Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Response to Rachel's Post 11/7/10
After reading the Chapters by Enloe, “Being Curious about our Lack of Feminist Curiosity” and “The Surprised Feminist,” it made made put things into perspective and analyze the world that I come from. At times it is difficult to be the curious one and step out of one’s comfort zone because one does not want to be judged by others, but this is the only way that we will be able to bring about change. Things must be defined or put into categories in order to make people feel more comfortable, for example when homosexuality was an uncomfortable issue until a name was actually put to it and there were those curious people that were able to explain it fully to the rest in order to create awareness. The same must be done for women today who continue to receive patriarchy’s back-hand in subtle ways because patriarchy has been able to hide itself and morph into another species in today’s society. Patriarchy has become hypocritical in character because society, which is led by patriarchy, continues to preach gender equality yet we still see the differences in the different gender treatment and even of unequal ratio of those in power positions such as in the fields of business, politics, and medicine. I see why Enloe encourages individuals, feminists in particular to step out of their comfort zone and not be afraid to question and be curious. This is the only way that they will be able to bring about change. Although there are still some subjects that feminists have not completely mastered, it is okay to not know everything but it is important to keep an open mind and continue further researching in order to tackle head on all the issues that feminists face by patriarchy. Feminists are still becoming more knowledgeable and some may want to break them down by coming at them with an argument that might establish an element of surprise in which they may not have a comeback, but this only helps to peak their curiosity even more to figure out an answer to some arguments and put it into perspective. Isn’t that how we all learn? Feminist Curiosity is crucial toward elaborating on knowledge and bringing about change in society.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Main Post: Enloe for 12/7/10
In Enloe's Introduction "Being Curious about our Lack of Feminist Curiosity," Enloe talks about how curiosity is declining because we do not wish to expend mental energy thinking about things. "Being curious takes energy. It may thus be a distorted form of 'energy conversation' that makes certain ideas so alluring (1)." By denying that anything new has happened, we don't have to investigate or challenge anything - the concepts of 'naturalness' and 'tradition' bolster this lack of curiosity by making people accept certain things or ideas as is without letting them or making them think it is unnecessary to question them. She adds to the mix the words 'always' and 'oldest' that discourage us from inquiring into difficult ideas with our limited supply of energy. She adds that some phrases we use in everyday language are lazy and don't get us to think why, how, whom, when, and where (for example, "cheap labor" vs. "labor made cheap"). Since there are so many reasons why we are not curious, we need to explore them when we do become curious because "[s]o many power structure - inside households, within institutions, in societies, in international affairs - are dependent on our continuing lack of curiosity (3)." These words that prevent curiosity prop up, legitimize, 'inevitabilize,' societal, familial, governmental, etc. structures, processes, ways, etc. We need to become aware of our lack of curiosity, understand the causes behind it, and take the veil of mental satisfaction away from other people. Enloe attributes this lack of curiosity to political agendas and people's wish to feel safe and comfortable - stepping outside of your bubble and confronting some sensitive, disconcerting ideas is not fun, so people don't want to do it and thus make excuses like no enough time or resources to investigate all these topics. Enloe says that feminists need to develop a feminist curiosity by first taking all women seriously - in other words, being ready to look closely at every woman's life as worthy of consideration since labeling groups does not allow us to see masculinity and femininity being politicized in society. Labels on groups of men and women obscure questions about the position, thoughts, benefits, and relationships of and between men and women and obscure patriarchy beyond. Enloe then goes on to explain patriarchy as "the structural and ideological system that perpetuates the privileging of masculinity (4)" can be found in every aspect of life because people and groups have developed their perception of the world based on the presumption that masculinity is more deserving of reward and praise and thus marginalizing, trivializing, and scorning femininity and feminine experience. Women do not question patriarchy because patriarchy makes women feel protected and safe because they do not question it. Patriarchy needs women to operate, in particular a certain view and acceptance of femininity - women need to be feminized so that masculine men look better than feminine women. Feminists are curious about women and thus have seen and exposed patriarchy to the world, but patriarchy is modernizing and adapting "new looks" to everything we throw at it so to disguise itself in all its workings. Enloe claims that we must always ask about patriarchy's role in something to see what is really playing out in society. For her own case study, Enloe is looking how her own girlhood was feminized subtly. She ends with the relationship between patriarchy, demilitarization, and women in these zones such as in Turkey, Japan, and Korea where their own cultural patriarchy has mixed with American military patriarchy to continue patriarchy's reign in those postwar societies.
