In Britain this week, a mother and father are squaring off in court. Although the couple is "amicably separated," their dispute has nothing to do with alimony or child custody. Their legal teams are battling over something much more difficult: whether the parents' 1-year-old son should live or die.
Over the weekend, the Times of London broke the story of two young parents who disagree on what the future should hold for their severely disabled child. Known in the press as Baby RB, for reasons of anonymity, the boy suffers from congenital myasthenic syndrome, "a rare genetic fault meaning his muscles are too weak for him to move his limbs effectively or breathe unaided." There is no cure for his illness, which has forced him to spend his entire life in the hospital and renders him unable to "move his limbs effectively or breathe unaided." Because he can't swallow, the boy must also endure painful lung-suction treatments every few hours.
Now, doctors recommend removing Baby RB from his ventilator, which would cause him to die. His mother agrees with the hospital, arguing that her son deserves a "peaceful, calm and dignified death," to end his "intolerable suffering." But his father wants the boy to undergo a tracheostomy, which the Times describes as "an operation in which an opening is cut in the neck to deliver oxygen to the lungs." The procedure, he believes, would finally allow Baby RB to come home -- despite testimony Tuesday morning from a pediatric intensive care consultant who says the child "was 'not a candidate' for tracheostomy." The doctor told the court, "This is not an existence that most families want for their children."
From a legal standpoint, this may be a landmark case. "If the hospital is successful," the Times reports, "it will be the first time a British court has ruled life support can be withdrawn for a child not suffering brain damage, against the will of a parent." There does, however, seem to be some disagreement over whether Baby RB's condition has affected his cognitive development. On Sunday, the Times claimed, "His brain has not been affected, and he can see and hear; he enjoys being read stories." But in court Monday, the Guardian reports, pediatrician Dr. David Roberts, "who has visited RB and studied video footage of his daily life, said that while he possessed 'cognitive ability', it was hard to gauge his developmental progress objectively." The doctor told the court that the boy's reactions didn't vary when he was faced with a stranger, as opposed to his own parents -- a telltale sign that all might not be well with Baby RB's brain function.
Of course, the British press is all over the case, and everyone has an opinion. Unsurprisingly, British anti-choice groups are spinning the case as a "right-to-life" issue. In a press release, Anthony Ozimic of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children had this to say:
Whenever there is doubt about life-sustaining medical treatment, everyone should act with a presumption in favour of life. The value of a person's life, and the protection due to that life, should never be judged according to opinions about the person's quality of life. An ill or disabled person's life should never be regarded as not worth living. Doctors should not confuse the possible burdens of a medical intervention with the priceless worth of a person's life.
The Telegraph's religion editor, George Pitcher, is sympathetic to both parents' plight, framing the decision as a question of whether attempts to save the child would do any good:
As far as the nursing staff who care for Baby RB are concerned, it’s worth pointing out that our medical profession never deliberately kills anyone. It withdraws medication and treatment when it is deemed to be futile. That’s what Baby RP’s [sic] case has to decide, not whether his life is worth any less than those of the rest of us. For all the other failings in our health service, that’s a principle of which we should be proud and which is worth defending.
While I understand where Pitcher is coming from, I do think it's important to take into account the likelihood that Baby RB's life will entail nothing more than suffering. Must we only deem attempts to save a child "futile" when it's clear he will die? Or is it also "futile" to keep the boy on his ventilator when it's likely that keeping him alive will doom him to an entire life spent in the hospital, enduring constant pain?
Whatever happens to Baby RB (and I don't feel qualified to render an opinion on that), one thing is clear to me: This case shouldn't be about political leverage or who is a better parent. As the Guardian mentions, the mother and father are both described as "utterly devoted parents" who visit their child in the hospital daily. It's clear that both are hurting, deeply. However the judge decides, the story of Baby RB will be a tragedy for everyone involved.
The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut, who covered both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin extensively during the 2008 campaign, has written a book, "Notes from the Cracked Ceiling," on what she's learned from and about women in politics — and, as the subtitle says, "What It Will Take for a Woman to Win" the presidency. I look forward to reading the whole thing, but here's what I've learned from the excerpts and related items currently running in the Post: We still haven't had enough women in politics at all, let alone at the national level, to draw many firm conclusions.
