Women Don’t Need to Have Periods


No matter why a woman is seeing a doctor—be it for a headache or for a broken toe—she can reliably expect to be asked the date of her last period within the first minute of her consultation. Because of the confused looks I get when I reply with “May 2012,” I started prefacing my answer with an explanation that I have a Mirena IUD, an intra-uterine device used for birth control that lessens periods for some women and eliminates them completely for others.


I fall into the latter category. Though most nurses and doctors move along after this response, a nurse recently looked at me in undisguised disapproval and asked, “But what about when you want children?” I told her that I would take it out when I want children. “But doesn’t it feel unnatural to not have a period?” she asked. I told her it feels great to not have a period. She shook her head and said, “Just seems strange to have a foreign object in your body like that.” I replied, “Yeah, like a baby.” She stopped asking questions at that point.



Though this particular nurse was especially harsh, she is hardly alone in her suspicion of birth-control methods that prevent women from monthly bleeding. Friends ask if I am constantly worried that I’m pregnant. Men I am not even exclusively dating wonder if I worry about infertility. The word “unnatural” comes up often. A brief look at the language used to talk about menstruation reflects how closely it’s tied to the concept of female identity. “You’re becoming a woman!” people exclaim to adolescents experiencing their periods for the first time. “Feminine products” is the euphemism of choice for pads and tampons at the drugstore though there are plenty of aisles worth of feminine-coded products available—razors, makeup, and shampoos marketed toward women with the design of helping them look “feminine.” (This focus on the “femininity” of periods also completely ignores the existence of trans men who menstruate.) All of these products have the purpose of eliminating or disguising those functions of the body that have been deemed “unfeminine” like growing body hair and sweating, just as menstrual products are designed to make the period as undetectable as possible. Periods can be painful and messy, and while they are considered a marker of female identity, there are also social pressures to keep them invisible on account of their “ick” factor. So there are some who find eliminating periods altogether to be their best option.



The Tampon: A History


Before at-home pregnancy tests, it made more sense that women wanted their periods as reassurance against pregnancy. “When people were designing the pill, they asked women what they wanted, and women said they wanted to have a period to confirm they’re not pregnant,” says James Segars, director of the division of reproductive science and women’s health research at Johns Hopkins University’s department of gynecology and obstetrics, “The period you have on birth-control pills is totally pharmacologic.”


The pill was only the beginning of women taking control, not only of their fertility, but of their periods. Though “that time of the month” is shorthand for the period, many people have irregular and unpredictable periods that the introduction of the pill helped to regulate. People with particularly heavy bleeding or conditions like endometriosis can expect them to become more manageable with the pill. Periods, as natural as they are, can profoundly disrupt someone’s daily life when they are accompanied by pain or excessive bleeding that necessitates devoting time and energy to their care.  



Kristin Vincenzo, a public-relations professional in New York, started taking the Depo-Provera injection starting in 1999 after a trial run with the birth-control pill Micronor. Prior to taking birth control, her periods had been irregular. Seeing as this was a decade or so before the recent reemergence of long-acting reversible contraceptives like IUDs, the effects were met with a lot of skepticism. “I feel like there’s a lot of things that make me feel like a woman and my period isn’t one of them,” she said. Though Kristin was resolute that not having a period was a positive experience, she told me that at that time, IUDs were still considered very risky, which is why she went with the injection. “I just remember hearing horror stories about the IUD from the 1970s when I was younger so I never even considered it.”


A landmark study in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2013 found that hormone-releasing intra-uterine devices improved health outcomes for women with abnormally heavy bleeding more than traditional treatments like taking hormonal birth-control pills. Danielle Boose is a 31-year-old mother of two who turned to the Mirena IUD after massive bleeding caused her to miss school and her severe cramps caused her life to stop “emotionally and physically,” she said. But she too was met with skepticism. “My girlfriends still say, ‘I would never put something foreign in my body. There are other things you can do,’” she says of her peers who are doubtful of the safety of IUDS. “But there’s risk in the pill, there’s risks in the shot, so for me, it was a good decision.”



As more women turn to long-acting reversible contraceptives that substantially decrease bleeding or sometimes eliminate bleeding entirely, many wonder about potentially negative or “unnatural” consequences. The Mirena is one of the most popular IUDs— it releases hormones and prevents pregnancy for five years. Thompson told me that she inserts hormonal IUDs like the Mirena for women almost every day in her practice. “Women think it is unnatural to not have a period or think that something could be ‘building up’ inside the uterus if they don’t have a period,” Thompson told me in an email. In reality, uterine build-up is more likely to occur when a woman is not on hormonal contraceptives.  “The risk of not having a period when on no hormones is the unchecked buildup of the uterine lining that has the potential to become precancerous or cancerous,” she said.


Much of the conversation around period elimination is focused on women who have debilitating periods. But there are those, too, who are simply inconvenienced by their periods, and would rather not have them. Susan Shain is a 29-year old travel writer who got an IUD because her hectic travel schedule saw her changing time zones frequently, making it difficult to take a pill at the same time every day. She had used the NuvaRing at one point but it needs to be stored in cold temperatures, and that she was worried that refrigeration could be unreliable where she was going. “I love to travel, I love to spend time outdoors. I love not having to worry about a period,” Susan said. Another woman named Jennifer Hancock is a writer in Manatee County, Florida, who told me she turned to the Mirena exclusively for the purpose of getting rid of her period. “When it is a regular part of your life, you don’t realize how much time and money is being taken away from you,” she said.



5 Reasons Why Menstruation Is Awesome (Despite What We’re Told).” At Cycle Harmony, Chief Harmony Officer Jing Jin recommends several ways to honor the menstrual cycle.  “Honor the heightened awareness and creativity when you menstruate. Paint, draw, write, dance and celebrate… Create a space to tune in and connect with the radiant goddess within you,” is included among tips like keeping a period journal and connecting with your feminine power. And because I want to champion women’s choices rather than limit them, I won’t suggest that those who feel like radiant goddesses when they’re united in blood should eliminate their periods.


But I’d like to remind people of another word commonly associated with women’s monthly bleeding: The Curse. I’ll take unnatural over hexed any day of the month.


Coming to Terms With the ‘S’ Word


A few months ago, I published a memoir about the year I initiated an open marriage after my husband’s vasectomy, when I realized I’d never have children. The book, titled The Wild Oats Project, touches on issues that most of us hold dear: love, marriage, sex, children, fidelity. As a protagonist, I was far from perfect. As a writer, I struggled as best I could to tell the raw truth about how these issues played out in my life. I owned up to feelings of rebellion and anger and described in detail how I pursued sexual liberation in midlife. When I fell short morally—and I don’t mean by having a lot of sex—I indicted myself, either in the moment or in retrospect. I wrote about seeking my husband’s forgiveness.


When you write a book about sex, you can expect a reaction. Social media, of course, can both intensify the reaction and lower the level of discourse. But it’s the combination of social media and sexism that filters an entire range of potential feedback down to its surprisingly predictable essence, as I learned from tweets and Facebook messages directed at me after my book was published. A small sampling of the comments I received:


filty whore, I hope you caught the clap.




Sorry, @Robin_Rinaldi, in my world there is a word for “happily” married women who spend a year bedding many men and that word is #slut




Stupid old whore! To get a forum on TV promoting cheating?? Fuck off!!!!




Robin, face it, you’re a self centered slut! Your book is bullshit. Why don’t you become a porn star?




you are one nasty skank ass. nothing but a cum dumpster. worthless with nothing to offer a man but a hole.




You are a fucking whore! … I hope you and your fucking books burn in hell.


By no means was I alone. Last year, when the Guardian columnist and author Jessica Valenti asked a simple question on Twitter about tampon use in third-world countries, tweeters referred to her “giant gaping vagina,” recommended she get a “free hysterectomy,” and reminded her that, in the Middle East, “they sew your vagina shut for being a loud mouth.” When the media critic Anita Sarkeesian dared examine feminine tropes in video games, she received rape and death threats that make my hate tweets read like brunch invitations.



Social-media trolls aren’t always men, and their targets aren’t always women: see Jon Ronson’s excellent book So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. But the pattern of misogynists attacking a woman who has spoken up too boldly, either about sexism or sex itself, proved true in my case. While an almost equal number of men and women responded via social media or email, the violently shaming messages—ones that included name-calling, obscenities, or wishes for my harm—were almost exclusively from men. Trollop, skank-ass, cum dumpster. These florid alternatives were outnumbered by the oft-repeated whore, which itself was outnumbered by the perennial favorite: slut.


The dictionary definition of slut is surprisingly benign:


1. chiefly British :  a slovenly woman


2. (a) a promiscuous woman; especially: prostitute (b) a saucy girl: minx


The word “slut” has a lengthy etymological history, but like other loaded slurs, it’s been appropriated in recent decades by its targets, in this case women claiming the word for themselves. It’s common to hear women affectionately call one another sluts with a dash of bravado. Etsy sells girlfriend birthday cards that read: “You dirty skanky whore, I love you, don’t ever change.” It’s a word in transition; one whose power dwindles by the day. The more we use it in conversation and humor and art, the more we strip it of harm. But it’s a slow and uneven process, made possible only by women’s tangible political and economic strides out in the world. Its current impact and meaning depend on context, on the woman’s maturity level, on geography and race and socioeconomic status.



