Obama's First 100 Days: A Women's Health Perspective

President Obama ran a presidential campaign that was unlike any other seen in history. He entered the race as an underdog for his own party’s nomination yet easily emerged victorious over his Republican adversary just over a year later. What made Obama unique was the true integrity of his character. Perhaps being so young compared to fellow politicians meant that Obama hadn’t (yet) been so sucked into political games as to lose sight of the passion for change that brings one into the playing field in the first place. During his campaign, he carried himself with poise and charisma that others could only dream of in politicians, and yet was awfully humble throughout.

As any politician would in his position, Obama made a lot of promises. His biggest asset was the foundation of his promises- change. Coming from 8 years of a President who made less than popular choices, Americans were very ready to forget the past and fix the present- and Obama knew this sentiment well.

Well the election was long awaited and now over in an instant. Obama has taken on the task of getting our country back on the right track at a time when everything that could go wrong seems to be doing just that. So what now? Now it is our job as American citizens to treat this idealized presidential candidate as we would treat any other elected official in a high office- we must hold him to come through on all that he promised. It has now been 100 days of his administration, and though it is still extremely early to evaluate the integrity and effects of his a , we can better judge his character in a post-election atmosphere where straying from his campaign promises wouldn’t be surprising. Below, I have attached comments to two blog posts that comment on Barack Obama's record. The first appears in the blog Our Bodies Our Blog, and the second in the Reproductive Health Realithy Check Blog. It’s time to take a look at Obama’s actions so far as they affect women and women’s health.

And On Day 101 … A Look Back at Obama’s First 100 Days in Office

Comment

I like how you brought together different perspectives on different issues affecting women. For the most part, what I gather from the comments from different experts in their respective fields is that Obama hasn’t really pulled through as we had hoped. Perhaps this is an unfair judgment. When has any politician been able to produce real change in a matter of months, especially with a financial debacle as dire as the current one? All the people quoted in your post overall conclude that besides the positions in his cabinet that are being filled by women, they are not satisfied with what Obama has accomplished so far.

I believe the idea of even judging Obama’s 100 days is a tacky move by the media. We are the ones who elected this guy on the basis of his eloquent words and inspiring visions for our country. Why aren’t we giving him just a short period of time to gather himself before judging his every move? Maybe we just got too used to scrutinizing the man in the Oval Office for 8 years, and rightly so. But if we’re expecting Obama to pull off miracles in all aspects of our country that seem to be failing, we must also allot him some time to do so. Yes, we have a right to expect Obama to follow through on his promises of change, and we should believe that after a long period of poor choices, someone in charge finally has their head in the right place. This should be more than enough just in itself to keep us satisfied. By watching him so closely for these 100 days, we have reassured ourselves that he is not the kind of man to turn on his words or change his character once he achieved his goal of reaching the office. But as we scrutinize his policies of this 100 days, we should have no problem being lenient enough and comfortable enough to have faith in the person we put there. Such is the strength of a democracy. It’s about time we restore our faith in it.

The Prevention President: A Report Card

Comment

First of all, I appreciate your easy-to-follow breakdown of the most important women’s health issues. Grading is always easier when you know where to look for what.

As you so clearly point out, in lifting the Global Gag Rule, Obama has made a statement not towards the issue of abortion, but instead towards the respect he has for global policies and recognizing the effect the US has on international issues.

In what you call the first lover’s quarrel, it is indeed important that Obama kept his cool in the face of real opposition. He chose not to pick a fight, so to speak, and yet managed not to displease anyone too much. Ah, there’s that composure we have grown so fond of.

You also point out that two positions with the power to carry women’s health issues far have both been filled by women- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. And in reopening the review of the Plan B contraceptive, Obama has shown wisdom in at least acknowledging the spike in abortion and teen pregnancy that you mention has been the case since the Bush administration.

I like that contraception takes a string and ties all the issues you mentioned together. This is obviously a main goal when it comes to health issues, and goes beyond just the hot button issue of abortion. The availability of and policies surrounding contraception plays just as big a role as abortion, and yet it provides a middle ground for opposing beliefs.