Take Kornblut's tips for "How to shatter the 'highest, hardest' glass ceiling," which include: Beat breast cancer. No, really. Surely, it's a tongue-in-cheek strategy suggestion, but given the number of female politicians who have successfully leveraged their triumph over the disease to improve their image — Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell — it might just be one of the best. By contrast, only Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have provided evidence that advice like "Don't take women — especially young women — for granted" is sound.
Then there's the "Women Leadership Styles" piece (which notes that former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina is "is pointing to her recent survival of breast cancer as evidence she is tough" in her campaign to unseat California Sen. Barbara Boxer), which identifies five models, including one ("The Businesswoman") that is admittedly "untested." Beyond that, the "Iron Lady" has a good track record internationally, but only Clinton and Madeleine Albright fall into that category in the U.S. We apparently favor "The Prosecutor" — e.g., Napolitano, Gregoire, Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, and Jennifer Granholm — although "The Young Mom" can sometimes be a crowd-pleaser. Reps. Wasserman Schultz, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Linda Sánchez have done all right with that, but then, the only female governor of Massachusetts, Jane Swift, might have been forced out because she gave birth while in office, and the other noteworthy figure in this category is Sarah Palin. On the upside, if Jane Swift waits until she's a bit older to try again, her maternal image could make her a fabulous "Grandmother in Pearls" — a love of children is evidently an asset as long as you're done raising them — à la Nancy Pelosi. Who, although she "is, after all, the most successful woman in American political history" is also the only woman working that particular model, making it not so much a "women leadership style" as "one woman's persona." And that's the whole list. (As Bitch Ph.D.'s M. Leblanc tweeted, "Women leaders, get them in ALL THE FLAVORS!!!")
So the path is clear for little girls who want to be politicians when they grow up: Become a successful prosecutor with young children and grandchildren simultaneously, and never let work interfere with your home life, or vice versa. Failing that, cultivate an image of toughness — and enough actual toughness to endure all the jokes about your either having testicles yourself or being inclined to remove other people's — or become CEO of a huge corporation and cross your fingers that that will work someday. Bonus points if you survive breast cancer. Oh, also, in the immortal words of Ani DiFranco (whom you probably shouldn't listen to unless you want to grow up to be some kind of commie, but still), "God help you if you are an ugly girl/'course too pretty is also your doom." If, like Clinton, you dare to have undereye bags in your 60s, you'll be savaged. If, like Pelosi, you have obvious work done to counter the criticism that you look too much like an actual aging woman, you'll be savaged for that, too. And if, like Granholm, you're younger and conventionally beautiful — hey, guess what! Also a problem! "Voters can find a woman attractive, but they don't necessarily think that translates into gravitas," writes Kornblut. Neither, apparently, do a Harvard law degree and experience as a prosecutor, at least until you fug yourself up in television ads. Says one of Granholm's advisors, "When we took it down a notch, people said, 'OK, she can be governor.'" God bless America.
And of course, there's Palin — an inescapable part of the conversation whether we're discussing beauty queen governors, female presidential contenders, moms of young children, the 2008 election or a laundry list of other issues. Her very omnipresence in articles and now books about women in politics only serves as a reminder of how few serious success stories there have been from which we can draw lessons for the future. Kornblut lumps her in with all the others in these short pieces, as though Palin's just one more highly accomplished woman butting her head into that glass ceiling, sidestepping the fact that — although she's taken her share of purely sexist criticism — the former Alaska governor's reputation suffers most because she distorts facts, presents ignorance as a virtue, translates the Constitution as saying that freedom of speech means freedom from criticism, et frickin' cetera. That this is one of the most visible women on the political stage — a fluke and a national embarrassment — is all the evidence necessary to prove that we still don't know jack about what it takes for a woman to succeed on merit at the highest levels. And when the number of successful female politicians is so pathetically small that even an expert on the subject is reduced to offering insights like, Umm, it probably helps to be an average-looking breast cancer survivor, and having kids is good except when it isn't, all that tells me is that we need to elect a hell of a lot more women before seeking patterns in their examples will be worth the trouble.