As an adult, white American woman with a college education and relative economic security, I had more freedom than many to experiment with the meaning of “slut.” Indeed, one of my main goals during my year of open marriage was to explore the archetype, and to transcend the fear instilled by small-town Catholicism of the ’70s. This same freedom doesn’t necessarily extend to young girls whose formative self-worth and social lives are still damaged by such labels. Or to adult women of color who have historically been hypersexualized. Nor does this privilege extend to the vast numbers of women who live in cultures that legally constrain what they wear, whom they speak to, where they go, how much schooling they receive, all in a Draconian effort to control their sexuality.



There’s No Such Thing as a Slut



But even I, someone who walked straight into the fire by writing a sex memoir, was shocked by the emotional gap between a friend or lover using the term playfully and a strange man slinging it at me with malice. Immediately, the history was called up, the genetic memory aroused. I sensed my kinship to the women halfway around the world who are flogged, imprisoned, or buried up to their necks and stoned to death for alleged sexual offenses—a kinship it’s too often easy for me to ignore in my daily life.


Each new message was a punch to the gut: My breath caught, my hands went cold, a tingling spread beneath my skin. The tone turned Biblical, implying outcasts and witches, diseases and hellfire. Though I was a feminist who’d just written an explicit account of sex, I inwardly shrunk to someone small, young, and terrified of being ousted from the tribe. How dare I think I could own my sexuality, break from convention, or explore dark themes? My body was not my own territory with which to experiment; it was theirs, and they had arrived to plant their flags.



But slut-shaming only succeeds if it alters behavior. Its primary corrective purpose is to corral a woman back into line, to shock her with such a jolt that she stops doing things that trouble others. In a slut-shamer’s ideal world, the label would act preemptively. Notice, though, the modern woman’s relative lack of fear, how she goes about living her life regardless, so that by the time the commenters arrive, it’s too late. After the presidential blowjob. After the sex tape. After the onstage twerking, or the provocative article. Notice how the very use of the word in such instances says more about the speaker than the target.


In the long run, slut-shamers weren’t going to stop me from saying or doing anything. More immediately, though, some of their punches landed. In bed with my boyfriend, I didn’t want even the remotest hint of dirty talk. I watched the familiar internal dance wherein anger that has nowhere to go twists back on itself. I intentionally over-ate, relishing the comfort of both food and extra flesh. My mind chatter turned caustic about the most mundane things: how stupid to not get the cheaper airfare, what an idiot I am. I dashed off an email to my brother 3,000 miles away, asking him, “If I’m ever homeless, can I come live with you?”


That’s what public slut-shaming conjured up in me: not mere embarrassment or outrage but fear of total exile. I reflexively turned to my nearest male relative for protection even as a mental voice sneered at me for doing so. My brother wrote back to say yes, of course I could live with him. He went on to remind me that my family and friends were proud that I’d taken on difficult terrain. He rhetorically asked how many people would come out looking perfect if they exposed their entire relationship history on paper. He listed off the rational, decent men who’d helped bring my book to fruition: the fellow writer, the agent, the ex-husband, and current boyfriend. “You knew there would be slut-shaming,” he concluded. “I can’t even imagine this bothers you. If it does, cut that shit out, now.”



I tried. I blocked the abusive accounts, saved all the messages and tweets to a Word file, and stashed it in my “To Do” folder, where it loomed on my desktop, daring me to open it. I put it off for months. On one level, I knew these were just trolls, and other writers had unanimously advised: Don’t feed the trolls. As I blocked a few, a quick glance at their profile pages produced a deep sadness in me—for them. In quieter moments I even felt like I could sense the terror below their rage, a reflexive shrinking from chaos that I recognized in myself: If women pursue sexual freedom, where do we all end up? What happens to the family, to children, to society, to love? The only reason I felt free to even try an open marriage was because I didn’t have children. I wondered how many of these guys were husbands, fathers, men with their own cacophonous appetites, men with something to lose. Or, worse still, what if they were men with nothing to lose?


