"Free" Speech on the Taxpayers' Dime

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. That protection includes everything from re-publication of cartoons Muslims find offensive to ignorant Holocaust denials, expressions that have been prosecuted in some countries. Free speech should be protected no matter how rude or stupid the speech in question may be.

We must keep in mind that the First Amendment guarantees freedom from prosecution by the government. It does not apply to employer-employee relationships even when the employer is the government. For example, federal employees who are privy to classified information are required to maintain confidentiality. In cases of on-the-job rants, the employer decides whether or not to discipline the employee. This brings us to Jay Bennish a public school teacher in Colorado. Bennish frequently used his high school geography class as a platform for his political opinions. A student, Sean Allen, recorded a 20 minute in-class speech by Bennish in which he compared this year’s State of the Union address to “things Adolf Hitler used to say,” blamed the U.S. for the 911 attacks, said that to some native Americans the U.S. flag is “no different than the Nazi flag,” referred to capitalism as “at odds with human rights” and called the U.S. “probably the most violent nation on planet Earth.” A full transcript is available on Michelle Malkin’s website.

Bennish’s diatribe violated the policy of his employer, the Cherry Creek School District, to present a balanced view of material and that the information presented be within the context of the class.

For something to truly be educational, all sides must be presented. One-sided views limited to select information are indoctrination rather than education. Not only was Bennish’s presentation one-sided, he and his audience were not equals. He is not only an authority figure, but is also older, more sophisticated and better educated than the 10^th graders he teaches. His students presumably look up to him. Young people often believe teachers are knowledgeable and truthful because they are teachers. Teachers also grade students. Some have suggested that Bennish’s rant was intended as a way to promote debate. Yet, many students fear that expressing views contrary to the teacher’s will result in lower grades. If the diatribe was intended to stimulate debate, it wasn’t very successful: Allen was the only student who argued with Bennish on the 20 minute tape. One or two short statements may promote debate. A long, impassioned lecture is more likely to stifle it.

Bennish’s lecture appears to have been presented as fact rather than opinion. At one point, Bennish said, “Make sure you get these definitions down.” In our public education system, students are generally encouraged to simply listen and take notes. This does little to encourage them to think critically or question information. Some math and science classes require students to prove theorems and hypotheses, but many courses are limited to the absorption of information. When this is combined with the impressionability of young people, it is little wonder that Bennish could express his opinions with few facts to back them up and no references to the sources of much of the information presented. For example, Bennish said, “Do you see how when, you know, when you’re looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism as an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity?” Bennish neglected to enumerate what he sees as basic necessities, (Is home ownership a necessity? How much health care is “basic”?). He did not explain how other economic systems provide them. He also failed to demonstrate that any economic system could meet the needs of “everyone in the world.” No student asked him to explain shortages, substandard health care and other problems that occur in communist or socialist systems.

After Allen argued with Bennish’s opinions about 911 and anti-Israeli terrorism, Bennish said, “But what I’m trying to get you to do is to think, right, about these issues more in-depth, you know, and not just take things from the surface.” His comment would have been more convincing if Bennish made it earlier in his speech. It also would have been more convincing if Bennish had provided more data and in-depth analysis.

The main problem with Bennish’s rant is that he was supposed to be teaching geography, not political science. If he had made a couple of offhand remarks, it might have been acceptable, but this lecture was approximately 20 minutes long. That is more than one third of the instruction time in a typical high school class. Whether a teacher lectures on his or her political opinions or reviews movies, he or she is not teaching the course content. Parents send their kids to school for an education. When that isn’t provided in a public school, the taxpayers are being ripped off.

If Bennish had expressed his political views on his own time in letters to the editor or by blogging, his employer would have no right to complain. When a teacher uses the classroom as a platform for personal opinions, he or she is abdicating the responsibility to teach. In this case, the school district and the taxpayers are not getting what they paid for. Instead of geography lessons, Bennish’s students got opinion and misinformation.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 03/05/06, all rights reserved

"Walk again"

An aide to Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. brought comptroller and former governor William Donald Schaefer a cup of tea during a Board of Public Works meeting. Schaefer stared at her derriere as she walked away. Then he summoned her back and said, “Walk again.” The media was present and the controversial comment was widely reported. The remark brought criticism from women’s groups, some lawmakers and the media. The Washington Post’s John Wagner quoted State Senator Sharon M. Grosfeld calling on Schaefer to “recognize the sexism inherent in his behavior.” Columnist Paul Jacob called for Schaefer to resign from his re-election campaign because of the incident.

When reporters asked Schaefer if he thought his comments were offensive, he said, “I look at one of the girls as she walked out. Big deal…I look at the girls every time they walk out.” The 84 year old comptroller was quoted in a February 16 AP story saying, “She’s a pretty little girl. The day I don’t look at pretty women is the day I die.” Schaefer told the press he had simply made a joke and felt he hadn’t done anything he needed to apologize for. Later, he sent the aide a handwritten note apologizing for any embarrassment the incident caused her.

Some women’s groups may see Schaefer as sexist, yet actions speak more loudly than words. His aide, Louise L. Harmon, told the Washington Post that Schaefer has an established record of promoting women in the workplace. The aide at the Board of Public Works meeting did not accuse him of sexual harassment nor have any other women who have worked with him. Hayman said women who work with Schaefer are not offended by his use of the phrase “little girls.” A February 16 AP story reported that, during Schaefer’s 2002 campaign, some of his former employees held a rally featuring “Little girls for Schaefer” signs. Schaefer has a history of making politically incorrect comments and has brought both comedy and controversy to government. After his 2004 remarks that people who live in the U.S. should learn English caused a media outcry, he printed bumper stickers with the slogan, “Schaefer: He says what you think.”

Schaefer’s behavior at the public works meeting was inappropriate and unprofessional, but was it sexual harassment? He never touched the woman, nor did he say anything obscene or derogatory. State government policy defines sexual harassment so loosely as to include both the comment and the staring. The policy defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, non-verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature,” including “jokes” and “suggestive comments.” Many workplaces and universities have similar policies.

The problem with such definitions is that they can be based solely on the feelings of the “victim.” How is one to know if his or her attentions will be unwelcome? That knowledge comes from the recipient’s reaction. Whether or not “other verbal, non-verbal or physical contact” is of a sexual nature is open to interpretation. A compliment such as, “You look good,” can be sexual or simply friendly. The same is true of a glance or a hug. An invitation to lunch could be seen as part of a working relationship or as a date. Something that is embarrassing to one person may be flattering to another. Sexual harassment policies fail to consider intent as a factor. In Schaefer’s case, if he meant any harm, it is unlikely he would have made the comment in the presence of witnesses.

Allegations of sexual harassment can be quite far reaching. During Justice Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings, Anita Hill accused him of sexually harassing her by allegedly saying there was a pubic hair in his soda can. There was a case in which a woman accused a co-worker of sexually harassing her by pointing to a word in the dictionary while discussing the Seinfeld episode about a woman whose name rhymed with a female body part. Displays of pictures can be seen as creating a “hostile work environment.” Sexual harassment prevention educator, Cynthia Sandoval, told SFGate.com that it was considered sexual harassment when a man accidentally emailed “10 reasons why beer is better than women” to all of his co-workers.

Attention given to minor incidents like that detracts from the seriousness of legitimate sexual harassment claims. When a boss or supervisor makes sexual favors a condition of continued employment, favorable reviews and/or promotions that is a genuine case of sexual harassment. Claims of harassment are also legitimate when someone persists in rude, threatening or demeaning behavior after being asked to stop. The latter type of harassment is not necessarily sexual.

As sexual harassment definitions have expanded to include jokes and flirting, women’s behavior has become cruder with young women participating in amateur video such as “Girls Gone Wild,” participating in “hook-ups,” working out at pole-dancing aerobics classes and wearing revealing clothes. When many women objectify themselves in that manner, doesn’t that create a culture in which even the most innocent of women are seen as sex objects? In a recent “Ask Amy” column, a reader signing as “Dude From Downtown L.A.” wrote that he felt embarrassed when female co-workers wore “low-cut pants, belly shirts and high rise thongs” in front of clients. He was embarrassed: Can he claim sexual harassment? The complaint is as valid as complaints about girlie pictures and email jokes. “Dude From Downtown L.A.” wrote that he was thinking of making a statement by dressing so his boxer shorts would show above his waistband. If he tries that, he’ll probably be the one in trouble for sexual harassment.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 02/21/06, all rights reserved

One Nation Semi-literate

A study by the American Institutes for Research tested college students nearing completion of their degree programs on their ability to perform three types of complex literacy tasks. They included analyzing news stories and other prose, understanding documents such as tables and graphs, and having the arithmetic skills required to balance a checkbook or calculate a tip. Over 50% of students at four year colleges and over 75% of students at two year colleges lacked the skills required to perform those tasks.

