Women and Medications

It’s not well known that women experience a greater number of more severe side effects from medications than men do.  Dr. Janine Clayton of the Office of Research on Women’s Health (National Institutes of Health) recently raised the issue after the Food and Drug Administration was evaluating a new sleeping pill, Intermezzo.  Blood tests to learn how much of the drug remains in a user’s system the morning after taking it uncovered that men metabolized the drug much more rapidly than women.

Until 1993, women of childbearing age were not included in new drug trials.  When the ban on use of females was lifted that year, researchers realized that many of the “landmark” studies, including the study on aspirin use to prevent heart disease and stroke, had not included women, leaving them to wonder whether or not aspirin was effective for women in avoiding these conditions.  Because so many drugs were tested exclusively on men, it’s not known what the effects will be for women until a drug reaches the market.

A study done by the Government Accountability Office found that 8 of 10 drugs removed from the market between 1997 and 2000 posed significantly more health risks to women than men.  For example, a common antihistamine (Seldane) and a digestive aid (Propulsid) both caused dangerous heart arrhythmia in women – as do many drugs still on the market, including antibiotics and cholesterol medications.

But, the opposite may also be true – certain blood pressure medications and antibiotics appear to be more effective in women, and women typically wake up faster from anesthesia.  There are also clearly different responses to tobacco and alcohol: women smokers are more susceptible to cancer and heart disease than male smokers, women under 50 have higher blood alcohol content than men of the same age after consuming the same amount of alcohol, and women experience alcohol-related heart damage at lower levels of alcohol consumption than men.

The Society for Women’s Health Research has created a useful online tool, Fact Sheet: Sex Differences in Response to Pharmaceuticals, Tobacco, Alcohol, and Illicit Drugs: http://www.womenshealthresearch.org/site/PageServer?pagename=hs_healthfacts_dat.  And the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research has new guidelines for studies of new drugs, which require that studies include gender response differences in the earliest stages of drug development.

Hopefully, there is increased attention to the physiological differences between females and males that may affect a range of products and dosages, among other things.

We continue to remind decision-makers to consider the results of all laws, research, policies, and services – and the possible disproportionate effect they may have on women – before making a judgment or conclusion.  The results of not doing so, such as those discovered in the scientific field, may be life-changing.

Family Leave Policies

A new study by the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University reports that working women who have paid family leave are much more likely to be working after the birth of a child and, most often, experience an increase in wage from pre- to post-birth.

The study analyzed information from the US Department of Labor between 1997 and 2009.  Among the findings, the study noted that since the mid-1980s, there has been a 13% increase (now nearly 73%) in the percentage of children with both parents (or the only parent) working outside the home.  And despite a tremendous amount of rhetoric about “family values,” “support for working families,” and “keeping our children secure,” the United States lags far behind other industrialized nations when it comes to policies that support workers needing time off for family time and needs.

Except for only a few states, practice in this country is limited to unpaid leave, despite 1993’s passage of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which requires that companies with a least 50 workers provide up to 12 weeks of leave (unpaid and not job-protected) annually “for their own health or the health of a family members.”  This leaves most employees to patch together sick time, vacation time, disability insurance, or unpaid time off to deal with personal or family health problems.  Most low-income workers have not vacation, sick leave, or PTO (Paid Time Off).

The United States in among the 3 countries (out of 178 – the others are Swaziland and Papua New Guinea) that do not mandate maternity paid leave.  And only 11% of private sector employees and 17% of public sector employees have access to paid leave through their employer. 

Specific key findings of the report include:

¬   Women who report taking paid leave are more likely to be working 9 to 12 months after a child’s birth than are those who report taking no leave at all (“non‐leave takers”).

¬   Paid family leave increases wages for women with children.  Women who report leaves of 30 or more days are 54% more likely to report wage increases in the year following the child’s birth than are women who take no leave at all.

¬   Women who return to work after a paid leave have a 39% lower likelihood of receiving public assistance and a 40% lower likelihood of food stamp receipt in the year following the child’s birth, when compared to those who return to work and take no leave at all.

¬   Men who return to work after a paid family leave have a significantly lower likelihood of receiving public assistance and food stamps in the year following the child’s birth when compared to those who return to work and take no family leave at all.

Linda Houser of the Center for Women and Work summarizes the positive economic benefit of paid leave policies:  "While we have known for a long time about the maternal and infant health benefits of leave policies, we can now link paid family leave to greater labor force attachment and increased wages for women, as well as to reduced spending by businesses in the form of employee replacement costs, and by governments in the form of public assistance."