I debated trashing the file, deleting the Twitter account. But what if instead of feeding the trolls, I let them feed me? Instead of pushing it out of my mind or retreating, I wanted to digest the shame and fear they’d brought to the surface and process it into something others could use if and when they found themselves in a similar situation. After all, you don’t have to write a sex memoir to be the target of misogynist wrath. All you have to do is dance or dress a certain way, state an opinion too loudly, talk about tampons or video games.



When I finally did open the file, here’s the message that haunted me most:


so how does it feel being a worthless degenerate? … hows it feel knowing your family line will die with you and you have no place in the world? hows it feel knowing you probably got herpes from the last 20th guy you slept with? its good youre already aging and your looks (which werent that great to begin with) are slooooowly fading away. soon youll be nothing but a whithered husk of a woman, sitting in your rocking chair unable to move without shit dripping down your ass, and wishing you had grandchildren to tell them about the time you were a total slut and made your beta weakling husband cry in his bed … hope you get AIDS


Never mind the fact that I didn’t get herpes or HIV, that I don’t mind my average looks or my age, that grandchildren were no guarantee I’d be cared for in my dotage by anyone other than a nursing home employee. What my mind kept going over was the image of shit dripping down my leg, and making my husband cry. I kept flashing forward to the shit and backward to the tears. I had caused those tears. I wasn’t blameless.


Eloquent letters from readers helped me parse out this important difference, the line between violent shaming and real moral debate. In addition to letters of thanks from people going through a similar marital crisis, many readers wrote considered paragraphs about commitment, desire, sacrifice. One woman wrote: “At times I hated you, then I would feel great empathy for you, then I’d be envious of your situation, then I’d hate you again.” A 71-year-old man wrote, “I think the reason my marriage worked out and yours didn’t, despite similar themes, is that I didn’t bring childhood damage into it.” I had lengthy correspondences with a few of my most engaged readers that illuminated new aspects of my own story. It illustrated the huge gap between people who could respectfully communicate their reactions and opinions versus those who could only project hate onto the messenger.



We all make mistakes. Much of literature—addiction stories, divorce stories, coming-of-age stories—not to mention songwriting and filmmaking, is a recounting of those mistakes. In both art and real life, men are allowed the freedom to err, to be complicated. Tony Soprano and Walter White can be both murderers and loving fathers. Bill Clinton can be a womanizer and a great politician. Several of my own artistic heroes have disastrous track records as far as fidelity goes: Robert Plant, Leonard Cohen, Rainer Maria Rilke. It’s futile to even begin to list them. We assume great men will give in to lust.


As the writer Caitlin Moran says, feminism is “simply the belief that women should be as free as men, however nuts, dim, deluded, badly dressed, fat, receding, lazy, and smug they might be.” Freedom is not purity or discernment. Freedom is freedom. Pop culture has begun offering up portrayals of women living out messy arcs: nurses stealing drugs, suburban moms dealing drugs, whole prisons of women doing time, comedic heroines using men for sex. But these are, for the most part, fictional. The next step is to stop freaking out every time a woman does what men have been doing for ages. Feminism is not about moral perfection. It’s about equality.


Neither my decision to open up my marriage nor to write about it were intended as feminist statements. I wasn’t thinking of patriarchy when I went looking for lovers; I was thinking of fulfillment and adventure. And when I began writing about it years later, I was thinking of capturing on paper the marital and midlife dilemmas I saw playing out in many lives beyond my own. It wasn’t until afterward that I began to think about patriarchy, as people asked sexist questions (“Weren’t you afraid you’d be hurt or killed if you sought casual sex?”), made sexist assumptions (“You agreed to forego kids if your husband didn’t want them”), sent sexist messages. I didn’t notice how thick and high the wall of sexism was until I bumped up against it.



But on closer inspection, what is this wall made of? Thoughts and words. Patriarchy has, for the most part here in the West, been written out of the code of law. It is currently dying a slow—sometimes excruciatingly slow—death in the realms of government, commerce, and art. It’s been weakened to the point where women’s own interpretations can affect it, in varying degrees.


I was surprised by how quickly slut-shaming influenced my mood, my confidence, my daily habits, my relationships. But it passed. It is not sustainable. I say this knowing that some women have gone offline (temporarily, I hope) to shield themselves from ongoing harassment, knowing I’d do the same if I felt it necessary to my physical or mental health. I’m aware that women younger and less privileged than me are more vulnerable to the effects of slut-shaming and may take contrary, completely valid, approaches to it. By embracing the experience, I mean to neither ignore them nor speak for them. Feminism isn’t one size fits all. Its lopsided progress happens in fits and starts. Some of us lobby Congress and some forge non-traditional careers and some make art and others simply survive. Sometimes we need to retreat and lick our wounds while others take up the slack.


