October | 2015 | daily* feminist rant

October 23, 2015

the one about the new $10 bill

So, I got into an argument with a close friend the other day about the $10 bill. Yes, this is my life. We were riding back from another friend’s engagement party, and somewhere amongst the discussion of weddings and babies (my friends are about to become parents) the subject of the new $10 came up. For those of you who are not familiar with this topic, the US Treasury Department has officially announced that a woman will grace the new $10 bill to be released in 2020.

This has obviously sparked hot debate across the internet, with people coming down on all sides (and there are more than 2, I promise) of the argument. Some people are stoked that a lady is finally getting some representation on printed money in America. Others are pissed that the male-dominated realm is being breached by one of the “fairer sex”, and still others are mad about both the fact that a woman is being featured on the $10, and that a woman is not being featured on the $20. Okay, stay with me folks, this might make sense at some point.

First of all, let me tell you about the argument that I got into. My friend, who does not consider himself to be a feminist (I could hear the “” in his voice whenever he said the word feminist) doesn’t understand why people aren’t just happy enough with the situation as it is. A women is being featured on the new $10, isn’t that great? Now be happy already! And I guess, if I squint, I can see his point. We’ve come so far and made so much progress, do we really need to argue about whether a women is on the $10 or the $20, when it’s probably that paper money is on its way out anyway?

My answer is emphatically, YES. Putting aside the fact that Andrew Jackson (the dude on the $20) is a well-known bigot and doesn’t deserve to be represented on our money, there are other reasons that women should be on the $20 rather than the $10. My friend kept asking why a woman has to be represented on the most used US bill (he was wrong, by the way. The most used US bill is the $1, followed closely and inexplicably by the $100), can’t we just be happy enough with the gains we’ve already made and settle for the $10.

I was reminded of The Notorious RBG’s quote about women on the Supreme Court. When asked when there will be enough women on the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg responds “when there are nine”. Her reasoning? We’ve had 9 men since the court was founded, and no one’s ever complained about an over-representation of men. I feel the same way about paper money. Yes, there should be a woman on the $10, and on the $20, and the $1, and the $50 and so on. And no, I do not think that putting a woman on every single denomination would be “overkill”.

Right now the ratio of men to women on paper money (in the US) is 100:0. Most people agree that there should be a higher representation of women, up to 50%. But in order to adjust that ratio up to 50% for women, men’s representation has to come down 50%. This is a thought that doesn’t sit well with a lot of folks. Even though people do understand how math works, they still have it in their heads somehow that the representation of women on money should go up, but the number of men on paper bills should stay the same. When you say it out loud it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense, but you can’t help how people feel. And in my experience, people tend to get upset and defensive when you tell them that their feelings don’t make sense.

Finally, my friend conceded that what he is most upset about, is the fact that people don’t understand that the $10 is up for a re-design, and the $20 is not. This is a fair point, and one that should be considered when people say “why not the $20?”, but still it would be nice to have a woman on the $20 when its time comes.

*Yes, I know that I’m referring to a nonexistent gender binary here. And I know that since we have a multitude of trans* and gender nonconforming folks doing awesome things now, someday in the not-so-distant future they’ll be on money too (or BitCoin, or whatever exists at the time). But this rant’s about ladies on money, so bear with me, okay?

October 12, 2015

the one about my uterus – because apparently we need to have this conversation

So apparently, we need to have a conversation about my uterus.

Yesterday my husband and I got a surprise visit from an old friend of my mother’s. This is one of the things I love about living in my neighborhood. People just stop by, anytime and visit. It’s nice, and normally, I really love it. Yesterday’s visit however, left me pretty pissed off. Why? Because my mom’s old friend somehow thought it was appropriate to ask about the state of my uterus during her unannounced visit; catching me off-guard and in my PJs. Specifically, the questions was: “So, when are you going to be adding to your family?” My response that we’re probably getting a puppy at some point was apparently, not satisfactory.

I don’t even know where to start talking about how angry this made me, or how completely inappropriate it is. Let me just state this before I get too far into my rant: It is NEVER ok to ask someone when they’re going to have kids! Seriously! It might seem like a really innocent question, and I’m sure that you mean well, but just seriously, don’t. Why? Because you don’t know what’s going on in someone’s life, and you don’t know how your innocent inquiry might make them uncomfortable, or angry, or depressed. Don’t believe me? Here’s some examples of why this is a spectacularly BAD question to ask:

