ome women find “empowerment” in reclaiming words like “bitch,” divesting them of their misogynistic connotations, and transforming them into positive monikers women can use for themselves and other women. Sex-positivism, a result of third wave feminism, encourages women to explore and celebrate their sexuality, a much-needed departure from the treatment of women’s sexuality as non-existent, or at the least something to keep quiet about. Women’s empowerment suggests a radical alteration leading to the dismissal of old conventions, replaced by a glorification of their polar opposites as emblems of the “new woman.”
We live in a society that has evaluated women by the sum of their parts (namely, reproductive organs and perceived attractiveness) for centuries. A general movement away from this type of thinking is vital. Nevertheless, one of the most troubling aspects of what many are calling a “post-feminist” society is the cooptation of this empowerment by a sexist trope masquerading as pro-women sentiment.
Take, for instance, women’s magazines. Cosmopolitan, perhaps the preeminent offender, proclaims it exists for the “fun, fearless female.” And perhaps it once did. Cosmo was founded in‘86 as a “family magazine,” emphasizing fashion and housekeeping tips for women readers. Through the turn of the century and into the’30s, the magazine featured short stories by authors such as Willa Cather, Edith Wharton, and Jack London. However, it wasn’t until the mid-1960s that editor Helen Gurley Brown (who had authored the influential Sex and the Single Girl in’62) took helm of Cosmopolitan and pushed it in a more “women-friendly” direction; articles devoted to fashion, make-up, and, perhaps most boldly, sex. In the1970s, Cosmo began its now ubiquitous cover shoots featuring scantily clad young women. Gurley Brown, by then a fairly controversial figure, was hailed as one of the forerunners of the sexual revolution for her frank acknowledgment of the heretofore-unseen aspects of women’s sexuality. Gurley Brown dubbed the “single girl” the “Cosmo girl,” and the rest is history.
The legacy of Gurley Brown’s almost 30-year reign as editor-in-chief has left its mark. The familiar covers of starlets suggestively lifting the hems of satin purple slips that grace supermarket aisles are emblazoned into our cultural psyche. The “Cosmo Girl” seems to brazenly proclaim her sexuality, her autonomy, and success—and yet she is a deeply disturbing figure.
Mass-marketed female empowerment masks regression and coercion with woman-friendly appeal. A peek at Cosmopolitan’s articles will demonstrate that the “fun, fearless female” is more concerned with what her male partner thinks of her than what she thinks of herself. (Not surprisingly, Cosmo almost always presents a heteronormative world, where the only mention of homosexuality is found in sensationalized confessionals, as “What it’s Like to Love a Woman” in the January 2009 issue demonstrates.) Recent issues carry taglines presenting variations on a single theme: “how to please your man.” A November 2008 cover featuring Jessica Simpson asks the all important question—“Sexy vs. Skanky”—and promises to reveal “The trick to attract hot guys like crazy.” Such articles at first blush seem to promote female sexuality, but in actuality they rely solely on a view of sexuality narrowly defined by men, patently ignoring the possibility that a woman might be satisfied and happy without a man.
On cosmopolitan.com, an article entitled “Get Him to Commit” advises women to “take up an extreme sport” such as karate “to create a life outside of his orbit.” Besides being inane and unintentionally hilarious, this advice carries the troubling implication that a woman cannot simply initiate a conversation with her partner concerning the status or future of their relationship. It is disconcerting that Cosmo advises its readers to engage in outlandish ploys in order to communicate with someone they (hopefully) love. The author of “Get Him to Commit” relies on the assumption that men can’t stand commitment (while trapping that guy is the central thing on women’s minds): “When it comes to discussing the future, men can yak up a storm—but only if the topics are limited to our careers, sports, or the new kung-fu flick we want to go see this weekend. Shift the focus to relationships, and all speech function grinds to a halt. The throat gets parched. Dizziness ensues. We men start loosening our collars: Is it just me, or is it always this hot in here?”
The gender stereotypes propagated by Cosmo, such as the belief that men are content with the company of sports and beer while women are neurotic and marriage-crazy, are damaging to women’s conceptions of themselves—especially when you consider that, until recently, it was the number one publication read by college students.
