Should Teen Vogue have pulled this cover?

Teen Vogue's November cover has caused quite a stir. Though it is not evident from the picture, one of the models on this cover is a teenager, and pregnant. Jourdan Dunn is not visibly pregnant on the cover, but the 19-year-old reveals this information inside the magazine.

Many parents, teens, and teen-pregnancy prevention groups were not happy that a popular publication like Teen Vogue, a magazine that many teenage girls read, had a pregnant model in the magazine, without an accompanying article that states that teen pregnancy is "not OK".

I personally think that they are blowing the issue out of proportion. The cover only shows the models from the chest up and does not show any physical evidence of Jourdan's pregnancy. While it is stated in the magazine, the article in no way advocates teen pregnancy.

Instead of reprimanding Teen Vogue, I think parents should actually use this cover as a "teachable moment" to talk to their daughters about how to prevent pregnancy until it is the right time in their lives. The average age of Teen Vogue readers is 18, so pregnancy is an applicable topic that they should be educated on and not be afraid to talk about. If parents are so afraid that the media their daughters are consuming will have an adverse affect on them, then they should intervene when they see a topic like this brought up and use it as an opportunity to open the lines of communication.

Stupak Attack

Upon hearing that the health care reform bill finally passed the House most of us shouted, “Victory!”; however, when I heard that the bill passed with the Stupak/Pitts amendment attached which leaves women worse off than they were before reform and blatantly violates President Obama’s promise that no man or woman would lose coverage they have today, I could not be more disappointed.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country and should not be treated differently than any other medical procedure. In today’s health insurance system over 85% of private insurance companies cover abortion. The Stupak/Pitts amendment would restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money. I think what really bothers me the most though is our elected officials. Do we not live in America? The country that was founded on freedom and choice? The Stupak/Pitts amendment takes away that right to choose from millions of women because of the personal feelings of a select group of people who are against reproductive rights. The vast majority of House members who support the Stupak/Pitts amendment do not even support the health care reform bill. They are simply using health care reform to advance their extreme, ideological agenda at the expense of tens of millions of women.

Those who voted for the Stupak/Pitts amendment defend themselves by saying women who want comprehensive reproductive health care coverage can purchase a separate, single-service rider to cover abortion. The fact is that no one plans on having an unintended or medically complicated pregnancy that would require ending the pregnancy so why would anyone purchase separate insurance for it? That is like saying anyone who has ever smoked a cigarette should purchase separate insurance in case they get lung cancer because we don’t want to pay for it.

The Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the spirit of health care reform. Every American citizen should be outraged by the Stupak/Pitts amendment, no matter what your stance on abortion is. Our government is supposed to defend everyone’s right to make personal choices on what is best for them. It seems they have forgotten that and I think it is time for us to remind them.

Join Planned Parenthood in the fight against the Stupak Ban and for women's rights by signing this petition addressed to President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Speaker Pelosi. You can also share your stories illustrating why it is important to you for health care insurance to cover abortion services by emailing them to krich@pprsr.org.

FEMINISM - The Other F Word

I know that title is cliche and overdone - everyone even remotely involved in feminist circles knows that feminism is a "dirty word" to those who don't self-identify. It conjures up images of radical, petty, bra-burning, hairy-legged lesbians ("what's so wrong about that?!" says the radical, hairy-legged women's studies major). I've been thinking a lot about THE WORD recently, because of my most recent endeavor, a feminist magazine startup here at Syracuse University, Medusa. (Check out our blog!)

We decided (or maybe we didn't decide, maybe it just happened organically) to overtly identify our magazine as feminist. We labeled it as a "feminist publication," and we made one of our goals to "demystify the word." We want women to recognize that their goals are in line with feminism and "convince" women that feminism isn't scary, and explain how the reasons we find it threatening are related the same forces that keep women oppressed in the first place. But even with all that talk, I get confused as to why the word is important. And I need to bear in mind that we don't want to indoctrinate people or try and "convert" them to feminism; that wouldn't solve anything either.

It gets confusing! And it's easy to get lost in the rhetoric, and to get caught up in the controversies. That's why it was refreshing to see this analysis of the word, among other topics. At a recent PPNYC event, three awesome feminists had a panel-type discussion that touched on these exact issues.

I especially like Jessica Valenti's takedown (I tend to think that everything Jessica Valenti touches turns to gold)

Valenti said she embraced the word [feminism], and that there was no point in picking another, less loaded term because "I think any word you use to talk about women's rights is going to become a dirty word."

It's kind of sad to think about, but I think it's true. It can't be a coincidence that the word that many of the strongest, most empowered and autonomous women I know identify as is also a bad word. It keeps people from embracing those ideals, and that framing is what keeps women apart, keeps women pitted against each other.

To paraphrase Valenti, any word you use to talk about a woman's control over her own body is going to become, for some people, a dirty word.

I am still working this out, and trying to balance out my own beliefs about feminism with running a feminist magazine. And figuring out how to explain to people why feminism is amazing, and not something to be feared. And while I work all this out, I'm going to keep identifying as feminist, and hopefully changing peoples misconceptions about what that means. (h/t Hannah Warren, my amazing Medusa co-founder and editor-in-chief; I'll keep everyone posted when the first issue drops next semester!)