For now, I’m taking up the slack. I’m containing the words of those who tried to shame me. If I sit still enough, I can even muster up compassion for the bullies whose pain and terror I can clearly see, even if they can’t.



Because in the long run, what choice do we have but transcendence? Dress modestly? Curtail our language and artistic expression and sexual choices? Plead and argue for others to treat us with the same respect they give men and hope that someday they’ll come around? Appealing to the rational masses to put a stop to it makes you dependent on their response, which in turn often depends on how the social tide is turning that day, how much the cruel world has already taxed their empathy. I’d rather put harmful words to a higher, immediate purpose—swallow them, digest them, let them make me stronger.


We have the vote, birth control, education, and access to employment. It’s nowhere near perfect, but 78 cents can still buy a woman enough freedom to speak her mind and do as she pleases. Right now, this is what I’m doing. I’m inoculating myself against “slut” in the knowledge that one day, the word will be as obsolete as patriarchy itself. I’m granting myself, and any other woman who wants it, permission to hunger, to fail, to speak, to write. To make and learn from our mistakes. To blunder about with as much mediocrity, moral and otherwise, as we can muster.


Lily Tomlin: Not Your Typical Grandma

Do a search for “Grandma” on Google Images, and you’ll be greeted with row after row of older women—almost all of them be-spectacled, almost all of them be-halo-ed in a puff of white hair, almost all of them smiling, beatifically and benignly. “Grandma” may be, technically, a relationship rather than a description, but we have, collectively, our assumptions about what the person who occupies that role is like: She is probably sweet. She is probably docile. She’d probably really love to bake you some cookies. She is “Grandma,” and that—not just according to Google, but according to movies and novels and comic strips and TV shows, across the culture, and with very little exception—is her most relevant feature.


Not so Grandma’s Elle Reid, who manages to be both a grandmother and a complicated human at—against all odds—the same time. Elle (Lily Tomlin, in a performance that is, oddly and tellingly, a breakout) is loud and opinionated and stubborn and ornery and angry. (“Mom says that you’re philanthropic,” her granddaughter, Sage, tells her. She quickly corrects herself. “I mean, misanthropic.”) A poet who was renowned in the 1970s and who has ridden her success to a life of academia-adjacent bohemianism—Adrienne Rich seems to have been a rough model—Elle is also a resolute feminist who has a first edition of The Feminine Mystique that she actually reads. She is quick with casual insults (“your face looks like an armpit,” she informs a young man who has displeased her), and even quicker with deeper ones. (“You were a footnote,” she spits at her girlfriend, Olivia (Judy Greer), while breaking up with her in the first scenes of the film.) And that’s largely because, a year and a half after her partner of 38 years, Violet, died of an unnamed illness, Elle is also grieving and hurting and lost. The pain—the phantom limb of a lost love—permeates everything she does, whether the thing is breaking up with Olivia or coming to terms with long-held family secrets or helping her teenage granddaughter to get an abortion.


Grace and Frankie: A New Kind of Divorce Comedy



Grandma—written and directed by Paul Weitz, whose resume includes such diverse pictures as About a Boy, In Good Company, Little Fockers, and American Pie—follows a single day in the life of Elle, her daughter, and her granddaughter. Things begin in the morning, when Elle is interrupted from the quietly misanthropic day she had planned for herself by Sage—who is 18 and pregnant and desperate to not be—knocking on her door. Her granddaughter (Julia Garner, imbuing her character with a subtle wisdom that fits the name) has made an appointment at a nearby abortion clinic. For 5:45 that evening. Her boyfriend has failed to get the money—$630—he had promised to scrounge up to cover the cost of the procedure. Being broke and also hoping to keep her situation a secret from her domineering mother, Sage turns to her decidedly non-grandmotherly grandmother for the money, and for more general support.


The only (well, the other) problem? Elle has recently paid off her debts, cutting up her credit cards in a symbolic attempt to simplify her life. So she, too, is broke. But she’s also determined to help Sage. And so the two set out on a road trip that’s a little bit Terms of Endearment and a little bit Thelma and Louise. They encounter, in their quest to gather the $630 before 5:45, a series of people who double as specters from Elle’s life—making the whole thing also just a teeny bit Ghosts of Girlfriends Past.