In all these situations, it becomes clear that in his first 100 days, Obama has pretty much played it as safe as possible. He clearly understands the volatility of the many realms of policy in question right now, and he knows how keenly the public is watching. He will not succumb to pressure, and he will not be an instant crowd pleaser. Obama will continue his next 100 days, and the 100 after that too probably, with the same poise and humility we saw in the campaign he ran. He will acknowledge the opposition that has temporarily given him a vote of confidence, and he will hold on to the support of the Americans that have pinned all their hopes and dreams on his magical powers. Here’s to watching the next 100 days, and hoping the pressure doesn’t push Obama to some sort of edge- he is after all ‘just human.’

Botox: Toxin or Aesthetic Serum?

A New York Times article reports that last week, the FDA has issued “a so-called black-box warning” be added to the label of Botox and similar drugs. Contrary to what you may think, it is not to warn people that a toxin is being injected into their body. (Come on, that’s just common knowledge!) The warning is to warn patients that “the material has the potential to spread from the injection site to distant parts of the body” potentially causing serious complications. So who knew things injected into our body could travel? Some IV drug user broke the code of honor by revealing this secret to the rest of the world!

The FDA is proud to call the black-box warning its strongest safety actions, and the articles compares this warning on Botox to a similar warning on antidepressants. How is there even a comparison? There certainly is a difference between affecting brain chemistry with the risk of suicidal thoughts, and the possibility of a paralyzing toxin we voluntarily inject, traveling through our body.

The article also states that “the F.D.A. said it would also require makers of injectable toxins to send doctors letters warning of their risks and to produce a medication guide to be given to patients at the time of injection.” So what was done before? Were patients ever really fully informed of what was being put in their body?

When Botox first came out, it spread like wildfire. The idea that there was an immediate remedy to look younger for a period of time was something no woman with money could ever pass up. As the article states, botox contains “injectable botulinum toxins [that] are purified forms of the bacterial poison botulism, a paralyzing disease that can be fatal.” Does the idea of paralyzing ourselves on purpose not alarm the patients who show interest in this drug and even get it injected on a regular basis? There was a time when medicine was about treating diseases, not only to save lives but also improve the quality of life for patients. The fact that we use the same diseases we once struggled to cure to now benefit our cosmetic effects shows how much focus has shifted to pure physicality in our society.

What is it about our society that convinces women that agelessness is beautiful? It should be enough that medicine has give us the opportunity to live a lot longer than our predecessors. Who do women really fool by getting rid of frown lines and wrinkles? It could be that media tells us that young women can get away with a lot more than older women. Movies such as Miss Congeniality show that good looks can be used as means to an end, and women who look ‘sexy’ can be just as, if not more, accomplished and successful. It could also be that all society portrays old people as senile with impaired judgment and poor motor and driving skills. But what we seem to have forgotten is that aging is a natural process. We are actually lucky enough to have life expectancies that allow us to even worry about grey hair and wrinkles. As for the behavior of old people, it is indeed just that. No specific age or number of wrinkles can control the way someone acts. For all its worth someone can be senile and drive slow at any age.

So what is the infatuation that enabled Botox to earn about $1.3 billion just last year alone? As the article states, up until very recently, Botox had no actual competitor, at least in this country. Since its introduction, Botox prices have continued to rise annually due to this reason.

The only products that can try to compete with Botox-like drugs are cosmetics and creams that say they offer the same ageless effects without ‘harmful’ injections. Just seeing a magazine or television ad for some of these products can help us begin to understand just how this facet of the industry works.

One such company, Nivea, claims that it’s age defying moisturizer can mean “the difference between high collars and plunging necklines” and has a slogan that dares women to “touch and be touched.” Sexuality sells in our society, above any other advertising mechanism. The thought of a woman being untouchable if she doesn’t look young enough sends a very mixed message to young women. On one hand, romance is exemplified, and many girls believe in fairytale, happy-ending love. Yet, our media tells young women that lust overpowers love, and does so in the long-term as well.

The stress on young women to stay ‘young and beautiful’ doesn’t just end with cosmetics and anti-aging drugs like Botox. In a society where obesity is a growing epidemic, especially among the young, there is a lot of pressure on girls to maintain a likeable, ‘sexy’ physique, as I discussed in a previous entry. From Disney movies to magazines like Playboy, the female body is worshipped, idealized, and even romanticized. From their childhood, girls are told they are unique like princesses, and they are taught that the world will treat them as such. But no princess or Playboy playmate has wrinkles, no matter what age they are. Women are constantly expected to live up to an unrealistic standard of looks and to maintain that for a large portion, if not all, of their lives.

