I will be reviewing some of the brands of natural cosmetics that I use regularly. To see all of the posts in this series, click here.
I have stated that I’ve gone “fragrance free.” What I mean by that is that I try not to use products that have “fragrance” listed as an ingredient. This is because that term doesn’t mean a specific ingredient. It’s a placeholder for a proprietary concoction that could contain carcinogenic chemicals. However, I still like to use perfume for special occasions.
Like the Yakshi perfume I have reviewed previously, this is a roll on made from essential oils. It’s a bit lighter and less greasy than the Yakshi however, and absorbs easily into my skin.
This fragrance is a lovely, light and floral. You can smell white tea and jasmine. It’s not overpowering, and quite pleasant. The package came with a small packet of Juara shower gel of the same scent.
Juara seems like a company that takes it’s social commitment seriously. Their website touts that all of their products are vegetarian and free of parabens phthalates, and sulfates and that they do no animal testing. In addition, their packaging is Forest Stewardship Council Certified.
Recently, I completed a very interesting book, entitled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, also known by the simpler title, The Jefferson Bible.
Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States, undertook a very interesting project that most people would never contemplate: he edited the Bible. The Bible is a very hard read, in the final analysis. It has been translated and re-translated, it repeats itself, it contradicts itself, and it is full of events no one can corroborate. Jefferson, an avowed deist, was hostile to organized religion, yet believed in a creator. He decided to take several copies of the bible -written in Greek, Latin, French, and English- and literally cut and paste the Gospel passages that focused on Jesus and his teachings into another book.
The edited gospels are a much more coherent read. Jesus is born, he lives, he teaches, and dies. In this edition, he does not cure blindness, turn water into wine, or come back from the dead. Did I mention it is never implied or stated he is the son of God?
Now why is this important, today? It gives the lie to the idea that the founding fathers were a monolithic group of devout Christians. Additionally, any Christian who followed this pared-down version of the Gospel would enjoy freedom from the cognitive dissonance that plagues their faith. They might even wish to give the same treatment to the Old Testament, to remove the perplexing passages where God orders them to hate gays and masturbation, as well as avoid lobster and mixed fibers.
Jefferson’s project also is not without precedent. All widely-read printings of the Bible have been edited to some degree. His project is also not without imitators. The contributors at “Conservapedia”, a Far-Right-Wing Wiki, (I won’t link to their site) are editing the Bible in an on-going project to prove that modern Conservative thought is fully supported by the Bible. Of course, they are not as smart as Thomas Jefferson.
Just because something was written by a President does not automatically make it correct -that is an argument to authority, and a fallacy. However, The Jefferson Bible is a suggestion to all believers. Maybe scriptures really are a book of stories, but that wouldn’t make the lessons any less true. Maybe scriptures encourage cruel actions, but that doesn’t mean you have to listen, when you know the orders are unjust.
The Bible says men shouldn’t spill their seed on the ground, and wives must submit to their husbands. People really should trust themselves, and refuse to obey such commands, which they know can only cause suffering. What a depressing life you’d have to live, obeying the orders of a God that hates you.
I read comments about this on social, media and saw many outraged Catholics criticizing the priest in question. While I think it shows how far the LGBT movement has come that this is a huge news story and so many people are outraged on Barbara Johnson’s behalf, it frustrates me. I think it’s a good sign that so many people are feeling compassion for this woman – even religious straight people. But this whole controversy is at the heart of why I left the church, so it touched a nerve for me.
In 2004, the Archbishop of St. Louis publicly stated that John Kerry could not receive communion in his diocese because he is pro-choice. This was the last straw for me. I knew that it would only be a matter of time between denying communion to pro-choice public figures and all pro-choice parishioners. Not every bishop denied communion to Kerry, but Archbishop Burke was not reprimanded in any way – his behavior was fine with the hierarchy, and there would be nothing to prevent similar actions from taking place in the future. I felt sick – I was no longer welcome in my own church. And a few years later, Pope Benedict was elected, the man who wrote memos in favor of pro-choice politicians being denied communion. This was evidence that people like Benedict and Burke showed the true direction of the church, not more moderate leaders who wanted to put as many people in the pews as possible, regardless of their disagreement with church doctrine.