Forbes magazine sums up the economic benefits of paid leave in this way:

1.     Paid family leave addresses a reality that directly impacts every business and should be planned for strategically, uniformly and deliberately,

2.     Paid family leave is NOT a tax, but income replacement insurance program funded by employees at minimal cost, and

3.     We are paying for a cost for caregiving already - indirectly and inefficiently, through employee turnover, retraining, and workplace productivity.

This is the type of information Chrysalis works to provide to policy makers through SOLUTIONS, our annual legislative breakfast.  Our work is to provide factual, objective information that should be taken into account when decisions – state, local, individual – are being made that affect girls, women, and working families.

Thank you for being a leader in this work.

If you’d like to read the full report:  http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/Pay_Matters_-_Positive_Economic_Impacts_of_Paid_Family_L.pdf?docID=9681

Human Trafficking in Iowa

First, a definition:

The act of human trafficking s the providing, buying, and selling of men, women, and children who will be exploited until they are no longer able to work, or are sold repeatedly to be violently, sexually abused.  Mobility is important, as traffickers move victims quickly away from home and/or family in order to build dependence and fear.

According to a September 2012 special report, Human Trafficking: Modern Day Slavery Exploiting the Vulnerable, trafficking human beings is the world’s fastest-growing organized criminal activity, generating a “market value” of $32 to $39 billion annually.  It is second only to drugs as the largest source of profit for organized crime, surpassing the sale of guns for the last 10 years.  The “average” trafficker earns $47,000 per week.

Chrysalis is proud to be serving on a Task Force with the Attorney General's Office related to human trafficking in Iowa. Through this process, we have learned a lot in a short amount of time that we wan to share.

Eighty percent of victims of human trafficking are female, 50% of victims are children; average age of targets for trafficking is 11-14 years old.  One in 3 runaway youth is approached for commercial sex within 48 hours of being on the street.

Iowa is an easy target for traffickers because of the intersection of key interstate highways connecting Minneapolis, Kansas City, Chicago, and Omaha.

Iowa was awarded a “D” grade on the Protected Innocence Challenge by SharedHope (http://sharedhope.org/PICframe2/reportcards/PIC_RC_2012_IO.pdf), in part, because our prostitution laws do not reference the human trafficking law to identify a commercially sexually-exploited minor as a victim of trafficking rather than a person soliciting money for sex.

Also, because of inadequate training and resources, law enforcement encounters are likely taking place where human trafficking is present, but it is not being recognized – more often, the charge is prostitution.  Since 2006, only 2 cases have been prosecuted under the Iowa Human Trafficking Statute.

Another problem with Iowa law is that purchasers of sex with minors must register as sex offenders only if convicted of human trafficking or solicitation of commercial sexual activity.  If a buyer is convicted under the prostitution statute, even when it involves a minor child, the buyer is not required to register as a sex offender.

These are among the concerns now being addressed by this team, which includes about 20 judicial, legal, public safety, and educational institution representatives.  In addition, Former Iowa Senator Maggie Tinsman of Davenport brings the resources of Braking Traffik, a nonprofit organization she founded to address this growing issue.

Last year, Chrysalis hosted its first Roundtable Community Conversation, and the issue of trafficking was presented by Lt. Joe Gonzalez of the Des Moines Police Department (and Chrysalis Board member) and a representative of the US District Attorney's Office.  We will continue to build public awareness and education about trafficking, as its devastating impact on girls and women increasingly comes to light.

Later this year, we plan to host a screening in the Chrysalis Office of Not My Life, a documentary produced in 2011 depicting the tragic effects of this multi-billion dollar global industry targeting girls and young children.

A Look Back at 2012

As you know, 2012 was a year of women’s accomplishments – we were primary breadwinners in a majority of US households, we were more educated than ever previously, and we saw females named to leadership positions in the political and corporate world.

But the Harvard Business Review noted earlier this month that there are still puzzling issues females will be facing in 2013, which continue to make us wonder about how much progress we have yet to make:

PAY:  According to the latest research, women are better educated than ever – earn nearly 60% of college degrees.  But we are still paid, on average, 23% less than men.  Career and life choices may cause some of this disparity, but in an analysis of full-time employees 10 years out of college, there was still a 12% difference in earnings not explained by profession or educational level.

GENDER STEREOTYPES:  Catalyst, a research firm tracking women’s progress in all fields, confirms that gender stereotypes make it difficult for female leaders to feel comfortable taking a “leadership” attitude because they are perceived as either competent or liked, but not both.  Forbes recently reported, "Studies show that assertive women are more likely to be perceived as aggressive; that women usually don't ask for what they deserve but when they do, they risk being branded as domineering or, worse even, "ambitious."

PROMOTIONS:  Females still attain far fewer job slots at the top of the corporation – only 4% of CEOs in the Fortune 1,000 top companies are female, and Congress is still less than 20% women.  There may be many ways to rationalize this fact, but the pool of qualified candidates for top jobs or leadership positions gets smaller when the best women leave to raise a family or for other opportunities.

NETWORKING:  Women may build wonderful relationships, but we seldom use our connections for jobs or promotions.  When we network, we typically don’t exchange business ideas or ask for jobs, and we need to use this opportunity for the career potential it offers.

BUSINESS OWNERSHIP:  Females are wonderful entrepreneurs, but it’s tough to find venture capital.   A 2012 analysis by Dow Jones VentureSource reported that women launch nearly half of all startups, and the most successful startups have more women in senior positions than unsuccessful ones.  Yet less than 7% of executives in over 20,000 companies studied by Dow Jones were women.

“HAVE-IT-ALL” SYNDROME”:   Women today still feel pressure to “have it all” and can become stressed or discouraged when we realize this seems impossible.  Both women and men feel this pressure, but more often, women leave work or change schedules when it’s needed.

Our work in raising awareness about these challenges is important not only because of fairness, but because girls and women need confidence and support as they move up the corporate or political ladder, and more qualified girls and women fill the pipeline for the future.  Avoiding the mixed messages and coaching girls and women to achieve their aspirations is the work of Chrysalis. 

Children with High Needs

Recently, the Child and Family Policy Center issued a report documenting the challenges faced by many of Iowa’s children and their families.  The report, "A Baseline on Iowa's Young Children: Capturing the Demand for Early-Childhood Services" notes that Iowa has one of the nation’s highest rates of children with one or both parents working, and an increasing number of single parent families.  These are just 2 of the many factors that contribute to stress within the family and affecting young children.

Although a majority of Iowa children begin school in good health and with appropriate cognitive, language, and social/emotional development – termed “school readiness” – to be prepared to engage in learning.  There is, however, a significant share of Iowa children who are dramatically behind their peers and require special assistance to “catch up.”

Nationally, 56% of children begin school behind peers in at least one measure (cognitive, social/emotional, or physical), and 21% are behind in 2 or more areas – requiring significant school time and investment in remediation.  These facts led researchers to question whether it is possible to identify these children early and provide support and assistance that will reduce this trend.  A tremendous amount of data points to identifying and responding to high-need children through the family.

Here are what the report terms “Top-line Findings” in defining children with high needs:

•     There is no one measure that captures “need” among children; rather a cluster of characteristics that contribute to good or bad outcomes.  On average, the prevalence of poor early-childhood outcomes is highest among children of less-educated, unmarried or adolescent parents, parents who are depressed, parents with limited incomes who have difficulty meeting basic needs, and among children with special needs themselves.

•     A significant share of Iowa families face economic stress; many are headed by young and less-educated parents.  More than 40 percent of Iowa’s young children live in households below 200 percent of poverty, a realistic measure of what it takes to support a family.  Nearly one in five (19 percent of the total) live in households below 100 percent of poverty ($22,314 for a family of four in 2010).  In 2010, 17 percent of Iowa first-time births, and 8 percent of total births, were to adolescent mothers, almost all of whom were unmarried with less than a high school diploma.

•    Another significant share of Iowa children have special health needs.  In fact, 21 percent of Iowa children four months to five years of age are at moderate or high risk of developmental, behavioral or social delays. Based on national research, we know over 50 percent of young children begin kindergarten behind in at least one area of special need

and over 20 percent have multiple needs that require even greater levels of support.

As we know, the United Way of Central Iowa’s Women’s Leadership Connection has supported early childhood education as a key priority for the past 10 years, assisting with accreditation of early learning centers and preschools, facility improvements, book drives, teacher training, and volunteer readers.  Several Chrysalis Board members have participated in this tremendous project.

The work of Chrysalis takes place in prevention efforts through Chrysalis After-School, which we created and have funded since 1998.  Our goal is to assure that girls gain the knowledge and skills to become resilient and successful women – overcoming and/or avoiding these “top-line findings" that cause the next generation (their families) to face these tremendous challenges.  Since we began, nearly 6,000 adolescent girls have been part of this powerful program.  It’s the best investment in the future we can possibly make.

