While many women do not think a screening test can be harmful, medical experts say the risks are real. A test can trigger unnecessary further tests, like biopsies, that can create extreme anxiety. And mammograms can find cancers that grow so slowly that they never would be noticed in a woman’s lifetime, resulting in unnecessary treatment.

Overall, the report says, the modest benefit of mammograms — reducing the breast cancer death rate by 15 percent — must be weighed against the harms. And those harms loom larger for women in their 40s, who are 60 percent more likely to experience them than women 50 and older but are less likely to have breast cancer, skewing the risk-benefit equation. The task force concluded that one cancer death is prevented for every 1,904 women age 40 to 49 who are screened for 10 years, compared with one death for every 1,339 women age 50 to 74, and one death for every 377 women age 60 to 69.

Unless you’ve been in solitary confinement, you’re aware of the fact that Belle de Jour, blogger, former prostitute, and head of the Diary of a London Call Girl publishing empire has revealed herself to be Dr. Brooke Magnanti, research scientist at the Bristol Initiative for Research of Child Health.

When she’s not blogging about her past sexploits, she using her Ph.D. in informatics, epidemiology, and forensic science to research the effects of pesticides on children.  How’s that for an unexpected spin on the whore-with-the-heart-of-gold theme?  I’m kinda jealous of her, I have to admit.  Magnanti is like a year of feminist studies rolled into one.  I would have loved to be the first credible candidate for one of feminism’s holy grails:  the empowered sex worker—able to expose herself to patriarchal fantasies of male domination without becoming damaged goods. 

We may have to add her to our pantheon of saints right up there with Susan Faludi and Katha Pollitt. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a more level-headed and reasonable explanation for becoming a call-girl than this one by Magnanti:

“I couldn’t find a professional job in my chosen field because I didn’t have my Ph.D. yet. I didn’t have a lot of spare time on my hands because I was still making corrections and preparing for the viva; and I got through my savings a lot faster than I thought I would. … What can I do that I can start doing straightaway, that doesn’t require a great deal of training or investment to get started, that’s cash in hand and that leaves me spare time to do my work in?”

Is this woman a scientist or what?  Now before you go all ballistic and chastise either myself or Dr. Magnanti for our lack of moral fiber, let me add two things:  working as an escort is not illegal in the United Kingdom.  Yup, prostitution is above board in England—it’s the activities that make sex work a nasty dangerous enterprise that are illegal—no streetwalking, no pimps, no brothels.  Secondly, the idea that prostitution is the only commodified form of erotic activity is crazy.  Consider the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition for a moment—$6.99 and all you get is the illusion of female sexuality.  Magnanti may well be the rare woman who can, as Gloria Steinem put it to Vermont Woman, “experience sexuality as power.…It’s not sexuality that’s the problem, it’s whose sexuality and why?”  That’s also why I can love Belle de Jour and still condemn human trafficking, the prostitution of children, and pimping without appearing hypocritical or naive.

And lest you think I dodged the whole morality question, let me answer in more detail by punting to a smarter mind.  In Feminist Issues in Prostitution, Sarah Bromberg asserts that our stern disapproval of call girls stems “from an underlying assumption in conventional morality that involvement in prostitution will “necessarily” have degenerative effects on a person leading her to other criminal activities.…Prostitution is not a profound condition of degeneracy and in many instances it may be a self-regarding expression of a person surviving in the best way given their skills and opportunities.”  Take that, you Puritans!

So, I’m a big fan of Dr. Magnanti now; I might even buy her new book, Belle de Jour’s Guide to Men. I have a feeling her point of view might be more interesting than the play-hard-to-get, treat-men-like-untrainable-dogs claptrap we women usually get. [As it turns out, the start of chapter one hits the "men are like untrainable dogs" metaphor pretty hard. I guess some stereotypes are hard to break, even if you're a pioneering scientist/call girl.]

by Leigh Bond

Who says that women only like jerks? A new study published in the journal Science from Binghamton University and the University of Arizona adds yet another clue to the mystery that is female sexual selection.  "Mom was right," says the press release. "Nice guys don't always finish last."

Of course, mom was probably not discussing the mating habits of bugs. Researchers in this study observed the effects of a controlled group of male water striders – both aggressive and low-key, and their sexual relations with the females in the group. According to the study led by Omar Tonsi Eldakar of the University of Arizona’s Arizona Research Laboratories, groups of “gentlemen” water striders mated with  more females than did groups of the “psychopath” suitors. The research contradicts previous laboratory studies finding sexually aggressive males more successful at reproducing, said Eldakar. In previous studies, the females were blocked from leaving the areas populated by the sexually aggressive males; this study showed that actually given a choice, the females would leave whenever the jerk bugs came around - the nice bugs got the girls.