The situation with Barbara Johnson is sad on many levels. It’s sad that her mother died. And it’s sad that a priest, who was supposed to comfort her rejected her in such a public way. Receiving communion is a big deal for Catholics. To be told that you may not do so can feel like a devastating rejection. This is why so many Catholics are outraged. It’s not just the denial of communion, which people seemed ambivalent about in John Kerry’s case. It’s that the rejection happened on a day when Johnson was mourning her mother’s death. This outrage comes from the compassion people are feeling for any person who is suffering because a loved one had died. If this had been on any other Sunday, or if Johnson had gone to the press because her priest had refused to marry her and her partner, this story would not have made such a splash. To me, this signifies that the outrage is not over denial of communion or the churches position on homosexuality, it’s that the priest publicly humiliated a woman who was mourning the death of her mother.
There are some Catholics taking the position that “a no-sin rule would bar all from Communion” but this misses the point. Most of the people who make the news for being barred from communion do so because they disagree with the church’s position on divorce, choice, or gay rights – that is their positions on sexuality. No one is barred for being a crooked businessperson, for supporting the Iraq war or the Death penalty – the first of which is a violation of the Ten Commandments, and the latter two the church could not be more clearly against. This is entirely political and it’s entirely the politics of sex and patriarchy. Being outraged that the church has turned the Eucharist – the rite most scared and holy to Catholics into a political weapon is the reason why I left the church. The hypocrisy of proclaiming it to be essential to spirituality and a relationship with God, and then denying it to people because of their personal sexual choices or opinions is the utmost hypocrisy.
The Archdioceses of Washington has issued a weak apology, but it misses the point. I find myself in solid agreement with this Catholic blogger who states that the preist was “thrown under the bus for following Canon Law.” I don’t think that homosexuality is a sin, of course. But I do think the this Father Marcel Guarnizo was in fact, simply following the rules of the church. And that is the source of my frustration with the Catholic response to this story. These people who attend Mass, give money and time to the church find themselves outraged that the church is following it’s own rules. This is nonsensical. If you are outraged, why are you still Catholic?
There is no way for any average parishioner or even priest to change the course of the Catholic Church. You can stay, seething in outrage, you can complain – as if you were complaining to a brick wall, or you can leave, and free your conscience from the burden of supporting an institution that treats people so cruelly. *
__ *Exit, Voice and Loyalty
What I find telling is that on vaginalsurgery.info, and in the comments on you tube, Vanessa and/or one of her colleagues makes light of it, claiming to enjoy the humor, “Obviously, if you see a doctor like this, RUN.” and insisting that in reality, cosmetic surgeons are nothing like that at all. However, on this blog, Vanessa used many of the same tactics that the fictional (and according to her sensationalized and “clearly put together by a group that has not bothered to talk with any women that have actually had the procedures done.”) Dr.Vajayjay did.
Creating A Need
In the video, Dr. Vajayjay is asked, “But labia are airbrushed out of porn, so this is not normal at all!” He responds, mugging angelically
“Can Dr. Vajayjay help it if this is what women ask for?”
The vast majority of women I work with have been contemplating the procedures for years before they choose to go through with them. In interacting with doctors from all over the world, I routinely hear that their labiaplasty patients are the most satisfied post-op patients they have.
…
In the end all this publicity does is make more women aware that these procedures are available. And while some will be outraged, the truth is whether you approve, ACOG approves or I disapprove, these women want these surgeries and will have them.
The video has Dr. Vajayjay encouraging other surgeons to use words like “rejuvination” and “labiplasty” which sound scientific but are a lot nicer sounding than “cutting off your labia, doing liposuction on the mons and injecting collagen into the vagina.”
VaginalSurgery.info calls itself, “The Most Comprehensive Vaginal Rejuvenation and Labiaplasty site on the Web!”
So-called “vaginal rejuvenation,” “designer vaginoplasty,” “revirgination,” and “G-spot amplification” are vaginal surgical procedures being offered by some practitioners.
