Sleeping in Sports Bras

FASHION/HEALTH - Myself and a friend have both been experiencing muscle-related chest pains as we get older, especially while we sleep, and we think its caused by a lack of support while we sleep.

We were both told by our mothers (and everyone else with an opinion) that we're not supposed to sleep with a bra and told it would either make our breasts smaller, cause deformities, that its bad for circulation, constricts your breathing and that its unhealthy for a variety of reasons.

Well, recently my friend has started wearing a sports bra to bed. Not a really tight one, just something comfortable that provides support and she claims her chest pains have gone away. It could be a placebo effect, but she's certain its the sports bra.

Now before I jump on the bandwagon and try the same thing I thought I'd consult the internet and see what other people have been saying about sleeping in sports bras... and what I found was a lot of people with an opinion, but most of it just seems to be hearsay. Some people even mention so-called studies that prove sleeping in a bra (regardless of type) is bad for your health. Well, I've been searching around for these studies and I can't find any of the research results. I have pretty much concluded this "don't sleep in a bra" thing is just an urban myth forced on women (by ourselves it would appear).

I'd love to see a formal or informal study of 10 women with muscle-related chest pains who all decide to wear sports bras for 2 weeks and see if it helps. Maybe then we could disprove this myth once and for all.

According to rumour (not sure if this is true or not) Marilyn Monroe always slept with a bra so she would never lose that gravity-defying look. So evidently I am not the only one who thinks this "don't sleep in a bra" thing is a myth.

See Also:
History of the Bra
Bras, Spas and Anorexic Celebrities
Sports, Corsetry and the Empowerful Woman

Religion and the Rape of Children

RELIGION - Ten-year-old girls are ready for marriage, according to Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric.

Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Al Sheikh, the country's grand mufti, told Al Hayat newspaper that those saying ten or 12-year-old girls are too young to marry are being 'unfair' to them.

Al Sheikh's comments come at a time when Saudi human rights groups have been pushing the government to put an end to marriages involving the very young and to define a minimum age for marriage.

Though the mufti's pronouncements are respected and provide guidance, the government is not legally bound by them.

On Sunday, the government-run Human Rights Commission in Saudi Arabia condemned marriages of minor girls, saying such marriages are an 'inhumane violation' and rob children of their rights.

The commission's statement followed a ruling by a court in Oneiza in central Saudi Arabia last month that dismissed a divorce petition by the mother of an eight-year-old girl whose father married her off to a man in his 50s.

Newspaper reports said the court argued that the mother did not have the right to file such a case on behalf of her daughter and said that the petition should be filed by the girl when she reaches puberty.

Responding to a question about parents who force their underage daughters to marry, the mufti said: 'We hear a lot about the marriage of underage girls in the media, and we should know that Islamic law has not brought injustice to women.'

The mufti said a good upbringing will make a girl capable of carrying out her duties as a wife and that those who say women should not marry before the age of 25 are following a 'bad path'.

Women during Recessions

FEMINISM/POLITICS - A survey released by the Boston Consulting Group this month showed that during the current American recession:

1) 65 per cent of American women plan to cut spending, compared to 58 per cent of men.

2) 41 per cent of American women feel they are in too much debt, compared to 27 per cent of men.

3) 30 per cent of American women are insecure about their finances, compared to 19 per cent of men.

4) 14 per cent of American women are worried about losing their job, compared to 10 per cent of men.

Arguably the reason why women are more frugal with money is because we, generally speaking, have less money. Women are also more likely to be the ones who manage the bill payments for households (while their husbands conveniently find time to wash the car or clean the garage).

So the above statistics comes as no surprise that women are more concerned and more frugal about their spending habits.

Women and children first!

FEMINISM - Is that manly valour or sexism? Should a strong and able woman without a child get first dibs on the lifeboats? Are men's lives less valuable than women's?

Marine life wasn't always so chivalrous.

The tradition was launched in 1852 with the tragic sinking of the HMS Birkenhead off the coast of South Africa. Some 600 troops plus 20 women and children were also aboard. Although the ship's captain was of the "every man for himself'' mindset, the soldiers' commanding officer prevailed. He ordered his men to stand fast and allow the women and children into the few boats first.

The women and children survived while more than 400 gallant men died, either by drowning or by shark.

Understand that airlines don't, as a rule, have a policy of evacuating women and children first. It makes far more sense to go with passengers nearest the exits as this makes for a more orderly flow. See 150 Survive Jet Crash.

So its a nice idea, very chivalrous of the men, but in this day and age its by-and-by unnecessary because we all just want to get off in an orderly fashion.