Ever-Present Stereotypes

One thing that struck me over the past few weeks, however, is the fact that in some cases, it seems as though we are losing ground.  In particular, in the prevalence of stereotypes that has seemed to worsen over the past year.

For example, during a Christmas shopping expedition, I happened to notice gender segregation in the toy department!  Even though there have been efforts to neutralize gender stereotyping (there’s now a blue Easy Bake Oven for boys and there’s a Lego line made just for girls – although the girls’ line is more about beauty and domesticity than building), aisles and displays filled with pink and pastel, with toys involving homemaking and beauty obviously catered to girls, and across the way, blue and army green aisles filled with action, sports, and building-oriented toys were filled with boys.

I did a bit of research, and found that although there had been clear gender-based marketing when I was little, it somewhat disappeared in the 1970s – in fact, a researcher noted that in 1975, more than 70% of toys in the Sears catalog showed no markings of gender at all – there were even photos of girls playing airline pilots and boys cooking in the kitchen.

Over the past 30+ years, gender-based marketing has become much more explicit, causing increased pressure for girls and boys to stay within the manufacturers’ boundaries for their play choices.  According to the Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, parents interviewed when leaving a toy store reported purchasing gender-typed toys because the kids asked for them, even though the toy may not have been the parents’ choice.  This type of phenomenon has no doubt fueled the development and marketing of gender-based toys under the guise of gender-differentiated play preferences.

Experts believe that the reflection of stereotypes about gender roles in toys and their marketing shows how little retail marketers’ attitudes have changed over time – even though 70% of mothers are in the labor force today, and most domestic responsibilities within a family are shared.

In a culture that bombards us with gender messages, it’s so important that we help both boys and girls understand that the choices and options are completely open to them, regardless of gender.  In Chrysalis After-School programs, we help girls navigate the gender-biased messages they see and hear in order to dispel the myths they convey.

P.S. Just for fun – when you think the minds and marketers in Hollywood are finally “getting it” -- http://youtu.be/i1FZF4nynMI

Media Messages

We all know that “reality TV” is the new norm for network television, but what we don’t know is that its effect on children, particularly girls, is extremely detrimental.  The Girl Scout Research Institute conducted a survey of nearly 1,150 girls, ages 11-17, to find what their thoughts were about their favorite types of programming and how television changes the way they think about themselves and their lives.  The findings were disturbing; here is what they found:

Of girls surveyed, regular reality TV viewers* differ dramatically from their non-viewing peers in their expectations of peer relationships, their overall self-image, and their understanding of how the world works. The findings also suggest that reality TV can function in the lives of girls as a learning tool and as inspiration for getting involved in social causes.

Finding 1: Relationship Drama

All of the girls in the study feel that reality shows promote bad behavior.  The vast majority think these shows “often pit girls against each other to make the shows more exciting” (86%), “make people think that fighting is a normal part of a romantic relationship” (73%), and “make people think it’s okay to treat others badly" (70%).

Regular reality TV viewers accept and expect a higher level of drama, aggression, and bullying in their own lives as well. They are considerably more likely than non-viewers to agree that:

­  “Gossiping is a normal part of a relationship between girls”(78% vs. 54%);

­  “It’s in girls’ nature to be catty and competitive with one another”(68% vs. 50%); and

­  “It’s hard for me to trust other girls”(63% vs. 50%).   

Regarding boys, regular reality TV viewers are more likely than non-viewers to say “girls often have to compete for a guy’s attention”(74% vs. 63%).  As well, they admit they are happier when they are dating someone or have a boyfriend/significant other(49% vs. 28%).

Finding 2: Two Sides to Self-Image

In the study, we found that girls who view reality TV regularly are more focused on the value of physical appearance. 

• Seventy-two percent say they spend a lot of time on their appearance (vs. 42% of non-viewers).
•   More than a third (38%)think that a girl’s value is based on how she looks (compared to 28% of non-viewers).
•   They would rather be recognized for their outer beauty than their inner beauty (28% vs.18% of non-viewers).

At the same time, regular reality TV viewers are more confident than non-viewers.

­  This group of girls is more self-assured than non-viewers when it comes to virtually every personal characteristic we asked girls about, with the                           

­  majority of regular reality TV viewers considering themselves mature, a good influence, smart, funny, and outgoing.

­  They are more likely than non-viewers to both aspire to leadership (46% vs. 27%) and to think they are currently seen as a leader(75% vs. 63%).