In Chapter 1 "The Surprised Feminist," Enloe discusses how feminism shies away from surprise because people negatively connote being surprised with being inexperienced and incredible - in other words, being surprised makes you look bad because as a credible source, you are supposed to know and understand everything related to your cause. Enloe summarizes this social construct that "[i]t is as if admitting surprise jeopardized one's hard-earned credibility. And credibility, something necessarily bestowed by others, is the bedrock of status (13)." Since feminists' credibility is on shaky ground especially during this time with such anti-feminist leaning and enlightened sexism becoming the accepted norm, admitting that we can be surprised seems to undermine our credibility so our opponents could use it against us (aka "I thought you said you knew what was best. How can you said you know best when you don't even know what is happening?"). However, Enloe asserts that feminists' capacity to be and willingness to admit surprise is something we need to prepare ourselves for the future. She provides a list of events she was not expecting to ever happen, saying that "[t]he ways particular women of distinct citizenship statuses, social classes, ethnic groups, and racialized identities respond to each of these events is certain to determine the respective depth or shallowness of its long-term consequences in the twenty-first century (14-15)." In other words, the circumstances of the women reacting to these surprising events shape how these events' consequences reverberate through society. She says that her surprise that these events and others is what allowed her to step back and see connections and influences that affected these events that she did not see or pay attention to before - "[a]dmitting my surprise is the only way I am going to be able to take fresh stock of my feminist analyses of developments both far afield and close to home (16)." Surprise allows feminists to see what previous theories or concepts can explain or fit the surprising event or if new explanations are needed, which sponsors thinking outside the box. To admit surprise, even in the name of new thinking, is very hard for oneself, never mind in a classroom, conference, or meeting in front of people. Enloe concludes by saying that we need to resist our immediate response to deny surprise or embrace cynicism when we hear news about patriarchy's continuing perpetuation; instead, we need to not only recognize patriarchy at work, but also how, why, where, when, and who. Feminists need to question if patriarchy in each event has been challenged and where its source and implementation is coming from in place of reiterating the same-old patriarchy theory and knowledge. Only by embracing surprise can feminists really immerse themselves into genuine curiosity, broaden their conversations and horizons, and adapt to the coming future.
In Chapter 1 "The Surprised Feminist," Enloe discusses how feminism shies away from surprise because people negatively connote being surprised with being inexperienced and incredible - in other words, being surprised makes you look bad because as a credible source, you are supposed to know and understand everything related to your cause. Enloe summarizes this social construct that "[i]t is as if admitting surprise jeopardized one's hard-earned credibility. And credibility, something necessarily bestowed by others, is the bedrock of status (13)." Since feminists' credibility is on shaky ground especially during this time with such anti-feminist leaning and enlightened sexism becoming the accepted norm, admitting that we can be surprised seems to undermine our credibility so our opponents could use it against us (aka "I thought you said you knew what was best. How can you said you know best when you don't even know what is happening?"). However, Enloe asserts that feminists' capacity to be and willingness to admit surprise is something we need to prepare ourselves for the future. She provides a list of events she was not expecting to ever happen, saying that "[t]he ways particular women of distinct citizenship statuses, social classes, ethnic groups, and racialized identities respond to each of these events is certain to determine the respective depth or shallowness of its long-term consequences in the twenty-first century (14-15)." In other words, the circumstances of the women reacting to these surprising events shape how these events' consequences reverberate through society. She says that her surprise that these events and others is what allowed her to step back and see connections and influences that affected these events that she did not see or pay attention to before - "[a]dmitting my surprise is the only way I am going to be able to take fresh stock of my feminist analyses of developments both far afield and close to home (16)." Surprise allows feminists to see what previous theories or concepts can explain or fit the surprising event or if new explanations are needed, which sponsors thinking outside the box. To admit surprise, even in the name of new thinking, is very hard for oneself, never mind in a classroom, conference, or meeting in front of people. Enloe concludes by saying that we need to resist our immediate response to deny surprise or embrace cynicism when we hear news about patriarchy's continuing perpetuation; instead, we need to not only recognize patriarchy at work, but also how, why, where, when, and who. Feminists need to question if patriarchy in each event has been challenged and where its source and implementation is coming from in place of reiterating the same-old patriarchy theory and knowledge. Only by embracing surprise can feminists really immerse themselves into genuine curiosity, broaden their conversations and horizons, and adapt to the coming future.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Femicides of Juarez in Mexico
Juarez, the border city to El, Paso Texas is known for being “a criminal’s playground” (Sarria). Juarez City is located in the border state known as Chihuahua which is where my family immigrated from and still most of my family remain. Since I can remember this state has encountered large amounts of crime starting with the femicides (homicides towards women) that began in 1993 until today with the major drug cartels that continue to reek havoc. “Femicides of Juarez: Violence Against Women in Mexico” by Nidya Sarria was a useful article that I found on a website called CommonDreams.org when doing research on the topic. This topic has become a fascination for many writers and movie producers. In 2006 a movie named Bordertown came out based on this story of the femicides that were occurring in Juarez starring famous actors such as Jennifer Lopez, Martin Sheen, and Antonio Bandera. The most interesting part about this whole story is that up to now, nobody has been able to solve the mystery to find the individuals responsible for these crimes.
The reported number of murders from “1993 to 2008 is up to 576” (Lezra). Teresa Rodriguez, author of the book “Daughters of Juarez” based on these femicides, researched the subject and she claims that “Mexican authorities file approximately one-eighth of all the reports- the actual number is closer to 5,000” (Lezra). According to the Organization of American State’s Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the victims were usually reported missing by their families “with their bodies found days or months later abandoned in vacant lots, outlying areas or in the desert. In most of these cases there were signs of sexual violence, abuse, torture, or in some cases mutilation” (Sarria). Most of the women targeted in these femicides worked at maquiladoras, “factories that import materials for assembly and then re-export the assembled product, to become a fixed aspect of the local and national economy” (Sarria). These factories are internationally owned and came about after the signing of NAFTA in which predominantly U.S. owned corporations were allowed to establish their factory corporations across the border in Mexico thus guaranteeing cheaper labor. As a result many families, especially women from poor towns flocked from small towns in the interior of Mexico to the border-city of Juarez in search for jobs in these factories which mostly hired women. These female maquila workers were the targeted victims for the homicides and most of the one’s killed fit a similar prototype: “most between the ages 12 and 23, slim, short, dark-haired and dark skinned” (Gaspar de Alba).
The indigenous population in Mexico has historically suffered the most discrimination and continues to be the poorest in the country, thus many of the women that went to work at the maquilas were of indigenous backgrounds because many were poor and needed jobs to maintain their families. Some think that these murders are explicit hate crimes since most of he women fit the same physical profile. A racial hierarchy continues to exist in Mexico although it is not explicitly in place, but there continues to be much discrimination that occurs towards the indigenous population, one of the biggest example is the taking away of their lands by the government. The only reason I could think of as to why these murder cases have not been solved and authorities have not put much emphasis on following through with these cases is because the victims have three factor working against them; they are: 1)women, 2) indigenous, and 3) come from poor backgrounds. Machismo is a mentality of male gender hierarchy which has prevailed in Mexican culture in which a man is given more value because he is seen as the head of the household. Many of the male authorities which rule Mexico such as the government and police continue to maintain this machista mentality which is another reason why these minority femicide crimes are not a priority. It is ridiculous to see that these crimes have not been stopped and that those responsible have not been caught yet after so many years of supposed investigation by big groups such as the Mexican government itself, Amnesty International, the United Nations, grassroot organization protests, and even some FBI involvement (Gaspar de Alba). It is obvious that the authorities and police department are all corrupt and are either in some way involved with the murders or are getting paid off to get rid of the evidence. Corruption in Mexico especially in the state of Chihuahua has lately been at an all time high. It all started with these femicides and now this border state is best known for its massive drug cartels that are are running things because the government cannot place order, but most likely the government/police may even be involved.
When looking into this topic of the femicides and why these women remain working in the maquiladoras regardless of horrible working conditions and risks on their life, it reminded me of the chapter in Cynthia Enloe’s book the Curious Feminist called “Daughters and Generals in the Politics of the Globalized Sneaker.” In that chapter Enloe spoke about how the corporations would exploit the Korean women working in their factories by using their culture to manipulate them such as dowry practices and “good daughter” responsibilities. The same happens in Mexico by the U.S. owned factories on the indigenous women who are usually submissive and continue to have the mentality that the male is the authority because many have not received an education and are extremely poor, thus the companies use this cultural mentality in their benefit to impose longer working hours and lower wages on these women because they know they will not retaliate. These woman are seen as mere forms of variable capital thus taking away from their humanity which is probably another reason why the government also does not put much focus into investigating the cases of their murders. It was said that many of the reporters that looked deep into these murder cases received death threats or were even killed themselves. Unfortunately, the investigations for these femicides became overshadowed by those of the drug trade and drug cartel investigations. Thus the femicides of Juarez remain a mystery.
Work Cited
Enloe, Cynthia. The Curious Feminist. California: University of California Press, 2004.
Gaspar de Alba, Alicia. “ About the Femicides- Desert Blood: The Juarez Murders.” DesertBlood.net.
Lezra, Amands. “Mexican Government Perpetuates Ongoing Femicides in Juarez.” DrewAcorn. com. April 30, 2010. December 1, 2010.
Sarria, Nidya. “Femicides of Juarez: Violence Against Women in Mexico.” CommonDreams.org. August 3, 2009. December 1, 2010.