What does this have to do with you? Almost nothing. Find out why, after the jump. 

It's hard to draw too many conclusions right now, but we do know this: Thursday night, authorities shot and then apprehended the lone suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. A psychiatrist who was set to deploy to Iraq at the end of the month, Hasan reportedly opened fire around the Fort Hood Readiness Center, where troops are prepared for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. And though this scene is a most extreme and tragic outlier, it comes at a time when the stress of combat has affected so many soldiers individually that it makes it increasingly difficult for the military as a whole to deploy for wars abroad. In an abrupt news conference, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, the top commander at Fort Hood, said in response to the shooting that authorities would "increase the security presence" on the military base. On the surface, it seemed like a logical enough plan. But it makes one wonder how much any kind of lockdown will either get at the root causes of soldier stresses or better prepare them for more battle.

Should health-care reform require insurers to cover chiropractors? Acupuncturists? Yoga? Spiritual healers? These are the questions raised by a recently noticed health-care amendment requiring insurers to consider covering "religious and spiritual health care."

The amendment, covered in this Los Angeles Times article, comes with backing from Senate heavyweights like Orrin Hatch, John Kerry, and the late Ted Kennedy. And while it does not mention Christian Science by name, it's been widely interpreted as a protection of the church's prayer treatments, which it encourages as an alternative to medical help. Others have understood the provision as even more far-reaching as to include any health provider acting within the scope of their license.The Freedom From Religion Foundation has criticized the amendment as an unconstitutional violation of church and state.

Even with its powerful supporters, the amendment seems unlikely to make the final bill; Pelosi already dropped it from the House version. But just the suggestion of covering religious health care highlights a difficult question for reformers: how, exactly, does prayer fit into the president's support for evidence-based medicine? Or, more broadly, is there a place for any sort of unproven, alternative medicine, religious or otherwise, in health-care reform?

Michael Goldsmith, the baseball fan who penned the NEWSWEEK My Turn column that became a game-changer for major league baseball, died this week at the age of 58.

Goldsmith suffered from and finally succumbed to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. Also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, the degenerative condition robbed the Hall of Famer of his life and robs 30,000 Americans at any given time of their ability to walk, speak, and eventually breathe. It's a rare disease—striking two out of 10,000—but a brutal one, agonizing for those who suffer from the disease and those who love them.

Gehrig is the most famous face of ALS, but it was Goldsmith who suggested, in a NEWSWEEK My Turn column that ran on Nov. 1, 2008, that baseball join the fight in a more public and organized way:

Major League Baseball has never taken comprehensive action against ALS. Defeating ALS will require the same type of determination, dedication and drive that Gehrig and Cal Ripken demonstrated when they set superhuman records for consecutive games played. With this in mind, why not make July 4, 2009, ALS-Lou Gehrig Day? Dedicate this grim anniversary to funding research for a cure; every major- and minor-league stadium might project the video of Gehrig's farewell, and teams, players and fans could contribute to this cause.

The column soon caught the attention of  The New York Times and MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, and the plan Goldsmith envisioned was put into action. On July 4  this season, the 70th anniversary of  Lou Gehrig's "Luckiest Man" speech, players wore commemorative patches. ALS groups sold awareness buttons, and ballparks played video of Gehrig's noble farewell on the JumboTrons. Goldsmith was honored at Yankee Stadium that day, throwing out the ceremonial first pitch. His family later recalled how much he savored that experience—despite his being an Orioles fan.

Selig issued a statement about Goldsmith's passing, saying he was "deeply saddened" and offering his condolences. Game 5 of the World Series, played last night in Philadelphia, was dedicated to Goldsmith's memory.  Throughout the game, fans were encouraged to donate to ALS charities by visiting the MLB blog 4ALS Awareness. According to the George Vecsey, who wrote about Goldsmith's NEWSWEEK column in the Times, "Commissioner Bud Selig said Goldsmith believed in the power of one person to make an impact, and he promised that Goldsmith’s aspirations would continue to be honored."

It would be a tribute to both Gehrig and Goldsmith and a testament to the enduring power of sports, teamwork, and camaraderie if baseball took that "comprehensive action" Goldsmith suggested. It's worth noting that the Philadelphia Phillies, who are currently trying to battle their way out of a 3-2 deficit against the Yankees in the World Series, have raised more than $11 million in the past 25 years through their charity work with The Greater Philadelphia ALS Society. A baseball-wide campaign to actively fight ALS and support those who suffer from it would go a long way to aid the cause and to bring back some lost dignity to America's pastime.

Aside from being a baseball fan, Goldsmith was the Woodruff J. Deem professor of law at Brigham Young, and a husband, father, son, and brother. We at NEWSWEEK offer his friends and family our deepest sympathies.