­  In addition, they are more likely to see themselves as role models for other girls (75% vs. 61%).

Finding 3: Success = Meanness + Lying

The research indicates that regular reality TV viewers emphasize being mean and/or lying to get ahead.  A higher percentage of these girls as compared to their non-viewing counterparts claim that sometimes:

­  “You have to lie to get what you want”(37% vs. 24%);

­  “Being mean earns you more respect than being nice”(37% vs. 25%); and

­  “You have to be mean to others to get what you want”(28% vs.18%).

Even though these findings are negative, there are some positive effects:

Finding 4: Positive Spin-Offs

In the study, the benefits of reality TV most frequently noted by all girls were opening the lines of communication, serving as a learning and motivational tool, and encouraging girls to be active in social causes.

­  Seventy-five percent of girls say that reality shows have inspired conversation with their parents and/or friends.

­  Many girls receive inspiration and comfort from reality TV, with 68% agreeing that reality shows “make me think I can achieve anything in life” and 48% that they “help me realize there are people out there like me.”

­  Seventy-five percent of girls say that reality TV depicts people with different backgrounds and beliefs. Furthermore, 65% say such shows introduce new ideas and perspectives, 62% say the shows have raised their awareness of social issues and causes, and 59% have been taught new things that they wouldn’t have learned about otherwise.

Whatever the television programs – or other media messages - might be, it’s critical that girls have a strong notion of right and wrong, know that what they see on television is largely artificial, and recognize that their actions now will affect their futures.  This is just one of the strong positive findings of our Chrysalis After-School program, and we can be proud that when compared with other girls their age across the state, Chrysalis participants report higher levels of this type of resilience than non-participants.

December 7th

The meaning of “December 7” may be different for those of us not old enough to remember WW II and the attack on Pearl Harbor.  It happens to be a day that reminds us of the many Americans now at war, particularly an increasing number of women.

We know that the US Defense Department now bans women from participating in ground combat (although there is now a federal lawsuit to overturn this ban).  But with about 14% of our military personnel being women, a disturbing new finding is that women in general are more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than men.  Up to twice as likely, some researchers posit.

Post-traumatic stress disorder did not exist as a “formal” diagnosis until 1980, when it was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  Prior to this, the terms shell shock, battle fatigue, or post-Vietnam syndrome were names given to various and severe adjustment problems experienced by recent war veterans.

A recent study at the San Francisco VA Medical Center found that women and men “learn” to fear differently.  This “fear conditioning” is vital to our safety, but in people with PTSD, a simple stimulus might trigger this stress or fear response.  Trash on the side of the road, or the smell of gasoline or fire may get associated with an actual traumatic military experience.  When female and male veterans were tested for reactions ranging from increased heart rate to rapid breathing when shown disturbing or violent images – and several of the images were paired with a slight electric shock,  women had more significant reactions.  The researchers believe this demonstrates that women may learn fear responses from different mechanisms, which may make them more susceptible to PTSD.

Patricia Resick and other researchers in the Women’s Health Sciences Division of the National Center for PTSD at Boston University are also seeking answers.  The group has linked significant diagnoses of PTSD to the types of trauma military women experience.  “In general, sexual trauma is a more significant risk for PTSD than combat or the types of trauma males in the military experience,” she reports.  “Combats, car accidents, or fights are impersonal events; when women are traumatized, it is often caused by the people who are supposed to love or protect them.”  When a fellow officer or commanding officer attacks a woman, the result is much more severe.

Sexual assault and severe sexual harassment - collectively known as military sexual trauma (MST) - is nearly epidemic in the armed service today . Amy Street, an assistant professor of psychiatry who leads a VA support team devoted to the issue, says that VA screenings for MST, mandated since 1992 for every veteran, reveal that 20%  of servicewomen report sexual assaults or severe, threatening harassment, compared to 1% percent of men.  And the numbers, she says, are most likely a gross underestimate. 

Many women veterans report that the sense of betrayal is compounded, and the trauma and shame intensified, when the chain of command fails to act on a reported incident, minimizes it, or even punishes women who report assaults.  Even reservists, the military part-timers who serve two weeks a year and one weekend a month, experience “high and impactful” rates of MST, among both women and men.  “So even people who had other lives outside of the military tended to experience a lot of harassment and assault,” Resick notes, “and even 10 or 20 years later, those experiences were associated with higher rates of depression, poorer functioning, and higher rates of PTSD.”