The reported number of murders from “1993 to 2008 is up to 576” (Lezra). Teresa Rodriguez, author of the book “Daughters of Juarez” based on these femicides, researched the subject and she claims that “Mexican authorities file approximately one-eighth of all the reports- the actual number is closer to 5,000” (Lezra). According to the Organization of American State’s Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the victims were usually reported missing by their families “with their bodies found days or months later abandoned in vacant lots, outlying areas or in the desert. In most of these cases there were signs of sexual violence, abuse, torture, or in some cases mutilation” (Sarria). Most of the women targeted in these femicides worked at maquiladoras, “factories that import materials for assembly and then re-export the assembled product, to become a fixed aspect of the local and national economy” (Sarria). These factories are internationally owned and came about after the signing of NAFTA in which predominantly U.S. owned corporations were allowed to establish their factory corporations across the border in Mexico thus guaranteeing cheaper labor. As a result many families, especially women from poor towns flocked from small towns in the interior of Mexico to the border-city of Juarez in search for jobs in these factories which mostly hired women. These female maquila workers were the targeted victims for the homicides and most of the one’s killed fit a similar prototype: “most between the ages 12 and 23, slim, short, dark-haired and dark skinned” (Gaspar de Alba).
The indigenous population in Mexico has historically suffered the most discrimination and continues to be the poorest in the country, thus many of the women that went to work at the maquilas were of indigenous backgrounds because many were poor and needed jobs to maintain their families. Some think that these murders are explicit hate crimes since most of he women fit the same physical profile. A racial hierarchy continues to exist in Mexico although it is not explicitly in place, but there continues to be much discrimination that occurs towards the indigenous population, one of the biggest example is the taking away of their lands by the government. The only reason I could think of as to why these murder cases have not been solved and authorities have not put much emphasis on following through with these cases is because the victims have three factor working against them; they are: 1)women, 2) indigenous, and 3) come from poor backgrounds. Machismo is a mentality of male gender hierarchy which has prevailed in Mexican culture in which a man is given more value because he is seen as the head of the household. Many of the male authorities which rule Mexico such as the government and police continue to maintain this machista mentality which is another reason why these minority femicide crimes are not a priority. It is ridiculous to see that these crimes have not been stopped and that those responsible have not been caught yet after so many years of supposed investigation by big groups such as the Mexican government itself, Amnesty International, the United Nations, grassroot organization protests, and even some FBI involvement (Gaspar de Alba). It is obvious that the authorities and police department are all corrupt and are either in some way involved with the murders or are getting paid off to get rid of the evidence. Corruption in Mexico especially in the state of Chihuahua has lately been at an all time high. It all started with these femicides and now this border state is best known for its massive drug cartels that are are running things because the government cannot place order, but most likely the government/police may even be involved.
When looking into this topic of the femicides and why these women remain working in the maquiladoras regardless of horrible working conditions and risks on their life, it reminded me of the chapter in Cynthia Enloe’s book the Curious Feminist called “Daughters and Generals in the Politics of the Globalized Sneaker.” In that chapter Enloe spoke about how the corporations would exploit the Korean women working in their factories by using their culture to manipulate them such as dowry practices and “good daughter” responsibilities. The same happens in Mexico by the U.S. owned factories on the indigenous women who are usually submissive and continue to have the mentality that the male is the authority because many have not received an education and are extremely poor, thus the companies use this cultural mentality in their benefit to impose longer working hours and lower wages on these women because they know they will not retaliate. These woman are seen as mere forms of variable capital thus taking away from their humanity which is probably another reason why the government also does not put much focus into investigating the cases of their murders. It was said that many of the reporters that looked deep into these murder cases received death threats or were even killed themselves. Unfortunately, the investigations for these femicides became overshadowed by those of the drug trade and drug cartel investigations. Thus the femicides of Juarez remain a mystery.
Work Cited
Enloe, Cynthia. The Curious Feminist. California: University of California Press, 2004.
Gaspar de Alba, Alicia. “ About the Femicides- Desert Blood: The Juarez Murders.” DesertBlood.net.
Lezra, Amands. “Mexican Government Perpetuates Ongoing Femicides in Juarez.” DrewAcorn. com. April 30, 2010. December 1, 2010.
Sarria, Nidya. “Femicides of Juarez: Violence Against Women in Mexico.” CommonDreams.org. August 3, 2009. December 1, 2010.
Friday, December 3, 2010
News Flash: "My Life Is Bro"
In our society today, patriarchy is reinforced through overly aggressive actions by men towards women, due to men feeling disempowered and intimidated by the rise of feminism and women’s ability to speak up and fight for equality. This phenomenon is very clearly illustrated through a website titled “Mylifeisbro.com”, where “lax bros” post funny comments, in a similar fashion to sites such as “Texts From Last Night” and “F My Life.” People can click “Chill” or “Not Chill” after reading the comments and deciding whether they approve of the statement or think it is funny or cool. This medium acts as a way through which the general public can view men’s attitudes, including their derogatory comments towards women, and can see how the world around them reacts to the statements made.