As part of NEWSWEEK's Good Hair Week, senior writer Allison Samuels discussed Zahara Jolie-Pitt and the politics of natural hair and interracial adoptions. Her article, which implored the Jolie-Pitt parents to pay more attention to Zahara's hair, and its follow-up were much discussed at NEWSWEEK and on the Internet. We invited three bloggers to offer their own opinion on the topic. -KD

I once wrote about my natural hair:

My hair is nappy. It is coarse and thick. It grows in pencil-size spirals and tiny crinkles. My hair grows out, not down. It springs from my head like a corona. My hair is like wool. You can't run your fingers through it, nor a comb. It is impenetrable. My hair is rebellious. It resists being smoothed into a neat bun or ponytail. It puffs. Strands escape; they won't be tamed. My hair is nappy. And I love it.

I may love my hair. But common wisdom, even among people with hair just like mine, is that my hair isn't "good," at least as it naturally grows from my head. It needs to be tamed, preferably by straightening, but at the very least, especially in young children, hair like mine should be restrained somehow--in plaits or cornrows or something that hides its unruly nature. It should be shiny. You should be able to run a comb through it. All this in defiance of the natural properties of most black hair.

I suspect NEWSWEEK writer Allison Samuels follows this common wisdom.

Two weeks ago she sparked furor around the Net with an article taking Angelina Jolie to task for her daughter Zahara's allegedly uncared-for tresses. In the face of considerable backlash, Samuels didn't back down. In a NEWSWEEK online exclusive this week, Samuels answers her critics.

There is a lot I could challenge in Samuels's articles, but I will confine this post to one point: Samuels seems to embrace the notion, a gift of society's Eurocentric beauty standards, that tamed hair = healthy hair, and unfettered black hair = hot mess. What's worse, she wants little Zahara to learn to embrace this thinking, too--a terrible lesson for a girl with tresses that naturally feature fuzzy parts and curls that spring akimbo.

In a society with Eurocentric beauty standards, it is natural that hair common to people of European ancestry would be the marker for beauty, professionalism, and good grooming. And it is natural, though I think not good for us, that those of minority cultures have absorbed the standards of the dominant culture and adopted beauty rituals that support those standards.

This is why so many of us have memories of sitting at our mother's or grandmothers' knees, holding our ears, and listening to sizzling grease, as our hair was tamed into a straight, shiny, combable mass and woven into multiple neat plaits. Most of us remember this bonding time fondly. But, in reality, straight, shiny, combable, and neat are NOT markers of whether black hair is cared for or not. That so many of us, including Samuels, think these descriptors are related to hair health shows how much we have absorbed the idea that hair common to people of European ancestry is the norm by which all other hair must be judged. As I type this, my ginormous twist-out is shiny, but not straight, combable, or neat, And, I promise you, my hair is very well cared for.

Yes, I know that braiding has deep roots in African culture and is an ingrained part of black American culture. My beef isn't with plaiting; my beef is with the fear of the nap--the idea that unrestrained black hair, apart from other hair, is unacceptable. To many of us with natural hair, Zahara seems to be wearing a wash-and-go. But we are taught that black women can't simply wash their hair and go. Our hair has to be "fixed," made presentable. I think this hair hatred was born and nurtured right here in Western culture where the yardstick by which we judge our hair's beauty, health, and rituals of care is invariably a white one.

There is no way of knowing whether Zahara's hair is conditioned by scanning paparazzi shots. You can't assess its softness. You can't check for split ends. You can't see breakage. What Samuels is reacting to, I think, is the fact that Zahara's hair is "wild" and unrestrained. And black women and girls are taught that this isn't okay. It isn't pretty. It isn't proper. It isn't professional. It isn't ladylike.

I'll say this--I agree with Samuels that most little, black girls would NOT be comfortable wearing their natural hair loose as Zahara does. That is, in great part, because of the unrelenting messages they get, within and without our black culture, that their hair is inherently wrong. Must Zahara adopt these feelings of self-hatred to earn her black card? I like to think, as a black woman who has wrestled and come to terms with her own hair issues, my job is to help free the girls in my life from damaging self-hatred, not encourage it as a litmus test for fitting in.

My hair is nappy. It is soft and cottony, a mass of varying textures. My hair is fun to play with. I like to pull at the spiral curls and feel them snap back into place. My hair defies the laws of gravity. It reaches energetically toward the sky. My hair is unique. In a fashion culture that genuflects to relaxed, flat-ironed tresses and stick-straight weaves, my fluffy, puffy, kinky mane stands out. It is revolutionary. My hair is natural. It is the way God made it. My hair is nappy. And it is beautiful.

Winfrey Harris blogs at What Tami Said.

