Journalists need to learn the ethics of reporting, we can all agree on that. But in attempting to teach an object lesson on victim privacy, professor Al Salvato crossed the line into what I believe is unethical territory himself. In his role as an instructor at the University of Cincinnati, he handed out a police report listing the name, address, phone number, height, weight, and eye color, as well as all the details of the assault, of a 17-year-old rape survivor.

Then one of the students called her.

The student appears to have been a friend, not a predator or a “true crime” freak getting off on someone’s victimization. But that’s strictly luck.

No one seems to know whether the report was actually a public record, nor how Salvato obtained a copy of it. The professor died and the university quickly settled an invasion of privacy lawsuit out of court.

From the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Jon Hughes, director of journalism at UC, said Salvato told him he’d handed out the report to illustrate how real reporters deal with such sensitive issues. As a rule, the media tends not to report names of sexual victims.

“It was his impression, at least initially, of what students should not report - it was used in that vein,” said Hughes, who’s not aware of any other instructors using real police reports at UC. “It’s a very curious situation.”

Hand said the legal issue doesn’t really matter. He said UC settled because it didn’t want to extend (name removed by Terry)’s grief.

“It might have been, it might not have been” a public record, Hand said. “But it was not used in an appropriate manner.”

They “hope something like this will never happen again.”

They “hope.” I hardly know what to say to that. This young woman was made a victim a second time by a man who apparently never stopped to think that he was dealing with the life of a real person. A person who’d already had all control stripped from her once. In an effort to make a point, he exposed her pain to a group of strangers, giving them intimate details they had no business knowing. In attempting to teach sensitivity, he did the most insensitive thing I can imagine. There’s no excuse for that.

She may have gotten a monetary settlement, but was denied the things she really wanted. An apology and control of her life back.

Now that’s a crime.

(Cross-posted at Blog Sisters.)

I saw an ad on TV yesterday for a “can’t live without” product — Bra Smart, a molded form for drying your bras. It taught me the horrors, complete with pictures, of daring to walk around with a wrinkled bra. I never considered the outrageousness of that, and obviously I should have. Can’t have perfect strangers noticing that my undergarments have unsightly creases. If you don’t buy this product, you sure better iron them. The solution can be yours for only $19.95 plus $9.95 shipping and handling. Order now and get a second one free.

What ever happened to just buying a bra the right size?

Notice also the exaggerated hips, garter belt and stockings on the cartoon woman. Bra Smart will turn you into a sex kitten any man would be proud to own. Who could resist that?

I’m going to order two right now.

Yeah, right. Just as soon as my padded panties get here.

A study published in the British medical journal, The Lancet, by Drs. Eduardo Villamor of the Harvard School of Public Health and Sven Cnattingius of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden says that gaining as little as 7 lbs before pregancy, from a healthy BMI of 23 to an also healthy BMI of 24 raises the risk of gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, Caesarean delivery, and stillbirth by 30%. The results come from studying the records of 150,000 Swedish women who gave birth to 2 children between 1992 and 2001. Villamor said he believed the Swedish study would apply to other, more diverse populations, although he said it’s important to confirm that.

Interesting results, and worth considering. But here’s the part that jumped out at me:

From the Jacksonville, NC Daily Mail:

The results provide new evidence that overweight or obese women who plan to become pregnant should lose weight, and that women with healthy weights should avoid packing on pounds before pregnancy, the researchers said.

Packing on pounds?

“Packing on” 7 lbs? Come on, people. I’m going to assume this is editorial license from the reporter, not a direct quote from the study. But it’s still outrageous. For a 139 lb woman, as quoted in the study, that’s a gain of 5%. That’s hardly ballooning up. Some of us can vary nearly that much through fluid retention at different times of the month.

This type of coverage shows the media bias on women’s weight and invests it with moral value. Interestingly, the article was written by a woman, Maria Cheng, an AP Medical Writer. Strictly speculation on my part, but I wonder if she sees her own weight in these terms and is as judgmental about herself. I wonder if a male reporter would have felt free to make the same statement.

Such phrasing is helpful to no one and undercuts the value of the study. In my opinion, Ms. Cheng would have done better to use more quotes and less editorializing.

