With beliefs like these floating around, we have to remind ourselves that it’s 2011.

It’s hard to believe that this many years after Stieg Larsson ended sexism it’s still possible for public figures to issue dismissive, crude, and derogatory statements about women, but it would appear not everyone has gotten to Girl With a Dragon Tattoo in their book club yet. Until that day comes, here are the worst, most insulting, and simply bizarre quotes about women we heard this year outside of a YouTube comment thread.

10. Trinidadian author V.S. Naipaul started the year out strong by claiming that “women writers are different, they are quite different. I read a piece of writing and within a paragraph or two I know whether it is by a woman or not. I think [it is] unequal to me…My publisher, who was so good as a taster and editor, when she became a writer, lo and behold, it was all this feminine tosh. I don’t mean this in any unkind way.” Sorry, ladies – he’s taken.

9. Referring the concern of some evangelical voters that Republican candidate/performance artist Michele Bachmann had usurped her husband’s biblically-mandated authority by running for president, Iowan pastor Brad Sherman had this to say: “She’s in a proper relationship with her husband spiritually. That’s a key point. And she’s asking people for permission to lead the country. That’s not usurping at all.” There’s no word yet on whether or not Michele has a signed permission slip or simply a verbal agreement from Mr. Bachmann, but that’s really a matter for the courts.

8. Tim Gunn on Hillary Clinton: “I think she’s confused about her gender – all these big, baggy, menswear tailored pantsuits…I have a great respect for her intellect and her tenacity and for what she does for our country in her governmental role. I just wish she could send a stronger message about American fashion.”

7. President Obama defended Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ decision to restrict sales of Plan B to girls under the age of 18 with this well-researched, grounded-in-scientific-evidence statement: “I will say this, as the father of two young daughters: I think it is important for us to make sure that, you know, we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine.” Glass-half-empty point of view, President Obama thinks that young women can’t be trusted to make their own reproductive decisions (never mind that condoms are available without a prescription). Glass-half-full point of view – Barack Obama wants to be our dad!

6. An anonymous Egyptian general spoke to CNN about why female protestors arrested during anti-Mubarak demonstrations were strip-searched and forced to submit to virginity tests. “The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine. These were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters in Tahrir Square, and we found in the tents Molotov cocktails and [drugs]…We didn’t want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren’t virgins in the first place. None of them were.”

5. At a conference on atheism in Dublin earlier this year, skeptic writer Rebecca Watson registered discomfort at being propositioned by a stranger at 4 a.m. in an elevator after delivering her speech. Richard Dawkins’ response: “Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade…For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.” A thicker skin would probably help protect against genital discomfort, so the advice was doubly helpful.

4. “So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.” Dr. Lazar Springfield, in an op-ed piece for the American College of Surgeons referring to a study that suggested semen had a possible anti-depressive effect. This Valentine’s day, say it with semen.

3. “The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.” Scott Adams (you know, that guy who draws the cartoons about working in an office your HR manager has tacked up all over the door).

2. Fox News Vice President Joe Chillemi, on the merits of hiring a man versus a woman, says “Of course I’d pick the man. The woman would most likely get pregnant and leave.” I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t let even imminent childbirth tear me from his side.

1. Silvio Berlusconi, in response to allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct: “When asked if they would like to have sex with me, 30% of women said, ‘Yes’, while the other 70% replied, ‘What, again?’” Truly, he was the Prime Minister who got away.

ALSO CHECK OUT:

40 Best Quotes About Solitude

50 Best Quotes About Love

Classic Quotes from Hollywood’s Original Leading Ladies

30 Best Quotes About Nature

All Creatures Great and Small: 30 Best Quotes About Animals

40 Inspirational Quotes on New Beginnings

50 Quotes About Meditation And Yoga

Thoughts from a boho, kooky, unserious, curly-haired woman.

If I’ve learned anything from the News of the World hacking scandal, it’s that if I’m ever called to testify in front of Congress, I really should stop and get a blowout first.

Because like former News International CEO Rebekah Brooks, I have very, very curly hair. The kind of hair where each strand twists and contorts itself until they all join up to form a labyrinthine web of kinky corkscrews. The kind of hair that is, by nature, untamed and wild.

The kind of hair that Robin Givhan, writing about Ms. Brooks in The Daily Beast, characterized as “boho,” “distracting,” “look-at-me hair.” “It was a ballsy rebuke of our expectations…There was no suggestion of humility, timidity, or caution…no attempt to disappear into doleful anonymity.”