There’s much more to learn about the compounded effects of PTSD on both women veterans and women in the general population.  Because society doesn’t yet know how to understand the symptoms of PTSD in women, it’s much harder for them to find equilibrium.  And even with support from home, many female veterans also struggle because many do not see them as “real” veterans.

Since PTSD, its symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment may be very different for women than for men, it’s our work to raise awareness about this and other issues facing women and girls today.  Thank you for being a leader in this effort.

Safety

This has been an eye-opening week for us – Brooke and I attended the Governor’s Summit on Bullying on Tuesday, and I’m still reeling from today’s Chrysalis Roundtable presentation, THREATS TO YOUTH ONLINE, presented by Mike Ferjak, Senior Criminal Investigator with the Iowa Department of Justice.  I had heard Mike give a presentation at a mother-daughter event several years ago, and was astounded about how frequently – and how easily – a young person can fall into the throes of a predator online.

Here are just a few statistics:

­  One in five U.S. teenagers who regularly log on to the internet says they have received an unwanted sexual solicitation via the Web.  Solicitations were defined as requests to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk, or to give personal sexual information.  Crimes Against Children Research Center

­  25% of children have been exposed to unwanted pornographic material online.  Crimes Against Children Research Center

­  Only 1/3 of households with internet access are actively protecting their children with filtering or blocking software.  Center for Missing and Exploited Children

­  75% of children are willing to share personal information online about themselves and their family in exchange for goods and services.  eMarketer

­  Only approximately 25% of children who encountered a sexual approach or solicitation told a parent or adult.  Crimes Against Children Research Center

­  One in 33 youth received an aggressive sexual solicitation in the past year. This means a predator asked a young person to meet somewhere, called a young person on the phone, and/or sent the young person correspondence, money, or gifts through the U.S. Postal Service.  Youth internet Safety Survey

­  77% of the targets for online predators were age 14 or older. Another 22% were users ages 10 to 13.  Crimes Against Children Research Center

 

In his position, Ferjak works for the Iowa Attorney General and has a permanent assignment to the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation’s (DCI) Cyber-Crime Unit where he serves on the Federal Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force.  Mike is also assigned to the Attorney General’s Human Trafficking enforcement and prosecution initiative.  He has served as the lead investigator for the Sexually Violent Predator Unit in the Attorney General’s Office, and with his knowledge and experience, is called upon by law enforcement, judicial, professional, community, and school groups across the country to provide up-to-the-minute facts on why this is such a significant problem.

Some predators use the anonymity of the internet to prey on vulnerable children and teens, whose internet access is often unsupervised.  Activities include exchanging child pornography or seeking victims online.  The internet allows them to share images and information about children and to make and stay in contact with them.  Predators are  present on children's chat rooms, frequently pretending to be children themselves.  Some actively arrange meetings with children, going to extraordinary efforts and incurring large travel and other expenses…the stories are endless and shocking.

How are the youth victimized?  By innocently becoming entangled in an online relationship with someone who represents him or herself as a young, attractive, interesting and thoughtful person.  Adults establish "friendships" with children online, then attempt to arrange a face-to-face meeting, potentially to sexually abuse or exploit the child.  They may then make online arrangements for the exchange, sale or purchase of child pornography (the actual exchange or delivery occurs through the mail, hand-to-hand exchanges, e-mail, and other electronic means) , or arrangements between adults seeking sexual access to children and adults willing to provide and/or trade children for sexual purposes.

Ferjack reports there are an estimated 130,000 sex offenders using MYSPACE (precursor to Facebook), and that the average age group sought for sex trafficking purposes is 11-14 year olds.  And 14% of child pornography online involves infants – birth to 12 months old.

If you are a parent, friend, teacher, or interested adult, here are some internet safety tips to deliver to the children in your life:

­  Avoid unfamiliar "Chat Rooms".  Chat rooms are places where many people can gather and discuss various topics of mutual interest all at one time.

­  Don't talk to people online that you don't know.   Offenders can easily fool others.

­  Never use your real name, age, or indication of your gender in your screen name or email address.   The most prevalent internet crime today is cyber stalking.

­  Never post personal information in a user profile.  Public resources available online can lead an offender to learn much more about you through internet searching.

­  Use an up-to-date firewall.   A firewall will block hackers’ “pre-attack probes,” called port scans.  A firewall should also block traffic or communications from a virus that made it onto your computer through your personal information.

­  Use an up-to-date virus scanner.  Most virus scanners will automatically add virus definitions. Update definitions once a week to have the most current definitions to detect the latest viruses.

­  Use Windows Update. Windows Update provides patches for known vulnerabilities in Windows and other Microsoft products.  Windows Update can be automated to check and install patches automatically.

­  Avoid opening email from someone you don't know, even email from known persons with unexpected or unusual attachments.

­  Report any incidents to the internet Crime Complaint Center (www.ic3.gov).

If you are aware of a child you suspect or believe is in immediate risk of being harmed or exploited, contact your local law enforcement agency and report the situation to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at www.cybertipline.com.

If you have information concerning a missing child, report it to your local law enforcement agency and contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-800-THE-LOST (1-800-843-5678).

We so appreciate Chrysalis Board member, Lieutenant Joe Gonzalez, for his leadership in connecting this vital information to us and to our friends.  And because there is so much more to online abuse and bullying, we will schedule another presentation by Mike Ferjak to share more information on bullying and social networking.  After the first of the year, we’ll notify you of the time and place.

Please take time to forward this information to friends – there is no reason not to.

The Women and Men of Thanksgiving

Many of us know the most familiar story of the first Thanksgiving took place in Plymouth Colony, in present-day Massachusetts, in 1621.  But it took more than 200 years for President Abraham Lincoln to declare the final Thursday in November as a national day of thanksgiving in 1863, and only in 1941 did the U.S. Congress finally made Thanksgiving Day an official national holiday.

This may never have occurred were it not for a strong and confident woman: Sara Josepha Hale.

Sarah J. Hale, a poet and novelist, became editor of the Ladies' Magazine in 1828.  In 1837 the Ladies' Magazine became known as the Lady's Book, still led by Hale until 1877.  During her tenure as editor, Hale made the magazine the most recognized and influential periodical for women, and was involved in numerous philanthropic pursuits.  She used her position as editor to advocate the education of women. 

For 15 years, Hale waged a campaign to make Thanksgiving a national holiday.  But not until she enlisted the help of President Lincoln did her campaign succeed.

In 1939, toward the end of the Great Depression, the last Thursday of November was going to be November 30, and retailers complained to President Franklin D. Roosevelt that this only left 24 shopping days to Christmas.  Begging FDR to move Thanksgiving just one week earlier, it was hoped that Christmas shoppers would have the extra week to purchase more. 

When FDR issued his Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1939, he declared that Thanksgiving would be held the second-to-last Thursday of the month, causing a tremendous uproar – calendars were incorrect, school holidays had to be rescheduled, even football schedules had to be redone.  His political opponents questioned the right of a president to changing a holiday, even coining the holiday name as “Franksgiving.”

Twenty-three states followed the presidential order and changed the date for Thanksgiving, and 23 other states kept the traditional date.  Colorado and Texas decided to honor both dates as holidays.  In 1941, Roosevelt again announced Thanksgiving to be the second-to-last Thursday of the month, and 31 states honored the earlier date while 17 maintained the tradition by celebrating the last Thursday of November.

Lincoln had established Thanksgiving to bring our country together, but the confusion was tearing the country apart until Congress passed a law on December 26, 1941 that Thanksgiving would now occur annually on the 4^th Thursday in November.

(Another woman, artist Margaret Cusack, provided the design of a commemorative Thanksgiving stamp issued by the U.S. Postal Service in 2001.  It was a style resembling traditional folk-art needlework, depicting a cornucopia overflowing with fruits and vegetables under the phrase “We Give Thanks.”)

We are thankful for the passion and leadership each of you – women and men – give to the work of Chrysalis.  From each of us, our best wishes for a lovely and relaxing holiday.

Gen X Philanthropy

Many may think that the Generation-Xers are just beginning to understand philanthropy.  According to a recent article in US News, for many young professionals, giving to charity isn't just about writing checks.  Instead, the focus is on volunteering, socializing, and networking -- while also contributing to good causes.

"Many Generation X-ers are more interested in social advocacy and engagement philanthropy," says Dwight Burlingame, associate executive director at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. That means they are more likely to want to work directly with organizations instead of just donating money, he explains.

Interestingly, the Center notes that giving rates rise with education levels: 90% of persons with graduate degrees contribute to charity, while only 58% of persons with high school educations or less do.  And the average annual gift for a college graduate is $2,633, it reports.