Only by changing our emphasis on lust and sexuality will we be able to teach the upcoming generations of women that beauty truly does lie within the very wrinkle lines that make them who they are. The generations before us understood this- it’s not like older women weren’t loved or touched because there was no such thing as Botox in the 60’s. We can blame the media for their unhealthy portrayals of everything from love to lust, from a woman’s body to a man’s pursuit of it. It is important, however, to realize that the media only glorifies beliefs that society at large accepts as part of its norms. If we start believing in ageless beauty once again, we would realize the ramifications of paying thousands of dollars to get paralyzing disease injected into our bodies voluntarily.

Birth Control: Gone too far?

The New York Times published an article that discussed the most recent advances in birth control. With so many pills, rings, skin patches, etc. available, we should be seeing a trend in higher usage of birth control. In fact, the article states that the higher number of birth control options actually hasn’t made much of a difference yet.

Instead, the article leads to a very interesting question: has the idea of contraception gone too far? The article discusses Plan B, a pill that can “prevent conception if taken within three days of unprotected intercourse.” Even though it has no other medical benefits, Plan B is widely popular. This shows that people are getting more ways to hit the ‘undo’ button in real life. What does this say about how our society has evolved? Sex used to be a beautiful event, meant to bring two people closer than anything or anyone else, and create a brand new life out of that intimacy. Sex has not only become the butt of a world of jokes and romantic drama in movies and television, it is now just one more thing in our lives that can happen as a ‘mistake’ on a whim of a bad night- something we want to erase, like a hangover that reminds us of our loss of control the previous night.

Media such as movies, music, and television have become much more explicit, with language and behavior that is more tolerant and lenient towards sex. It has actually portrayed two main ways of looking at sex. Movies such as the 40-year-old Virgin glorify it, setting sex as the ultimate goal, and then idealizing the person who ‘completes the task’ to be much cooler than they had previously been. Other movies such as Knocked Up, show that it is okay to have one night stands, and romanticize the story thereafter. In both portrayals, the media is showing young people that sex makes them mature, has no repercussions or strings attached, and may even play into their fantasy of a fairytale love story.

For women, the danger of the media is far more severe. When it comes to birth control, the initial goal was an increase in planned pregnancies. The article states that “almost half the pregnancies in this country are unintended, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” So we know the initial goal may not be fully accomplished. What is happening then? It seems that women are having a tough time using birth control consistently and correctly.

To solve this problem, the media is encouraging all women (including those who may not even need birth control in the first place) to take it anyways. As the article states, “ads for pills like Yaz cite beautiful skin and relief from premenstrual bloating and mood swings.” Who wouldn’t want to get rid of all the ups and downs of premenstrual energy, even if they may not be sexually active?

The most dangerous in fact are birth control pills in which the woman only menstruates three or four times a year, or not even at all. Does this become another thing to just undo? No woman would choose to menstruate if given that choice, with no side effects. The article states that out of the 28 day pack, 7 are placebo, to allow for menstruation. However, “many women have been controlling their periods for years by skipping the placebos in their packs and taking the real pills continuously.” Not only is there inherent risk of breakthrough bleeding (I thought the whole point of a cycle was to know when to expect it) and the need to take pregnancy tests as a ritual because skipping a period is now not an anomaly. What’s more astounding is that the long term effects of these phenomena are unknown, and the immediate risks such as STDs do not go away. So how is it that society has completely romanticized the idea of birth control for us?

Beyond birth control, the role of medicine in childbearing is astonishing. Fertility treatments were first created with the hope of helping women who were ready to have children, but whose bodies had in some way ‘malfunctioned’. And it still does this today, giving hope and opportunity to those who are ready for and understand the blessing of having a child. Yet it has now become a common thing to hear a woman have a number of children at once, from triplets to septuplets.

As if this was not enough, our technologies continued to develop, soon allowing fertility treatments not only orally but in vitro as well. Hello, Octo-mom. The fact that one woman could have eight babies at once unnaturally says something about how far the idea of controlling childbearing has gone. It was quite common to hear of adoption in this county being a slow process, and even the most qualified parents having to wait years to be approved and be able to provide a child with a safe home. So how is it that people like Nadya Suleman could bypass a system that was so strict about the parents being stable and ready for a child and have multiple children unnaturally, not only once but twice, without a stable income or spouse to share it with?

All in all society tells us that casual sex is okay, that we can’t conceive by accident, but if we do, a pill can take care of that within three days, or we can just conceive artificially women shouldn’t menstruate every month. These messages for young people growing up fundamentally change how our society comes together and reproduces.