As our own Laura Miller said in "The Magician's Book," there are two kinds of readers: "those who liked 'Little Women' and those who preferred 'The Phantom Tollbooth.'" But whichever team you happen to play for, tonight, rather than curling up with another episode of "Two and a Half Men," why not watch "Louisa May Alcott: The Woman Behind Little Women" on PBS's "American Masters"?
In tandem with Harriet Risen's biography of the same name, director Nancy Porter's film looks to be a lively portrait of a woman who was uncommonly clever and ambitious in a time when women were rarely prized for being either. And though she's a beloved literary heroine to generations for the book her editor described simply as "a girl's story," Alcott, it turns out, was also a hash-smoking, free-thinking, pulp fiction-writing one-of-a-kind American icon. Imagine the fanstastic blog she'd have if she were alive today.
On New Year's Eve, people get drunk and sentimental, two states that often lend themselves to spontaneous sexual encounters. In fact, according to the National Institute for Reproductive Health, it's "the biggest night of the year for birth control accidents." That's why they've launched the "Don't Drop the Ball" campaign, encouraging women to inform each other about emergency contraception — sales of which "more than double in the days after December 31st" — via text messages and a video (below) pointing out that New Year's Eve revelry can lead to hazards like drunk-texting grandma and having unprotected sex, only one of which has an after-the-fact solution.
Now, I'm all for reminding everyone that EC is an option up to 120 hours after sex, and if you're over 17 it's available without a prescription — consider yourself reminded! — but contraceptive campaigns targeted solely at women make me a little pissy. Where's the one encouraging men who showed up without a condom, or were right there when it broke, to send the women involved a helpful text message the next morning? "Sorry I was 2 wasted 2 put it on right, but if yr pharmacist isn't a fundie, u can get Plan B. Happy new year." Instead, this campaign asks women to look out for each other, by sending "humorous" texts from imaginary bad dates like the Iceberg Lettuce Connoisseur because, while you can't help your bestie with that drunken message to grandma, you can act like her meddling mother the next day.
It turns out there's a good reason the "Don't Drop the Ball" project was aimed at girlfriends, though. Samantha Levine, director of marketing and media relations for the National Institute for Reproductive Health, told me on the phone, "Obviously, I think we'd all agree that the onus shouldn't be solely on women," but they nixed the idea of encouraging men to take responsibility for emergency contraception for fear of anti-choice backlash. "Not that we ever want to cater to the antis," she said, "but there is this mythology out there that men will get women drunk and then force them to take EC," thanks to the usual "paternalistic concern that the woman's not a conscious player" in her own sexual and reproductive choices. So the people creating the campaign were "nervous" that aiming it at men would reinforce the notion that nefarious guys will use women for sex and then stick around long enough to shove pills down their throats instead of just hitting the road or wearing condoms in the first place. Or something. Oh, antis, your ability to concoct ever-more-absurd scenarios to deny that women have any sexual agency never ceases to amaze.
Don't get me wrong — with all due respect to women who freely choose to ring in the new year with a new dude, one of my first thoughts when I saw that EC use skyrockets after Dec. 31 was, "I wonder how much of that drunken, unprotected sex is nonconsensual — and where's the 'Hey, guys, if she's drunk on cheap champagne this New Year's, don't rape her!' campaign?" But I certainly didn't worry that the use of emergency contraception might be nonconsensual, on account of how I'm not nuts. So I can understand why the National Institute for Reproductive Health would want to avoid reinforcing that myth — and regardless of how it's accomplished, increasing awareness of morning (and then some)-after options is a good thing. Says Levine, "It's surprising how many people still don't know about it." Even in conversations with her friends, who are pretty well informed about contraception, she's found that a lot of women don't realize or forget that it exists. "We didn't need to do 'Make sure you go buy a condom,' because people know about that," she said. But for some women, that text from the Iceberg Lettuce Connoisseur on Jan. 1 just might come as an enormous relief.
In case you needed any reminding that the holidays can be alarmingly awful, look no further than the bookended tales of this festive season — both involving highly successful men, their wives and early-morning altercations.
