Month: June 2011

Implanted breasts and concerned scholars

Posted on by Shari Graydon

Yesterday, sharing my Top 7 Reasons Smart Women Should Speak Up with a group of scholars at Carleton University in Ottawa, the conversation turned – as it often does – to the potential aftermath of gaining media profile. Many women worry about the fall-out from this, not wanting to be slagged – either by colleagues who disagree with their analysis, or by mean-spirited internet trolls who insult their appearance, intelligence or right to an opinion.

(Yes, it happens, but you’re the one with the informed insights whose views were deemed of sufficient value to publish or broadcast, not theirs, so let’s be clear about the resentment that’s often behind such critiques. And think about how little sense it makes to lose sleep over attacks coming from anonymous on-line time-wasters too cowardly to even own their identity!)

When I’m moved to write commentary, I never think about such consequences – partly because I’m not an academic and don’t deal with the petty jealousies and power jockeying that often takes place in universities, and partly because being called a feminazi or dog-faced slut hasn’t killed me yet.

Other women are concerned about being seen as promoting themselves. But that’s not what it’s about. By speaking up about something you believe is important and happen to know more about than the average person, you’re sharing information that may help others better understand an issue or make a decision in their – or society’s – best interests. It has nothing to do with self-promotion.

I have a piece in today’s Globe and Mail about the FDA’s recent update on the “relative safety” of breast implants. Whenever I write on this topic, there are probably a few people who wonder about the status of my breasts and/or psyche: why does she care? what does she know? is she bitter because they didn’t work for her? is she trying to deprive guys from enjoying Hooters? does she have any idea of the havoc pregnancy and breast feeding can wreak on beautiful breasts?

The truth is much simpler: in researching a previous book, In Your Face – The Culture of Beauty and You, I learned all sorts of things about the problematic impacts of breast implants that are not commonly understood. It made me incensed that we live in a culture that encourages kids as young as 7 years old to become self conscious about their “breasts” and wonder if they need implants. (True story told to me by a TV reporter about her young niece.) Discovering that implants were becoming a graduation gift of choice in many affluent communities, I collaborated with two amazing media artists to create an online media literacy intervention that would draw attention to the health and financial consequences of implants. Our site, plasticassets.com, won a Huffington Post Contagious Media award for its demonstrated effectiveness at spreading the word.

Which is what it’s all about, for me.

PR practitioners vastly outnumber journalists

Posted on by Shari Graydon

I spent three years in the mid 1980s flogging pseudo news stories to journalists on behalf of large corporations. (All I can say now is I’m sorry, and I’ve been putting my talents to better use ever since.) Employed by Burson-Marsteller, then the world’s largest PR agency, I was astonishingly successful at getting my fast food, pharmaceutical and consumer products clients onto radio talk shows and into business sections of newspapers across western Canada.

I was paid well, got to travel a lot, and learned even more. But after three years I couldn’t do it any longer. It depressed me that rich corporations were able to buy their way into the news, and that I was helping them – often at the expense of what I believed were much more important stories.

Now new research documents the fact that PR “flacks” outnumber journalist “hacks” by a factor of six to one. A recent article in The Economist magazine profiled a study done by Jamil Jonna at the University of Oregon finding that as newsrooms have cut staff, the ranks of those tasked with attempting to influence news coverage has swelled significantly.

I’m not alone in thinking this is bad news for the future of independent and authoritative information that helps citizens make sense of an increasingly complex world in which public space is already overwhelmingly dominated by commercial interests.

Sexual assault – defining consent, round 2

Posted on by Shari Graydon

“Feminazi”, “President, Bitch of the Year Club” and “you dog-faced slut” – these are among the monikers I collected during my three-year stint as an out-feminist columnist with the Vancouver Sun. Most of the insults came from readers, but occasionally a columnist from another paper – or even my own – would be so stuck for meaningful material that he (and yes, I’m afraid it was invariably a “he”) would devote his 24 inches to slagging my apparent failure to find sexism funny, or permit other people to just “have a good time”.

My skin thickened over those three years, and I really grew to appreciate that the attacks helped expose the ignorance behind them. Moreover, I had the opportunity each week to challenge the dismissive or insulting characterizations of me with words of my own.

Women who don’t have the luxury of a regular column often feel personally bruised by the sometimes personalized and gratuitous word-assaults still regularly leveled at those who defend a woman’s right to say no, even to her partner.

That’s why it was doubly gratifying yesterday to see Danielle Fostey and Heather Cassells, two legal interns with West Coast LEAF who benefited from some indirect Informed Opinions support, challenge the specious arguments Vancouver Sun columnist Ian Mulgrew made about sexual consent in his own paper. Mulgrew himself had been responding, in part, to the cogent analysis of a recent Supreme Court decision delivered by University of Ottawa law professor, Elizabeth Sheehy, who had actually intervened in the case. In his column, however, Mulgrew characterized Prof. Sheehy as “sneering” and accused her of being locked up in her ivory tower. Neither charge is remotely accurate, and betray lazy reporting and a willingness to stereotype.

For their parts, Danielle Fostey and Heather Cassells take apart the columnist’s arguments piece by piece, refuting his claims with concrete evidence, case law and common sense. It’s an illuminating read about a persistently troubling issue.

Controversial “unconscious consent” case given context

Posted on by Shari Graydon

Last week’s controversial decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in favour of protecting unconscious women from sexual assault begged for additional context and analysis. The salacious facts of the case (including the apparently agreed-to asphyxiation, the nature of the assault, and the subsequent relationship breakdown of the couple involved) have fueled simplistic and predictable commentary dismissing the woman’s complaint and raising the specious spectre of a slippery slope that will endanger men who kiss their sleeping wives.

But University of Ottawa professor, Elizabeth Sheehy knows the case well, having intervened at the Supreme Court on behalf of LEAF. On Friday when the decision was released, she was quick to translate the evidently compelling arguments she offered in court into accessible newspaper commentary.

As a result, her analysis is now enlightening readers of three daily newspapers: The Vancouver Sun, The Halifax Chronicle Herald, and La Presse.

This case is a classic illustration of the importance of ensuring women’s perspectives are heard. As Ms. Sheehy points out in her analysis, the Supreme Court’s decision reflects a gender split, with three male judges dissenting from the majority, which included all four of the female judges, as well as two of their male colleagues. If women’s realities weren’t represented by the presence of Justices Beverley McLachlin, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron and Marie Deschamps, the outcome might have been different.