However, it is not just Cosmopolitan that furthers this false brand of empowerment. A bit more subtly, Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty,” launched in 2004, exhibits the same problems of many women’s magazines, namely in its hypocritical and nebulous message. The campaign aims to “serve as a starting point for societal change and act as a catalyst for widening the definition and discussion of beauty. The campaign supports the DOVE mission: to make more women feel beautiful every day by widening stereotypical views of beauty.” The pervasive ads, featured on billboards and in print, most famously featured a row of women of different ages, shapes, and ethnicities in white underwear, with the tagline: “Oversized? Outstanding?” or “Wrinkled? Wonderful?”
Superficially, such an effort seems admirable; in a society that promotes decidedly unrealistic and ageist standards of female beauty, a company that defies such conventions should be a breath of fresh air. However, the fact of the matter is that Dove is in the business of selling things—namely, beauty products. Even if the company hopes to buck the system, so to speak, it’s hard to view the campaign as much more than a coldly calculated marketing ploy. Women are bombarded by media that play into their insecurities, from reality shows to advertisements for multitudes of dieting methods; Dove has found a niche in countering those messages, and as a result, profited greatly.
I am always suspicious when a major corporation pretends to have altruistic aspirations as its aim. So it’s unsurprising that I found myself harboring the same misgivings about this campaign and its earnest appeal to “real” women, whoever they are, so I did a little investigation.
Unilever, Dove’s parent corporation, has been accused of exhibiting less than commendable behavior. In India, the company was pushed into withdrawing advertisements for its skin lightening cream (a popular product in that country, where light skin is revered) portraying downtrodden dark-skinned women who gained popularity and self-confidence after using the beauty potion. Unilever also owns Axe, the cologne company famous for its sexist ads depicting the “Axe Effect,” which usually consists of hordes of women being magically attracted to a man after he uses Axe body spray. They don’t seem too concerned with sending messages that don’t prey upon women’s insecurities or treat them as playthings.
Is it fair to blame Dove for the actions of Unilever, which owns hundreds of other companies? Maybe not. But combined with the doubtful nature of a “Real Beauty” campaign launched by a company that couldn’t make money if women were completely satisfied with their physical appearance, it reinforces the thought that this
brand of empowerment is just about putting money in corporate pockets.
Both Cosmopolitan and Dove claim to try to empower women, yet it’s never quite clear what this “empowerment” hopes to accomplish. Behind the brazenly sexual Cosmo girl and the liberated Dove woman, there seems to be little substance. What would real empowerment look like? I suspect it wouldn’t derive from mass-media or multi-million dollar corporations. Self-esteem has turned into a commodity, one that some female consumers are much too eager to purchase. Sadly, true autonomy and self-worth that originates within the individual is hardly profitable. As long as exploiting women’s perceived insecurities will rake in cash, the cult of “empowerment” seems to be going nowhere.
Isolation is Not Progress
Posted on 13 February 2009
here are many associations people harbor when the term “feminist” comes to mind. Unforuntately, the man-hating, exclusionary, reactive feminazi archetype permeates the social realm, causing many women to abstain from using the term to describe themselves. Most of this comes from the fear of being castigated-—many an objection has been softened with the disclaimer “I’m no feminist but….” Even when speaking with some of my closest friends, young women who are politically minded, intelligent, and progressive, I often detect an aversion to the moniker, especially in their refusal to identify themselves as feminists. One of the most common protestations I hear is, “But I don’t hate men!” I usually respond to such demurs with the point that many modern third-wave feminists do not hate men; on the contrary, they seek, above all, equality among the sexes. However, I have often encountered the rebuttal: “Yeah, but you must admit, many do hate men.” Another troubling aspect of this is the fear in many heterosexual women that their sexuality will be questioned if they openly identify as feminists. Although many of my friends would never verbalize such anxiety, I can sense the stereotypical “feminist” label is in the back of their minds.
This misinformation most likely springs from the women’s liberation movement of the’60s and late’80s—categorized as second wave feminism—that pushed for change within the social infrastructure. This movement, associated with radical feminism, sought to overthrow “male supremacy” (patriarchal oppression) which was thought to be the source of gender inequality. Due in part to the general animosity directed toward the patriarchy, radical feminism is often associated with “man-hating.” However, because of the often subversive tactics used and the overarching goal of dismantling patriarchy, feminism became almost synonymous with anti-male sentiments.
Third wave feminism, originating in the early’90s and which still exists in the present, emphasizes sex-positivity and seeks to be a movement more inclusive to women of color. However, the perception of feminism in mass media seems to be mired in its early’70s incarnation. Just recently, former president George H.W. Bush recalled he “saw one of the ugliest and angriest woman I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Boy she was really bad. She charged my car with a sign…right up next to the window [that said] ‘Stay out of my womb’. No problem lady.” Aside from the obvious misogyny of this statement, Bush makes reference to a particularly nasty feminist stereotype: ugly (a quality worse than death when it comes to women), belligerent, and unnecessarily abrasive. Such statements conjure up images of bra-burning radicals bent on hating men.
Even though mainstream feminism has for the most part abandoned separatist leanings, a small faction of women today live in communes created exclusively for lesbians. A January 30th piece in the Guardian references these groups, which came about in the late’70s, whose mission statement argued that women could not be feminists without being lesbians. In’81, the pamphlet, “Love Your Enemy? The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism and Political Lesbianism,” was published and pushed the notion that “all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women…we think serious feminists have no choice but to abandon heterosexuality. Only in the system of oppression that is male supremacy does the oppressor actually invade and colonize the interior of the body of the oppressed…[penetration] is more than a symbol, its function and effect is the punishment and control of women.” The pamphlet, as well as the movement, provoked vitriol on both sides of the spectrum; many suspicious of the feminist movement saw the movement as another example of female aggression while heterosexual feminists demonstrably rejected the assertion that authentic feminism lay in homosexuality alone.
The movement also called into question the idea of a “natural” sexual orientation; the idea of lusting after or feeling a natural attraction to someone. Many felt political lesbianism seemed removed and calculated; it was odd to think of sexuality as such a conscious and intellectual decision. Recently, objections have been raised over the precept that one may choose their sexuality as it is akin to the far-right evangelical assertion that homosexuality is an immoral decision.
Despite opposition, some political lesbian communities flourished. In St. Augustine, Florida, the womyn’s land (the preferred name for such communes) has quietly existed for the past thirty years. Founded on the notion that women should coexist in exclusivity, “Alapine” and its sister commune located in Alabama are what some one would call the direct result of the political lesbianism of the’70s.
The women live in small houses or trailers on roads named after goddesses. However, with dwindling membership, many of the women fear the womyn’s lands will soon be nothing more than a relic. The problem with attracting new members seems to derive from a generation gap—the women living in such communes range in age from fifty to seventy-five years old and consequently their experiences differ quite dramatically from those of younger lesbians. Many of the members, who came of age in the’50s, well before the sexual revolution, were forced to live double-lives; most got married and had children. Thus, the years of silence understandably took their toll; after living in an unforgiving heterosexual environment for so many years, it’s not difficult to see why many would find solace in the womyn’s lands. But younger lesbians who have grown up in a more tolerant (though obviously far from perfect) society are loath to commit to an all-lesbian community.
Many of Alapine’s members feel as though men, non-lesbians, bisexual, and transsexual women should not be allowed inside of the gates. The rejection of men stems from the overgeneralization that all men are inherently violent. One woman describes her decision to situate herself in mostly all-female environments and why she had to leave wider society as reaction to her belief that “men are violent. The minute a man walks in the dynamics change immediately, so I choose not to be around those dynamics.”
It’s interesting to probe the idea that men are inherently oppressive; such separatist beliefs are obviously mired in a second-wave philosophy. Moreover, isn’t the assertion that men are all violent analogous to the widely disavowed belief that all women are weak-willed, emotional, and incapable? And even though these women view their flavor of feminism to be the purest, their proclamations seem to be a step back for more mainstream feminism, which mandates that men and heterosexual women can also be true feminists. Thus, by creating a small subset of “authentic” feminists, these groups ultimately alienate a large group of people that could have a very positive impact on the pursuit of gender equality and humanism.