We all know by now how Tiger Woods spent the wee hours of his day after Thanksgiving — an alleged dispute with his wife over the rapidly detonating bombshells of his infidelities, a drive into a tree, injuries — and that's just for starters.
Now consider the tale of Charlie Sheen — truther fruitbat and television's most highly compensated actor, who was arrested in Aspen, Colo., on Christmas following an 8:34 a.m. call to 911. After being booked for second-degree assault, menacing and criminal mischief, Sheen spent a night in jail, posted $8,500 bail, and is now set to return to Colorado next month to face charges. His wife, Brooke Mueller, with whom he has 9-month-old twin sons, meanwhile allegedly claimed Sheen threatened her with a knife — and then recanted her story after telling police she'd been drunk she when made the call. According to TMZ, Mueller tested at a blood alcohol level of 0.13, lending credence to her assertion of inebriation and giving Mr. and Mrs. Sheen a Christmas morning straight out of Norman Mailer.
And on the other side of the world this yuletide, Finnish ski jumping champion and Olympic medalist Matti Nykanen was arrested after allegedly spending his Christmas attempting to stab and strangle his wife. Nykanen was also arrested in 2004 for stabbing a companion in a bar fight.
Sheen's attorney Richard Cummins, meanwhile, told People on Saturday that Sheen and Mueller "have two children together and they love one another and they’re going to work through what is a difficult time and they’re going to do that together and as privately as possible."
The incident is far from Sheen's first domestic dispute. The hooker aficionado was arrested in 1996 for attacking then-girlfriend Brittany Ashfield and served two years' probation for the offense. More recently, his ex-wife Denise Richards detailed a laundry list of abusive behavior in her 2006 divorce papers, culminating in a showdown in which she says Sheen shoved her in front of her daughter and threatened to kill her — an incident which, notably, occurred on Dec. 30.
What is it about the ostensibly most wonderful time of the year that makes it so fraught with potential violence?
On PsychCentral earlier this month, Dr. David Schneider, chair of family and community medicine at St. Louis University, noted a toxic combination of factors that can push families over the edge. "There’s a lot of stress associated with the holidays, from pressure to provide for the family and money issues to spending more time with distant family," he said. "Domestic violence often revolves around high-stress times. Additionally, people tend to drink more alcohol around the holidays, and about half of all domestic violence occurs when either the perpetrator or victim is under the influence of alcohol."
And as Janet Scott-Mace, associate executive director at the Women's Center and Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh explained to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review after a harrowing Christmas-morning standoff involving a local man and his pregnant girlfriend, "Anytime an outside stressor comes into play in families where there is abuse, the violence will escalate, especially over the holidays. Don't get me wrong — Christmas doesn't make families violent. But if there are domestic violence issues in the family, it often escalates."
We don't have to go all urban legend about on the worst times of year to get in a domestic dispute — it can happen at any time. A 2008 US Census report detailed more than 60,000 domestic violence calls in just one September day. Nor, as the incredibly murky details of both Woods' and Sheen's stories suggest, is the story always a straightforward case of male-on-female abuse — men make up approximately 15 percent of domestic violence victims.
One thing is clear — the pressure cooker period between Thanksgiving and New Year's is particularly, sometimes tragically, fraught for men and women who are already vulnerable — those with a history of violence and substance abuse, for example. And though they missed celebrating Christmas together, Sheen's wife has apparently belatedly given him something to remember her by — a restraining order.
Neither rain, nor sleet, nor house arrest will keep Roman Polanski from delivering good tidings and cheer. In a letter written from his current detention center (a spectacular three-story Swiss chalet) and his first public statement since being locked up, the 76-year-old director sent warm holiday wishes to his supporters.
That's right -- Polanski's first public words after being imprisoned didn't express remorse or beg for forgiveness. Instead, he gave a shout-out to all of the strangers out there who have had his back this whole time -- despite his having raped a 13-year-old girl. Polanski writes that he has "been overwhelmed by the number of messages of support and sympathy" he has received:
These messages have come from my neighbors, from people all over Switzerland, and from beyond Switzerland -- from across the world. I would like every one of them to know how heartening it is, when one is locked up in a cell, to hear this murmur of human voices and of solidarity in the morning mail. In the darkest moments, each of their notes has been a source of comfort and hope, and they continue to be so in my current situation.