As part of NEWSWEEK's Good Hair Week, senior writer Allison Samuels discussed Zahara Jolie-Pitt and the politics of natural hair and interracial adoptions. Her article, which implored the Jolie-Pitt parents to spend more attention on Zahara's hair, and its follow-up were much discussed at NEWSWEEK and on the Internet. We invited three bloggers to offer their own opinion on the topic. —KD

I don't frequent the black-gossip blogs and forums Allison Samuels linked to in her first article (especially the ones that feel comfortable giving Maya Angelou "Ho Sit Down" awards), so I have not seen recent pictures of Zahara Jolie-Pitt's hair. The lone exception is the photo that accompanies Samuels's criticism, which even she acknowledges did nothing to help her argument. As Samuels has noted, Zahara's dad, Brad Pitt, made headlines in 2006 when he told Esquire that he and Angelina Jolie used Carol's Daughter products on Zahara's hair. He even mentioned the "beautiful luster" the products gave her hair and how "nice it smelled." Clearly the Jolie-Pitts are aware that their adopted Ethiopian daughter has hair that is different in texture from their own and needs to be taken care of, so why devote an entire article on this particular child now?

Samuels asks in her rebuttal, "Hey, if Maddox can get blond highlights and a Mohawk, Zahara can at least get a quick top knot and rubber band. Is that asking too much?"  Yes, it is. While a top knot would be a matter of taste, rubber bands are damaging to curly/kinky hair like Zahara's, which can be quite delicate and prone to breakage. I happen to think her loose hair looks fine in the recent pictures I dug up after reading Samuels's article. However, I realize that there are times when kids are out and about and their hair doesn't hold up. Should Jolie and Pitt whip out a comb every time the paparazzi follow them down the street?

Some people will always think that kinky hair in its natural state looks "uncombed," no matter what is done to it. Unless it is in an array of smooth, round, socially acceptable ringlets, the sight of a woman’s natural hair can be jarring for some people. With the exception of a brief period in the 1970s, natural hair has been mostly unacceptable socially, professionally, and (if they knew what was good for them) romantically for black women. In fact, a female relative of mine who attended a historically black college in the late 1960s once told me how women with Afros got a lot of "Hello, my beautiful black sister," from men on campus, but stayed in their dorms on Saturday nights while their counterparts with straighter hair went out on dates.

It is interesting that Samuels compares herself to Chris Rock, because he is seemingly averse to any substantive criticism of his documentary, "Good Hair," especially from dreaded bloggers. Many people saw special advance screenings and expressed their views online, favorable and unfavorable, minus any unnecessary personal attacks on Rock. Others avoided "Good Hair" altogether solely based on Rock's appearances on The View and The Oprah Winfrey Show, where he checked Oprah's hair for weave tracks and cracked that she "looked like a slave" in a childhood photo. Just as Rock's questionable "Men don’t care about hair" statement on Oprah rang false to many viewers (minutes later, he recounted running his fingers through the hair of former white, Latina and Asian girlfriends), Samuels's obligatory "natural hair—Afro, dreads, etc—is fine, if it’s maintained regularly," in her first article felt tacked on because that is true for all hair textures.

It's great that Samuels has fond childhood memories of getting her hair done, but many of us weren't that lucky. I remember holding my ears, shutting my eyes, and bracing myself as a sizzling pressing comb went through my hair so it would be "done." I remember going through the day in grade school with my braided style not quite holding up and being teased for having a "bird's nest" for hair. I remember what a big deal it was for me to get my first relaxer and the reaction of people, the tacit approval, after the deed was done. As for living in a "wash-and-go world," believe it or not, some black women and girls already live there! Hair that does not look "maintained regularly" to some is indeed... maintained regularly. I don't believe that Samuels meant to "attack" Zahara, but statements like “There will come a day” when Zahara will "realize unlike her younger sister, hers is not a wash-and-go world" made the tone of the article just seem off.

Are we all really "Team Zahara?" Sadly, when it comes to her hair, I don't believe so. It is true that black girls get far more pressure about their hair than other girls, and Samuels's articles are perfect examples. However, I think the little Zaharas of the world should have the same freedom with their hair that little Shilohs have to wear men's ties. It is the message that black natural hair is automatically "uncombed" and not "maintained" that is unacceptable—not Zahara Jolie-Pitt's hair.

Gainer blogs at 55 Secret Street.

Steve Phillips (AP Photo/Kathy Willens, File) 

Did Dave hit on me? No. Did he pay me enough extra attention that it was noted by another writer? Yes. Was I aware of rumors that Dave was having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Was I aware that other high-level male employees were having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Did these female staffers have access to information and wield power disproportionate to their job titles? Yes. Did that create a hostile work environment? Yes. Did I believe these female staffers were benefiting professionally from their personal relationships? Yes. Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely.