(Image: Tiger Woods walks with his wife Elin Nordegren during the President Cup in San Francisco on October 9, 2009. Woods announced on December 11, 2009 that he will take an indefinite break from professional golf after rumors of alleged affairs with several women have surfaced.)

It is a late-to-rise sort of morning, which means that I’m clutching my coffee territorially and I caught some of The View on TV. For all the harassment that The View receives, I like the ladies. True the squabbling gets a little old and I go cross-eyed at the back and forth, but at the end of the show they’ve addressed some type of women’s issue that needed attention for better or for worse. And it’s that catch phrase “…for better or for worse…” that has caught my attention this morning.

From JFK to John Edwards to Eliot Spitzer, Prince Charles to Picasso, from Kobe to Tiger and countless other celebrities, these men promised ‘for better or for worse’ and yet each had an extramarital affair or two. While women too commit their own sex scandals, it’s the male affairs that take center stage the most. But women do share the spotlight in affairs – mostly as the victimized wife. Placed before their peers, the wife must decide whether or not to uphold the concept of ‘for better or for worse’ after their husbands have broken their own shared vows first. Divorce is not an easy decision.

The dilemma of leaving or keeping a disrespected marriage has spawned many a ‘Dear Abby’ letter. This indecision is a clash between historical roles in marriage, religion and modernity in women’s roles today. Today we promote high levels of self-esteem in young girls, we encourage them to demand respect and hope that these lessons carry into adulthood. Yet as married adults, if these women experience a cheating husband we ask them to think first about their family, husband and vows before seeking divorce. Ted Haggard’s wife, Gayle Haggard, came out with a book called ‘‘Why I Stayed.’ She promoted it on Oprah and The View, speaking about her husband’s ordeals with homosexuality and drug use. As a dedicated Christian woman (Ted was the former president of the Nat’l Assoc. of Evangelicals before the scandal) divorce is not an option. Homosexuality is also not an option for Ted, as it goes against his Christian views, even though he admitted to Oprah that he still struggles with “compulsive homosexual tendencies.” On one hand, people will argue that divorce is against Christian values; on the other, the argument is that to love another you must honor and love yourself first. Women (and in Ted Haggard’s case) are left divided between two moral conundrums: sustain the family or sustain the self?

Today, 1 out of 4 women will experience some type of domestic abuse in their lifetime. Religiously speaking, there is no commandment that directly condemns violence, but there are two that condemn adultery: ‘Thou shall not commit adultery’ and ‘Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife.’ Victorian English law stated that men could legally beat their wives so long as the ‘stick was no bigger than his thumb, yet today we implore and expect physically abused women to leave and divorce their husbands immediately. Despite the express condemnation of adultery in the commandments twice, we culturally accept adultery more by encouraging women to consider the pros and cons longer rather then act immediately.

Over the centuries, it was quite common (if not expected) for men to have mistresses, concubines, lovers or brief affairs. Women could neither ask for a divorce nor have their own affair without inherent risk of loss of property, children and social acceptance. Their lot in life was to accept and faithfully ‘obey’ (another vow) the stewardship of their husband for life; infidelity was a part of that package. Today women have the right to divorce, but the stigma of divorce is not entirely gone. With divorce, women are left financially disabled which is why women usually receive alimony. This can be explained by stalled and stunted careers of women who put family first. They typically lose opportunities for advancement in promotion, pay and retirement compared to a man with a family.

The Clinton/Lewinsky affair is one of the most famous. At the time of the scandal, I was sixteen and had just discovered boys meanwhile scholastically learning to demand equality amongst the sexes. Hillary was my generation’s first solid female role model that dared to play in a man’s world. The scandal was a poignant moment for young women like me who had been brought up to believe in the 90’s theme of girl power. So it was dismaying to see this powerful women be so painfully and publicly disgraced by her husband (on the border of impeachment) and to stand by him. The conspiracy theory that she stayed for economic, political and career reasons are unconfirmed, but even my sixteen year old self understood the assumption that she would fair better if she stayed. And as we all know she is now a Senator of New York state. Divorce can seem like a challenging idea economically, but if we continue to expect a woman to give up a career or education at the behest of husband and/or family we are condemning her to make faulty divorce decisions based on basic economic dependency and not on morality.

The View interviewed Jenny Stanford on February 8^th. She has a book out called “Staying True” that resulted from her former husband’s, former S.C. Governor Mark Sanford, affair with an Argentinean woman. Unlike Haggard and Clinton, this affair involved amorous feelings. Mark described this other woman as his “soul mate.”  Emotional affairs can raise the stakes in seeking a divorce but it should not be a tipping point. The phrase ‘for better or for worse’ refers to a couple’s commitment to unite against outside influences. An extramarital affair is a marriage covenant betrayal within the marriage. It is a common mistake to assume that the phrase applies to violations within the marriage, but this is not the case in religious doctrine.

We teach females of all ages to take charge of their lives – to demand education, fairness, equal pay, reproductive rights and yet how we treat institutions like marriage and divorce contradict all those lessons. Extramarital affairs are regarded as morally wrong, yet if a marriage is irreparable what choice does a women have when we treat divorce as an equal sin? If the inequalities between sustaining an income, career and education with a family remain between men and women, how else do we expect women to gain independence after a divorce let along afford to chose one without economic concerns placed before moral ones?  And if we expect husband and wife to put family and spouse before themselves, what type of lessons do we exhibit when we violate shared trust and self-respect? The concept of ‘for better or for worse’ is deep-seated in historical injustices, inequalities and mistaken meanings, yet it holds just as much power and misconception today as it did yesterday. If we continue down this path and support such contrary ideas as listed above, we will continue to make morally divided and misaligned decisions regarding love, marriage and the self.

Related Posts:

About Face! Lookin’ Good the Natural Way

Neck Deep Beauty

Not Much to Cheer About-The Exploitation of the NFL Cheerleader

Feminists Fight Over Change, Not The Wedding Bouquet

Mackenzie McCollum, Courtesy of Barbara Horton

A 17 year-old Texan has filed a complaint with the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights against the Fort Worth school district for not allowing her to play on the volleyball team because she is pregnant. Senior, Mackenzie McCollum of Arlington Heights, dreamt of receiving a college scholarship and needed to play in order to be recruited by colleges. However, the school prohibited her from playing until they received adequate medical clearance, and even after returning to the volleyball court, she noticed a significant change in how she was utilized as a player. The school district is being examined for potential Title IX violations. Women, for decades, have been subjected to stereotypes regarding their physical capabilities during pregnancy. Since Title IX’s enactment in 1972, pregnancy in sports has existed but remained taboo; but the issue is starting to take center stage. As women’s reproductive rights are being threatened in Washington as we speak, this 17-year-old is declaring autonomy over her own body, and her offspring’s, to pursue the freedom of physical, professional and academic pursuits. Women like McCollum are helping redefine sexism and what it means to be a woman, a mother and an athlete.

Title IX protects individuals from discrimination and exclusion from participation in educational programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance on the basis of sex. It is most commonly viewed as a law protecting female athletes from discrimination and preserving their right to athletic pursuits; however, people fail to realize that it also protects a wide variety of student rights, including pregnancy.  At the NCAA level, more women are dedicating themselves to motherhood, academics and athletics. As a result, colleges maintain better-developed policies towards pregnant or parent athletes. College athletes can play pending medical approval, maintain the right to keep their scholarships during pregnancy and may use a medical-redshirt option, which extends their student-athlete eligibility for another year (students have five years of eligibility). Within high school settings, though, policies for athlete pregnancies are often under-developed or poorly instituted.

In an interview with ESPN, McCollum and her mother address issues of applying consistent policies toward students with special medical approval needs, and they implied that as Arlington Heights’ first pregnant athlete, the case was improperly handled. The coach, Jack Warren, disclosed McCollum’s pregnancy to her teammates without McCollum’s consent, which is against student privacy policy. Warren denies the allegation, but one teammate confirmed the privacy breach. After two doctor notes, athletic administrators eventually reinstated McCollum, but McCollum, a starting player, noticed that her playing time was dramatically reduced, an act which can be interpreted as retaliation by the school (another violation of Title IX). The school maintains that they were simply looking after the health and well being of the student and her unborn child, though they failed to consult medical professionals regarding the true capabilities of a pregnant athlete.

Commonly accepted ideas of physical well-being during pregnancy include maintaining a body temperature less than 102.6 degrees and a heart beat between 140-155/min. While this is still recommended, studies on pregnant athletes are under-researched and many times the health of mother and child rely on a case-by-case analysis. In regards to McCollum participating in a contact sport, Elizabeth Sorensen, assistant professor at the College of Nursing and Health and NCAA faculty athletics representative at Wright State Ohio, said research shows that in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, a fetus is so small and still protected by a mother’s pelvic bones that the risk of injury to mother or child is minimal. McCollum was 10 weeks pregnant at the time of her pregnancy announcement.

The McCollum event is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Education on four counts of discrimination; Lara Kaufman, Senior Counsel for the National Women’s Law Center is representing the McCollum case.  In a similar story from 2003, Tara Brady sued Sacred Heart University in Connecticut, eventually settling. The settlement resulted in the reformation of SHU policies and increased commitment to better management of similar future situations.

Women constantly make new strides in proving what they are capable of: expectant mothers are running marathons, playing at competitive levels into their 8^th month of pregnancy and remaining high caliber athletes after giving birth. The stereotypical frailty of the expectant mother is being broken down slowly, but continued changes in attitudes towards pregnant woman and strengthened policies are needed. Sports allow students great chances to gain physical and mental strength; they learn to work as a member of a community, but more importantly, to be a confident leader. The lessons from athletics are invaluable on and off the field, and as McCollum stands up for herself, this is inherently clear.

Related Posts:

Neck Deep Beauty

Not Much to Cheer About-The Exploitation of the NFL Cheerleader

Feminists Fight Over Change, Not The Wedding Bouquet

"How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah?" A cover taken from Runner's World Magazine, June 2009

For someone who’s been equated with a sexy librarian, has a porn-star lookalike and was one of 2008’s top sexy Halloween costumes, it’s been proven once again that sex and Sarah are seldom far apart. It has been almost a year since we were inundated with red blazers, Alaskan homespun values and hockey-mom sayings. Now she’s in the spotlight again, as she makes the rounds to promote her book, “Going Rogue.” Oprah, Good Morning America, 20/20 – on the book trail, Sarah recapped all her past political choices, and family gossip headlines. Sarah has been described as the Republican Party’s greatest celebrity and rock star (and therefore, liability). Rebuilding her brand and image is of the greatest importance right now, for a politician who, rumor has it, may run for president in 2012. Yet she finds herself at the head of more controversies, many of them relating to sexuality in media; but we all know a little bad press never really hurt anyone.

Sarah visited the famed, Tom Cruise-jumping couches of the Oprah show on Monday, November 16. There she commented on her daughter’s estranged baby-daddy’s, Levi Johnston’s, appearance in Playgirl as “I call it porn…” Sarah must have missed the memo stating that there would not be any frontal nudity in the photos, aside from a suggestively placed, and ironically appropriate hockey stick. Keeping to her conservative, Republican roots by denouncing actions of indecency like pornography is fine, but it appears calculated to throw out such an attention-grabbing word as “pornography” on a national show, a word which has different definitions depending on how a person was raised, the decade in which they grew up in…political views. Once upon a time Bettie Page was considered lewd, and yet now people view her photos as artistic gems. Perhaps she should not write off the Girls (or Alaskan Boy) Next Door.

Later in the media gambit, we discover the now infamous Runner’s World picture of Sarah posed like a NFL cheerleader donning two Blackberries, wearing running shoes and a fitted long-sleeved top. If you’ve ever asked yourself, “Who wears short shorts?” well, Sarah wears short shorts in Runner’s World – and on a Newsweek cover, and therein lies the controversy. The first problem is that the photo is under embargo for one-year following the Runner’s World publication, which means the photographer and agency are under a potential breech of contract. But that’s not Sarah’s concern; her main issue is that she finds the use of the photo by Newsweek offensive and sexist. Finally, feminists and conservatives have found common ground in denouncing the magazine’s use of the photograph. But is Newsweek really guilty of “sexism”?

This is not Sarah’s first appearance on Newsweek; it’s actually her third. The first time she was holding a shotgun over her shoulder, and the second time in October 2008, in an extreme close up of her face with the title, “She’s one of the folks (and that’s the problem).” Sarah supporters decried the 2008 cover as sexist because they failed to make her…wait for it…sexy enough. From wrinkles to pores to unwanted facial hair, a Republican Media Consultant criticized the liberal magazine for not photo-shopping enough and portraying other politicians in a more favorable light. If the magazine is guilty of sexism, that would mean women would be depicted in an offensive, exploitative and unequal way compared to men, or in a way that fosters stereotypes based on sex. Time to recall male politicians’ covers and how we’ve sized them up physically in the past.

To start, many women supporters see the disproportionately low number of women in politics as a key sign of inequality and that political females are more often judged on their appearance then men. I am not disputing this, but the question that arises is ”Are men immune to sexist or derogatory media coverage?” I researched the top political covers and found MIN Online’s top funniest political covers and discovered that seven out of eight where men, the single female being Hillary Clinton who shared the cover with Obama and Giuliani. True, women were poorly represented, but it was the men in this poll who took the brunt of the joke. Male leaders have also been the focus of sexual attention. People swooned over recent topless Obama pictures: what was a pleasant day outside for him turned into an exploited, ogle-fest for us. Even before Sarah and her short shorts, Clinton faced scrutiny when after his jogs he ended up at McDonald’s, and Alfred E. Neuman from Mad Magazine looked more and more like George Bush over the last 8 years. Tina Brown, in the Daily Breast, even commented that “No one cried sexism when New York magazine took a photo of fallen Gov. Eliot Spitzer and added the word “brain” with an arrow to his crotch.” Even the legacy of JFK lies as much in his looks and playboy antics as in his political career. So if you find yourself staring at the bared legs of Sarah, you’ve probably stared more at Gorbachev’s head.

The biggest issue lies in the idea that the Runner’s World photo is taken out of context; the argument being the photo was taken specifically for Runner’s World with an athletic focus, while readers associate Newsweek with blazers and Blackberries. If it’s inappropriate to cross sexuality with politics, Newsweek pointed out that sexuality was always a part of the equation with Sarah. Only now it’s grossly obvious. Sarah and her sexuality speak volumes on the cover of Newsweek, but it also spoke volumes as a cover for Runner’s World. This intended, or unintended, sexuality (or natural effervescence) was also ever-present when she was on the campaign trail in a full pantsuit. While she may be taking a hiatus from political life for the moment to promote her book, obviously her republican values and the politician inside are never napping. As Newsweek Managing Editor Daniel Klaidman further explained the editorial choice. “Since [Sarah Palin] has been on the national stage, there have been these questions about her gravitas and her seriousness. Sarah Palin has cultivated this image of a down-home, folksy, outdoorsy woman…but there is a sense in which she understands that it resonates politically.”  If Sarah wanted to focus on America’s obesity and her athleticism in Runner’s World sans politics, then she would have left the Blackberries and American colors at home. If she can be a political athlete in Runner’s World, why is it not fair for Newsweek to print an athletic politician?

With lots of disparaging news, her camp is quick to refute and defend allegations via Facebook and Twitter. If Sarah has learned anything over the last several years it’s that the controversies surrounding her in the short term add to her celebrity in the long run. Yet she fails to understand is that she is no longer a private citizen; what she does in the private sector will continue to reflect on her political aspirations. When the 11 AP news reporters committed themselves to fact-checking her book, she quips back with this Facebook post of “Really? Still Making Things Up?” It’s convenient that Sarah has found a new social platform to reach the masses (over a million Facebook fans) on the eve of her book release and new website launch. Given the right chance (ahem, a book tour), she has all the tools needed to gain the respect of an already extremely attentive public. Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said, “…she has potential to win supporters if she puts forth the right message…The art of creating conflict is getting her a lot of fame and fortune,” which, he went on to say, could garner her both political clout and pocket change.

Whether you believe Sarah is accurate in calling mild nudity porn or if she’s the victim of sexism in the media, Sarah is at a very powerful point in her career.  She finally has the autonomy and power to shape how the public sees her without McCain and Steve Schmidt on either shoulder. She also has the tools and strategy to defend herself and portray herself as a hero rather than the fumbling VP candidate of a year ago. Good or bad media she’s cashing in on the attention, monetarily and figuratively, and finally free to use it to her best potential. Whether we strengthen our resolve to support Sarah or remain opposed to her as a politician, her purpose as an of-the-moment celebrity has greater meaning for the future, which will slowly build momentum towards 2012.

Related Posts:

Neck Deep Beauty

Not Much to Cheer About-The Exploitation of the NFL Cheerleader

Feminists Fight Over Change, Not The Wedding Bouquet

Phil Mansfield of the New York Times

Come July, I am marrying a man, I will wear white, I will even wear high heels (for at least a portion of the wedding) and I call myself a feminist.  As a bride and a feminist, my goal is to dissect the formal, patriarchal institution of weddings in order to modernize the practice and align with current women’s rights.  So, because this is a topic that I have been actively thinking on for months, it came as no surprise to me when Jessica Valenti, feminist and author of Full Frontal Feminism and the website www.Feministing.org, announced her marriage to a man and her intention to wear a bridal gown.  The overwhelming discontent and criticism from Valenti’s feminist readership, on the other hand, was a surprise.

Critics challenged the idea of Valenti’s marrying. In doing so, they questioned her dedication to equal-opportunity marriage and implied increased vanity by being featured in the NY Times Vows section. Modern feminism is about free choice, independent thinking, not caving in to peer pressure or being influenced by status quo.  If the Vows section and Tracy Clark-Flory’s story proved anything, Valenti thought about her decision in depth.  Yet reaction still shows that feminists expect other feminists to act in correlation with each other, which, one could argue, only derails all that we are trying to accomplish because we become mirror images of each other, clones, stamped impressions. By modeling this single feminist ideal, we are unable to honor our personal beliefs and ourselves.  If we have fought consistently for anything it is to be ourselves – free and whole.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, I ranted to a friend about how Sarah Palin was setting women back.  My friend, also a feminist, calmly replied, “You may not agree with Palin’s politics or person, but she is choosing to be a leader in her own political views.”  In truth, I was so blinded by my own ideas of what a woman leader should be in political choice that I couldn’t see another side to the argument.  I didn’t like it, but my friend was right: our peers’ values will never align perfectly with our own, but accepting these different worldviews is part of the inclusive feminism we are trying to preach.

Some reactions to Valenti’s marriage addressed the “equal-opportunity marriage” stance, as posted on Salon.com.  Kate Harding posted, “straight-married is a conscious exploitation of privilege unbecoming a public figure committed to social justice.” Tracy-Clark Flory explained that while she’d love to get married, she couldn’t condone marriage while it remains an exclusionary act run by the state. While boycotting can be effective, so can other, more positive, approaches. I recently met a newlywed couple who married in the Boston Garden though they had no connection to the city.  When I asked why, the groom explained that they were born and raised in states that do not allow same-sex marriage, and, even though they are a heterosexual couple, it was important they marry in a state that supported gay-marriage. I found that type of commitment refreshing and crucial to modernizing marriage. Perhaps that extra mile when planning a wedding can be the glimmer of change we want to see in the world.

Some feminists accepted Valenti’s nuptials, though these also seem to be the ones who cried “…but why the Vows section?”  Wedding culture has indeed blown itself out of proportion.  If men stereotypically like to overcompensate for…well, you know, then women fall prey to overcompensating in weddings – get that big diamond, that designer dress, a cake reaching to the heavens and walk down the isle like it’s the red carpet.    The Vows section can seem stereotypically vapid and superficial, but as feminists we should know better than to accept labeling.  One critic at least looked at the positive side stating that it seemed the Vows section was at least opening it’s doors to “gay and poor couples…”  This development of the Vows section took years, and further changes to the institution of marriage will not occur overnight; though, and call it naïve optimism, I believe controversies such as this are the sparks which result in leaps forward.

Feminists encourage women to be open with their opinions and actions, but then to judge those opinions and actions rather than constructively discuss does not further the feminist cause. Collectively we want to incentivize social change through positive dialogue and action; internal dissonance, made public, will only propagate the stereotypical catfights that we seek to overcome. We then become our own worst enemies because we set ourselves back.

So for those congratulating Valenti or disowning her, perhaps she has set in motion an opportunity for change – if nothing else, she has sparked an important and previously ignored topic of how to modernize marriage.   If Valenti, this publicly vocal feminist, was able to create a wedding that was in line with her own beliefs, who are we to judge whether she betrayed her sisters and brothers or the cause?  I would like to think that a staunch feminist like Valenti wouldn’t abandon her convictions just because Cupid’s arrow is stuck in her bustle.  Perhaps our job is not to prohibit the institution of marriage, but to finally modernize it, to mold it into the equally shared, unique, spiritual and unifying experience it’s meant to be.

Related Posts:

About Face! Lookin’ Good the Natural Way

Neck Deep Beauty

Not Much to Cheer About-The Exploitation of the NFL Cheerleader

Feminists Fight Over Change, Not The Wedding Bouquet