But what I find most interesting about this “phenomenon” is its utter familiarity. Once one moves past the superficially bizarre notion of an exclusive lesbian commune, it’s not that foreign. People have always gravitated toward others of the same background, whether it be socioeconomic or cultural. That’s not to say that this is the inconvertible norm, as there are plenty of examples that refute this move towards homogeneity. The temptation to create a sort of utopia, complete with others who are similar and value the same things, is strong. As much as we value a pluralistic society, the comfort of being surrounded
by likeminded people, a family of sorts, is undeniably alluring. All of us, in a sense, surround ourselves with a sort of commune. However, doing so and creating our own worlds will do nothing to change the wider world around us. The true goal of feminism should be to bring equality to women everywhere, and surrounding ourselves with only those who are most like ourselves will only succeed in isolating us.
Immigrant Detention Centers
Posted on 30 January 2009
e all know how the story begins—the aspiration to find a better life for oneself and one’s family encourages a [insert poverty-stricken Central American country here] citizen to brave the vast desert and the treacherous Rio Grande for the manifold bounties of the plains of Texas. The story has two endings: either our hero(ine) successfully avoids the ever-vigilant immigration officer and stealthily assimilates into American society, or he or she is caught. In many cases, it is the latter.
What happens next is a little murkier. The nebulous treatment of the detainees in immigration detention centers is only now coming to light. Just this month, reports have surfaced detailing the mistreatment of women at an Arizona immigration detention center. On January 21, The New York Times reported on a study published by the University of Arizona, which found that over 300 illegal immigrant women suffered from a “lack of prenatal care, treatment for cancer, ovarian cysts and other serious medical conditions, and, in some cases, [were] mixed in with federal prisoners” at a local center. And Arizona is not the only state with these centers—there are 400 of them nationwide.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintains that “strengthening the nation’s capacity to detain and remove criminal and other deportable aliens is a key component of the comprehensive strategy to deter illegal immigration and protect public safety. Detention and removal of illegal aliens is a priority of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This commitment has been backed by significant resources devoted to detention and removal efforts.”
But according to the Detention Watch Network, both undocumented and documented immigrants, including “families, survivors of torture, asylum seekers, other vulnerable groups including pregnant women, children, and individuals who are seriously ill without proper medication or care,” are held in such centers under less than humane conditions.
The study mentions a young woman from Africa who, despite experiencing severe pain from undergoing female circumcision, was told to “exercise and watch her diet.” After six months, a cyst the size of a five-month-old fetus was found on one of the woman’s ovaries. Another inmate, who had come to the U.S. as a baby, suffered from ovarian cysts while pregnant in the detention center. The center provided her with neither pre-natal vitamins nor a sonogram. Both unsurprising and a testament to the pervasive effects of sexism, the wellbeing of the women detainees was jeopardized to a greater degree than that of the men.
As if that weren’t troubling enough, in 2007 an undocumented trans-woman from Mexico died from AIDS complications in an all-male detention center in Los Angeles, a death hastened by a lack of resources and inadequate medical attention. Twenty-three year old Victoria Arellano (nee Victor) had come to the United States as a child and worked in a Los Angeles supermarket as a teenager. She contracted HIV, but was diagnosed as asymptomatic and prescribed antibiotics that would prevent pneumonia. Homayoon Khanlou, chief of medicine at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, told the Daily Journal in 2007: “The consequences of taking someone off that medication is that within a few weeks a patient may unfortunately develop pneumonia and then not respond to treatment.” When Arellano was taken to the detention center, she was denied treatment and consequently relapsed.
Although unable to eat or stand by herself and constantly vomiting blood, Arellano was simply told to drink more water and take a few tablets of Tylenol. Despite the rallying of many fellow detention inmates (who would chant “hospital” whenever a guard would order them to line up for a head count), Arellano died on July 20, 2007.
Representatives of the ICE deny any maltreatment, claiming that their medical wherewithal is more than adequate, and their care for the detainees humane. Katrina Kane, the director of the Arizona branch of the ICE, states that the institution “strictly enforce[s] all national ICE standards…and if we find those standards are not being met and we feel the deficiencies are not being corrected, we locate our detainees to other facilities.”