Tiger Tanaka: Rule number one: never do anything yourself when someone else can do it for you.

James Bond: And rule number two?

Tiger Tanaka: Rule number two: in Japan, men come first, women come second.

James Bond: I just might retire to here.

Evidently there are times however when men have yet to learn that men and women both should take turns or go in the order that is most convenient.

Jobs for Girls and Women

Ad Hoc Coalition for Women's Equality and Human Rights
Open Letter on the Budget

Office of the Prime Minister

Dear Mr. Stephen Harper,

In anticipation of the upcoming budget, the Ad Hoc Coalition for Women's Equality and Human Rights would like to call your attention to budgetary measures that would strengthen our economy by strengthening the equality of women in Canada.

Women across the country are extremely concerned about Mr. Flaherty's proposal in the November economic statement to make pay equity a bargaining chip between employers and unions. To date, the government has not yet rescinded this proposal.

The Ad Hoc Coalition urges you to oppose any such proposal in the upcoming budget. In the 21st century, women's equality is not, and should never be, a bargaining chip. It is irresponsible to continue to impose discriminatory wages upon half the population by ignoring the remedy, particularly in a time of economic crisis. Equal pay for work of equal value is one of the "fundamentals" of a healthy economy. This can be attained by implementing a pro-active pay equity law, as the 2004 federal Task Force recommends.

Canadian parents need a national child care program that meets the "QUAD" principles (Quality, Universal, Accessible, and Developmental). A faltering economy can only benefit from improving people's access to the labour market, which would be greatly facilitated by having dependable child care services. Currently, soaring child care costs and lack of spaces keep many women who choose to work unemployed or underemployed.

A monthly handout cannot substitute for a child care program that allows real choice. We can and should do better for our families. The Ad Hoc Coalition urges you to consider the long-term stability of the economy in supporting a quality child care and early childhood education program that meets our children's developmental needs.

Women are particularly vulnerable in the current economic crisis as we do not have adequate access to Employment Insurance and what access there is cannot sustain us through a period of unemployment. Although women pay into EI, most women don't qualify for benefits. 70% of part-time workers are women and almost two thirds of minimum wage earners in Canada are women. With wages far below the poverty line already, many women can't live on 55% of their salary, even for a short period of time. To stimulate the economy and prevent poverty, improve access to EI and increase the level of benefits for part-time, contract and self-employed workers in the upcoming budget.

Finally, the Ad Hoc Coalition strongly encourages you to ensure that the stimulus package includes investment in social infrastructure. Social infrastructure investments stimulate the real economy, not the speculative economy, by creating jobs, not giving CEOs bonuses or across-the-board tax cuts. Social infrastructure can provide affordable housing and anti-poverty programs, support green technologies and environmental incentives, and improve conditions for First Nations in their territories and Aboriginal people across the country, in particular Aboriginal women, who disproportionately suffer from poverty and violence. Any stimulus package that does not take social infrastructure into account is short-sighted and short-changes Canadian taxpayers. Social infrastructure creates jobs and strengthens economies, not only during this period of financial crisis, but for the future.

On behalf of the Ad Hoc Coalition for Women's Equality and Human Rights, thank you for your consideration,

Sincerely,

Aalya Ahmad
Coordinator of the Ad-Hoc Coalition for Women's Equality and Human Rights

CC :
Michael Ignatieff
Jack Layton
Gilles Duceppe
Elizabeth May
Helena Guergis
Maria Minna
Nicole Demers
Irene Mathyssen

Little League Canada loses fight with girls softball team

ENTERTAINMENT/FEMINISM - Little League Baseball Canada has struck out today with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, losing a sex discrimination case filed by a Victoria girls softball team.

In 2005 the Beacon Hill Little League Major Girls softball team was denied funding for the team's trip to the national championship in Windsor, Ontario and was told they had to fund raise. Their counterpart boys team was given free funding by Little League Baseball Canada to attend the same event.

The girls eventually raised the money themselves through fundraisers and anonymous donations and attended the tournament. They won the tournament and went on to represent Canada at an international tournament in Portland, Ore.

Four years later the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ordered the league to pay $1,000 each to the 13 members of the 2005 team.

In a 74-page decision, tribunal member Marlene Tyshynski found the league had engaged in discriminatory conduct against the team of 11- and 12-year-old girls in 2005.

"I find that every team member suffered an injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect due to the discriminatory conduct of the Little League," said Tyshynski's ruling. "I have determined that the impact of the (travel) policy on the team gives rise to a prima facie case of sex-based discrimination that impedes the team's full and free participation in the social and cultural life of British Columbia."

Tyshynski noted the league's records showed a surplus of almost $210,000 in 2005 and also said the league showed disregard for the impact its travel policy could have on female players and noted that some of the players told the tribunal they felt stress and concern about not being able to have enough money to attend the tournament.

Little League Baseball Canada took another strike earlier this week when the Canada Revenue Agency stripped the league of its status as a registered athletic association and the right to provide donors with receipts for income tax purposes.

League president Roy Bergerman and Little League officials argued that the boys' games are "officially sanctioned events" while the girls' games are just optional, claiming that girls don't go on to careers in baseball.

Admittedly there isn't a lot of women in professional baseball, but who's fault is that? The women athletes who participate and try out? Or the little leagues and minor leagues that train them?

In addition to the cash award for injury to the girls' dignity, the tribunal ordered the league to overhaul its travel policy to prevent similar complaints in future.

On Monday, the Canada Revenue Agency stripped the league of its status as a registered athletic association, meaning the league can no longer provide receipts to donors for income tax purposes. According to the revenue agency, the minor league ball association issued more than $82 million in receipts in 2007 for what the government calls "abusive transactions arising from its role as a participant in a tax shelter arrangement." Little League Baseball Canada is now sitting on a huge surplus of hundreds of millions of dollars.

On Monday league president Bergerman admitted the league ran a tax-shelter scheme and that league staff was now living "quite well off" thanks to the millions of dollars in surplus cash. The organization has only two full-time employees, including Bergerman himself.

So not only are they sexist and greedy, but apparently league president Roy Bergerman is a scam artist.

See Also:
Gender Biases in School Sports
You Throw Like a Girl
Sport and the Empowerful Woman

Child Support for non-biological kids?

FEMINISM - An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a Toronto man to continue paying child support even though a DNA test shows he is not the biological father of his ex-wife's twins.

In her ruling, Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg decided that even though Pasqualino Cornelio did not father twins – now 16 – with Anciolina Cornelio, he must continue to pay child support because "he was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage."

Pasqualino began paying child support in 1998, after the couple separated. In 2002, the two agreed to joint custody, when they also settled that he would continue to provide monetary support.

But after Anciolina asked for an increase in payments and a reduction in the time he spent with the children, Pasqualino demanded a DNA test. When the results showed Pasqualino was not the father, he asked to be excused from paying child support and demanded he be reimbursed for tens of thousands of dollars that he had paid in the past.

He claimed that their 2002 agreement failed to disclose that Anciolina had an affair while they were married, calling it an act of fraud or misrepresentation. But according to the judge, it should not be a question of whether he is the biological parent, but rather whether he was considered a parent by definition.

Because Anciolina can't remember the affair, she claims she has no idea who the twins' father is.

"Cornelio denies knowledge of who the twins' biological father might be," van Rensburg said. "In fact, she claims to have no memory of an extramarital affair preceding their birth, which she attributes to the medication she was taking at the time."

"The relationship that developed from the time of their birth was the natural relationship between a parent and his children," she said. "The fact of that relationship – even if it has now become strained – is sufficient to require Mr. Cornelio to continue to contribute toward the children's material needs."

The judge concluded that the children should not suffer because of the parents' wrongdoings.

This is a controversial issue for anti-feminists/deadbeat dads. Why? Because it sets a horrible precedent for their rights.

And for once I agree with the deadbeat dads.

I agree with the judge that the children shouldn't be made to suffer for the parents' wrongdoings, but why should the ex-husband be made to suffer for the wife's adultery either?

Regardless of the fact she "forgot" about the affair, as a feminist I disagree with the judge's ruling. This ruling will only cause future problems as it sets a precedent for men being forced to pay for children who aren't even theirs... and these men will then lash out at feminists in general.

Feminism is about being FAIR to both sexes. Not making men suffer and become bitter.

George W Bush's New Contraceptive Rules

FEMINISM - In the waning days of the Bush administration, George W. Bush has issued a federal rule reinforcing protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions or provide contraceptive information because of religious or moral objections.

The rule will limit a patient's right to get medical care and accurate information. For example, a pharmacy clerk could refuse to sell birth control pills, AIDS medication, condoms and face no ramifications from an employer.

Despite multiple long-standing federal laws on the books protecting health care providers from participating in abortions or sterilizations, the Bush administration argued that the rule was needed "to raise awareness of federal conscience protections and provide for their enforcement."