Maybe someone is struggling with infertility, and doesn’t want to be reminded of the fact that they might not be able to have biological children. Asking: “So, when are you guys going to make me a grandmother?” can be extremely insensitive in this case, and can make the person you’re talking to feel depressed. I’m sure this isn’t the emotion you wanted to invoke, so just, don’t ask.
The person you’re talking to might not be in an emotional or financial position to have children, and might feel really insecure or embarrassed about it. Asking: “But your sister had kids when she was your age, don’t you want any?” can make the person feel very uncomfortable and embarrassed. Is this really what you wanted to accomplish? No? Then don’t ask!
Maybe the couple you’re interrogating doesn’t want children! This is perfectly valid, and none of your business! You might think that just gently reminding them of how wonderful and fulfilling children are will change their minds! But no… It won’t. It will probably just make them angry at you for trying to tell them what to do. Oh, you don’t want them to be mad at you? Then don’t ask if they’re having kids, and for God’s sake, DON’T TELL THEM WHAT TO DO!

I know I’m yelling, but I’m pissed. My husband and I fall under the category of “don’t want kids”, and I’m sick to death of having to defend this decision to people. Family, friends, coworkers, strangers! If you’re a cis-female married to a cis-male like I am, the minute you sign that marriage license, it’s open season for everyone in sight to inquire after your uterus and its occupation status. I know this has been written about before, and women being asked rude, personal an invasive questions is nothing new. But it needs to stop!

My decision to reproduce is mine and mine alone. I know that you mean well, and that you just want me to have the same fulfillment in my life that you found in yours, but stop asking me when I’m going to squeeze out a child for your amusement! And please, please, please, please, please don’t argue with me when I remind you that I have no interest in having kids. If you are insisting on asking me such a rude and invasive question, the least you can do is respect my answer, even if it’s not what you want to hear.

October 2, 2015

the one about “Pinktober”

It’s the beginning of October, which means it’s time for fall fashions, pumpkin-spice everything, and buying lots and lots of pink crap in the name of breast cancer research. For those of you who don’t know, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. What does this mean, exactly? Well, according to the National Breast Cancer Foundation it’s “an annual campaign to increase awareness of the disease” Because, apparently, people aren’t aware of breast cancer? But that’s a rant for another time. Today, I want to talk specifically about the prevalence of pink merchandise that consumers are encouraged to purchase year-round (but especially during the month of October) to support breast cancer awareness and supposedly to raise funds for research into a cure.

Now, before I get too far into this, I just want to take a moment to tell you about my family’s experience with breast cancer. Both my mother and my aunt are survivors (18 years and 6 years, approximately), and many of my family members have suffered and died from other forms of cancer. So obviously, I want to find a cure for breast cancer (and every type of cancer!). I don’t think anyone out there is seriously pro-cancer, and just because I don’t support Komen, doesn’t mean that I don’t support finding a cure. But more on that in a bit.

So wait, what does Komen have to do with October? Why pink? These are good questions, and ones that I don’t necessarily have answers to. I just know that every October Komen, and other organizations push special pink merchandise (everything from kitchen accessories to drill bits) to raise awareness and funds for breast cancer research. So why exactly is this problematic? A couple of reasons.

First of all, Susan G. Komen’s mission statement is “to save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering others, ensuring quality care for all and energizing science to find the cures.” This is obviously admirable, but the problem is… that they don’t always follow through.

In 2012, Komen cut off their funding for Planned Parenthood, citing a newly created rule which prevented them from providing funds to any organization under congressional investigation. Just a reminder, this particular investigation sought to discover whether Planned Parenthood was using federal funds for abortions, an issue that is long-standing, well known and ongoing. This was not exactly a criminal investigation, and after 4 days of public outrage, Komen amended its rule to allow them to continue funding Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides over 1.4 million cancer screenings per year.

You’d think that an organization that is all about ending breast cancer would naturally want to support another organization that is about providing cancer screenings. But I guess its not that simple. Now is this really as malicious as it seems? Maybe. Because, technically, Komen did have that rule. And, technically, Planned Parenthood was under investigation.

But… Let’s look at another example.

Ever heard of a perfume called Promise Me? It was a pink perfume produced by the Susan G. Komen foundation back in 2011.It was named for a promise made to the original Susan Komen by her sister Nancy Brinker. About 2.5% of the perfume’s $59 price tag actually went toward research (according to PRWatch.org), which isn’t great, but it’s not awful either. So, what’s the problem here? Well… Promise Me contained at least one chemical that was known to be toxic. Oops. Toluene, while found in many fragrances and perfumes, is known to be toxic, and is monitored by the EPA as a potential environmental hazard. There’s been a lot of back and forth about toluene and other chemicals and their addition in consumer products such as Promise Me. It is known to be toxic in large amounts, and can have adverse effects on developing fetuses.