Basically, Givhan argues that by virtue of its natural existence, Ms. Brooks’ hair sticks a finger in the eye of all things proper, righteous, and upstanding, and that if she cared about looking like a real CEO, she might have put it in a bun. I can’t speak for Ms. Brooks, but when you have the kind of hair that prompts entire columns about its perceived implications, trust me – doleful anonymity sounds pretty good.

I don’t mean for my curly hair to be a declaration of my identity. I didn’t ask for it to be this way. But whether I like it or not, my hair walks into the room before I do. It is and always has been the singular defining feature of my physical being, and it’s all people want to talk about. I have been forced to discuss it in job interviews and at funerals. When you have curls, no one cares about your big heart or your big thoughts; you are reduced to a person with big hair. My curls signify to the world that I am kooky, scatterbrained, free-spirited, unconventional, unruly, unkempt, unprofessional, un-corporate, rebellious, eccentric, quirky, and nonconformist. Or at least that’s how people like Givhan interpret them.

The idea of a curly-headed woman as distracting and unpolished is well-woven into our pop culture fabric. On any makeover show, the hair transformation will always involve a straightening iron. As they say, Messy Hair = Messy Life. In The Princess Diaries, Anne Hathaway isn’t princess material until she tames her frizz into a sleek blowout. On Friends, it’s no accident that ditzy Phoebe is the only female character with long waves. Even in the Harry Potter series, whip-smart Hermione is considered downright fugly until she emerges for the big dance with her usually wild hair fashioned into a demure straight style. I’ll stop here, but believe me – I could go on.

But curly hair isn’t just a semiotic concept; an idea to be parsed and analyzed in a what-does-it-all-mean kind of way. It’s personal. It’s personal every time I see a news segment showing how employers are less likely to hire curly-haired women, and men are less likely to want to date them. It’s personal when my husband asks, “If we have kids, what’s the chance they’d have hair like yours?” as if it were a disease. It’s personal when I assure him that genetically, it’s unlikely, and realize that I’m relieved, too. And it’s personal when fashion editors write columns decrying women who look like me as messy, defiant, and brazen.

Mostly, it gets personal every time some random stranger comments, “Oh, I’d love to have hair like yours!” Trust me – if people really wanted curly hair, fashion magazines wouldn’t be so full of blowout tips. Curls may be okay in theory, as long as they belong to adorable orphans or cartoon characters, but not on an adult woman. That is, assuming she wants to be taken seriously.

I was walking with my best friend once when a little old lady stopped me on the street to regale me with stories about how much she paid for perms, and how I was just the luckiest gosh-darned girl in the world. As we walked away, my friend said, “I have to tell you – your hair is great, but I would never want it in a million years.” I really loved her for that.

Image: lupzdut

ColumnA comment on commenting.

In a burst of condescension so brilliant my lady-brain almost didn’t catch it, a follower on Twitter labeled our recent article about nuclear energy as stupid and ignorant. He then admonished us both there and on Facebook to be “ashamed.” Our readers deserve to know “the truth” of which he is evidently the arbiter.

I publicly acknowledged the one constructive point he grandly offered (I had loaded the piece with a deck referencing Japan’s nuclear “meltdown” which, 10 days out from the disaster, is at best totally accurate and at worst, no different from a similar usage by the New York Times). I did resent him mussing my hair with his virtual pat on the head, though. You see, the author of the article, Stephanie Rogers, has the misfortune of cultivating greenery in her backyard while simultaneously not being a nuclear scientist. In other words, despite her long list of environmental writing credits and the piece in question having 13 straight paragraphs of citation after citation, fact after fact, she is clearly not up to the task of considering the topic of nuclear energy because she gardens. That green thumb belongs nowhere near the red button, much less the Publish button.

Coincidentally, this is a subject that’s been on my mind. Class, it’s time for a little lesson called Stop Being So Shallow, You’re Hindering Actual Dialogue, You Insecure Nit.

If Stephanie Rogers, a professional journalist and blogger whom I happen to know as one of the more thoughtful and prolific green writers working these days (her articles have been syndicated by numerous print media during her tenure at EcoSalon), cannot write about the nuclear energy debate that’s been revived in light of current events in Japan because she has an affinity for growing tulips, that’s fine, but we’ll have to be consistent. Let’s just get this out of the way now: Sorry, President Obama, reading a memo here, talking it up with your science people there, does not entitle you to pontificate to the citizenry on nuclear energy. You’re simply not an expert, babe. Nice speeches, though.

In all seriousness, I think the only person who shouldn’t be talking about, writing about or otherwise bloviating about nuclear energy right now is Kenny from South Park, because we know how that ends up. For everyone else, there’s the readily available internet and the mere fact that The Nuclear Option affects us all – and I’m not just talking about nuclear power. I take our editorial responsibility seriously, so here’s me letting the cat out of the bag: we are professional writers and editors, but it is true that we are not nuclear energy “experts.” Few journalists are. Does this mean we cannot discuss one of the most compelling topics of our time?

Most readers are savvy enough to understand that every piece has its limits, if for no other reason than screen size, and are able to air their disagreement or call out an error without resorting to insults. But the world of new media is a Baker’s dozen: for every 12 mindful, sincere readers you get, there is the inevitable reader with a bleeding chip. Such readers react first – they take the nuclear option – and remember we’re all in this together second. And that’s fine. They do not trust their own positions very much, for they are hotly put out by ours. (Even more so when the writer is a woman. Somehow I doubt that Graham Hill or Mike Lieberman or any other green guy would face tweet-shaming for sharing a few well-sourced points about nuclear energy – at least, not because of a fondness for his homegrown tomatoes.)

But sexism is as old as the internet, and who cares? The truly tiresome thing about the not-an-expert slam is that it is so beside the point. Imagine a world where only experts were allowed to comment on a given topic. It would certainly take care of that little cocktail party problem known as Falling Back on the Weather (unless it’s a Weather Channel company party, obviously). The cable TV punditry would soon go extinct. An undeniable upside.

But there might be a few downsides. We wouldn’t be allowed to talk about our cars stalling, our flights being delayed, our computers freezing up, our cell phones dying, our teenagers refusing to shower, our neighborhood recycling program or the origins of thin-crust pizza. That is, unless we’re mechanics, pilots, programmers, engineers, psychologists, municipal administrators or culinary historians (for which there must be a program at Yale). Oh, we could recount these things happening, but analysis and debate, input from friends, indeed Googling would be off limits…even to professional writers. What great fun. The whole of human existence lived as a fourth-grade book report.

If there’s one thing we learned from Gandhi, it’s that change starts with you, and Gandhi? I am so going to be that change. Here at EcoSalon, no writer will be allowed to write on any topic unless he or she is a proven expert in said topic. Confirmation of expertise will be determined by a jury of your Twits and verdict will be rendered in 140 characters or less.

But wait, there’s more! Just think of how much value you will not contribute to your personal life. I won’t be able to offer insights to married friends because I am single, for example. The silver lining is that all this free time not being allowed to do or say anything because I’m no expert should give me plenty of time to become one. With any luck, perhaps I can even become a know-it-all. Better yet, a know-nothing! Sadly, I can never become a man, at least not without better health insurance.

It’s hard work actually thinking through the merits of what someone says instead of reacting based upon what box you’ve got them in, but every day, intelligent adults in possession of a heart do manage it.

Every day, good journalists can and do credibly contribute ideas and information to topics they may not be career “experts” in. But that’s not what it’s about, is it? It’s about a chick. And so some readers will resort to their lizard brains, reacting to their biology as fast as they possibly can to smother the itch, salving themselves with ad hominem.

How expert should we be when discussing topics that matter to us all? There’s a fairly wide field between being peer-reviewed in the International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology and being an imbecile. Pretending that isn’t the case is dishonest and counterproductive. And coming back with a know-nothing defense – and it is always this defense – such as “I’m no expert either, which is why I don’t write on this topic!” is no comeback at all.

Abortion, war and technology, fertility, fast food, feminism, divorce, drugs, vegetarianism, porn, Peta, trashion, fur, ecosexism, sex, sex in advertising, death, things we want versus things we need, celebrity, nuclear energy: All topics allowed, all consciousness considered, all hyperlinks included, no green stone unturned.

If you’ve got a leg to stand on, stand on it. But if you’re going to take issue with a writer’s proclivity for raising oregano, we’re going to consider the source, as well. And we’ll take a gardener over a troll any day.

Image: Lara604

This is the latest installment in your editor’s column, The Insider’s Guide to Life, exploring topics such as media, culture, sex, politics, and anything else. Cheers and spellcheck!

Female soldiers serving overseas are denied their legal right to choice.

There isn’t a much more intrusive and demanding employer than the United States Military. If you enlist, you give up a great deal of personal freedom and accept the strong likelihood of being placed in harm’s way. In return, you receive many benefits: the honor of serving your country, superb on-the-job training, job security and reportedly the best health care benefits in the country. But it may shock you to learn that service women don’t have the same access to legal reproductive healthcare that their civilian counterparts enjoy.

The trouble began with the passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976, which ensures that federal money is not used to fund abortions – on military bases, in Planned Parenthood facilities or anyplace else.

Anti-choice politicians and activists have spent a lot of time over the last few months making sure that there’s confusion about how government dollars are used to fund abortions. Here’s the quick answer: they’re not. See Hyde.

Think about what this means for an American service woman overseas.

Female soldiers stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other countries where abortion is illegal have to get special, unpaid leaves of absence and – using their own money – fly to a country where it is legal to get an abortion. Because of Hyde, they can’t get one on base.

Other than cases in which the life or health of the woman is in immediate danger, female soldiers cannot get an abortion – a legal medical procedure in the country they are serving and risking their lives for – on a military base, where they are supposed to receive health care because said health care is government-sponsored. Talk about a Catch-22.

For many years, servicewomen and military wives were able to use their own funds to access abortion care on military facilities overseas. In 1988, an internal Department of Defense memo took away that right. In 1993, President Clinton signed an Executive Order lifting the ban, but then in 1995, an anti-choice Congress passed a law reimposing it. And here we are.

“Abortion is essentially illegal on base and it puts servicewomen into a pre-Roe situation: If you have money, if you know who to ask and if your commander lets you leave the base, you have a choice. If not, you don’t,” says Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney at the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project.

On a foreign military base, there’s usually a treaty or agreement with the host country and stipulating rules and regulations apply. Saudi Arabia is the best example. Servicewomen there are allowed to drive on base, but can’t drive in the rest of the country. The same is true with veils, which they must wear if they leave the base.

Given these examples, it would seem that even if abortion is illegal in the host country, U.S. laws would apply on base. But common sense doesn’t apply and the consequences are dire.

“I heard a story about a soldier was stationed in the Philippines. His wife was pregnant and the baby had fatal problems. The closest place to go to terminate the pregnancy was Japan, but they couldn’t afford the trip. She was forced to carry the pregnancy to term,” says Kolbi-Molinas.

People in the military, she explains, do have fewer privacy rights than the rest of us, and you’d need your commander’s permission to leave the base for any reason, including medical procedures. What goes too far is that the facilities ban requires disclosure to the officer, sometimes to the whole unit. There are serious repercussions. Unsurprisingly, a woman leaving active duty to get an abortion isn’t good for a unit’s cohesion, and has shown to be damaging to women’s military careers.

According to the ACLU, more than 365,000 women presently serve in the military. If, while they are deployed, they happen to get pregnant – either because they had consensual sex and the birth control failed or they are raped – they are unable to do anything about it. And rape isn’t a small issue. According to a 2003 study of female veterans, 30 percent were raped or suffered a rape attempt during their military service. Uncle Sam, I’ll do the math: thirty percent of 365,000 is more than 109,000 women.

And abortion isn’t the only reproductive health service that is compromised for active servicewomen. “During the first Gulf War, I heard about a soldier in Kuwait who was having issues with her IUD. None of the doctors she had access to there had a speculum, so they had to use spoons,” says Kolbi-Molinas.

Their lives are on the line for ours, and we can’t do better than spoons?

The first way to protect servicewomen on our bases is to ensure that full reproductive health services are legal, just as they are at home – for now. If the right to choose is compromised or lost in the States, active duty women don’t stand a chance.

On February 18th, the House passed H.R. 3 and voted to cut off all funding to Planned Parenthood. If it passes the Senate we’re all in a lot of trouble. Far more than an abortion provider, Planned Parenthood offers STI testing, HIV testing, cancer screenings and access to birth control to women who couldn’t otherwise afford it.

As Candace Straight, co-chair of the Republican Majority for Choice, wrote: “Beyond the title’s hypocritical and not-so-subtle taxation, H.R. 3 would disadvantage an entire spectrum of women and families. From the brave women serving in our military overseas to federal employees and the poorest of our citizens, this bill directly aims to restrict access for those in need.”

See where your Senators stand and then contact them voicing your support or disgust, depending. And, if you can, float a little money at Planned Parenthood – the organization really is on the frontline protecting reproductive freedom and it needs all the help it can get right now.