Which sounds pretty terrible, right, plot-wise? Cliched, cloying, smug, forced, generally bizarre? And it so easily could have been all of those things. The small miracle of Grandma, though, is that the film is, in the end, none of them. It’s a character study and morality play and bildungsroman, subtly executed and lovingly performed. The characters who could all veer into empty tropes (the aging lesbian! the cold, career-driven mother! the irresponsible #teen!) pulse, in the end, with quirky humanity. They’re given room, in the space of a single day, to live and breathe and grow. Judy Reid (Marcia Gay Harden), the daughter Elle raised with Violet, may be introduced to viewers as an over-caffeinated executive who works at a treadmill desk and goes through assistants as if they were toothbrushes, but she grows. Sage may pivot, convincingly, between adolescent meekness and adolescent arrogance; she, too, grows. Deciding not to become a mother, for her, itself confers a kind of maturity.


But the character who grows the most in all this is the one who, per the traditional conventions of the pop-cultured Grandma, has no growing left to do. This is Elle’s story, her (literal) coming-of-age tale. Grandma, indeed, insistently disentangles “age” from “maturity,” and that distinction finds Elle, with seven decades of living under her belt, engaged in stereotypically young-person activities: getting a tattoo (from her friend Deathy, played by the wonderful Laverne Cox), beating up the kid who got her granddaughter pregnant, getting punched in the face by a 5-year-old outside of an abortion clinic. It finds her throwing tantrums and testing her limits and vacillating unpredictably between sweetness and self-absorption.



You get the sense that Violet wasn’t just Elle’s partner, but a parental influence—stabilizing, calming, enabling—and that, in her absence, Elle has reverted to a kind of late-life adolescence. Elle herself is only partially aware of this. I like being old,” she muses. “Young people are stupid.”


Elle’s feminism, too, is young. Her icons are Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir—she pronounces their names with reverence and love and, in Beauvoir’s case, an exaggeratedly guttural “r”—and she seems baffled that their iconography could have dissipated in the years between her youth and her granddaughter’s. “You don’t know The Feminine Mystique?” Elle asks Sage, mystified and horrified. Her granddaughter replies, “Mystique is a character in X-Men.”


I won’t spoil anything more, but it’s enough to say that the family road trip ends, in its way, happily. It ends, maybe more to the point, humanly. Grandma doesn’t offer an overt message about the hot-button politics inherent in its plot—about same-sex partnerships, about women’s reproductive rights, about feminism—so much as it offers a gentle appreciation for political ideas as infrastructures of people’s lives. It refuses to judge its characters, and it refuses to reduce them to caricature. Elle is a lesbian; that is not all she is. She is a poet; that is not all she is. She is a feminist; that is not all she is. She is a senior; that is not all she is.


And she is, yes, a grandmother. That, too, is not all.


Can Mommy Bloggers Still Make a Living?


The success story of Dooce.com was once blogger lore, told and re-told in playgroups and Meetups—anywhere hyper-verbal people with WordPress accounts gathered. “It happened for that Dooce lady,” they would say. “It could happen for your blog, too.”


Dooce has its origin in the late 1990s, when a young lapsed Mormon named Heather Armstrong taught herself HTML code and moved to Los Angeles. She got a job in web design and began blogging about her life on her personal site, Dooce.com.


The site’s name evolved out of her friends’ AOL Instant-Messenger slang for dude, or its more incredulous cousin, “doooood!” About a year later, Armstrong was fired for writing about her co-workers on the site—an experience that, for a good portion of the ‘aughts, came known as “getting dooced.” She eloped with her now ex-husband, Jon, moved to Salt Lake City, and eventually started blogging full time again.



In candid, irreverent detail, Armstrong documented the births and childhoods of her two daughters, Leta and Marlo. By 2005, she was making so much money on ads that Jon quit his job to run the business side of the site. By 2011, she had 100,000 daily visitors, and The New York Times dubbed her “The Queen of the Mommy Bloggers.”


The blog survived Armstrong’s hospitalization for postpartum depression and her separation and divorce in 2012. But in the end, there was one thing she couldn’t weather: The rise of native advertising.


Earlier this year, Armstrong began posting less frequently. In April, she explained that she had been working on some outside projects, and they’ve “provided a much needed distraction from … a dangerous level of exhaustion and dissatisfaction.”


Dooce, for years a guiding light for moms and bloggers and mommy bloggers, was, if not totally going away, at least entering the Internet version of semi-retirement. Jason Kottke, one of the first well-known bloggers, put it even more grimly. “Dooce is dead, long live Dooce,he said in a post. The short window of time in which individuals could support themselves by blogging is closing rapidly.


Since then, Armstrong has posted just a handful of times per month—a dramatic slowdown for her—and turned her attention to speaking and consulting instead. She hasn’t pulled the plug on the blog entirely, in part because,“I still have a few contracts that I need to see to completion,” she explained. It’s in part these “contracts” that were Armstrong’s problem.



