Research!

http://www.feministing.com/archives/011792.html#more

Here's another article to investigate later about Anti-choice pharmacists, could be an interesting contrast to the need for Planned Parenthood express clinics in suburban areas, precisely where these pharmacists are refusing to prescribe or administer medications such as birth control and the morning after pill.

Final project beginnings!

to be investigated at a later date:
"Pro-lifers protest 'express' Planned Parenthood clinic in Woodbury: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20332

Can't wait to see what they have to say!

Old Gender Roles With Your Dinner?

Gee thanks, New York Times! This article, found on October 10th in the Dining & Wine section of a recent New York Times, covers the recent trends and practices of wait staff of upscale restaurants in New York who are suddenly grappling with dining room tables as gendered spaces. One server essentializes the idea that choosing to place a check in front of a man or consulting his opinion on wine before a woman is “chivalrous from one perspective, chauvinistic from another.”
A reasonable impression of navigating this conflict would be to, as one female restaurant owner put it, “read the table, and if it seems like they would appreciate ladies being served first, just do it.” The consensus among the servers interviewed seems to be that it’s not that easy. They are eager to hold on to stale notions such as that men tip more, order more and that “men eat and leave, women eat and stick around,” allowing lower table turnover and less profits. Pair these prejudices against women as low tippers and more needy diners and serve it up with some ageist presumptions, and you’ve got yourself fine dining! While not addressed in the article, the assumption that young diners will yield less profits because of their inability to order alcohol, their more limited budgets and the inherent stingy or individualist qualities of their youth, leads service to decline rapidly. I have spent many dinners out with a group of teenage girls, only to be simultaneously flirted with and condescended to by male waiters a few years older than ourselves. However, this article claims that younger generations are experiencing more equality because servers are now responding to the (previously unheard of) desire of women to be respected. Nowadays, “if she makes eye contact with a server and seems the most inquisitive and purposeful, the server notices, and responds to it” unlike years past when male waiters would ignore female attempts to achieve gender equality within even the small and seemingly insignificant space of a restaurant’s dining table. I was surprised that this was covered in such a detailed manner, enumerating the differences in male and female taste in decorating and even bathrooms, but even more surprising was the blatant heterosexuality that characterized the piece. Each generalization posed by this article accessed stereotypes of straight, white, upper-middle-class women and men who are of course the only people who eat at upscale restaurants. I wish that the Times had chosen to do a more challenging piece, maybe framing this article from the perspective of young women who are shocked that equal service is NOT the norm, or including multiple perspectives of gender and sexuality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/dining/08gend.html?pagewanted=1&8dpc&

I found free access to Wall Street!

Sort of. I found a blog that addresses the article I mentioned in my last post, regarding whether or not Planned Parenthood's new, suburban "express clinics" are cause for alarm for the vast majority of its clients who live in urban areas and are uninsured or have limited insurance. According to the Wall Street Journal Health Blog, "Planned Parenthood insists it’s not compromising is long-held focus on serving the poor with birth control, sexual-health care and abortions. Officials there say they take a loss of nearly $1 on each packet of birth-control pills distributed to poor women under a federal program that funds reproductive care. But they make a profit of nearly $22 on each month of pills sold to an adult who can afford to pay full price. That money helps subsidize other operations, including care for the poor as well as pursuing Planned Parenthood’s political agenda."

Sorry for the long quote, but it's important. It seems, to a person with no background in and limited understanding of Economics,
that encouraging the sector of adults who CAN pay for birth control and who provide this $22 profit margin should be encouraged, with additional clinic access, to do so. Also it seems it would benefit PP to support a shift in the awareness of their image to include the vast majority of their services which provide unwanted pregnancy PREVENTION instead of termination. Abortion services represent a measly 2% of their total provided services. If the demand is in the upscale shopping malls, and this demand allows for more substantial and reliable funding of other important programs such as their political action and their services to college students or women without health insurance, more power to Sarah Stoesz (PP MN, ND, SD CEO woah that's a lot of acronyms) for making a smart decision. Can't wait to talk to my contacts on the Planned Parenthood Board of Directors about how this press and the changes to their budget have been playing out there. These "Express Clinics" have been in the works for YEARS and I'm anxious to see whether or not they are successful.

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/06/23/planned-parenthood-goes-upscale/

Why, Michelle Bachmann, why!?