In honor of International Women’s Day, let’s extend the laws of this land to our courageous women in uniform, whether they’re standing on its soil or not.

Image: Familymwr

We’ve been waxing on women’s issues more frequently lately, so you’d be forgiven the impression that team ES is sitting around a conference table cooking up angry gal content. The truth is that we are working from all over the world, leading varied lifestyles, individually coming to our own conclusions about troubling things that are absolutely not sustainable for women – or for anyone. And that’s the scary thing. A conference table and some headline goosing would be nice for a change.

Why the abundance of news material to work with? Perhaps women have grown lax, accepting too much from our male counterparts (and possibly alpha women) as just joking, just teasing and just, you know, being anything but serious – so that we’ve forgotten to ask point blank questions like, “Excuse me. Why is this okay?”

Case in point: I track trend sites daily and one of my kitschy favorites, Trendhunter, is adding fuel to an already blazing feminist fire roaring out of kitchens and minivans worldwide. Based on their “trends” from correspondents that send in their finds, apparently, we women (including children) are spreading our legs for every Jim, Jack and Johnnie – that is, when we’re not busy plowing through the vodka and Valium.

Kindergarten Couture? Give me a break.

Trendhunter says of former French Vogue editor, Carine Roitfeld: “Carine Roitfeld has been known for being an editor to run controversial material during her time at French Vogue. Her final stint at the magazine was her last chance to go out in style, and she made sure that happened.”

That means gathering a group of 6-year-olds and smothering them in tons of toxic makeup and sky high stilettos.

Even Gawker’s Maureen O’ Connor calls it “prima facie disgusting.” Carine certainly knows how to go out with a bang.

French Vogue, Cadeaux

Trendhunter thinks that in addition to involving sexy grade schoolers posing with exotic animal pelts, deranged housewives precariously lighting butts by stove top is a trend we should be watching. Really? Is Trendhunter really saying this is something we will see more of? (I’m pulling my fork out of the toaster.)

We all understand – and most of us adore – the fantasy of fashion, but some fantasies are best left in the box.

You’ll notice the little girl in the corner is walking in on Mother having her domestic breakdown.

Vogue Italia, ‘Home Works’ by Miles Aldridge

Cue the Talking Heads Song, “How did I get here?”

The “Boozer Babe Spreads” are a hot trend I can see really blossoming into future editorials including, “Addicted to heroin and all my veins have collapsed” spreads, “I lost all my children because I’m a full-force alcoholic” spread and let’s not forget, “Hey, where’s the cartilage in my nose, I snorted too much coke” spread.

Simon Powell photographs

If fashion magazines are a barometer for what’s stylishly happening to women, I’d like to scrub them all out with a good bar of organic vegetable soap. Taste, class, consciousness: that’s an ecology that sustains (and is sexy). Booze, babes and cigarette butts? Hardly. But of course, I should probably just lighten up.

From bad green design to ridiculous marketing campaigns, find out what peeves the writers and editors of EcoSalon in our team column, The Beige Report.

Even when the writer isn’t Mark Twain, changing someone’s words is tricky business. I’ve always said the best editors are the ones who are so subtle that you can’t tell what they change in your copy, and yet your piece is better. So, when considering the new version of “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” that eliminates the prodigious use of the “n-word” throughout the novel, there are two big problems out of the gate: One, if we can agree that Twain is an American literary treasure, it’s probably no one’s business to give his work what’s referred to as a “heavy edit.” And two, the man’s dead. Game over. If he’s not part of the discussion (and he’d want to be), it’s cheating to have it.

That said, Twain and his work are part of our nation’s living culture (the story was even covered by Entertainment Weekly) and there are bigger issues at play here than simple editing ethics. One is straight-up censorship. The other is laziness regarding our relationship with young adults – the target group for the two options being offered here: The reworking of Twain’s text for “innocent eyes” or kicking the book upstairs to only be taught at the college level (proposed by Lorrie Moore last weekend in her NYT op-ed, “Send Huck Finn to College”).  Both impulses are well-meaning, but are wrongheaded disservices to our youth and ourselves.

Regarding censorship, taking shots at book banning is easy when the would-be banners are reactionary thugs concerned with thought-policing our culture by ensuring that so called subversive reads (from “Catcher in the Rye,” to “Lolita,” to “The Communist Manifesto”) remain unavailable. Taking on attacks by science deniers and bible thumpers that would cut us off access to scientific facts is also a no-brainer bailiwick for anti-censorship types. (A friend who works in publishing recently showed me an excerpt from a faith-based children’s science textbook used for Darwin-free schooling. Oh dear.)

But it’s a lot more difficult when attempts at information control come from those concerned with issues having to do civil rights, be they about race or sex. (I’m recalling now a professor who once hurled a copy of Homer’s “Odyssey” across a college freshman classroom, symbolically excommunicating it from the canon because of its hideous maleness. This same person later refused to be a reader on my thesis on Kerouac. Doing so would be playing a role in legitimizing what she said was his texts’ misogyny.) The “Huck Finn” controversy is a tough one, to be sure. I cringe when I read the n-word in the novel today as an adult, just as I did when I was young. Likewise, as a Jew, Ernest Hemingway’s great “The Sun Also Rises” has always provoked winces at certain ugliness. I do understand the instinct to get the word out of the classroom.  (The term “injun,” it should be noted, is also dispensed with in the new edition.)

But I turn to Katie, the teen liaison at the local library who’s completing her master’s degree in library science with a focus on Young Adults. Katie’s an old-school liberal, feminist, anti-sexism and anti-racism, solid citizen of the best sort. Here’s an excerpt from a paper she recently wrote about a decision she made that she thought was best for young girls:

“I recalled my decision to remove a popular magazine, Seventeen, from [the local library’s] Young Adult collection and replace it with another publication. As I made that decision, I was aware that I was wielding control in an undemocratic way, but I didn’t see my actions as “censorship.”… I was in denial about my act of censorship because I thought I was right. … [But] It didn’t matter that I had a litany of ‘good’ reasons for wanting the magazine removed – I was putting my personal opinion ahead of patrons’ wants and needs. That prioritization is never acceptable and is in direct conflict with my personal philosophy of affording information access. … I saw how, on a practical level, I must be ready to defend access to material I personally find abhorrent. This is my duty as a librarian and a youth advocate.”

This is the type of (sometimes counterintuitive) vigilance we must display to make sure high school students have access to work that, like “Huck Finn,” some of us might find distasteful. I know we’re talking about curriculum here and not a teen magazine – but we’re also not talking about Nazi propaganda. Keep in mind young adults’ access to material is consistently under attack and it is specifically here that we need be on guard to defend our rights to information. Most efforts to ban books are focused on this part of the society’s population under the guise of protecting innocence.

The second option, being floated by Moore and others, is that we suspend teaching the book until college and adulthood. “The remedy,” she says, “is to refuse to teach this novel in high school and to wait until college – or even graduate school – where it can be put in proper context.”

Refuse? This is an example of the laziness of our approach not only to engaging and teaching this age group, but also to understanding and respecting their cognitive sophistication, and to owning up to the sometimes uncomfortable world in which they live and form opinions. Until graduate school? What does that say about ourselves as adults and our ability to think and learn?

No one would advocate handing material on complex subject matter to young students without teaching it. Try this on: Material regarding safe sex has unsettling terms and concepts that teenagers can’t “get” on their own. Best not to teach it. Doing so might create a (gasp!) uncomfortable classroom situation. Come on, people. Our job is to teach our children – to offer them context. This is not always a comfortable task – for them or us. In this case, we’re talking about our nation’s legacy of slavery, racism, judgment and hatred. The notion that high school kids aren’t ready for important subject matter is really an indictment of our own lack of creativity, if not indifference. And for those teachers who are (so unfortunately) intimidated by these ideas, there are myriad aides especially designed to teach this book and the controversies it elicits. Go ahead, type it in: “Twain Finn Teaching Controversy Lesson Plans.” A child can do it.

As parents and teachers, we do have to make some choices about material that is and isn’t appropriate to teach young people. No one’s saying that “Tropic of Cancer” or “Lolita” should be part of standard high-school curriculum. But these books are not “Huck Finn,” and regardless, if kids are reading them, we best should be ready to teach them. Tossing them under the rug and saying “see you in college” is simply irresponsible.

If we want our kids to grow up to be conscious adults, we have to teach consciousness in dynamic and intelligent ways. We can reopen the arguments around what Twain was trying to accomplish in his great work, why he chose the terms he did and his possible motivations (good or bad) behind their use. But I’m going to leave that to the thousands of teachers who have successfully taught the book and the millions of high school students who have read it, were taught it and learned great lessons about our culture and compassion from Twain’s masterpiece.