Like most other revenue-generating websites, Dooce for years made money on banner ads—those boxes that hawk products and sit alongside the posts that are supposed to be a site’s main event. In the good old days, these ads were very successful. The first banner ad, for AT&T, ran on a site called HotWired in 1994. Of the people who saw it, 78 percent clicked on it, said Susan Bidel, a senior analyst at Forrester research.


“Everybody and their cousin clicked on everything in those days because it was like ‘wow, look what we can do,’” Bidel said. “But consumers aren’t stupid.” These days, the so-called click-through rate is more like .1 percent.


It’s not just that web readers are getting more judicious about where they click. People are increasingly absorbing the web through smartphones, where banner ads don’t look good. On the social web, readers are more likely to see ads that appear within their Facebook and Twitter streams rather than on individual article pages.


In recent years, banner ads have been usurped by the “native ad,” sometimes called sponsored content. These often look like regular articles but are paid for by companies. Sometimes the sponsor’s logo is the only sign of their investment. Other times the entire post hints at the sponsor’s product—like this quiz about bathroom graffiti by Scrubbing Bubbles. These ads attract more attention than banners, so advertisers pay more for them. BI Intelligence, Business Insider’s research service, suggests that spending on native ads will reach $7.9 billion this year, up from $4.7 billion in 2013.



Even though Armstrong was covering pediatricians’ appointments and bedtime stories, the native-ad boom hit her as much as it affected news sites. At most news organizations, The Atlantic included, marketing departments, not editorial staff, produce sponsored content, which looks different from the journalistic content and is explicitly labeled. But that wasn’t the case for a small, intimate outfit like Armstrong’s blog—she was both the journalist and copywriter.


If the topic of your blog is your life, though, and you introduce sponsored content, the sponsored content becomes about your life. Which, to Armstrong, felt icky at times—or as she put it to me recently, “[drove] me bananas.”


At first, readers bristled at the juxtaposition of her “real life” stories with promotional pieces paid for by companies. “My readers see sponsored content and they want to close the browser immediately,” she said. “The problem is I have to give my readers what they want, I have to give the brand what they want, and I have to be authentic to who I am. And combining all three of those needs is so so so exhausting that I was having panic attacks routinely.”


Over the years, advertisers increasingly wanted Armstrong to post photos of her family using their products. But if Leta and Marlo didn’t want to do that activity that particular day, Armstrong felt tempted to pressure them to do it anyway so she could fulfill her advertiser obligations.



I had a deadline, and it was like if ‘I don’t meet this deadline … I gotta pay rent y’all!’” she said. Native ads might work better for independent fashion or travel bloggers, she thinks—people who aren’t struggling with the ethical and emotional implications of monetizing parenthood.


So are mommy bloggers doomed? Must they choose between scraping by on what’s left of the banner-ad market, on one hand, and enlisting their children in staged sponsored-content outings, on the other? Bidel says it’s too soon to ring the banner ad’s death knell for small bloggers. She knows of many stay-at-home moms who blog in their free time and use their sites to bring in side income.


The key, she says, is to manage expectations. “If you can generate enough content to attract a good enough audience by working all by yourself, and you’ll be happy with an income of $50,000 a year, you’ll be fine,” Bidel says. If you’re like Armstrong, who at one point had a husband, assistant, and two kids relying on Dooce for money, maybe not.


These days, Armstrong says she wouldn’t recommend blogging for money. The popular aphorism advises, “do what you love and you’ll never work a day in your life.” Armstrong did what she loved, so she never stopped working.


“I wrote a blog because it was fun, and I loved doing it,” she said. “Then it became my job and I hated it. You never want to get to the point where you’re like ‘Ugh I have to go do that thing that I love? Ughhhh.’”


Why Doesn’t Serena Williams Have More Sponsorship Deals?

The U.S. Open begins today (August 31), and Serena Williams has a chance to make tennis history. A win would put her at 22 career Grand Slam titles, tying Steffi Graf for second most, behind only Margaret Court. Her astonishing ability prompts arguments that she’s the sport’s greatest female player of all time, and currently the most dominant U.S. athlete in any sex or sport. Katrina Adams, the president of the U.S. Tennis Association, recently posited that Williams is the greatest athlete ever—period.


Quartz



Not everyone will agree on each of those points, particularly the last one, but there’s no disputing that Williams has been among the top handful of athletes on the planet for years now. Yet, on Forbes’s list of the highest-paid athletes, Williams ranks 47th. And of the seven tennis players on the list, she ranks last in endorsement dollars, making $13 million annually.