This was reported by AP education writer Ben Feller in his January 19, 2006 article, “Study: Most College Students Lack Skills.” He wrote, “There was a brighter side. Overall, the average literacy of college students is higher than that of adults across the nation.” That’s good news? The “brighter side” is that, to some degree, colleges are teaching those skills. There is no bright side to the fact that, while most college students lack the skills for basic tasks, even more non-college educated adults lack those skills. No one should have to attend college to acquire them. Understanding a newspaper article or balancing a checkbook isn’t rocket science. All high school graduates should be able to do so.

Education becomes more vital with increasing globalization. More and more products formerly made in the U.S. are being made overseas. Competition continually increases. As U.S. automakers lose sales to foreign manufacturers, China plans to manufacture cars. After sales of U.S. manufactured goods weakened in the global economy, our high-technology products remained strong. Now we are losing that edge. According to the National Science Board, our share of global high-technology exports has fallen in the past 20 years from 33% to 17%. Since only about 6% of U.S. students plan to study science and engineering, that trend is likely to continue.

Technological degree programs require solid basic skills. If high schools fail at teaching basic reading and math skills, the number of students planning to pursue science and engineering is unlikely to increase. Many aspects of our educational system must change if the U.S. is to have an educated workforce.

John Stossel covered some changes that should be considered in his 20/20 broadcast, Stupid in America: How we cheat our kids. One reform is school choice. Parents can base decisions on results if education money is attached to students rather than school districts. Stossel also pointed out how strong teachers unions almost guarantee continued employment of ineffective teachers.

If we are to have more graduates who are interested in technological fields, boys must be encouraged to consider college. No matter how egalitarian we try to be, boys seem more interested in science and technology than girls. An educational system that encourages boys interested in pursuing those fields should not be seen as slighting girls who are also interested. The issue of whether or not education has become “girl-centric” needs more attention, but both sexes should be encouraged academically. It also seems that the economic success of some rap stars and pro athletes leads some boys to believe they don’t need education. There may also be a subtle message in pop culture that reading and studying isn’t cool or manly. Boys need men in their lives to counteract this. In her Newsweek article, “The Trouble With Boys,” Peg Tyre wrote, “One of the most reliable predictors of whether a boy will succeed or fail in high school rests on a single question: does he have a man in his life to look up to?” A father in the home is best. In a society in which 40% of boys are being raised without their fathers, male teachers and mentors become critically important.

Boys are falling behind girls in academic achievement, yet, judging by the literacy study, girls aren’t learning much either. One reason may be a tendency of school systems to respond to problems with curricula du jour. For example, last year 65% of middle school students in Baltimore City’s public schools scored below proficiency in the statewide reading test. In response, the school system spent $500,000 for the Studio Course program and almost $1 million on the classroom reading material for the program. Studio course included the magazines Teen People and CosmoGirl, (which was removed from the curriculum after parents objected to the content). It also included a grammar lesson in which a noun was defined as “stuff” and verbs were “what stuff does.” This seems like the ultimate in “dumbing down.” Good teaching should inspire students’ interest in literary works. That may be the city’s real educational problem: Only 42% of Baltimore City’s teachers were considered “highly qualified” under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

Much attention is paid to problems in the educational system, but some parents cause problems. Last spring, parents at Daniels Field Elementary School in Trumbull, CT complained about teachers’ use of red ink for corrections because it was “stressful” to the children. Around the nation, there have been cases of parents complaining or threatening to sue if their children are disciplined or receive poor grades. Such parents not only do a disservice to their kids, they also promote diminished academic standards and discipline in schools systems.

To compete in a global economy, our country needs a well educated workforce. When over half of students preparing to graduate from four year colleges lack the literacy skills needed for basic tasks, we can not remain competitive.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 01/29/06, all rights reserved

Cost Factors in Health Insurance

Recently, the Maryland legislature passed a bill requiring employers of 10,000 or more to spend at least 8% of payroll on employee health insurance or pay the difference to a state Medicaid fund. In Massachusetts, where job creation lags behind the nation, similar legislation is proposed for businesses with 10 (ten) or more employees. In his January 19 Washington Post column, George Will asserts that similar bills are pending in “30 or so other states.”

Such legislation discourages employers from locating, (or expanding), in those states. Wal-Mart was planning to build a distribution center on Maryland’s Eastern Shore that would employ at least 800. Wal-Mart is now reconsidering that expansion.

Requiring employers to provide health insurance may not be best for workers. To keep costs down, employers may choose to hire young workers rather than middle-aged or older ones. Businesses may also screen out those with health problems or a family history of them, (medical records aren’t completely secure). Some companies fire employees when off the job behavior of the employees or their spouses could increase insurance costs. Discrimination on the grounds of age or health status is hard to prove. Discrimination on the basis of “lifestyle” is permissible in some states. While some people may applaud such discrimination as a means of keeping insurance prices down, it could turn previously productive, taxpaying workers into a new class of unemployables who may end up collecting Welfare and Medicaid.

It would be best for both employers and employees if health insurance were purchased by individuals without employer involvement: The way life, auto and homeowners insurance are purchased. The high price of health insurance is the reason that can’t be done easily. Rather than rejecting the idea of health insurance as an individual responsibility, we should look into why the price is so high and how we can reduce it.

“All-inclusive” plans
One reason health insurance is expensive is “all inclusive” plans with low deductibles and low co-insurance payments. Such plans encourage people to seek treatment for minor, self-limiting or preventable conditions. An extreme example was described in Pia de Solenni’s May 23, 2005 National Review column, “Abortion on the Air.” The column reports a discussion on the Washington D.C. Elliott in the Morning radio show in which a caller reported 16 abortions by his first and second wives. When Elliot asked if the caller could have used a cheaper method of birth control, Elliot’s co-host said, “Insurance pays for it,” referring to abortion. Even the ardently pro-choice should be upset by that conversation: A surgical procedure for something that could have been prevented by a prescription or an over the counter (OTC) item is being paid for with everybody’s premiums. All inclusive, low deductible health insurance plans also encourage the use of insurance for services such as doctor’s office visits and vaccinations that are easily paid out of pocket without the administrative costs that accompany insurance. Many people see employer provided plans as “free” and don’t realize that higher premiums may mean lower wages.

The combination of cheaper high deductible health insurance plans and Health Savings Accounts, (HSAs), which use the insured’s pre-tax money might, encourage more careful healthcare spending. Some fear that high deductibles would lead people to defer seeking necessary care. It seems unlikely that the average person would endanger his health that way.

State mandated coverage
Some state regulations make insurance costly. New York and New Jersey have “guaranteed issue” requirements that allow previously uninsured individuals to purchase health insurance after becoming seriously ill. Normally, companies use money paid while people are healthy to cover their costs when they get sick. In a “guaranteed issue” situation, rates must be increased to cover ill customers. The high rates generated by “guaranteed issue” shrink the risk pool by discouraging young, healthy people from purchasing insurance. Those two states also require “community rating” which prohibits charging different rates to customers of different ages and health status. While charging more to people who are elderly, ill or have other risk factors may sound unfair, insurance works on the basis of risk: Those more likely to use the insurance pay higher rates. In Congress, Representative John Shadegg sponsored a bill giving grants to states that form high risk pools. While the bill involves the use of tax money, it keeps high risk individuals from being uninsurable and should keep their coverage from raising all customers’ rates.

Lobbying from special interest groups led to state mandates that all policies sold in a state cover their services: Massage therapy in four states, acupuncture in 11 and chiropractic in 47. One reason obesity has been classified as a disease is pressure from weight loss clinics to mandate coverage of that service. Some may applaud that as encouraging healthy habits, but how effective will a weight loss program be for someone who can afford it, but only participates if insurance pays?

An eHealthInsurance.com study found that the price of a health insurance policy for a family of four with a $2,000 deductible and 20% co-insurance ranged from $172 per month in Kansas City, MO to $1,200 per month in New Jersey. State mandated coverage and issue regulations account for the difference. Last summer, Representative John Shadegg introduced a bill allowing people to purchase health insurance from any of the 50 states. That free-market approach will enable people to save by buying only the coverage they need.

Prescription prices
Overall, prescription drugs save health care dollars. According to Doug Bandlow’s March 2, 2005 Washington Times column, “The Costs of Health Care,” Columbia University’s Frank Lichtenberg estimates that every $1.00 spent on prescriptions lowers hospital spending by $3.65. However, there is room for savings on prescriptions. Theresa Agovino’s October 25, 2005 AP article, “Generic Drugs Could Have Saved Us $20B,” summarized a survey by Express Scripts of approximately three million of their commercial customers that examined six classes of drugs including cholesterol lowering medications and antidepressants. The survey found that generics cost an average of $60 less per monthly prescription than brand name drugs. The survey estimated that approximately $2 billion could be saved annually if generic drugs were dispensed when available. According to Marc Siegal’s book, False Alarm, surveys by the FDA and Kaiser demonstrated that 20% to 30% of patients ask their doctors about advertised drugs. Doctors, who receive samples of these drugs, have no incentive to prescribe generics or older drugs that may on insurers’ “preferred” lists. Additionally, some plans charge only slightly lower patient co-insurance prices for generics than for brand names leaving customers unaware of the actual price difference. People might be more cost conscious if prices, rather than just the co-pay amounts, were prominently displayed on the patient information leaflets.

The uninsured
Hospitals that accept federal funds, including Medicare, are required to provide emergency treatment to those who can’t pay. Some costs of unpaid services are recouped with tax money and some is passed on to other patients and insurers. This was the rationale behind the Maryland bill, but it is misdirected. A RAND Corporation study found that about 20% of illegal immigrants have health insurance through their employers and virtually none purchase their own. The illegal immigrant population in the U. S. is estimated at 8 to 12 million. If the RAND study is correct, we have 6.4 to 9.6 million uninsured illegal immigrants. In his article, “Catastrophe in Care,” that appeared in the June 2, 2005 issue of Tucson Weekly, Leo W. Banks states, “Nationally, American hospitals lose $1.45 billion a year” treating illegal immigrants.

One ignored uninsured population consists of those who can afford insurance, but choose not to. This group includes some whose employers offered them the opportunity to partake in workplace health plans. Many of the voluntarily uninsured are young, healthy people who feel they don’t need it until that case of appendicitis or that skateboarding accident happens. Massachusetts recently enacted a law requiring that all who can afford health insurance purchase it. That should be a personal choice. However, legislation making it easier for hospitals and state Medicaid programs to collect payment for treatment from uninsured individuals who could have afforded health insurance would be a step in the right direction.

Defensive medicine
Doctors, fearing malpractice suits, often request additional diagnostic tests and referrals to specialists that aren’t medically indicated. Insurance pays for this. Patients and insurers also pay for malpractice insurance in the form of higher fees for service. Courts should focus on actual negligence rather than failure to foresee a remote outcome such as failure to test for an extremely rare disease. The AMA also needs to take strong disciplinary action against doctors who are actually guilty of malpractice. Some doctors who lose their licenses in one state because they were found guilty of malpractice simply relocate, get sued again and cause malpractice insurance rates to increase. Something like a national registry might help prevent bad doctors from practicing.

There is no single, simple answer for reducing health insurance costs. Legislating that employers pay for health insurance isn’t the answer. If costs continue to increase and businesses contend that they can’t stay in business if they provide health insurance, government may step in with some form of “universal” coverage. If individuals purchased their own health insurance, people would have more flexibility than employers or government can provide. It also allows health insurance portability that isn’t available with employer sponsored plans. It may also reduce the costs of health insurance and health care because people often aren’t cost conscious when someone else pays the premiums.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 01/22/06, all rights reserved

Do Feminists Care About Reproductive Rights in China?

NOW, Feminist Majority Foundation and the National Congress of Black Women have joined together in “Enraged and Engaged: Women’s Campaign Against Alito,” primarily because they fear a conservative Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade. Eleanor Smeal, president of Feminist Majority Foundation, described Alito as “a man who would turn the clock back on women’s rights and civil rights.” Kim Gandy, president of NOW, said of the Alito nomination, “Women’s rights and, indeed our very lives, are at stake.”