Advances in technology have given us the power to make choices that have always been strictly biological phenomena. Are we playing with fire by controlling our bodies in ways they weren’t meant to be controlled? It seems the once sci-fi like discussions of parents being able to choose the physical traits, like eye and hair color, of their children is really not that farfetched any more. The field of medicine thrives in its efforts to save lives, and change them for the better when certain situations arise. But is it correct for medicine to step into fixing things that aren’t broken? Where is the line drawn?

Female Condom: Equality in Safe Sex Practices

With HIV/AIDS running rampant throughout developing countries, there is a definite need to promote safe sex practices through education. However, campaigns to promote safe sex practices have often advocated the use of condoms to prevent the spread of STDs, overlooking the fact that many women are still very vulnerable. Condom use, though effective in preventing STDs, is highly stigmatized in many parts of the world. Many men refuse to carry or use condoms because it makes them less “manly.” In addition, it is ultimately up to the man to actually wear a condom. Thus, the sexual health of women is dependent on the man's willingness to use a condom, leaving them with few options to ensure that they remain safe. Women could refuse to have intercourse, but this often leads to other negative repercussions. A solution to this problem is the use of the female condom. The female condom is a prophylactic device that is worn by the female that is effective in preventing the spread of STDs (see figure right). The use of the female condom could empower women to take charge of their sexual health, especially when they cannot negotiate condom use from their male partner. It places the power of STD prevention in their own hands. This week, I looked to the blogosphere and commented on two recent posts about the promotion of female condom use and safer sex practices . The first is a post is by Kimberly Whipkey entitled Female and Male Condom Use: Whose Responsibility? In this post, Whipkey describes how both female and male condom use could be increased by proper education and advocates for greater access to these devices. The second post is by Kathleen Reeves and is titled Can Passion Have a Place in Safe Sex? In this post Reeves discusses how safer sex practices, including the use of female condoms, could be promoted by emphasizing their more pleasurable qualities. I have linked to the original posts and have pasted them below for your convenience.

Female and Male Condoms: Whose Responsibility?
Comment

I very much appreciate your discussion on the dynamic between men and women and the use of female and male condoms. I agree with you on the point that women play an important role in male condom use and vice versa. However, I do feel that this may not be the case in all parts of the world. Thus, having a tool such as the female condom is very important in that it empowers women to be responsible for their own sexual health. In fact, it is the only tool that can be used by women to prevent HIV infection and pregnancy. You mention that “comprehensive sexual education” is important so that “social, environmental, and personal factors are taken into account.” I feel that this is especially pertinent when advocating the use of female condoms. The process of negotiation to use protection is affected by factors such as cultural values, personal values, and degree of sexual education. These factors most definitely come into play when it is the female that ultimately makes the decision to use the prophylactic, as in the case of female condoms. In many cultures, sexuality is still a taboo among females. In addition, established gender roles may make it difficult for women to push for the use of prophylactics. Programs that break through these cultural and societal values are very important so that proper negotiation for the use condoms can take place. The push for female condoms also changes the dynamic of the negotiations, for it is no longer the male that has to be “convinced” so to speak. Comprehensive sexual education, along with the advancement of female condoms can truly change the gender dynamic of prophylactic use, especially in developing countries.

I was wondering whether you feel that the female condom can actually become as widely used as the male condom? To date, there is really just one major company making this type of contraceptive, and the FDA has only recently approved the second generation of female condom. I feel that there is still quite a long way to go before the female condom becomes as ubiquitous as the male condom (see image left).

Can Passion have a place in Safe Sex?
Comment

You bring up a very interesting point about how the use of condoms can be increased by employing positive messages of pleasure rather than negative messages of disease. It is rare to see the condom portrayed as a positive tool, bringing more pleasure than a nuisance, needed to prevent unfavorable consequences of intercourse, such as STD infection and pregnancy. However, it makes sense that positive messages of condoms have a greater effect than messages that scare people into using them. This is especially true of populations, such as those in monogamous relationships, that believe they are not susceptible to STD infection. Presenting condoms as enhancing the pleasurable experience makes it “applicable to everyone.” I was especially intrigued by the notion that the femal condom can be viewed as an “erotic accesory.” It is a brilliant marketing strategy that should be employed to a greater extent in places where condom use is still stigmatized.