Before getting into the principles of this website and how it is representative of the emasculation of men in our culture today, I believe that it is first important to define one of the words in the website: “Bro.” In the connotation of this website title, bro is considered the same thing as a “lax bro.” According to Urban Dictionary, “A lax bro is a guy who plays lacrosse and fully embraces the culture. Commonly found in Maryland, many also spend their time laxin’, going to Catholic schools, and boating… Lax bros will often get together for a lax sesh, which usually includes the following: some brews, some bowls, babes, Dispatch, O.A.R., hemp anklets, board shorts, lax jerseys, polos, rainbow flip flops, etc.” Obviously, not all boys who play lacrosse enjoy these specific activities or act in this manner, but this stereotypical lax bro lifestyle is the one that MLIB perpetuates.
One comment posted on MLIB is as follows: “I’m an intern at a business. I went to a meeting. The meeting ended, the bitches left, and all the bros stayed for another meeting. Women can’t make decisions. MLIB.” 84 readers thought this statement was chill, and 11 didn’t. I found this statement to be very disrespectful when first reading it, but couldn’t instantaneously tell why. After examining why I was so appalled by this comment by a random bro, I came to the conclusion that it was because he is pretty much saying that women have no voice and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Whether or not this bro seriously means what he is saying, it still propagates oppression, which is the immobilization of human beings due to their identity. I’m a major proponent of women succeeding in the workplace, and the fact that some women are put in a situation where they can not make a real impact in their jobs is very offensive because it is an act of silencing.
The common themes that were displayed on MLIB included references to girls as hoes, bitches, sluts, and slampieces, the importance of natty light in a bro’s life, comments on how women belong in the kitchen, should not hold serious jobs, are pretty much equal to objects, and should live to serve men (one said that the female diet should consist of cum and sandwiches). One example of a comment on the website which represents the constant references to women’s place in the house is this one: “Today my son asked me why brides wear white. I told him because the dishwasher needs to match the fridge and the stove. MLIB”. This posting received 145 Chill votes and 17 Not Chill votes, which I found very surprising. Why would the public, or at least the people who read this website, be so supportive of this derogatory attitude towards women? This unconcealed approval of this sexist viewpoint is dangerous because it makes others think that it is acceptable to treat women like they are objects who belong in the kitchen to serve men.
Another example of this disrespectful attitude towards women is as follows in a comment posted by a user of MLIB: “Today in class, some bitch was getting pissed at our jokes about women in kitchens. Later that day, I went to my local deli and got a sandwich. Who made me that sandwich you ask? That same bitch. It was sweet. MLIB.” 485 readers thought that this was a “Chill” situation, while 14 did not. This post describes a man putting women in their place, which according to this bro is the kitchen. Women have struggled for decades to break out of the stereotypical role of the stay-at-home mom, but apparently this progress has not become apparent to the male population.
In order to write this newsflash, it was only necessary for me to read through a few pages to get the sufficient amount of posts to support my argument. Surprisingly, it was hard for me to stop myself after reading more than twenty pages of the website. I found myself laughing at posts that were completely offensive to my gender and wanting to keep reading on to hear what these men had to say. Why did I keep reading? Why did I find such insulting and distasteful comments appealing? Perhaps Susan Douglas’ concept of enlightened sexism is true. Although I think that these stereotypes are okay because they are untrue and that we’ve proven them wrong and can therefore joke about them, it is possible that the sexist messages present in MLIB are actually having an impact on how I view women and perceive my own role in society. It is crucial to ask ourselves, “Are we really past that?” According to the overwhelming amount of “Chill” clicks on these posts, the public believes that we are.
After emerging myself in the MLIB website, I noticed a strong connection of the men’s attitudes to another event we learned about in class: the DKE incident at Yale. When the DKE pledges paraded around campus and specifically the Women’s Center chanting, “No means yes, yes means anal,” I saw this as an indication that men were uncomfortable with women’s rise of power, and that they felt that their masculinity was being threatened. In both MLIB and the DKE incident, men felt that it was necessary to try and put down women and the progress that they are making in the world. After reading Michael Kimmel’s article titled “Men—And Women—At Yale,” it seems that he would strongly agree with me. In this article, Kimmel states that, “we can see the men of DKE at Yale not as a bunch of angry predators, asserting their dominance, but as a more pathetic bunch of guys who see themselves as powerless losers, trying to re-establish a sexual landscape which they feel has been thrown terribly off its axis” (Kimmel 2010).
In conclusion, I saw these assertions by men as desperate struggles to attain power and regain their masculinity, which was previously threatened by women’s rise of power. I think it’s very interesting to examine how both women and men act in their respective social roles and react to women’s desire for equality in a world that is “still marred by gender inequality” (Kimmel 2010). This News Flash, more than any other, made me desperately want everyone to be treated as humans without the concept of gender maiming their life experience.
Works Cited
Kimmel, Michael Cebook. "Men -- and Women -- at Yale." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. 20 Oct. 2010. Web. 04 Dec. 2010.