The ICE mission statement as outlined on their website also refutes all of the allegations:
Individuals who have acute or chronic healthcare needs are referred to a primary care provider for medical treatment… Patients with diseases such as HIV/AIDS are treated in accordance with nationally recognized standards and guidelines… pregnant detainees are referred to community obstetrics specialists to assure that appropriate prenatal care is delivered. Each facility housing ICE detainees has a written plan for delivery of 24-hour emergency health care and for provisions of care when immediate outside medical attention is required…
Obviously, the standards to which the ICE holds itself are not being met. The basic health services the ICE advertises seem to be nonexistent. The cases in which refugees and immigrants have been denied medical assistance are beyond troubling. And the fact that this occurs within our borders is unconscionable. Nevertheless, the disregard for human rights afforded to citizens in the case of illegal immigrants is hardly a new phenomenon. The image of the hard-line Freedom Fighter patrolling the vast, barren Arizona-Mexico border is emblazoned into the American psyche. This jingoism masquerading as patriotism is foul and antithetical to the values Americans hold near and dear—values such as the drive to pursue a better life for oneself and one’s family.
The fact that this argument has been bandied about for the past few years does not render it moot. Those sympathetic to immigrants’ plight frequently discuss the patchwork of the American populace as composed mostly of immigrants—a “melting pot.” However, with the recent election, and after two years of intense (yet due) attention, the immigration issue have been put on the back burner. Once a hot-button issue considered as divisive as Iraq, the fate of the “illegals” seems vague, almost beside the point.
Most of the effort is reserved for preventing the influx of illegal aliens; there has been little focus on what happens when the aliens are “caught.” The detainment camps garner no interest because they enter the scene after the fact: the immigrants attempted to cross the border, and they were caught. What happens next seems irrelevant to the story.
By not affording basic health services that would befit any citizen of the developed world, the ICE doubly negates its mission. Although they cannot condone the admission of illegal immigrants into this country, they can and must acknowledge the basic human dignity these detainees deserve. A country that has constantly prided itself on humanitarian efforts and the advancement of democracy abroad must focus its efforts closer to home: the fate and well-being of those who wanted a closer look at the “shining city on a hill” is just as important as that of those who chose not to cross the border.
Fake Babies
Posted on 16 January 2009
woman casually strolls down a supermarket aisle, infant in tow. An elderly woman shopping in the same aisle coos at the child, bending closer to get a better look. Such a benign, commonplace scene takes an eerie, if not outright bizarre, turn—the baby does not possess a heart or a set of lungs; in lieu of hair, angora mohair sprouts from its plastic scalp; and its skin is colored by paint, not melanin.
Upon closer inspection, the elderly woman realizes the infant she’s fawning over is actually an incredibly realistic baby doll. This is the first scene of the BBC documentary “My Fake Baby.”
Christened “Reborns,” these “babies” are marketed toward women, not little girls, retailing for as much as $1,000. The trend has proliferated in the United States, Great Britain, and Australia, and now the media has latched onto the phenomenon with features on the Today Show, 20/20, and the BBC.
The implications of such a “movement” appear immediately evident: the “Reborns” must be aimed toward childless women lacking meaningful relationships. But the women featured in the documentary at first seem to have healthy relationships with their husbands, and many have children and grandchildren. Yet it soon becomes obvious they want these dolls to fill some void that none of their human relationships can.
On ABC’s 20/20, a forty-nine year old woman named Linda explains that she “feels like I have a real baby…I take them out to the park, if I’m walking the dog, and maybe put it in its stroller, or put it in its sling, or hold it in a blanket, and people do think it’s real.” In essence, a “Reborn” retains all of the positive attributes associated with having an infant without any of the unpleasantness, like constant fatigue on the parents’ part, diapers, and spitting up. The serenely pacified plastic counterpart devoid of nasty bodily functions replaces a screaming child.
Women treat these dolls like real offspring, giving their “children” names, dressing them up, and even buying car seats, strollers, and other childcare accoutrements. The popularity of these Reborns seems to draw upon the traditional conception that an infant represents validation for a woman: in having a child, she fulfills her “biological destiny,” a (perhaps in fact societal) pressure unique to the female sex. One woman deems an outing during which her Reborn garners no attention a failure—she needs to exhibit herself as a mother, to prove herself to others, more than she desires the other rewarding aspects of real mothering.
There is something undeniably creepy about “building” an ideal baby, commodifying the human body, allowing someone to essentially purchase body heat and a heartbeat, not to mention a human relationship. Moreover, the eugenics-esque aspect of customizing a “baby” has slightly sinister connotations; all of the familiar and comforting qualities of holding a newborn are dissected and artificially manufactured. These babies will never grow, or develop personalities of their own, or outgrow their mothers (there goes the empty nest syndrome). Is this disturbing phenomenon, playing upon expectations for women straight out of the cult of domesticity, a step back for feminism? Or can we write it off as simply an innocuous divertissement?