What it actually does however is make it harder for women to get services such as contraception, birth control or counseling in the event they are pregnant and want to learn all of their options, and not just the ones the religious wacko on the other side of the counter is pushing.

Several medical associations as well as a group of 13 attorneys general were among the many thousands who wrote to the department to protest the new rules after it was proposed. Opponents didn't like the rule any better after it was finalized.

"In just a matter of months, the Bush administration has undone three decades of federal protections for both medical professionals and their patients, replaced them with a policy that seriously risks the health of millions of women, then tried to pass it off as benevolent," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Several lawmakers have promised to take up legislation that would overturn the rule once Congress reconvenes in January. Another option is for the Obama administration to issue new regulations that would trump it.

Making birth control more – not less – accessible is the best way to prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortion. Its not only ridiculous, its dangerous when you consider the fact AIDS is still very strong in the United States, and more unwanted pregnancies raises both the abortion rate and the suicide rate.

NOTE: If anti-abortion people were really serious about cutting back on abortions they should be PROMOTING condoms and working to get rid of poverty in America.

"IF ANTI-ABORTIONISTS SPENT HALF AS MUCH TIME GETTING RID OF POVERTY AS THEY SPEND TRYING TO GET RID OF ABORTION POOR WOMEN WOULDN'T NEED ABORTIONS AS OFTEN ANYWAY."

The Truth about Women's Work

FEMINISM - How much are women paid in Canada and the United States?

In Canada the average woman earns 72.5 cents for every dollar a man earns.

In the United States the pay equity is 77.8 cents, but only only 71 cents for African American women and 58 cents for Latinas.

Both countries have pay equity laws, but the differences is actually the type of work men and women generally do. Men gravitate towards high paying factory work or management positions, whereas women tend to get jobs in the service industry and are overlooked for promotions into a managerial position.

Although truthfully, some women also reject promotions because they choose their families over spending more time on their career (see the Career and Family Dilemma). Some of them might even be single parents and thus don't really have time for a highly demanding career. Nothing wrong with that, if anything its a moment where we should criticize men for taking promotions and becoming a neglectful father.

Some promotions, I believe, should be given to people who are single and don't have children to worry about. Of course, some parents might argue against this idea because they're also thinking of terms of more money, better job security and hopefully providing more for their child's education/etc. Evidently it is a balancing act and open to personal interpretation.

Then there is a different matter... unpaid women's work. Or more specifically, domestic work such as cooking and cleaning (because technically a stay-at-home dad could also do those tasks). Its notoriously difficult to track domestic work, and its not just "cooking and cleaning". It could also cover gardening, home repairs, renovations and car repairs for those who like to do-it-themselves. Some economists have tried to measure what the economic contribution such things are...

But frankly I think its impossible to measure and wholly inaccurate. There is a dramatic difference between domestic partners who stay at home, cook, clean, fix the car, renovate the house, grow tomatoes/potatoes/peas/corn, sews/mends their clothes and darns their socks... and the type of person who just sits at home watching TV or playing computer games all day. One is evidently an economic benefit to the family unit... whereas the other is dependent and seemingly incapable of making themselves useful.

And then there's the value of parenting itself. Teaching your children life skills and morals. How do you put a price on that?

By that time you get to that, and assuming the person isn't a neglectful parent, you realize their value becomes incalculable and how important good parenting is.

Hockey player suspended over sexist comment

FEMINISM/CANADA - Hockey agitator Sean Avery, the NHL's most hated player, was suspended indefinitely today because of comments he made:

“I just want to comment on how it’s become like a common thing in the NHL for guys to fall in love with my sloppy seconds. I don’t know what that’s about. Enjoy the game tonight.” - Sean Avery, referring to his ex-girlfriend Elisha Cuthbert.

Actress Elisha Cuthbert is currently dating Calgary Flames defenceman Dion Phaneuf and the comment was considered to be a shot below the belt both at the fellow player and just plain inappropriate.

The comment certainly does reflect badly on the notoriously sexist National Hockey League (NHL), but things are trying to change.

“This is a situation where he’s painted our organization with a brush nobody wants to be painted with,” said Avery's coach Dave Tippett. “I know from a personal standpoint, that’s not the way I want to be perceived as an organization and as a team.”

There has only been ONE female hockey player in the history of the NHL: Her name is Manon Rhéaume and she has only played in two exhibition games for the Tampa Bay Lightning. Exhibition games are only for show.

So when will women ever be taken seriously in the NHL? Its nice that they're curbing the bad language against women, but its past time women athletes broke the glass ceiling.