Image: khrawlings

If you are well acquainted with EcoSalon, you know we don’t shy away from controversial issues. In fact, we welcome them. Rarely is there one right answer, and remaining open-minded in the face of difficult discussions is what EcoSalon strives to achieve.

And 2010 was no exception. It was indeed a stellar year for serious and many-sided environmental discussions. We hope you enjoyed the controversy, I mean year, as much as we did!

Here’s our greatest hits list for 2010:

GINK (Green Inclinations, No Kids) – Want to help the environment? Stop procreating. Turns out, going childless is the greenest choice of all. GINK describes women who decide not to have kids for any number of reasons, but mainly they consider the childless choice a huge gain for the environment. And furthermore, did you know that women can find peace, contentment and even happiness sans baby? Amazing!

Gulf Series – The BP Oil spill last April was tragic and terrifying to witness from afar, but when one of our writers traveled to the Gulf of Mexico and reported back, we got much more than we bargained for, including the devastating details of the aftermath and cleanup.

Gyre Series – Plastic pollution is collecting in the earth’s waters. It’s a catastrophic problem and one that we followed first hand (well, almost) while sailing the South Atlantic Gyre. Actually, Stiv Wilson, one of our editors, went on the adventure and yes, he lived to tell us all about it. In fact, the saga continues.

Politics versus Science – It was a big year for politics and science, with solar panels reappearing on the White House, emails leaking with twisted facts and figures, and a newly elected Republican Congress and the resurgence of climate change denial. One battle after another. We faced the Global Warming deniers and naysayers but in the end it seems, Americans still trust science. Phew!

Fur? Leather? Vegan? Oh yes! – Debate and controversy ran rampant in the fashion arena this year, and no one came out wrong. The fur versus leather discussion continued, while vegans consistently said no to anything animal. But if anything artificial and man-made only adds to the mess we’re in, why not wear fur? So many questions, all sorts of answers. In the end it comes down to personal preference and hopefully, an earnest attempt to pay attention to the planet.

Gender & Sexism – 2010 was also a big year for the ladies, or wait – is it gals or women or dames? It was a big year, as in, we’re still not making as much, still being asked why we’re not married and having babies, and still can’t be both smart and pretty. Further complicating the matter, green itself has been accused of sexism! How’s that for progress, eh?

Apple – One of the most anticipated events of the year was the launch of the iPad. We also saw a plethora of eco-friendly iPhone covers, and others made of rosewood, plants and bamboo. But no matter how green our gadgets, will we always wonder whether we can live without them? Yep, probably.

Food Revolution – 2010 saw schools saying adios to junk food (and Sara Palin getting mad about it), urbanites saying yes to farming, and more discussion about the problem that is the global food system. In other news – the concept of being a foodie rose in our consciousness this year, as people became increasingly fascinated with culinary culture and great cuisine. From food carts to all things pork to urban wineries, the foodie has arrived – your table is ready!

Electric Cars – It was a year to remember for the electric car. With the new EPA fuel efficiency labels meaning business, car manufacturers did the same. It seems everyone who’s anyone had an entry into the electric lineup – Mercedes and BMW, the Nissan Leaf (which was already sold out in the U.S. by July) and the Chevy Volt. And it appears we’ll be seeing more charging stations in the next year as well. Good thing!

Gorgeous Green Living – 2010 was full of talk about prefab, small spaces and McMansions, but EcoSalon saw a subtler, deeper theme at play: how green, vintage and good taste combine to make gorgeous living. We immersed ourselves in all areas of art and design and garnered loads of green lessons from what we found. We researched and scoured the web to bring you design insights, ideas and inspiration. Because in these not-so-stable times – when we can control our spaces, our immediate surroundings, but not much else – a visceral dose of art and color and gorgeous is oh-so-wonderful.

and last, but definitely not least…

We decided that Green Needs to Grow Up – It cannot be coddled nor supported uncritically. We owe it to ourselves and our future generations to insist upon good standards and good products in green. So when things like deodorant and amusement parks announce they are green all over, we investigate. We’re tired of greenwashing and false advertising, and you should be, too.

Images: Deepwater Horizon Response, kevindooley, Stiv Wilson, NASA Goddard Photo and Video, jessjamesjake, xjyxjy, Robert Scoble, bokchoi-snowpea, Lisa Cohen (via Living Inside), CoCreatr.