Just think how positive this story could have been if the paper had said that losing as little as 7 lbs could reduce a woman’s risk by 30%. But that wouldn’t have put the fear of God into ‘em, now would it? A woman’s weight gain must be cast in terms of threats, or else they’ll “let themselves go” after childbirth. We all know how awful that would be.

In an otherwise dark room, Rogue basks in a patch of sunlight.

The National Academies — the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine — have released a study detailing what many of us already know; that women are being filtered out of high-level science, math and engineering jobs in the United States, and there is no good reason for it.

“Compared with men, women faculty members are generally paid less and promoted more slowly, receive fewer honors, and hold fewer leadership positions,” the Academies said in a statement. “These discrepancies do not appear to be based on productivity, the significance of their work, or any other performance measures.”

The study looked at biological differences in ability, hormonal influences, childrearing demands, and even differences in ambition and found no basis for women’s limited success. The committee found no sound evidence to support these myths and often good evidence to the contrary.

From Reuters:

“We found no significant biological differences between men and women in science, engineering and mathematics that could account for the lower representation of women in academic faculty and scientific leadership positions,” said Donna Shalala, president of the University of Miami and head of the committee that wrote the report.
…

“It is not a lack of talent but an unintended bias … that is locking women out,” Shalala, a former secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told a briefing.

“Fundamental changes in the culture and opportunities at America’s research universities are urgently needed.”

The problem begins early. My daughers had not a single woman teacher in science or math in high school. My son has had only one. Universities, as well as high schools, need to make a serious effort to recruit and promote women in under-represented areas if we’re to make any headway on the issue. To quote the old public service announcement, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. And that’s exactly what’s happening. I’m encouraged to see the Academies make a stand on it.

This last month, my anxiety has been pretty constant. Not panic attack level but nagging, getting worse as the day progresses. I do NOT want to increase my meds, so I had to stop and take a look at what things I could do to make it better. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), these things have made a huge difference.

• Cut back on caffeine. I’d worked my way up to 2 full pots of coffee before noon. Now I limit it to 3 cups and the background jitters have gone away. I’ve also given up caffeinated soda, which makes the evenings much better.
• Stop stress-eating. The more I eat the worse I feel. I’m back on my very restricted diet, which does wonders for my sense of control.
• Eat a little something for lunch. Not much, but something in my stomach keeps my blood sugar level even and keeps me from peaking and crashing in the middle of the afternoon.
• Turn off the TV and read more. The pace of television shows hypers me up, making me edgy. Reading is more leisurely and relaxes me. I’m indulging my taste for James Lee Burke and feeling refreshed by it. I do make a TV exception on Tuesday nights for House, though.
• Cut back on my news reading. It only upsets me and there’s nothing I can do to change what happens outside my sphere.
• Play pattern-matching computer games, particularly ones with no time pressure. The repetition turns off my brain and relaxes me. My current favorite is Crystalized.
• Get out of the house every day, even if it’s only to the grocery store. Since I work from home, this is very important. Under stress I tend to retreat when what I really need to do is distract myself and talk to people. It keeps me from living strictly inside my head.
• Write more. Getting things out keeps me from obsessing on them.
• Live in the now but make plans for the future. I need things to look forward to.

So I’m feeling pretty good these days. I should have figured this all out a long time ago, but I’m glad to have a handle on it now. The next goal is getting back to exercise. It has the benefit of burning off energy and making me sleep better. That’s a very good thing.

What relaxes you?

Edgar can sit quite nicely when I have a Scooby Snack in my hand. Notice my son’s guitar and bass in the background — at any given time, there’s usually 3 or more musical instruments (including a stand-up bass) in my living room. Every time he wanders through, he picks up something and plays for a few minutes. That makes the clutter worth it.

All the flattering comments lately (thank you!) have gotten me thinking. I appreciate your feedback more than you know, and you’ve all boosted my confidence about my writing as well as my subject matter. In that vein, I discovered an article this morning that distills my thoughts about what makes a good blog. I don’t fill all of them–far from it–but it’s making me stop and think about how I’m communicating, which is a very good thing.

From From 10 Ways To Be a Better Blogger in Tech Republic:

1. Define your purpose
2. Create visual appeal
3. Use the proper tools
4. Make it easy to navigate
5. Stay in one place
6. Engage your readers
7. Establish a blogging schedule
8. Proofread before publishing
9. Go syndicate yourself

My own thoughts on what I do:

1. When I started this, I wanted to speak for those who can’t speak for themselves, or who aren’t heard when they do. That’s leads me to do a lot of mental health issues, gender issues, body image issues and age-related issues. I try to choose topics that I can relate to personally, and that I hope will resonate for someone else. I do need to get back to more social conscience posts about the broader world, though.
2. I really like my design. I went through several before I settled on this one and I like the way it visually sums up my purpose. It may not be pleasing to someone else, but it subliminally inspires me to write.
3. I use WordPress, and swear by it. It’s hard to screw anything up. I really need to upgrade my install, though. One of these days. My son says I’m a web conservative, and he’s right. I don’t do change well.
4. This is a tough one. I like using categories and archives but the structure is awkward, forcing people to work their way through pages of posts on a topic to find something they’re interested in. I need to split up my broad categories better to aid in this.
5. This part is easy. I have my own domain, so the only move I’ve made was onto this server.
6. This is a tough one. It’s the main reason I use a recent comments section on the sidebar, with a link to the commented post. You’ve all been wonderful with your feedback and personal experiences and it’s important to me to answer each of you. It’s led to some great discussions, besides being gratifying to me.
7. I’m not good at this one. In the beginning I tried to do at least one post every day, but my available time has diminished with my new job, as well as varying with my state of mind. Some days a dozen ideas strike me, other days nothing in the news jump starts my brain. I need to get a frequency rhythm going.
8. Ack. My major downfall. I don’t see errors til they’re posted and I often do revisions, not just for spelling but for content, too. I’ll often come back to a post later in the day and add or delete thoughts. But as Ahistoricality commented to me once, blogging is a work in progress. That’s the way it works for me, though it may be frustrating to those reading.
9. No problem here. Wordpress does RSS feeds, and it’s gratifying to me to see in Bloglines how many people subscribe. I do a lot of reading that way myself, though I do make it a point to click through to the blog post directly so that the writers will know that I’m reading when they look at their stats.

Actually, this would make a great meme. How do you feel about these goals in your own blogging? What inspires you to write? How can I, as a reader, help you accomplish these goals? Why do you do what you do? If you feel so inclined, copy out the questions and post your answers.

If you decide to take up the topic, be sure to let me know in comments so I can read your thoughts on it.

You regular readers who check in a couple of times a week are a rare and beautiful thing, and I appreciate every one of you. It’s a little discouraging, though, that the vast majority of my 120+ hits per day comes from search engines, what I call Drive Through visitors. Every once in awhile I like to take a look at my stats and see just what brought them here.

1. invisible people 52
2. perfect ass 44
3. logo quiz 36
4. we are the music makers we are the dreamers of dreams 17
5. jon bonet 15
6. crazy meds 13
7. daily troll 12
8. wisconsin cheese soup 10
9. crazymeds 10
10. vagina pictures 9

Interesting. At least “invisible bikinis” and “see invisible people have sex” have fallen out of the top 10 this month. There’s a couple of things I’ve actually written about here, but for the most part, I don’t think many found what they were really looking for. Sorry about that, passers-by.

I’ve never been tempted to Photoshop a picture of myself. Okay, so that’s probably influenced as much by my lack of photo editing skills as much as by my self-image security, but it’s a line I haven’t crossed. Instead, I just avoid the camera. Meredith may stick a camera in my face at regular intervals, but we have a deal; I don’t cross my eyes, and she doesn’t make me look at the photos. It works for us.

But for those who feel they need a little help in the candid shot department, HP has a new camera that will do the editing work for you. Software, both built into the camera and installed on the computer, will horizontally compress an image to narrow your body while blurring the background to make the editing less noticeable.

From the HP website:

Photos that flatter

With the slimming feature, anyone can appear more slender—instantly.

• The effect is subtle—subjects still look like themselves
• Can be adjusted for a more dramatic effect
• See a before and after version, then decide which to keep

There are 7 camera models with the option.

The whole thing strikes me as slightly sad. I suspect we’re going to see targeted marketing on this, since both examples shown on the product page are young women, neither of whose “before” pictures really need any work. But this is going to be aimed at Baby Boom women, I’m afraid, and at least a few are going to fall for it.

There’s a lot to be said for body-acceptance at any size. It bothers me to see a product aimed at exploiting our insecurity.