In July of 2008, RepresentativeMichele Bachmann, in her attempt to convince Congress to revoke Planned Parenthood's tax exempt status and federal funding, actually called Planned Parenthood "the Wal-Mart of big abortion. They’re the big box retailer It is time to end their tax-exempt status. It’s a fraud." This comment, and her audacity to stand up in front of Congress in a "special issue address" to say so are prime examples of why I am so incredibly happy about her huge media blunder lately.

I was happy to see Tim Stanley's (executive director of Planned Parenthood MN, ND, SD) response to Rep. Bachmann's ridiculous and unfounded comments: "Planned Parenthood does more in one day to prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion than politicians like Michele Bachmann do in a lifetime." Yay Tim! He goes on to address the amount of low-income customers the Planned Parenthood served in 07-08, which was 76% of the 65,000 people served in 07-08. This is an interesting juxtaposition to the reason WHY Rep. Bachmann is now calling attention to Planned Parenthood's funding in MN- the fact that they have begun diverting funds to build small clinics in suburban and affluent areas which will provide access to birth control and STI or pregnancy testing. Rep. Bachmann seemed to be confused by this as well, as she noted that the public funding of these clinics will actually be "asking God-fearing Americans to subsidize this brutal and bloody procedure on a regular business in upscale shopping malls all across the United States." I guess if an abortion clinic were in a low-income neighborhood, federally funded so that it could actually help people without insurance, it would be okay with her. I'd love to see the day that Michele Bachmann heads into Minneapolis with a group of protesters to prevent our neighborhoods from being spoiled by "bloody procedures," instead of her district. I'm looking forward to investigating what PP's reallocation of funds towards these suburban clinics will do to the 76% of their clientele who presumably do not live near these "upscale shopping malls."

http://minnesotaindependent.com/4464/bachmann-calls-to-defund-planned-parenthood

Note To Self: Find this Wall Street Journal article somewhere where I DON'T have to pay to read it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121417762585295459.html

Manic Pixie Dream Girls, what?

Behold, the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, described by Onion writer Nathan Rabin as "bubbly, shallow cinematic creatures that exist solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures." These female characters often have little to no back-story, personal motivations or desires, or a life outside of the context and scenes of the movie's plot . Instead they magically appear as a benevolent force of chaos and change that is centered around a mopey, uptight and often confused young man to give them sage advice and direction. Think of the recent examples of Natalie Portman in Garden State, Rachel Bilson in The Last Kiss, Charlize Theron in Sweet November, and especially Kirsten Dunst in Elizabethtown. These women exist in twisted versions of chick flicks, full of giggles and male fantasies. Instead of solely promoting the heteronormative ideal of happiness tied to a successful romantic relationship with an attractive man, they "don't live lives or have careers, they exist to help the protagonist without inner conflicts." (According to Rabin). This character trope takes it one step further and promotes a male fantasy of how women should act.

So at first I started to be offended by this NPR article about a trope of female film characters because of the trope itself. But then I had the misfortune of listening to the broadcasted interview and watching an accompanying video report by two NPR reporter, Neda Ulaby and Bob Mondello. Neda wraps up her interview with Nathan Rabin neatly by concluding that despite their unrealistic and shallow nature, these characters are simply, "amusing muses," a vapid and uncritical response to the potential effects and damages the permeation of these female characters, which are described as present in multiple movies of every decade and go back as far as Katherine Hepburn's character in Bringing Up Baby in 1938, could have on young women taking social and behavioral cues from these extremely popular movies. Later in the video clip she and Bob are in together (also included in this link) she demurely agrees with Bob's one-dimensional critique of these women as "enjoyable, but not real people," as she and Bob list their FAVORITE MPDGs based on how fun they are! I was shocked at how reserved Neda's critique was.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95507953

HOWEVER this article does link to the Onion's A.V. club list of the top 16 MPDGs, which is slightly more satisfying. They take the time to enumerate the scope of this archetypal character across many decades, and make snarky analytical comments about how each characters falls flat of redeemable action or characterization. The Onion also fails to mention what effects these actresses' choices and the (predominantly male) writers' lines and back-story given to them will have. When young girls and women are not encouraged or don't take the time to assess the presentation of these characters, all that is left is the false importance of being giggly, avoiding being "heavy" or a downer, and selflessly giving to the point of being consumed by the desire to make (attractive and lonely) men feel good and have more fun.

http://www.avclub.com/content/feature/wild_things_16_films_featuring