Susan J. Douglass, Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work is Done, 1st edition, Times Books.
Newsflash: Stereotypes, Stereotypes: Rapists as Victims, Rape Victims as Sinners
Rape is something that continually occupies that dark place at the back of a woman’s mind because it is a horrible, stigmatizing, traumatizing act that she can be subjected to anytime, anywhere without warning, as Emilie Morgan knows all too well (Morgan 33-39). Although men can be and are raped by women as well as by other men and deserve attention and support, the overwhelming majority of reported rapes are women who were raped by men, which sends the very real message that no women are ever completely safe. Women are disproportionately vulnerable to rape because modern society is a rape culture where rape and violence against women is tacitly expected and accepted; therefore, rape is not always considered to be the heinous crime and violation of a woman’s privacy and power that it is. Thankfully, rape awareness has increased dramatically, so more rape victims are able to report these crimes, receive counseling and support, and erase the stereotypes, misinformation, and denial that surrounds rape, the victims, and the perpetrators. Until society recognizes what factors are really at fault for this rape culture – like patriarchy which includes rape-culture-friendly aspects like unequal power dynamics in which men hold more power than women, lack of information and communication, and cleverly hidden approval of women’s second-class status in various media like movies, advertisements, and magazines – and pledges to acknowledge and remove them, rape with its inevitable helpers of fear and shame will continue to be a devastatingly effective tool to keep women firmly in fear of and behind men in power and equality.
One of the overarching themes that rape awareness has undertaken to spread is the message that the rape victim is never at fault, no matter what the circumstances were, and that a woman is never “asking for” rape or insinuating that she wants to be raped through her actions, words, or dress. However, there are some people and groups that believe that female rape victims are at least partially or fully responsible for being raped because of certain decisions she made or did not make, a reasoning that has earned the label “victim-blaming.” Victim-blaming both by the victims themselves and others takes away women’s power to make choices and turns people away from seeing rape victims as they are – victims that need to be helped and loved. Morgan even said herself that when she was raped a second time that “[i]n those three years, I had fully internalized the view that a woman is somehow to blame if she is raped…Although I held him ultimately responsible, I couldn’t help scrutinizing my behavior. I had consented to everything up until that point. I knew what my limits were, but it’s possible I didn’t make myself clear to him. Maybe the word no wasn’t enough (Morgan 36).” An agent of this victim-blaming propaganda, a pamphlet declaring that the way a woman dresses invites rape because it inspires uncontrollable lust in men, reinforces incorrect stereotypes for both men and women, thereby supporting patriarchy with its unequal power dynamics and rape culture at large.
This pamphlet, entitled Women and Girls by an anonymous writer or group, has been handed out in various places in Tennessee. Keshia Canter recalled that she was handed the pamphlet by a woman that she was serving food to at her mother’s Hi-Lo Burger’s drive-thru window (Galofaro). She recalled the woman saying “‘Even though nothing is showing [in reference to her clothes], you’re being ungodly. You make men want to be sinful’ (Galofaro).” The pamphlet told Keshia that she has been given this pamphlet because of her attire since women wearing tight-fitting or skimpy clothing make men lustful (Galofaro). In other words, this pamphlet states that it is essentially women’s fault that men sin and thus deserve retribution (Galofaro). It goes on to assert that “‘Scripture tells us that when a man looks on a woman to lust for her he has already committed adultery in his heart. If you are dressed in a way that tempts men to do this secret (or not so secret) sin, you are a participant in the sin…By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?’ (Galofaro).” This pamphlet’s disturbing, victim-blaming message has angered and worried many women because of its offensive nature and the possibility of it being distributed to actual rape victims to convince them to not report being raped, blame themselves, and stop them from seeking help. Media perpetuating victim-blaming like this pamphlet would isolate rape victims from help that they need and obscure the fact that patriarchy, not women and the way they dress, is really at fault for modern society’s rape culture.
This pamphlet propagates stereotypes about women and myths about rape that would effectively keep rape culture in place if women and men continued to believe them. Firstly, the pamphlet stereotypes women as evil, sin-inducing temptresses who display their attractiveness through their clothes (or lack thereof) whether they do it purposely or inadvertently. By casting women in this age-old stereotype as heartless, conniving people who use their sexuality to manipulate men – even though society tells women to do just that to obtain the power women have so desperately wanted, as Douglas keenly points out (Douglas 156-157) – the people behind this pamphlet cleverly invert the power dynamics between men and women and make this inverted model seem like actual reality. Women are really the ones with power because they are the ones who possess the powerful weapon of sexuality which can inspire lust and sinful thoughts in men. They dictate how men act, so if men rape, it is because women made them rape. Because women are really the ones in charge, they have to take responsibility for men’s actions in response to their sexuality. If women are not aware of how they could incite lust through their dress, it is their fault for not being aware of something they should have been. By supporting the illusion that women have all the sexual power and thus control what men will and will not do sexually, the pamphlet takes away male rapists’ responsibility for their crime by decriminalizing their raping act. This pamphlet places the fault on the female rape victims because of some power that they do not possess, which is grossly inaccurate considering that men are actually the ones who hold power over women sexually and beyond.