In addition to packing a hefty antioxidant punch, the mango – a superfruit if there ever was one – is now proven to fend off poverty, global warming, and sexism.

According to an article in the BBC News, residents of the Dharhara village in the Bhagalpur district of northwestern India have engaged in a social experiment using mangoes to up the value of their daughters. In many parts of India, girls are seen as less desirable than boys. Families want a male heir, and a son is seen as an extra source of income for the family.  Female feticide – in which doctors illegally abort unborn baby girls on the basis of their sex alone – is rampant throughout India, with 50 million girls missing, according to UNICEF. Female feticide has created a shortage of eligible brides in India, with males in some urban regions traveling to rural areas to secure a wife. But girls who aren’t aborted are often subject to extreme domestic violence later in life. Bride burning, in which men set fire to their wives for lack of a sufficient dowry, occurs in parts of India.

It is against this grisly backdrop that the residents of Dharhara have decided to make their daughters more valuable in Indian society. For every girl born, the family plants at least 10 mango trees in the village. The mangoes provide a source of income for the parents, allowing them to save enough money for a dowry upon their daughter’s marriage – thus avoiding the violence that accompanies a scanty marriage settlement. One mango orchard yields about $4,245 worth of mangoes each season, enough to supplement the familial income, with leftover money going in a bank account for the child’s dowry.

“We heard about it from our fathers and they from their fathers. It has been in the family and the village from ages,” Subhendu Kumar Singh, a school teacher, told the BBC. “This is our way of meeting the challenges of dowry, global warming and female foeticide. There has not been a single incident yet of female foeticide or dowry death in our village.”

While the Dharhara tradition shelters the village’s girls from the misogyny in greater India, the fact that mango trees alone can make a girl more valuable speaks volumes of the undervaluing of women in the first place. Preferable, of course, is a major cultural shift, one in which women – mango trees or not – are treasured from birth like men. But barring that, the Dharhara mango project is a model worth emulating.

Image: Mickey_boy[L]

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) does not see fit to extend the same moral courtesy to human animals, specifically the female kind. In the organization’s latest sexist campaign for vegetarianism, an overweight woman in a bikini is faced with the emboldened slogan: “Save the Whales”. Beneath the words runs a helpful tagline: “Lose the blubber: go vegetarian.”

Come on gals, take a joke. What’s a little fat-shaming in pursuit of a good time?

There’s no shortage of adjectives (or profanities) that come to mind to describe such a mean-spirited billboard. And if you can get through the confusion of it – don’t be a whale! wait, save the whales! don’t be a whale so we can save the whales! whales are great, except you, blubber butt! – it’s also very telling.

A friend of mine, John Haslett, is a professional adventurer and author of the sea memoir, Voyage of the Manteno. In the book, he writes about the behavior of people in survival situations – that is, people under extreme stress. An inevitable few will rapidly decline into paranoia and eventual insanity. Some – many more than you would think, observes Haslett – simply give up. Some rise to the challenge, while others become childish or cheat. I think we can figure out which part of the life raft we’d find PETA hugging.

With admirably relentless energy, PETA has managed to jump from the margins of activism and enjoys frequent mainstream media attention. To the dismay of many vegetarians, when Newkirk speaks, people do listen. A group like PETA has just as much potential to wear at our social fabric as any loudmouth pundit. These are not just crazy tactics; PETA’s stunts are part of a carefully-woven, and unfortunate, strategy. Deliberately divisive, PETA is antisocial in a wide cultural sense. Desperate to win, they resort to the ridiculous and alienate those whom they hope to convert. What a dark, lonely world these small-minded people inhabit! I don’t know about you, but I don’t want anyone this stressed out trying to advocate for anything except another cocktail.

The woman who is concerned with social and environmental justice should be quick to leave PETA to the spiral it’s so enthusiastically sliding down. Sociologists explain that it’s common for oppressed groups to target each other as they jockey for autonomy. PETA abusing using women as a tool to achieve their goals is just one more example in a long history of horizontal violence. Not very original, is it? One can easily imagine that in the hive-mind of PETA headquarters, there is only room for the conflict view of reality: it’s either women for animals or women over animals. I guess PETA can’t conceive of women and animals, or at least not for the blubbery among us!

Any position worth defending can be done with integrity. If you have to take a cheap shot to score a point, you don’t belong in the game. Or put another way, when the end justifies the means, the means become the end.

Recommended reading on this topic: Feministing, Deceiver, Jezebel, Huffington Post, The Frisky, DoubleX