NOW’s and Feminist Majority Foundation’s concerns for women’s rights are limited in scope. The Feminist Majority Foundation’s website does feature a “Campaign for Afghan women and girls” that lists general goals, yet does not mention “honor” killings. Headlines on the site’s main page did include the January 3, 2006 beheading of Malim Abdul Habib, the headmaster of a co-educational school. The NOW site headlines did not include that story, the December 28, 2005 AP article about the “honor” killings of a Pakistani woman and three young girls, nor the January 6, 2006 Reuters article about a man who has been under house arrest in China since September for exposing forced abortions and sterilizations in Shandong province. In fact neither site had any noticeable references to China.

If feminists are concerned about women’s civil rights and reproductive freedom, why do they ignore forced abortions in China? Is it because they do not believe the Chinese government can be influenced? That didn’t stop Amnesty International. That group brought attention to the case of Ma Weihua, a pregnant drug courier who had been sentenced to death for possession of 1.6kg of heroin. China’s law prohibits executions of pregnant women, so Ma was forced to undergo an abortion on February 19, 2003. An Amnesty International appeal that people write to the President of Gansu High People’s Court may have had an impact: Ma’s sentence was changed to life imprisonment.

In China, forced abortions are not only performed on prisoners, but also on ordinary citizens as part of the one-child policy. According to the February 15, 2001 CNSNews.com article, “China Uses Abortion as Female Genocide,” farmer Huang Quisheng’s family already had children. In August 2000, family planning officials forced his wife, who was eight months pregnant, to undergo a saline abortion. When abortion failed to kill the baby, officials drowned the newborn in the presence of the Huangs.

In her December 22, 2004 article, “Congress Holds Hearing on Forced Abortion Victim,” Wendy Wright reported that Mao Hengfeng was sentenced to 18 months at a re-education through labor camp in April 2004 for repeatedly petitioning authorities about an abortion she was forced to undergo in 1987.

In China, families are only allowed to have more than one child if they pay Social Compensation Fees which can be as much as ten times their annual income. In 2001, China banned the use of the abortion pill, mifepristone, also known as RU-486. In an effort to stop sex-selective abortions, China recently enacted a law that levies fines and prison terms to healthcare providers for revealing an unborn baby’s sex to the parents. According to a 1999 Planned Parenthood Federation report, between 500,000 and 750,000 unborn girls were voluntarily aborted in China annually under the one-child policy. Shouldn’t feminists be concerned that the new law to prevent sex-selective abortions is enforced?

Despite these reforms, forced abortions and sterilizations still occur. Benjamin Kang Lim’s January 6, 2006 Reuters article, “Blind China activist under house arrest since Sept,” reports that Chen Guangcheng and his family have been under house arrest since September 6, 2005 when officials accused Cheng of “providing ‘intelligence’ to foreigners about forced abortions and sterilizations as part of strict family planning rules.” Officials cut Chen’s phone lines, refused him medical treatment and prevented him and his family from leaving their residence. China’s state media reported that Chen’s information led to the dismissal and detention of several officials of Linyi city in the Shandong province, but Chen stated that he has not heard that those officials were punished.

Where is the outrage from feminists about forced abortions and sterilizations? Shouldn’t reproductive freedom include freedom NOT to have an abortion? Shouldn’t “the right to choose” include allowing the men and women of China to choose life for their “unauthorized” babies?

Rather than being outraged by forced abortions, some feminists used data to demonstrate the safety of the abortion pill! In her 2000 paper, “Medical Abortion in China,” written for the American Women’s Medical Association, Wu Shangchun wrote of RU-486, “The current protocol of medical abortion for termination of early pregnancy in China is reasonable and feasible.” Apparently, the American Women’s Medical Association wasn’t concerned about the reproductive freedom of China’s citizens, but about making a cheaper method of abortion easily available in the U.S.