The pamphlet’s horribly disturbing victim-blaming message does not only hurt all women personally and socially, but also harms men by insulting their humanity by lumping all of them into one big group of slobbering beasts that are ruled by their sex drives. The pamphlet’s enthusiastic embrace of very common male stereotypes –in particular, that all men are ruled by their lower anatomy and thus have no control whatsoever of their actions because all they desire, think about, obsess over, is sexual pleasure –is extremely dangerous in two main ways. It further absolves men of their responsibility in the entire realm of sex, including sexual decisions and actions, as previously done in the pamphlet’s stereotyping of women as powerful demons who incite men to sin. By relegating men to little more than animals, which do not think about their actions and rely almost purely on instinct, any shred of responsibility that people could still tag onto male rapists for their actions even after agreeing with the women-have-power, women-are-responsible stance is lost. However, by relegating men to animals, the pamphlet disregards all the men in society who have not raped women, who think rape is wrong and horrific, who think that female rape victims are victims and need help, who treat women with respect and dignity; it actually nullifies the possibility that such men exist because all men, no matter how gentlemanly or nice they seem, are really just beasts inside straining to break the chains of propriety and have sex with every female they see. This pamphlet’s logic strips men of any good qualities they possess, ignoring many men’s self-control, and ultimately, maintaining the inaccurate belief that men have no depth, thoughts, or ideas beyond sex.
This pamphlet is dangerous and disturbing on so many levels because of its wrongness about or distortion of women, men, rape, and society. It blames women for being raped by asserting that they have sexual power and choice that they do not possess. It inverts power dynamics which makes it seem as though patriarchy does not exist, which obviously deflects men and women’s awareness of patriarchy and how it orients society about female inequality and silencing. It pigeonholes men into sex-obsessed pigs with no higher thought or ambitions who cannot control themselves from raping a beautiful, skimpy-clad woman because they do not have the willpower to do so. By promulgating these untrue stereotypes, this pamphlet – along with any other victim-blaming propaganda – allows the real culprit of patriarchy to remain undisturbed in the shadows and the real result of rape culture to thrive unfettered.
Works Cited
Douglas, Susan J. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work Is Done. New York: Times Books, 2010.
Galofaro, Claire. “Blame the Victim: Religious Leaflet Claims ‘Ungodly’ Dressed Women Provoke Rape.” TriCities.com: Your TriCities News Source. Feb 28 2010. Dec 3 2010. < http://www2.tricities.com/news/2010/feb/28/blame_the_victim_religious_leaflet_claims_ungodly_-ar-236411/>.
Morgan, Emilie. “Don’t Call Me a Survivor.” Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generation. Ed. Barbara Findlen. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press, 2001.
MtJoy, Roxann. “Disturbing Rape Victim-Blaming Pamphlet Handed Out in Tennessee.” Change.org. Mar 2 2010. Dec 3 2010. < http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/disturbing_rape_victim-blaming_pamphlet_handed_out_in_tennessee>.
One of the overarching themes that rape awareness has undertaken to spread is the message that the rape victim is never at fault, no matter what the circumstances were, and that a woman is never “asking for” rape or insinuating that she wants to be raped through her actions, words, or dress. However, there are some people and groups that believe that female rape victims are at least partially or fully responsible for being raped because of certain decisions she made or did not make, a reasoning that has earned the label “victim-blaming.” Victim-blaming both by the victims themselves and others takes away women’s power to make choices and turns people away from seeing rape victims as they are – victims that need to be helped and loved. Morgan even said herself that when she was raped a second time that “[i]n those three years, I had fully internalized the view that a woman is somehow to blame if she is raped…Although I held him ultimately responsible, I couldn’t help scrutinizing my behavior. I had consented to everything up until that point. I knew what my limits were, but it’s possible I didn’t make myself clear to him. Maybe the word no wasn’t enough (Morgan 36).” An agent of this victim-blaming propaganda, a pamphlet declaring that the way a woman dresses invites rape because it inspires uncontrollable lust in men, reinforces incorrect stereotypes for both men and women, thereby supporting patriarchy with its unequal power dynamics and rape culture at large.