I am curious to know your opinion on how these messages of condoms as objects of pleasure affect promiscuity. One of the major criticisms of safe sex education is that it places less emphasis on abstinence, and instead promotes the notion that sex can be had without consequences. In fact, even the Pope has refused to advocate the use of condoms, even though they are used to prevent STDs. Do you think that promoting safe sex as pleasurable gives a free pass to people to have more sexual partners or have sexual relations at an earlier age? Thus, it seems that this kind of strategy is a two-edged sword. On one hand, it does promote greater use of condoms, especially for people that are in relationships. On the other hand, it could send a message that downplays the emotion behind sexual acts. I think programs that advocate the use of condoms, especially ones that portray them as increasing sexual pleasure, ought to also educate people on the emotional aspects of sex and the benefits of abstinence. With that said, it is quite impressive that these programs have been able to present condoms in a more favorable light and increase their usage.

Woman or State: Who Should Control Pregnancy?

In a world with both in vitro fertilization and abortion, women can become a mother to octuplets, or forego pregnancy all together. These procedures are very controversial on ethical grounds and spark much debate. Pro-choice advocates say that women should have the right to dictate the nature and outcome of their pregnancy. On the other hand, some claim that the government has an obligation to regulate certain aspects of a woman's pregnancy to protect the rights of the living, developing fetus. Does a woman have a right to choose the route of her pregnancy? Or Does society and government have the right to regulate pregnancy for the good of the fetus? This week, I have turned my attention to the blogosphere, where I have found commentary on two pieces of legislation that have intensified this debate. The first blog post is entitled Just Call Me “Tennessee Brood Mare” by Aunt B, at the Tiny Cat Pants blog. This entry comments on a bill proposed to the Tennessee State Congress that would make it mandatory for pregnant women to undergo drug/alcohol testing if they miss prenatal appointments, deliver prematurely, miscarry, or are at risk for miscarriage, among other criteria. The motivation for the bill comes from the fact that Memphis has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the country, and lawmakers believe that drug abuse is a large contributor to the problem. The second post is entitled North Dakota House Passes Egg-as-Person Bill by Kay Steiger at the Reproductive Health Reality Check blog. This post looks at a bill proposed to the North Dakota State Congress that would define conception as the beginning of life, virtually banning abortion. Furthermore, the post looks at a similar bill proposed to the Maryland State Congress, and analyzes the viability of both bills based on the distinct political makeup of both state legislatures. My comments to these blog posts can be found below and at the original sites.

Just Call Me “Tennessee Brood Mare”
Comment

Your post very accurately describes many of the imperfections of this bill, and I agree with you on many points. The enormously high premature birth rate and infant mortality rate in Memphis and other parts of Tennessee are truly unfortunate; an infant dies in Shelby County every 43 hours. Steps must be taken to stem this tragedy. However, I agree with you in that this bill unfairly places the “blame solely on mothers” and takes away a woman's right to control their body. I am a researcher that has studied the causes of conditions such as pre-term birth and intrauterine growth restriction. Premature birth and miscarriage cannot be attributed to any singular reason-it stems from a complex interplay of factors such as environment, mental state of the mother, infection, and genetics. It is unfortunate that the writers of this bill fail to understand the complexity of these conditions and instead assume that all women who show such symptoms are guilty of drug use. The state does not and should not have a right to test you for drugs without probable cause; simply presenting with symptoms of miscarriage is not sufficient. Moreover, I agree that this bill would discourage many from seeking perinatal care at all. This law only tends to punish women; it does not actually solve the problem. Doctors are most effective in providing healthcare when they are viewed as allies working in the patient's best interest. It is not their job to police expectant mothers. This bill proposes a huge invasion of privacy and I hope that it does not pass.

I was a bit curious as to whether you think that this bill unfairly targets women of a certain socioeconomic status or race. I feel that the writers of this bill assume that drug users, many of whom are poor and black, are the only contributors to the high infant mortality rate. I find it appalling that other demographics and systemic factors that contribute to the problem have been completely ignored. Also, what do you think would be the best way to reduce infant mortality in that state? Obviously, the proposed bill is flawed and greatly reduces the right of women. But is there any other way?