The top-earning male player, Roger Federer, will bring in an estimated $58 million in endorsements this year. The number-four ranked men’s player, Kei Nishikori, also brings in more than Williams, as does Maria Sharapova, who will out-earn her by $10 million despite not having been a genuine rival to Williams for years. The only logical explanation for this gap points to long-held prejudices regarding female sports stars and how people feel they should look.



Endorsement Deals for the World’s Highest-Paid Tennis Players


Quartz

You might be tempted to explain away the immense gap between Williams and Federer by saying Federer has been far more dominant in his sport. But he hasn’t. Federer has 17 Grand Slam titles. Williams has 21. Federer has spent a record 302 weeks ranked at number one. Williams just passed 250, and she’ll likely eclipse Federer’s tally before too long. Williams also has a better win-loss ratio. Over his career, Federer has 1,041 wins and 234 losses, or about 4.4 wins per loss. Williams currently has 732 wins and 122 losses, or 6 wins per loss.



In fact, if Williams clinches a U.S. Open victory, she’ll become just the sixth person in history, male or female, to win all four major tournaments—Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and U.S. Open—in a single year, a feat tennis hasn’t seen since Graf did it in 1988.


Mick Tsikas / Reuters

It also doesn’t explain why the other men’s tennis stars earn more. One might claim men’s tennis has more viewers, so sponsors are willing to pay men more. But the gap between the top men and Williams is too large for that explanation to hold up. In fact, the women’s finals of the U.S. Open have had higher television ratings than the men’s finals the last two years, and this year, fans were so excited at the prospect of watching Williams rewrite tennis history that the women’s final of the U.S. Open sold out before the men’s for the first time ever. Williams is expected to be a huge ratings draw at the U.S. Open, and it was largely due to excitement over her and her sister Venus that in 2001 the U.S. Open women’s final was first broadcast in prime-time.


Experts have said that male athletes are more marketable because they help advertisers reach the coveted 16-to-30-year-old-male demographic, but that implies women aren’t worth marketing to even though sportswear brands know that convincing women to buy their products is crucial. Women control $29 trillion in buying power globally and make 64 percent of household buying decisions. Skechers, in part by marketing to women, has become the number two sneaker brand in the U.S., and Nike thinks that by targeting women it can add $2 billion in annual sales by 2017.



Actually, Nike is one sponsor that has long supported Williams. In her honor, it just released the “Greatness Collection,” which Williams helped design and which she’ll be wearing at the U.S. Open. She also has her own signature sneaker, though it doesn’t have her name on it.


From the “Greatness Collection” (Nike)

It’s not news that female athletes don’t earn as much as male athletes in endorsements—even in tennis, which is otherwise the most equitable sport. But another woman, Maria Sharapova, also earns significantly more, and it’s likely because she’s willowy, white, and blonde, while Williams is a black woman with prominent, athletic muscles—as is often pointed out, sometimes disparagingly.


This claim, it’s worth noting, isn’t particularly controversial. A New Yorker article commented on the reason sports fans don’t love Williams as they should. “Part of this is owing to the dueling isms of American prejudice, sexism, and racism, which manifest every time viewers, mostly men, are moved to remark on Williams’s body in a way that reveals what might most charitably be called discomfort.”



looked at the reasons why Sharapova is set to earn more in endorsements than Williams this year. “Does ethnicity and ‘corporate bias’ play a partial role in explaining the endorsement gap?” the article asked. “In all likelihood, yes.”


Williams, who has faced outright racism and sexism on multiple occasions, is aware of the factors at play. “If they want to market someone who is white and blond, that’s their choice,” she recently told The New York Times Magazine. “I have a lot of partners who are very happy to work with me.”



As the story pointed out, Eugenie Bouchard, an up-and-comer in women’s tennis currently ranked number 24, topped a different list of the most marketable athletes. Like Sharapova, she’s white, blonde, and thin. The suggestion is that female athletes are marketable—which is to say that the public can connect with them, and be persuaded to buy things by them—only insofar as they look a certain way.


There’s no doubt that Williams has been controversial at times, that she’s already paid well, and will likely be paid better still still if she wins the U.S. Open. But there’s also no doubt that she’s one of the greatest athletes of her generation, that she’s one of the most exciting to watch, that she has the ability to draw crowds, and that she would be paid far more if she were someone other than who she is.


She’s a dream athlete for sponsors. It’s a shame, in the most literal sense, that they don’t adequately recognize it.