Fun Bags?!?

News.com.au are reporting that a sub-editor of a British baby magazine, Katheryn Blundell (who they have oddly described as a 'baby expert') recently wrote an article in which she describes breastfeeding as "creepy," stating that she chose to formula feed her baby because she wanted to keep her "fun bags" in shape.

Let me just trot out the disclaimer here and say that I truly do support freedom of choice for women in relation to how they feed their babies. However, calling breastfeeding "creepy" and highlighting the importance of breasts as sexual objects in a mainstream parenting magazine goes well beyond making a personal choice. It actively contributes to the culture of shaming women who choose to breastfeed their babies (or would like to) and it contributes to the narrative that men have the right to expect that breasts be kept for their sexual enjoyment only.

Just look at some of the comments attached to the article:

Matt of Brisbane Posted at 10:33 AM Today: "As a man I support this woman's decision to keep her fun bags in tit top shape."

Mark of Potts Point Posted at 10:46 AM Today: "At last, someone with common sense. "Fun bags" should be for everyone, not just the babies!"

And the result? Well the result in Britain is that only 1 in 100 British women breastfeed their babies for 6 months. Just one percent! I find that really sad. Imagine how this contributes to a vicious cycle in which breastfeeding is framed as a fringe activity, and imagine the pressure that would follow for women to "choose" not to do it in such an environment.

It is not only babies that benefit from breastfeeding. Breastfeeding produces powerful hormones that for most women increase their sense of well-being - providing a valuable boost in the sleep-deprived haze of new motherhood. They also promote bonding with your baby, which is not only positive for the baby, but can again make the intensity of the demands on your time (and body) feel so much easier to deal with.

Taking a more global perspective, creating a culture in which breastfeeding is seen as 'primitive' and formula feeding is seen as modern and desirable is extremely problematic. In many many countries the water supply is simply not safe enough to feed babies formula without risking their health and, what's more, having to pay for formula (when the free breastmilk runs out due to lack of use) means that many poor families will have to go without food and medical treatment for the rest of the family. However, women in these countries do turn to formula due to the deliberately manufactured belief that it is healthier for their babies, because it is the 'modern' thing to do.

If you don't think that Blundell's comments could contribute to this manufactured belief then read this comment:

Alicia Browne of NSW Posted at 10:43 AM Today: "I bottle fed my boys from day 1 & 100% support bottle feeding. Both boys couldn't be any healthier & I will be bottle feeding any future children I have. Not only do I support bottle feeding but I also promote it. I would also like to say to all those "breast is best" supporters, your narrowminded ideas are prehistoric & are dying out (might be why you feel you have to scream so loudly about it & force your ancient & uninfomred views on other people)."

Thanks Alicia.

World Press Freedom Day

Yesterday was World Press Freedom Day. I had meant to post about this and the wonderful (in a bad way) irony that only the day before Rupert Murdoch launched a (thankfully unsuccessful) takeover bid for the Wall Street Journal, in a further bid to consolidate his global media empire and minimise the number of different voices providing news and information around the world.

The bid was defeated, but the irony stands.

I was also going to mention the fact that, so far this year, around the world:

24 Journalists have been killed;

5 Media assistants have been killed;

125 Journalists have been imprisoned;

4 Media assistants have been imprisoned; and

65 Cyberdissidents have been imprisoned.

Possibly the most notorious case is that of Anna Politkovskaya. Russian authorities (almost certainly implicated in her death) launched a half-arsed investigation, which, unsurprisingly, found nothing at all.

C and I saw Anna Politkovskaya speak at the 2006 Sydney Writer's Festival. She was absolutely inspiring and her tragic death brings Russia one step closer to total information blackout.

BBC Palestinian Territories correspondent, Alan Johnston, is still missing (he was abducted in Gaza on 12 March). Cases like his aren't captured in the statistics presented above, and highlight another disturbing trend - the targeting of journalists and media workers by political groups.

Thousands of other journalists everyday around the world self censor and do so increasingly. Not necessarily for fear of their lives (though under many regimes this is certianly the prime motivation to keep things in line), but becuase they know anything they write that doesn't "fit" simply won't get published.

The Lao People's "Democratic" Republic is a classic case in point, but that's for another post.

Overall I'd say things are looking grim. More news sources are controlled by fewer individuals, journalists' lives and liberties are increasingly being put at risk by the actions of state and non-state actors in political battles, and the nature, tone, breadth and depth of information available to us (the peoples of the world) is narrowing, despite the growth of online media content.

I wish I'd written this yesterday.

Developmental impact of the sexualisation of girls

Well, the Australia Institute may have ruffled a few corporate feathers with the examples that it chose to use in its report last year on the sexualisation of children, but it seems that they have strong support for their over-all message from the American Psychological Association (APA).

The APA's Task Force on the Sexualisation of Girls have just released a report and it makes for sobering reading. While they are calling for more research into the pervasiveness of the sexualisation of young girls in the media (such evidence exists in abundance for young adult women, but not yet for young girls), the APA are clear that it is not difficult to document the existence of the problem by pointing to a range of prominent products marketed at young girls.

These include advertisements (e.g., the Skechers “naughty and nice” ad that featured Christina Aguilera dressed as a schoolgirl in pigtails, with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop), dolls (e.g., Bratz dolls dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas), clothing (thongs sized for 7– to 10-year-olds, some printed with slogans such as “wink wink”), and television programs (e.g., a televised fashion show in which adult models in lingerie were presented as young girls).

According to their findings, this kind of "sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality, and attitudes and beliefs." The results can be seen in the lowered cognitive functioning in girls who have been taught to self-objectify ("In self-objectification, girls internalize an observer’s perspective on their physical selves and learn to treat themselves as objects to be looked at and evaluated for their appearance"); an increase in a range of mental health problems, such as eating disorders, low self esteem, and depression; diminished sexual health ("as measured by decreased condom use and diminished sexual assertiveness"); and the internalisation of sexual stereotypes that “place appearance and physical attractiveness at the centre of women's value”.

This report has reignited the debate over the sexualisation of women and young girls in our society (both in the US and Australia). Several blogs have responded with a "Duh?", but have acknowledged that the report does provide some useful scientific validation for their concerns. I have yet to come across any blogs that are keen on defending the sexualisation of young girls, but no doubt they are out there somewhere...

My favourite response comes from Melbourne blogger Blue Milk, who has used to the report to justify her ongoing campaign to encourage people to "kill a bratz doll today". While I would shy away from using the word "kill", Bratz dolls are a particular bugbear of mine - one that is only becoming more relevant to me as I move closer to having my own child (yep, I'll be 39 weeks tomorrow, but who's counting?). I find it deeply disturbing that any company could even consider dressing a doll in what basically amounts to lingerie and selling it to young girls. The only good thing that I can say about those things is that they make me slightly more tolerant of the bloody "princess phenomenon" that has been such a big thing in recent marketing to little girls.

However, while I don't think that the princess phenomenon risks actually sexualising young girls, surely they are just further along the same spectrum and present very similar problems? Encouraging young girls to fit into the princess mould certainly raises similar issues of self-objectification and the internalisation of sexual stereotypes that place appearance, physical attractiveness and submissiveness at the centre of women's value. As Peggy Orenstein points out in this fantastic article*, these Disney 'princess' characters are hardly great role models for young girls to be emulating. Ariel (the Mermaid Princess), for example, choses to give up her voice in order to be with a man - don't you just love the symbolism of that?

The question is: what exactly can parents do about the issue? Being the nasty killjoy who bans all the latest trends from the house and frowns upon dressing-up as a princess is hardly a great recipe for success. Instead, the APA suggests that girls need to be provided with greater tools for decoding the messages in the media and products that they consume (through school-based media literacy programs and through discussions with their parents). They also recommend encouraging them to get involved in positive activities that build their self-esteem (like sports) and to tap into alternative feminist media such as blogs and web sites that "encourage girls to become activists who speak out and develop their own alternatives."