The entire stomach-churning communique can be found on the Huffington Post, where it was published Monday by the letter's recipient, French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy. Thanks to "the generous access provided by Arianna Huffington and her staff," Lévy has used the site for months now as a dumping ground for his Polanski apologism -- or, as he likes to call it, a point of view that "contrasts with the howling of the pack." The truth, though, is that early on a significant share of "the pack" was howling about Polanski's victimhood just like Lévy -- but sanity finally prevailed. Unfortunately, despite popular opinion turning against the world-renowned director, his letter sadly suggests that Lévy is still far from alone.
It's the second day of Broadsheet's link-giving holiday, which means another shiny ... blog post for you to read. Yesterday we served up our best missives of the year on the topics of reproductive rights and motherhood. Now, we present to you our favorites on sex, lies and scandal — and, this year, there was plenty to choose from on that front.
"She's So Beautiful and Nice. How Do You Hit Her?" by Judy Berman: You might ask, What the hell does being pretty have to do with being hittable? At least that's what we wondered when folks started invoking domestic-violence stereotypes in reaction to Chris Brown's assault on Rihanna.
"Why I'm Starting to Feel for Miss California," by Mary Elizabeth Williams: Carrie Prejean may represent "the goody goody, the beauty queen, the topless model, the 'dumb bitch,' the would-be porn star" — but the public hatred for her says more about us than it does about her. We're the ones still clinging "to the nearly impossible-to-uphold standards we set for our beauty monarchy — sexy but not too sexy, pure but not prudish, outspoken but only if we agree with the opinion." Granted, this story was written before she truly refused to go away.
"Elizabeth Edwards' Walk of Pain," by Rebecca Traister: Why did a brilliant woman subject herself to a tortured media tour following the revelation of her husband's infidelity? She seemed on a mission to regain her dignity. As Traister so eloquently puts it:
One way to do that, of course, is to be the person who says everything that everyone else might be saying behind your back, so that they don't think you're clueless or weak. Another is to develop your own account of what happened, including the vulnerabilities that you are able to turn into strengths by expressing them with grace and beauty. Another is to trash that bitch who banged your husband in front of the whole world, with Oprah on your side.
"Craigslist Xes Out Sex Ads," by Tracy Clark-Flory: In May, Craigslist announced it was shuttering its infamous "erotic services" section and replacing it with an "adult" area, where ads would cost $10 and be rigidly screened for illegal services. Broadsheet spoke with prostitutes who made a guess as to where sex workers would turn next: the streets. But, shortly thereafter, it became clear that Craigslist's supposed turnabout really only "amounted to a dimming of the flashing lights and a renaming of its virtual red light district" — all in response to a crusading state attorney general.
"The Thorn Birds of South Carolina," by Amy Benfer: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's e-mail exchanges with his mistress, "Maria," were "part morality play, part bodice-ripper" and 100 percent riveting. They also reveal Sanford as "a guy struggling to reconcile his duties as a husband and father with being 'impossibly,' 'hopelessly' in love with another woman." Ah, the timeless appeal of star-crossed sex scandals.
"Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child," by Kate Harding: After the world-renowned director was finally arrested in Switzerland, you wouldn't think those five words — "Roman Polanski raped a child" — needed to be said. However, Broadsheet's Kate Harding was one of the first to say what truly mattered, and in doing so she helped change the national conversation:
Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.
"Cheering for Letterman's Confession," by Mary Elizabeth Williams: The "Late Show" host seemed to have learned a thing or two about how to properly handle a sex scandal from the mistakes of his philandering predecessors: "There were no Mark Sanford-style tears. No John Edwards-esque denials. No John Ensign-y contrite admissions that it was 'absolutely the worst thing I've done in my life.' No shame or blame. Just some straight-up, self-deprecating honesty." In a year of sex, lies and scandals, how refreshing is that?
Existential America
My Visit to the Botox Torture Doc
Twilight as "Girl Crack"--I Figured It Out!