While feminists are “Enraged and Engaged” about the remote possibility that Roe v. Wade could be overturned, they are disconnected from the issues of civil rights and reproductive rights in China. They care about freedom to kill the unborn, not freedom to have children.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 01/08/06, all rights reserved

Mutilating Femininity

Jill Lawless’ December 19 AP article, “Researchers Find Barbie is Often Mutilated,” reports a University of Bath study of the role of brands among children. 100 seven to eleven year olds were queried about their attitudes toward a range of products. The study found that girls often mutilated Barbie. The girls’ torture methods included breaking, burning, decapitation and microwaving. The article does not refer to the torture of Barbies in any context such as playing war or acting out stories or movie roles. Violence toward Barbie doesn’t appear to be part of a game. It is the game. Such torture of a toy implies that the girls’ hostility is directed at something greater than Barbie.

Many girls questioned in the study explained their behavior by saying Barbie was “babyish.” The researchers concluded that torturing Barbies was a creative way of disposing of excess toys. That would be a logical conclusion if the children did the same with Cabbage Patch Dolls, teddy bears and other outgrown toys. However, the AP story implied that Barbie was the only toy subjected to such abuse. In fact, boys questioned in the survey “often expressed nostalgia and affection toward Action Man_the British equivalent of GI Joe.”

Many girls questioned in the study reported having boxes of Barbies. This led one University of Bath researcher, Dr. Agnes Nairn, to the conclusion that Barbie was a symbol of excess. It is logical that spoiled children would be careless with toys. Children who own many toys seem more likely to lose or accidentally break toys than those who own fewer toys. Displaying sadism toward a toy indicates something deeper than seeing the toy as extra. Wouldn’t children normally relegate outgrown or excess toys to attics and the backs of closets to eventually be donated to charity or thrown away?

Mutilation of Barbie seems like a rejection of traditional femininity. Ruth Handler’s inspiration for Barbie was the German Lilli fashion doll first made in 1955. Lilli was based on a cartoon character from the West German newsletter Bild. She was meant to be sexy. Lilli dolls were sometimes offered to women by boyfriends as an indication that they wanted their relationships to become intimate. Ruth Handler gave Barbie a more wholesome image and placed the emphasis on fashion.

Feminists objected to Barbie on the grounds that the doll emphasized fashion and beauty over intellect and career aspirations. Barbie is a doll: Whether or not Barbie represents a career-oriented character depends on the child who plays with her. In response to Barbie’s image problem with feminists, Mattel created some career Barbies such as “Veterinarian Barbie.” Feminists also objected to Barbie on the grounds that it drives girls to aspire to a physical standard that is impossible to meet. Tall, blonde, buxom, wasp-waisted, curvy-hipped Barbie is an idealized image. Children eventually learn humans’ looks and abilities can’t be based on artificial creations: Boys learn that they can’t fly like Superman and girls learn they can’t look like Barbie. Images created by toys and the media can influence how females will perceive their bodies when they grow up. Yet, no matter which images are presented, as long as physical appearance is a factor in attracting and keeping a man, women will worry about their looks. As male physical appearance became a greater factor in attracting women, men became more concerned about their looks and the metrosexual came into being.

The Barbie doll’s image is one of relatively modest femininity. While Barbie is tortured by British youngsters, her Syrian counterpart, Fulla, is adored by Middle Eastern girls. NewBoy Design Studio’s Fulla is sold wearing either a long coat with a white headscarf or a black abaya. Both Fulla dolls wear fashionable western dresses under the traditional garb. The Fulla doll reflects the values of traditional Middle Eastern society. Does Barbie still reflect those of Western society?

Sales of Bratz dolls, (introduced in 2000), are catching up to sales of Barbie, (introduced in 1959). Bratz are pouting, scantily clad dolls that bear a creepy resemblance to the alien depicted on the cover of the 1987 book, Communion. Bratz are fashion dolls, so a wardrobe of skanky, slutty, hookerish outfits is available. In an attempt to compete with Bratz, Mattel made Barbie the “My Scene Bling, Bling Barbie” who sported heavy make-up, a halter-top, hot pants and fake fur. Bratz, (the 6th biggest license in the UK in 2003), were not mentioned in the University of Bath study. Only Barbie seemed to be singled out for abuse.