But some young people want to do more - they want to get involved.  For example, Lindsay Hyde.  During her freshman year at Harvard, she wanted to become a mentor to younger girls in the area, but when she looked into potential opportunities, she couldn't find any groups willing to work with undergraduates.  So she organized her own team of volunteers and found two elementary schools interested in working with them.  When Hyde graduated from college in 2000, she officially launched a nonprofit which now works with over 400 girls a year in Boston, Pittsburgh, and Miami.

Strong Women, Strong Girls uses lessons learned from strong women throughout history to encourage girls and young women to become strong women themselves.  The curriculum focuses both on elementary age and college age young women, recognizing that both ages really need many of the same experiences and education.  Three basic tenets form the curriculum:

RELATIONSHIPS:  Research which shows that girls and young women need supportive relationships in order to thrive.  For elementary girls, the relationships form with college women, with peers, and with program leaders.  The young women in college form relationships with the younger girls and with peers, but also with participating college advisors and one adult mentor, who is paired with the college student each year.

SKILLS:  Younger girls need help developing social and emotional skills, while the young women develop leadership and professional skills including resume writing and interviewing.

ROLE MODELS:  A role model helps girls develop aspirations for the future - both through the experience with college students and through reading a weekly biography of a women in history.  College students learn from professional women and field experts, who can assist in their preparation for a career.

Strong Women, Strong Girls has developed a range of resources for individuals and organizations interested in working with girls and young women.  It also has tracked its success, based on participant surveys and academic achievement.

This program is similar to Chrysalis After-School programs because it intentionally brings in college age women who develop mentoring relationships with the girls.  This year, Chrysalis will begin a formal high school mentoring program, designed to teach the high school girls ("graduates" of Chrysalis After-School) how to develop relationships with younger girls, how to be a role model, and how to instruct about specific skills important to their healthy development.

We look forward to reporting on the success of this program at the end of the academic year.  And we're delighted to have your support and leadership in continuing the work of building future women leaders through Chrysalis After-School.  We’re in 30 schools this year, half elementary, half middle schools – in Des Moines, Indianola, Bondurant, Saydel, Southeast Polk, and Urbandale.  Between 500 and 600 girls and approximately 65 facilitators take part in weekly meetings, with specific curricula created by Chrysalis for the following:

GIRLSTRONG!                  Health and wellness

ON THE MONEY             Financial literacy

BRAINCAKE                      Science, technology, engineering, and math

DRAKE PHARMACY     Safe use of prescription and over-the-counter medicines

ProjectSTOP                     Violence prevention

Thank you for all you give to Chrysalis.

Election History

I’m certain that “election exhaustion” finally hit us all this week, and we’re happy to never see a scowling politician’s face or hear the ominous background music of the thousands of negative ads.

Today, our Board President sent me an article that share some brighter news from election results:

­  20 women were elected to the U.S. Senate – the most ever

­  77 women (with a few races still uncertain) were elected to the House of Representatives

­  the first Asian-American woman, Mazie Hirono, was elected to the Senate – she is also the first Senator born in Japan and Buddhist

­  Massachusetts has elected its first female Senator, Elisabeth Warren

­  a 31-year-old female Iraqi war veteran, Tulsi Gabbard, who is also Hindu, was elected to Congress

­  Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay person, and the first woman Wisconsin has elected, has a new seat in the Senate

­  Iraqi war veteran and triple amputee Tammy Duckworth take a seat in Congress

­  Claire McCaskill defeated Todd Akin to retain her seat

­  New Hampshire, which elected a female governor this year, will send the first all-female congressional delegation to Washington

2012 is also a year setting a record in the number of 28 minority women elected: 13 African American, 9 Latinas, and 6 Asian/Pacific Islanders.

The Huffington Post summarized women’s impact on the election:  Women proved once and for all that female voters are paying attention, and that their support wins elections.  Obama would not have been able to win the election without the support from women – female voters made up 54% of the electorate and favored the President by 11%, resulting in an 18-point gender gap.

In a country that is more than half female (50.8%) with an electorate over half, one in five Senators will be women, and 18.13% of Representatives will be female – nearly an 8% increase since the 2008 election.

We’ve come a long way since Jeannette Rankin was elected as the first female in Washington in 1917…but there’s a long way yet to go.

Jeannette Rankin (right) on April 2, 1917, with Carrie Chapman Catt, president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, at the group’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. Later that historic day, Rankin was officially sworn into the 65th Congress.

To read the article from policymic:  http://www.policymic.com/articles/18780/mazie-hirono-and-tammy-duckworth-women-make-history-on-election-night

Thank you for working on behalf of 50.8% of our population with 110% of your energy.