A WOCC Discussion
Posted on 21 November 2008
n November‘th, the Women of Color Collective hosted a discussion exploring the various moral and philosophical facets of sex work. This broad profession, which ranges from stripping to prostitution, is wont to warrant a certain degree of uneasiness in most people, perhaps most interestingly in women.
One of the issues broached in the discussion dealt with the possibility that female empowerment could exist within the realm of sex work. Throughout western history, women’s sexuality has been perceived as secondary or even non-existent. In her seminal’49 work The Second Sex, French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir attributes this inequality to women’s inherent “otherness”, claiming that “man is defined as a human being and a woman as a female – whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male.” This makes us question whether a woman expressing her sexuality through stripping or voluntarily prostituting herself is truly liberated. Though it may seem like a positive advancement superficially in that it allows women to express their sexuality, a few view this type of sexuality as one narrowly defined by males $mdash; after all, stripping is a performance geared (for the most part) toward men.
Moreover, the discussion addressed the moral implications that are inextricably woven into any form of sexuality especially in America. Different perspectives, ranging from those condoning prostitution only in cases where it would be an individual’s last resort to earn money, to others who found absolutely no justification in resorting to stripping or prostituting one’s self. Such responses raised the question as to whether the moral judgments concerning sex work involve America’s puritanical view of sexuality, or if objections to the trade were based on its perceived degradation of women. The legalization of brothels in most counties in Nevada as well as in the Netherlands may be seen in a positive light; if anything, at least prostitution is regulated and prostitutes may receive benefits similar to those in any other profession, a boon in this particularly perilous trade. However, with legalization, social acceptability does not usually follow. The stigma of selling one’s body lingers and one would be hard-pressed to find a prostitute who would openly share her profession at a cocktail party, with the possible exception of her referring to herself as a “high-class escort”.
Along with the onus that sex workers must bear, the character of the men who patronize strip clubs and brothels was also explored. When asked about the dominant perception of men who frequent strip clubs daily, most women had a negative opinion, viewing the patrons as “sad” and “pathetic”. The prevalent impression revolves around the assumed absence of a meaningful relationship in these men’s lives; a man who must satisfy his sexual desires so impersonally must be either a depraved loner or an morally bankrupt man trapped in a sexless relationship. The relatively recent news of Eliot Spitzer’s dalliance with escort Ashley Alexandra DuprÉ cast the former New York Governor’s character in doubt, with the gener America still harbors discomfort with open expression of sexuality, much less prostitution. al mode of thinking is that a man who betrays his wife (especially one who pays for sex) cannot be trustworthy or even moral. And though Spitzer’s political career may be over, DuprÉ has been cast as a frivolous harlot, a woman so hell-bent on fame and wealth that she would sell her body.
The sex trade still engenders much contention. America still harbors discomfort with open expression of sexuality, much less prostitution. Prostitutes and strippers are often cast as the Mary Magdalenes of society $mdash; victims unable to change their fate $mdash; or as lazy and immoral bottom feeders. Yet neither accurately takes into account the nuances, historical or cultural, that shroud the world’s oldest profession. Rather, a more sophisticated, and perhaps more empathetic, approach must be utilized to examine such a stigmatized profession, even if a consensus is never reached.
t’s easy to forget about Afghanistan. Eclipsed by the disastrous war in Iraq and the seven-year American occupation of the country, and nestled between Iran and Pakistan, Afghanistan has seemed more like an afterthought—a project began but never quite finished. With the recent news that President Obama will increase troop deployment in Afghanistan, we have a grim reminder that the situation on the ground is, at best, volatile.
abies are the new hot thing. From creepy fake newborns retailing for close to $1,000 to the uproar surrounding “Octomom” Nadya Suleman, the public’s fascination with infants seems to have escalated over the last few months. Another addition to the “bizarre things having to do with babies” list is the recent news that two clinics in Los Angeles and New York, both owned by Dr. Jeff Steinberg, will happily offer to customize your baby. Physical traits like eye and hair color can be altered at will, among other characteristics—without pause to consider the absurdity of it all.