North Dakota House Passes Egg-as-Person Bill
Comment

I appreciate your post describing the current push in several states to give a fertilized egg the same rights as the individual. I find it very surprising that such a definition has even been proposed. An individual person is separate, autonomous organism that is capable of surviving on its own. Based on this definition, I do not think that a fertilized egg is therefore a living individual, for it cannot survive (read: live) autonomously. The criterion of self-sufficiency to define a living individual is important. Otherwise, what is to stop one from defining a simple skin cell as an individual? It too divides, and is, to use the wording of the bill, an “organism that has the DNA of a homo sapien.” So would one be committing murder, killing an individual, when one scratches an itch and destroys skin cells? Why is it that when a woman's egg is fertilized, the contents of her uterus have the same rights as she does, even though it is physically dependent on her?

You bring up an interesting point when comparing legislation proposed in North Dakota and Maryland. It seems clear that legislators are more likely to present bills that are congruent with constituents that make their voice heard. In North Dakota, the strong anti-choice movement has “made being anti-choice legislator worthwhile.” In Maryland, however, anti-choice movements have not taken hold. Is it possible, therefore, that in states such as North Dakota where anti-choice movements are strong, organizing pro-choice lobbies may serve to counter the effect? I feel that one of the reasons that pro-choice lobbies come into play “only when Roe is challenged” is that they are largely defensive, trying to protect the right to choose. On the other hand, anti-choice movements are on the offensive, trying to limit contraception and the implications of Roe v. Wade. Perhaps if pro-choice organizations lobbied to protect other reproductive freedoms and made their presence felt is states such as North Dakota, some anti-choice sentiment would be shot down.

Playboy Playmates vs. Natural Beauty: Portrayals of the Female Form in Media

In this month's Wired magazine, there was an article that compared the Body Mass Index (BMI) values of Playboy Playmates to those of the general population. They plotted the BMI values of every Playboy centerfold from December 1953 to January 2009. Alongside this, they plotted the average BMI of American women age 20-29. An interesting trend emerged. The BMI of American women has been increasing since the 1950s, thanks to McDonald's, childhood obesity, and the like. The BMI of Playboy Playmates, however, has been decreasing over the years. This means too, that the difference in BMI between the average American woman and the Playboy Playmate is at its highest ever. In the 1960s, the difference between the BMI of the average American woman and the Playmates was only 2.8. By 2002, the difference rose more than three-fold to about 8.6. This difference is staggering, and reflects the disparity between what society deems physically attractive and what is actually normal or real. Women in today's society are bigger than they have ever been. But depictions of women's bodies in the media have not reflected this fact. Instead, media depictions have been far out of touch from reality, portraying a thin and curvaceous female form as ideal. This in turn affects society's perceptions of the female body. Women often aspire to a body weight that is unattainable or unhealthy. Men often find unrealistically proportioned women attractive and sexy; body shapes that are not based in reality. Both society and the media have placed great value on a female form that is disparate from what is real and normal. This ought to be a cause for concern, for it is this disparity has contributed immensely to the rise of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. It should be the responsibility of the media, especially companies that profit from these images of unattainable beauty, to understand their impact on women's perceptions of their bodies.

Messages in the media about the ideal body shape and size of women impact girls from an early age. Disney movies, for example, while portraying stories of moral excellence or romantic fantasy, also stand to depict the “perfect” female form. According to Danielle Travall, one can see that “each Disney heroine possesses a petite waistline, perfectly proportioned facial structures, skin-tight, skin-baring garments, and voluptuous curves that attract members of the opposite sex” (see picture right). These Disney Princesses, characters that so many little girls admire and emulate, perpetuate the message that thinner and curvier are perfect. It is unfortunate that Disney animators, in trying to turn a profit, portray such an unattainable and unhealthy body shape as ideal. By creating characters that are "perfectly beautiful," they can sell more merchandise to kids. In addition, it seems such messages seem to have some effect on kids. A study by a University of California professor showed that nearly 80 percent of fourth-grade girls in the Bay Area are watching their weight.

Disney is not the only company that serves to profit from selling and portraying the idealized feminine form. Indeed, the cosmetic and fashion industries also depict the “perfect” female body to help sell its products. In these industries, utilizing models with unrealistic or often unattainable body shapes sends the message “use our cream, wear our dress, and you will be thin, beautiful, and sexy.” Like the trend seen in the Playboy Playmates, models in these industries have also strayed from reality over time. According to the Media Awareness Network, “Twenty years ago, the average model weighed 8 per cent less than the average woman—but today’s models weigh 23 per cent less.” The message is thus clear. Women today are bombarded with images that idealize the thin and curvaceous feminine form. It is these images that are held as the paragon of beauty by society.