What is Sexually Explicit About this Photo?

Celebrating a woman’s body has always been a controversial thought. However, many would like to think that our world is becoming increasingly open to the human form in all of its glory, including a woman’s pregnant body. Unfortunately, the ever-evolving world of Facebook (most of whose users are of college age), does not agree.

Cary Curran, a member of a New York City based dance troupe, recently had her Facebook account deleted without her knowledge or consent by the administrators of the popular social networking site. This was due to the fact that Curran decided to upload a picture of her semi-nude pregnant body as her profile picture. Curran, who celebrates the often semi-naked body daily as part of her profession, saw nothing wrong with the picture that featured her in simply “gold pasties, a thong bikini bottom and a liberal sprinkling of gold body glitter”.

Facebook decided this picture constituted sexually explicit material, which is banned by Facebook user's Statements of Rights and Responsibilities. Though parts of Curran’s breasts are exposed in the picture, she is not fully nude. In addition to her not being fully nude in the picture, so again, the question can be posed, what is sexually explicit about her picture? Her genitalia is not exposed, and no sexual acts are being performed in the picture. Therefore, Facebook seems to be defining any form of nudity as sexually explicit, thereby further reinforcing our country’s outlook that the naked woman form is shameful and should not be exposed.

This makes me wonder if Facebook applies this view of nudity being sexually explicit material to other cultures where unlike America, nudity is embraced. Last semester as I traveled around Europe, I was time and time again exposed to nudity on numerous beaches from Spain to Italy. Women everywhere sunbathed topless and no one gave a second glance. As I pondered how everyone seemed to be so comfortable with their bodies, I realized the reason why I would never think about taking my top off was the fact that I was raised in a country where nudity and celebrating the woman’s body is looked down upon, and not talked about often. By deleting Curran’s account, Facebook is reinforcing this thought process. I would in fact like to see how European Facebook account holders would react to this profile picture of Curran. My bet is they would see nothing wrong with it, and in fact, it would not faze them in the slightest.

The fact of the matter is, we are all exposed to far more explicit material everyday on primetime television. Tune in at anytime to an episode of Grey’s Anatomy, and while body parts are not fully exposed, the actions they are portraying during sex scenes are far more sexually explicit than a picture of a semi-nude, pregnant, female body. Or, how about this weeks upcoming attraction for the latest Gossip Girl episode which apparently is featuring a threesome?! Sexually explicit material? Guess we will see.

All in all, if Facebook insists on counting Curran’s picture as sexually explicit material, they could have at least given her a warning so that she could take appropriate action such as removing the picture, instead of deleting her entire account. Really Facebook, do you know how much time it takes to accumulate all of those “friends” and upload all of those pictures? Work with us here.

Abstinence-Only MISeducation

I went to high school in diverse, liberal White Plains, New York. The health classes I had were more honest and less shameful than most of my friends went through. I remember my teacher putting a condom on my friend's head in 7th grade, to show how strong and durable they were (and to prove that nobody is "too big" for a normal sized condom, but that's another story). I learned all about birth control and contraception very early on, and although it wasn't always gay-friendly or perfect in all respects, I was happy with my sexual education, especially after it was supplemented by my openminded mother.

That is, until high school. Which is strange. We still had the openminded curriculum, the table full of different birth control methods (so many choices!), but we also had a textbook. A textbook from Texas. ok. And in the index, the word "condom" was not found.

I wrote an editorial for the my high school newspaper, The Orange, about how misleading this was. And how even though my teacher supplemented the curriculum with that table covered in birth control choices, it wasn't right to have that abstinence-only textbook. Not in my liberal school district. My editorial was met with scorn from the health department - my teacher cornered me in the hallway and reminded me about how well they taught birth control. And I reminded her that I really appreciated that - and that if we support teaching that, we shouldn't have been using a textbook that didn't uphold those beliefs. I'm still kind of impressed that my highschool-self had the foresight to feel so strongly about that. I wonder if they still use those textbooks.

Ok, what am I trying to say? I remember from that textbook, the chapter on STDs said, under the heading "how to avoid contracting an STD" something along the lines of "have a high self esteem! So you can't be coerced into having sex." There wasn't anything overt about shame, or about how sex is bad and dirty (not that I remember, anyway) - but even so, I couldn't take it.

Abstinence-only sex education is unacceptable. Not only does it not work (which ought to be enough, right?) but it instills shame and fear in everyone. And it's dangerous! Even if everyone listened and decided to be abstinent until marriage (63% of high school seniors have had sex), they wouldn't know how to use a condom when they got around to it. STDs and unplanned pregnancies don't just go away once you get married. IF you get married.

That's why we need REAL sex ed! This post over at RHrealitycheck details some of the more shameful tactics abstinence-only people are using, and explains how the industry is changing. As more people reject abstinence-only sex ed, the less government money goes toward it, the people proliferating it are going to have to change their tactics - and we need to watch out for that underlying shame!