*[Recommended over at Blue Milk.]

[Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo]

"A year of unprecedented brutality"

2006 was the deadliest year on record for journalists, according to the International Federation of Journalists. 155 murders and unexplained killings took place last year, in what the federation is calling "a year of unprecedented brutality".

Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary said, in a press release:

Media have become more powerful and journalism has become more dangerous [...] 2006 was the worst year on record – a year of targeting, brutality and continued impunity in the killing of journalists.

A report in USA Today lists the deadliest place for journalists (by number of deaths) as Iraq with 68 murders last year – bringing the total since the US-led invasion began to 170. Next, and trailing well behind, is the Philippines with 13 deaths last year.

According to Reuters Iraq has now topped the list 4 years running. I guess that’s something to be proud of...

Russia gets a special mention too, with over 200 journalists being killed in the last 15 years, with 40 of the murders that have taken place since Vladimir Putin took office yet to be adequately resolved – the most recent of which was Anna Politkovskaya, who was an outspoken critic of the regime and defender of the rights of the Chechen people.

The number of deaths this year seems to have galvanised the UN Security Council too, as, on 23 December, they unanimously passed Resolution 1738. The resolution calls for all states and actors to put an end to attacks on journalists and media personnel, reiterates war correspondents’ right to the status of prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention, and recalls the demand that all parties to armed conflict comply with their obligations under international law to protect civilians.

Still, this will likely provide small comfort to the (mainly) indigenous journalists that place their lives in grave danger in conflict situations around the world on a daily basis in order to let the world know what is happening in the places none of us are keen to go.

Let’s hope 2007 is a record year for less grisly reasons.

The battle of the Irish, or how I discovered I might actually like Phil Donahue

On Fox again, just for a minute. O'Reilly, my favourite psychopath tv host had Phil Donahue on the Factor.

Donahue has been very outspoken on the wrongness of the American war in Iraq and the insanity of the so-called "war on terror" (which might just be superseded by the newly announced "war on nature"). He's also been a vocal supporter of Cindy Sheehan, who has single handedly started a mass movement against the war in the belly of the beast.

Anyway, O'Reilly v. Donahue. Donahue 1, O'Reilly 0. Check out the transcript here. Makes for great bedtime reading. Got the heads up from Jeff Sparrow. Ta.

Right, we're off to find C an office chair - the dining room table/office has chairs designed to make guests eat and run, clinching their flaming lower backs. Not the best place to work all day, I'd imagine.

Fox: unfair and unbalanced

Fox News has once again showed just how "fair and balanced" it and its journalists (and I use that term very, very loosely) are.

Bill O'Reilly, host of Talking Point and The Radio Factor, commented on his radio program that he wished hurricane Katrina had hit the UN Headquarters in New York, rather than New Orleans.

"Bush to address the U.N., says we must be steadfast in battling terrorism. I'm sure all the U.N. people fell asleep. They don't really care about anything over there at all. I just wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just had flooded them out. And I wouldn't have rescued them."

This on the day the World Summit opened.

Nice work Bill.

The UN Foundation has called for an apology and retraction. I hope they're not holding their breath.

o'reilly-sucks.com has a nice round-up of the whole schamozzle here.

Not that anyone would ever expect much more than tripe and right wing propaganda from Bill O'Reilly. He's notorious for inviting guests on to his show and then shooting them down and telling them to "shut up" every time they try to speak.

There's a fantastic montage of O'Reilly at his "shut upping" best in Outfoxed, which runs right after he denies he has ever told anyone to shut up. Cinematic gold.

For more debunking of Fox News spin, check out the News Hounds - they watch Fox so you don't have to.

A Thousand Words

Thank you Julie for forwarding this to me.