And that is where the problem arises. Ultimately, these images of idealized beauty are often unattainable by normal women without extreme dieting and exercise. In fact, pictures of women in magazines are oftentimes airbrushed to appear thinner and more curvaceous, such that our concept of the perfect body isn't a real body at all; its a computer altered image. Studies have shown that exposure to these images of unattainable beauty “is linked to depression, loss of self-esteem and the development of unhealthy eating habits in women and girls.” Anorexia and Bulimia are pervasive problems that have had increased incidence over the years, and most often affect women in Western countries. The messages that the media disseminates do not operate in a vacuum. Although industries profit from associating their products with thin feminine forms, they are in a sense setting up women to try to achieve a body shape that is impossible. Women thus resort to unhealthy measures, such as starvation and vomiting to live up to impossible standards.

The situation, however, is not all bad. One company, Dove, has embarked on an advertising campaign that completely goes against the notion of unattainable beauty as ideal beauty (see figure top left). They call it The Campaign for Real Beauty Worldwide. According to their site, the campaign is meant to “help free us....from beauty stereotypes.” In addition, they have started a self-esteem fund that supports self-esteem building workshops around the country. Although an advertising model that goes so counter to the establishment is difficult for many companies to pull off, Dove's move represents a marked shift in the industry; it recognizes the fact that beauty stereotypes exist. Disney, too, has come a long way. In a recent film Lilo and Stitch, the main character Lilo is not shown as thin and sexy, but of normal weight, wearing a hawaiian shirt and flip flops.

Although it is impossible to change all messages in the media to present a more realistic depiction of beauty, there are some steps that have been taken in the right direction. Some may argue that removing idealized forms of beauty, especially in advertising campaigns and movies, would hurt profits. This may be true. But the unseen cost is that such media messages perpetuate the idea that normal body shape isn't good enough. Dove, for one, has shown that it is possible to turn a profit while still breaking stereotypes of beauty. Perhaps other companies and forms of media will follow.

An Emerging Advocate for Women's Health: A Male Blogger's Perspective

My interest in the field of women's health developed during my undergraduate years as a result of working on several research projects. Our lab studied the impact of stress on preterm birth and other perinatal conditions. As a result of this work, I was fortunate enough to attend the conferences of the Society for Gynecologic Investigation and the Preterm Birth International Collaborative. It was here that I was exposed to the larger field of women's health and its many facets, which include ovarian and breast cancers, perinatolgy, menopause, and so on. Although I am a male and thus do not have first hand familiarity with many women's health issues, I recognize the importance of the field.

To gain a more firm understanding of this field, I scoured the internet to find reliable and relevant resources that would aid in my scholarly investigations. I have compiled and placed these resources in the linkroll on the right. My hope is that these links will not only keep me up-to-date in the field of women's health, but also be a valuable resource to visitors that want to delve further into the subject. To find these links, I utilized various web tools. I started with a very broad Google search, but also found pertinent blogs through the Technorati search tool. In addition, I found directory resources, such as the Librarians' Internet Index, USA.gov, and Google Directories to be very helpful in locating organizations and government institutions that are involved in the field of women's health. All in all, I located several blogs that comment on current news stories relevant to this field (Women's Health News, Our Bodies Our Blog); private organizations that fundraise for and promote research (The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Society for Women's Health Research); groups that advocate for women's health (American Medical Women's Association) and women's rights (Association for Women's Rights in Development); sites which serve to act as an educational resource for women (Childbirth Connection, Center for Young Women's Health); and various government-affiliated organizations that provide information about women's health and related programs (National Institutes of Health: Office of Research on Women's Health, World Health Organization: Women's Health). In choosing these web-based resources, I wanted to make sure that my choices were of the highest caliber. I employed the Webby Awards criteria to evaluate the quality of websites. According to this criteria, a website's content, navigation, visual design, functionality, and interactivity all contribute to the overall effectiveness. The websites that I have selected meet these criteria; they contain strong substance that is supported by appealing design and well-planned structure. The picture to the right shows the effective visual design and structured layout of the United Nation's Population Fund website. To evaluate weblogs, I utilized the IMSA criteria. According to this criteria, it is important to keep in mind whether the blog is active and influential, whether sources are reliable and cited, and whether the blogger is open about their identity.

I hope that the resources that I have collected will help me create a voice for myself in the field of women's health and look forward to becoming a regular member of the blogosphere.