Do Bratz reflect our present values? Sadly, they just might. The torture of Barbie dolls by young girls may reflect a visceral hatred of a feminine ideal of girl-next-door prettiness in favor of a feminine ideal of sleaziness. In an age when college girls seem to equate power with aggressive sexuality, the prettiness and relative modesty of Barbie may be seen as weakness. Barbie is a remnant of a time when many men placed women on a pedestal. Bratz are symbolic of a time when many women place themselves in the gutter.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 12/27/05, all rights reserved

"Merry Christmas" Shouldn't Offend

I am a practicing Jew who enjoys the Christmas season. I like the decorations, the parties, the exchange of cards and gifts and the general spirit of camaraderie. I do not feel “excluded” and suspect most non-Christians don’t. With about 17% of Jews, 39% of Buddhists and 21% of Muslims in America living in mixed-religion families, true religious exclusion doesn’t seem common. At this time of year, many non-Christians are purchasing Christmas gifts for friends and relatives. They are unlikely to be offended if retailers use the word Christmas in advertising or displays. I do not view displays with crèches and other religious or secular Christmas symbols as attempts to proselytize. I view such displays on commercial or public property as courtesy toward the religion that most Americans believe in rather than as the establishment of religion or an attempt to offend those of other faiths.

In his December 10, 2005 Washington Post column, Colbert I. King responded to Pat Buchanan’s 2004 “Christianophobia” column with, “News flash, Pat: Stores sell stuff. To everyone. That’s what they do. They’re not churches. They are stores.” Here’s a news flash for Mr. King. People who do not support a retailer’s views, displays, etc. have the right to not shop there. If King believes that the use of the word Christmas in a store turns it into a church, he must not know much about worship in any religion.

Later in that column, King asked, “How does a retailer’s decision not to make any customer feel like an outsider take Christmas away from me?” While it may not take anything from him personally, refusal to acknowledge name of the day gives the impression that Christmas and Christianity are not quite socially acceptable.

The idea that acknowledging Christmas makes some feel like outsiders falls apart when the same retailers use the names Hanukkah and Kwanzaa on displays of products for those holidays. Why advertise “Hanukkah menorah candles” while calling Christmas trees “holiday trees.” What other holiday involves the use of a decorated evergreen? Presidents Day?

Some, who don’t object to Christmas on the grounds that it excludes non-Christians, object to commercialization and materialism. A Manhattan resident who put up an outdoor display of a knife-wielding Santa next to a tree festooned with severed doll heads said, “it would be a fun way to make a comment about the commercialization and secularization of Christmas.” I wonder if it was fun for passing children and their parents. In Orlando, a homeowner created a display in lights of a field-dressed Rudolph with red lights to represent draining blood. According to the WFTV.com site, the homeowner declined to comment, so we can only guess whether the display is anti-hunting, anti-commercialization, anti-Christmas or anti-everything.

It is understandable that some people want the religious significance of Christmas to take precedence over gifts. However, many who gripe about commercialization do so while requesting and giving high-ticket items. Is it too cynical to wonder if such individuals are motivated more by envy than religiosity? The best way to combat the commercialization of holidays is not to contribute to it. If you feel as Colbert I. King does, that “spending and making loads of money in a crowded store with ‘Silent Night’ floating in the background hardly strikes me as the way to celebrate what happened in Bethlehem more than 2,000 years ago,” don’t. Those who feel that way are free to exchange minimal or no gifts and/or to donate to charity instead.

Christmas isn’t the only holiday that brings out the Grinch in some people. Thanksgiving brings condemnations of imperialism and mistreatment of the natives of this land as well as pro-vegan children’s books. On one hand, Halloween has been condemned as pagan or satanic. On the other hand, it has been criticized for being disrespectful to Wiccans. Additionally, some costumes are politically incorrect and sweets encourage obesity. What other holidays will people object to? Hanukkah commemorates not only the miracle of the oil, but a military victory. That could be upsetting to pacifists as could Memorial Day and Veterans’ Day. New Years Eve offends those who think people shouldn’t drink alcoholic beverages. Valentine’s Day excludes those who do not have spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends. As with Christmas, Easter excludes non-Christians and has been commercialized. Mother’s Day and Father’s Day are insensitive to children who don’t have mothers and/or fathers. Flag Day and Independence Day could be judged as too ethnocentric and nationalistic. Labor Day may be insensitive to the unemployed.

If we stop observing all holidays, will politically correct types be happy? No. They will just find other things to complain about. What happened to fun? The Christmas season was a happier time when it was about tidings of comfort and joy rather than whining about exclusivity and commercialization.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 12/18/05, all rights reserved