However, there is no good data about long-term effects of minimal exposure (such as from perfume), so there is no warning against it on the bottle, and no real regulation as to its use in consumer products. Because of this, a lot of companies (including TPR Holdings, manufacturers of Promise Me) add it to their products. But is it really too much to ask of Komen to be better than this? If there is any chance that a chemical can be harmful to women, maybe… just maybe, it shouldn’t be added to products that are being marketed to women to support cancer research. Just saying. At least Komen pulled the product when it found out, right? Uh, no. They cut ties with TPR Holdings, and stopped producing more perfume, but they didn’t pull bottles already on store shelves. And 4 years later, you can still get Promise Me on eBay.

Okay, so they aren’t big on Planned Parenthood, and maybe they made a perfume that had some not-so-good chemicals in it. That’s not so bad. Lots of companies make little mistakes like these. Why should Komen take so much crap?

Well, let’s look at yet another example…

What’s the absolute last thing you would expect to see in pink. If you answered “drill bits for fracking”, I would have to agree with you. Yet in late 2014 Komen partnered with Baker Hughes to produce just that, collecting $100,000 in donations for their trouble. Let’s set aside the hypocrisy of Komen taking donations from a company that in 2007 pled guilty to corruption charges, and focus on the hypocrisy inherent in supporting an industry that at best might not have too much of a negative impact on the environment.

Hydraulic fracking is a controversial topic, and with good reason. While it provides us with much needed fossil fuel (at least until we can actually commit to using cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy), there are potential dangers. While this particular issue continues to be studies, the United States Geological Survey has already admitted that fracking can cause earthquakes. There is also concern that chemicals released by the injection of large amounts of water into the ground could potentially be carcinogenic (ie. cause cancer). Even if this is found in the long-run not to be true (although there are already studies that suggest it is true), why would Komen want to take that chance? Remember, their mission statement says that they want to “end breast cancer.”

Why would Komen want to be involved with an industry that is so potentially dangerous? Well, the $100K donation probably didn’t hurt. Which leads to another question: Do I really want to support an organization that puts money before my health? I guess that there are a lot of different factors here, including a balance of donations in versus research out. And those donations have to come from somewhere. But time after time we’re seeing Komen partnering with organizations that just don’t quite seem to mash with their mission statement.

Like… the NFL.

One of the biggest partners of “Pinktober” is the National Football League. Every year NFL teams wear pink helmets and have their players give speeches about how much they love their mothers and sisters and wives, and how badly they want to end breast cancer. And this in and of itself is not a bad thing. I 100% believe that we need more (cis)men involved in women’s health issues. We need to destigmatize “women’s problems” and bring the conversation about breast health to a national audience. In this, the NFL might actually be doing some good.

When it comes to raising dollars though… Only a small percentage of the money raised from the sale of pink NFL merchandise actually goes to cancer research. According to Business Insider, it’s about 90% of 25%. Now, I’m admittedly not great at math, and percentages tend to throw me off, but even I know that’s not a lot. It’s about $22.50 for every $100 spent on pink NFL merch. Now, this probably isn’t really anyone’s fault, per say. There are a lot of dollars that go into manufacturing pink… stuff, and people need to get paid. It’s okay, I understand. It doesn’t even bother me that much. So why did I even bring it up? To mention that while Komen is busy partnering with the NFL to support women’s health, the NFL is busy covering up violence and aggressive acts committed against women by their very own players.

If I had to sit down and write about every single act of domestic violence that was covered up, hushed over or just plain dismissed by the NFL, I would be here all day, and I would be very depressed. It’s no secret that the NFL covers up allegations and accusations of domestic abuse against their players, and a quick Google search will give you plenty of names. Most people know and acknowledge that there is a huge problem with violence in general, and domestic violence in particular among NFL players, and that sweeping changes are needed in the league. So… why is Komen working with so many teams?

If you take a look at any one of these issues, it doesn’t really look so bad for Komen. But when taken all together… Well, I personally can’t stomach the thought of supporting an organization that has so many problematic products and partners. While I agree that breast cancer is a terrible disease that takes too many loved ones away from us much too soon, I also don’t support fracking or domestic violence. How can I in good conscience buy products from or donate to Komen? Well, I can’t. And I don’t. I don’t wear pink in october, I don’t put ribbons on my clothing or on my car. I don’t buy pink pens and drill bits and hammers and tupperware and kitchen stuff, and who knows what else. I don’t support pinkwashing (the practice of selling pink crap to make it look like you support women’s health when really you couldn’t give a … about women’s health issues). I don’t support Komen. And while I don’t want to tell anyone else what to do, I would strongly suggest thinking twice before buying that pink bucket of KFC. Really.

Sources: