most prestigious institutions is nearly even. The (Manchester, N.H.) Union Leader recently reported Dartmouth's entering class is 50-50. No shortage of men there. Nor are they in short supply at elite math and science schools, such as MIT.
-
Male affirmative action?
Tweet Share on Facebook June 9, 2006 CommentGone are the days when many women went to college primarily to get an "M.R.S." Even if those days had not vanished due to a change in women's choices (to launch careers rather than to go to college to find husbands), they have been outmoded by women's abundant success in academe. Recent studies show women have not only undone academic barriers to achievement, they have nuked them.