Note that the above scare quotes are from ACOG – not The New View Campaign.
What Women Want
Dr. Vajajay advises doctors to run away when asked about research and focus on “what women want” by providing customer testimonials.
In response to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists statement that
Women should be informed about the lack of data supporting the efficacy of these procedures and their potential complications, including infection, altered sensation, dyspareunia, adhesions, and scarring.
The reason ACOG dropped the ball is because they know full well that their members have been doing these procedures for decades (tightenings & labia reductions). They just hadn’t been marketing them for sexual benefits. Instead of stepping up and acknowledging the procedures and providing the oversight that is now being sought, they chose to denounce them in the hopes they would scare women from wanting them.
That’s exactly what New View is saying these surgeons do – ignore research and turn the conversation back to consumer demand.
Make It Pink
Dr. Vajayjay tells cosmetic surgeons to make these procedures seem like a spa treatment. Use flowers, silhouettes and beach landscapes.
The banner for VaginalSurgery.info is a happy couple on the beach.
I don’t see anything wrong with that, per se. But it’s uncanny how accurate the parody is and to see Scott deny that it is at all accurate is quite comical.
Make it Feminist
Finally, Dr. Vajayjay advises surgeons to “make it feminist.” Remind women that this surgery is what they want and to empower women with “knowledge, choices and alternatives.”
The tagline for vaginalsurgery.info is “Compassionate Advice & Empowering Information”
Dr.Vajayjay goes on to say the best person to present this information is a woman, because, “a woman can never be sexist.”
We women are not as weak and impressionable as some would like us to believe. It is infuriating to me that we women would suggest or propagate that sentiment.
Women are not stupid and easily misled.
But since this is such a private procedure you don’t often hear them screaming from the rooftops about it. And why would they when they are deemed as “victims of society” for desiring the surgery. Is it not our right as women to desire to live happy, healthy and comfortable lives? Or does that make us weak, naive women that all want to look like porno stars?
First she claimed that I as a woman am infuriating for suggesting that these surgeries might usually be unnecessary, and that I am saying that women are stupid and easily misled. And then she dressed it all up in faux-feminist empowerment language. Make it feminist indeed.
***
I wish that this video was just a humorous infomercial for a fictional doctor that is competing for the clients of McNamara/Troy on “Nip/Tuck.” But it’s eerily close to the way that these potentially harmful procedures actually are marketed to women. The only humor I find is in Vanessa Scott’s denial that she is anything like the caricature on the screen.
Casco Bay Riptide Red by Casco Bay Brewing Company
This beer pours a very pretty red color. It smells of malt, hops and just a hint of caramel. Pleasantly medium bodied and very smooth, the taste is not overwhelming, but it’s definitely flavorful. I mostly tasted mild hops, and a little bread and caramel.
Casco Bay Brown Ale by Casco Bay Brewing Company
When I poured this beer there was a thick, fluffy head. It’s an attractive dark brown color. This beer smells like coffee and dark roasted malt. I tasted mostly dark chocolate with a hint of hops. It’s medium bodied with lots of bubbles. This would be a great beer to have with a dessert.
Chameleon Fire Light by Chameleon Brewing Company
This beer has a thick, foamy head. It’s a very light yellow color and a clean, fresh, malty smell. It’s light bodied and mostly the mouthfeel is just the carbonation. I tasted bread, malt, and a very slight trace of hops. Nothing out of the ordinary here – similar to Bud, would be good for a drinking game, a picnic or a day at the ball park.
Chameleon Ryediculous IPA by Chameleon Brewing Company
I poured this beer and there was a very thick head. It’s an amber color, and appears to be unfiltered. The only thing I could smell was hops – and that’s all I could taste as well. This beer is light bodied and extremely bitter. I did taste just the hint of fruit, but the hops were so overwhelming I couldn’t finish my beer. IPAs are not my favorite, but I can appreciate a good one on occasion. Ryediculous was just too unpleasant for me to continue.
Craig Bannister and other conservatives who have seen their “Religious Liberty” argument about why health insurance companies should not be mandated to cover contraception fail are turning to an argument that degrades all sexually active women. But at the heart of it is that “condoms are cheaper.”
This is a very strange argument to make on the surface. Women shouldn’t demand that their insurance cover the birth control, even though it’s a woman-controlled method with many secondary health benefits because another, cheaper, male controlled method is less expensive. When you really compare prices, if that was the only thing that mattered when choosing a form of contraception, most women be using diaphragms – because they would be even less costly in the long run. There’s nothing wrong with diaphragms, or condoms or the pill, of course, but is ludicrous to say that everyone should just use the cheapest method because it’s cheapest. Who would support an amendment stating that medicare and medicaid could only supply generic drugs?
People must be able to choose the contraceptive method that is the easiest to use and most comfortable for their lifestyle – because that method is the one they will most often use correctly and consistently – the key to preventing unplanned pregnancy. No method – not even abstinence – works if you don’t use it every time.
That’s is irrelevant to the GOP, however. The needs of individual women, and individual poor women at that are unimportant to them. This idea that women are not a monolith does not occur to them, which is why this argument seems clever to them and also why they ask mind numbingly stupid questions like “What Are Women For?”
So as the argument gets even uglier, it’s important to remember that we are arguing with people who have no respect for women’s autonomy or individuality. And that’s misogyny.
You might have heard that the “One Million Moms” have proposed a boycott of Toys ‘R’ Us because they are carrying the issue of Life With Archie that depicts the wedding of Kevin Keller, a gay character, to another man.
I’ve read this issue – being a fan of Archie Comics since I was a kid, and all sexuality is written out of the gay characters. Kevin loves his husband, that is clear – but they do not even kiss, at their own wedding. This is in contrast to the straight characters who are frequently depicted hugging and kissing. I understand why Archie Comics left out even a chaste smooch, as it still shows their wariness about the storyline.
However, any doubts I had to the commitment they have made were gone when I read this statement:
“As I’ve said before, Riverdale is a safe, welcoming place that does not judge anyone,” he wrote. “It’s an idealized version of America that will hopefully become reality someday. We’re sorry the American Family Association/OneMillionMoms.com feels so negatively about our product, but they have every right to their opinion, just like we have the right to stand by ours. Kevin Keller will forever be a part of Riverdale, and he will live a happy, long life free of prejudice, hate and narrow-minded people.”
I love this because he’s both standing up for what is right, and pointing out the ridiculousness of getting so upset about a cartoon. It delights me to know that he’s holding it over their head that they can’t hurt Kevin Keller – because he’s a fictional character and that they would rather tell his story than ever depict people as hateful as the American Family Association. The AFA are the people who do not belong in idyllic Riverdale, not Kevin and his husband. This is a beautiful message to send out to everyone, especially any young LGBT fans of Archie – You matter, and we see you as an important part of our community.
During this year’s Superbowl, I had my first look at the trailer for “The Lorax” a new animated film adaptation of the Dr. Seuss classic. I was not amused. Adam reminded me that this version didn’t stick to the story of the original book – I was tipped off by a stupid joke about a “mannish” looking woman.
A few days later I was browsing in a store and saw a box of Lorax Valentine’s Day Cards for children. How could a movie about saving trees have a marketing tie-in with a paper product?! I looked closely and did see that the Valentine’s were printed on recycled paper, but they were being marketed more as an advertisement for the movie than as a green alternative to other Valentines.
On Thursday night, Kate Sheppard from Mother Jones tweeted a link to her article about the movie’s tie-in with a new Mazda SUV. No, it’s not a hybrid or a plugin.
I was able to push the whole mess out my head, until Saturday afternoon. I was clipping coupons and saw…
…this atrocity
“The Lorax’s Breakfast With Green Eggs & Ham, Truffula Chip Pancakes”
I just felt so overwhelmingly frustrated at the bitter irony of it all. The Lorax was a very important story in my childhood, and to see it undermined in this fashion is heartbreaking. It’s not just the blatant commercialization. I dig Star Trek and Star Wars and Archie Comics and Harry Potter – fandoms with endless merchandising, that I know is not always the best thing for the environment. But SUV’s and pork are two incredibly destructive products with regards to human health, climate change and biodiversity.
According to the EPA, after electricity production at #1, Transportation is the #2 source of Carbon Dioxide emissions – the greenhouse gas most abundant in the atmosphere that is contributing to climate change. This is why advertising an SUV – one of the most inefficient forms of transportation – in conjunction with a movie that is based on a book about preserving the Earth’s ability to sustain life is so distasteful.
But what about the green eggs and ham? Can’t a kid have a nice brunch with family? According to The Sierra Club, those eggs aren’t so bad – at only 4.8 pounds of CO2 emissions per kilogram of food, they are a reasonable indulgence. But pork produces much more CO2 – 12.1 pounds per kilogram of meat. And that’s not all. In the United States, most pigs raised for pork live in CAFOs – Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.
The EPA defines a CAFO as an animal feeding operation that:
(a) confines animals for more than 45 days during a growing season, (b) in an area that does not produce vegetation
(c) meets certain size thresholds
Doesn’t sound too bad, right? It’s like a chicken coop! But for pigs. Not quite. The thing about raising pigs – for those of you who never think about where your bacon comes from – is they create an incredible amount of manure – 8 pounds or more per hog, per day. And all of that fecal matter has to go somewhere. Most farmers or factory farms are responsible, I’m sure. Generally, pig manure is stored in lagoons to decompose. Yes, lagoons. And sometimes, accidents happen. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council:
In Oklahoma, nitrates from Seaboard Farms’ hog operations contaminated drinking water wells, prompting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue an emergency order in June 2001 requiring the company to provide safe drinking water to area residents.
Large hog farms emit hydrogen sulfide, a gas that most often causes flu-like symptoms in humans, but at high concentrations can lead to brain damage. In 1998, the National Institute of Health reported that 19 people died as a result of hydrogen sulfide emissions from manure pits.
Huge open-air waste lagoons, often as big as several football fields, are prone to leaks and spills. In 1995 an eight-acre hog-waste lagoon in North Carolina burst, spilling 25 million gallons of manure into the New River. The spill killed about 10 million fish and closed 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands to shellfishing.
When Hurricane Floyd hit North Carolina in 1999, at least five manure lagoons burst and approximately 47 lagoons were completely flooded.
Runoff of chicken and hog waste from factory farms in Maryland and North Carolina is believed to have contributed to outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida, killing millions of fish and causing skin irritation, short-term memory loss and other cognitive problems in local people.
That’s why I was seeing red when I looked at that IHOP advertisment. I was thinking of all the lakes of pig feces in our great nation that are making people sick. And the flesh of the pigs who produced it was being marketed to me as a delicious family breakfast. By The Lorax.
I want to be clear, I’m not a saint. I eat meat a few times a week – mostly poultry and the occasional grass fed beef if I can find it. (Writing this post might have been the motivation for me to give up my weekly BLT once and for all). I try not to be wasteful, and to research the environmental impact of products I buy before purchasing – but I’m sure I mess up on occasion. That’s not the point. My achievements or failings as an environmentalist are not being portrayed to market a children’s movie based on a book about saving endangered species and taking care of trees.
The marketing team for The Lorax did choose some partners that make sense. Stonyfield organic yogurt,Ecotourism in Costa Rica, and the EPA Energy Star Program are all much more appropriate sponsors – because even though they are consumer products, they are ones produced ethically and have a smaller environmental impact than SUV’s, diapers, and ham. The movie’s producers did not stop there, however. It’s almost as if they watched Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold as if it was an instructional film about movie marketing. I can’t pretend to know how these decisions were made – but I would wager it would have something to do with taking for granted that most people are stupid and uncritical of their media.
I speak for The Lorax, and this is an unconscionable exploitation of the story told in Dr. Seuss’ book. Whether or not you see this movie, think about where your money goes, where the products you buy come from, and about what assumptions are made by those trying to sell you something.
Proof that a firm but polite email can work wonders, LI Families has taken down the paragraph suggesting that there are no risks at all for pregnant women to get manicures, pedicures or hair treatments that I objected to in my “Not So Healthy” post. Well done, LI Families!
Sara Robinson wrote an article in Alternet last week, “Why Patriarchal Men Are Utterly Petrified of Birth Control.” (Hat Tip, Amanda.) It’s an excellent article and I believe it really underscores the heart of many of our current arguments about sex and feminism.
What I think needs to be added though is that it’s not just the technology that has changed, it’s that our attitudes have changed with it that creates the panic. Humans have always sought methods of contraception. Condoms have been around for hundreds of years. Diaphragms and the use of substances thought to be spermicidal dates back thousands of years. As the story of Onan reminds us, people have known about withdrawal since the beginning of recorded history – and recent studies show is it is incredibly effective if used correctly.
The other thing we learn from the way some religious traditions have interpreted the story of Onan is that the opposition to contraceptives has existed for centuries. And yet people continued to use them. It’s almost impossible to separate out the changing role of women with the decrease of taboo around contraception use, especially as technology made contraceptives more effective and easier and safer to use. The two trends obviously fed off of one another. Diaphragms made from vulcanized rubber allowed women some freedom, and then the pill and IUD gave even more. But those working women with planned pregnancies were the ones demanding more and better contraceptives. Now we have arrived at a point in history where not only is contraception incredibly effective – it’s also overwhelmingly popular – and that is what is creating a crisis for patriarchy.
New technologies are not always more popular and more frequently used as they advance. To draw a contrast – technology has also made weapons more effective and efficient. We can kill people with predator drones, atomic bombs and machine guns far easier than in the days of bows and arrows or even cannon balls and muskets. And yet we are growing less violent over time. If we were using modern weapons at the pace we are using modern contraception – there would be no people left on Earth at all.
Conservative Christians who oppose any form of contraception (and even those who allow Fertility Awareness Method) frequently refer to the popularity of contraception as “The Contraceptive Mentality.” It appears that this term was first coined by Catholics. The argument goes that if people use contraception and it fails, the woman will probably get an abortion because the fact that she was using contraception is evidence that the couple did not want a child. Somehow, Catholics believe that this makes contraception itself the cause of abortion. The logic is faulty, because before contraceptives were so widely available, women still sought abortions – and as contraceptive use goes up, the abortion rate goes down.
These people reject the rebuttal that we just need more and better birth control and better education about how to use it because they believe that contraception causes people to have sex when they do not want to get pregnant, and that if it did not exist those not ready for a(nother) child would simply abstain. There is no evidence for this belief, and Guttmacher Reports that “Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.” This does not include whatever percentage of women who giving up babies for adoption who did not use birth control when they got pregnant. That these women went ahead and had sex without using contraception even though they did not want to give birth proves that people will have sex, even when they do not wish to procreate. Additionally, if that 46%+ had improved access to contraception and information about how to use it correctly, many of those women would not have gotten pregnant unintentionally in the first place.
If there is such a thing as “The Contraceptive Mentality” I would argue that it is a good thing. When Margaret Sanger was teaching people how to use contraception, she was doing it because her dream was for every child to be a wanted child. Contraception does not cause a lack of interest in parenting. There have always been people who could not bear the burden of child rearing. We had ways of dealing with those people, whether they be abortions, early forms of contraception or “foundling wheels” where people could abandon unwanted children no questions asked. Instead, now we have the knowledge and the technology to prevent the burden of unwanted pregnancy. I find it far more humane to teach contraception than to build orphanages. It’s much better for people who love each other to be able to share their sexuality on their own terms than for them to live in fear from the exhaustion and bankruptcy that more children than they could handle can bring them.
What scares patriarchs is that more people agree with me. It’s not the mere existence of contraceptive technology – that’s been around for ages. The way that feminism and contraception have advanced and strengthened each other – and that this has culminated in a world where people accept contraception as a good thing and women’s equality as self evident are the revolutionary ideas they are attacking.