This pamphlet, entitled Women and Girls by an anonymous writer or group, has been handed out in various places in Tennessee. Keshia Canter recalled that she was handed the pamphlet by a woman that she was serving food to at her mother’s Hi-Lo Burger’s drive-thru window (Galofaro). She recalled the woman saying “‘Even though nothing is showing [in reference to her clothes], you’re being ungodly. You make men want to be sinful’ (Galofaro).” The pamphlet told Keshia that she has been given this pamphlet because of her attire since women wearing tight-fitting or skimpy clothing make men lustful (Galofaro). In other words, this pamphlet states that it is essentially women’s fault that men sin and thus deserve retribution (Galofaro). It goes on to assert that “‘Scripture tells us that when a man looks on a woman to lust for her he has already committed adultery in his heart. If you are dressed in a way that tempts men to do this secret (or not so secret) sin, you are a participant in the sin…By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?’ (Galofaro).” This pamphlet’s disturbing, victim-blaming message has angered and worried many women because of its offensive nature and the possibility of it being distributed to actual rape victims to convince them to not report being raped, blame themselves, and stop them from seeking help. Media perpetuating victim-blaming like this pamphlet would isolate rape victims from help that they need and obscure the fact that patriarchy, not women and the way they dress, is really at fault for modern society’s rape culture.
This pamphlet propagates stereotypes about women and myths about rape that would effectively keep rape culture in place if women and men continued to believe them. Firstly, the pamphlet stereotypes women as evil, sin-inducing temptresses who display their attractiveness through their clothes (or lack thereof) whether they do it purposely or inadvertently. By casting women in this age-old stereotype as heartless, conniving people who use their sexuality to manipulate men – even though society tells women to do just that to obtain the power women have so desperately wanted, as Douglas keenly points out (Douglas 156-157) – the people behind this pamphlet cleverly invert the power dynamics between men and women and make this inverted model seem like actual reality. Women are really the ones with power because they are the ones who possess the powerful weapon of sexuality which can inspire lust and sinful thoughts in men. They dictate how men act, so if men rape, it is because women made them rape. Because women are really the ones in charge, they have to take responsibility for men’s actions in response to their sexuality. If women are not aware of how they could incite lust through their dress, it is their fault for not being aware of something they should have been. By supporting the illusion that women have all the sexual power and thus control what men will and will not do sexually, the pamphlet takes away male rapists’ responsibility for their crime by decriminalizing their raping act. This pamphlet places the fault on the female rape victims because of some power that they do not possess, which is grossly inaccurate considering that men are actually the ones who hold power over women sexually and beyond.
The pamphlet’s horribly disturbing victim-blaming message does not only hurt all women personally and socially, but also harms men by insulting their humanity by lumping all of them into one big group of slobbering beasts that are ruled by their sex drives. The pamphlet’s enthusiastic embrace of very common male stereotypes –in particular, that all men are ruled by their lower anatomy and thus have no control whatsoever of their actions because all they desire, think about, obsess over, is sexual pleasure –is extremely dangerous in two main ways. It further absolves men of their responsibility in the entire realm of sex, including sexual decisions and actions, as previously done in the pamphlet’s stereotyping of women as powerful demons who incite men to sin. By relegating men to little more than animals, which do not think about their actions and rely almost purely on instinct, any shred of responsibility that people could still tag onto male rapists for their actions even after agreeing with the women-have-power, women-are-responsible stance is lost. However, by relegating men to animals, the pamphlet disregards all the men in society who have not raped women, who think rape is wrong and horrific, who think that female rape victims are victims and need help, who treat women with respect and dignity; it actually nullifies the possibility that such men exist because all men, no matter how gentlemanly or nice they seem, are really just beasts inside straining to break the chains of propriety and have sex with every female they see. This pamphlet’s logic strips men of any good qualities they possess, ignoring many men’s self-control, and ultimately, maintaining the inaccurate belief that men have no depth, thoughts, or ideas beyond sex.
This pamphlet is dangerous and disturbing on so many levels because of its wrongness about or distortion of women, men, rape, and society. It blames women for being raped by asserting that they have sexual power and choice that they do not possess. It inverts power dynamics which makes it seem as though patriarchy does not exist, which obviously deflects men and women’s awareness of patriarchy and how it orients society about female inequality and silencing. It pigeonholes men into sex-obsessed pigs with no higher thought or ambitions who cannot control themselves from raping a beautiful, skimpy-clad woman because they do not have the willpower to do so. By promulgating these untrue stereotypes, this pamphlet – along with any other victim-blaming propaganda – allows the real culprit of patriarchy to remain undisturbed in the shadows and the real result of rape culture to thrive unfettered.
Works Cited
Douglas, Susan J. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work Is Done. New York: Times Books, 2010.
Galofaro, Claire. “Blame the Victim: Religious Leaflet Claims ‘Ungodly’ Dressed Women Provoke Rape.” TriCities.com: Your TriCities News Source. Feb 28 2010. Dec 3 2010. < http://www2.tricities.com/news/2010/feb/28/blame_the_victim_religious_leaflet_claims_ungodly_-ar-236411/>.
Morgan, Emilie. “Don’t Call Me a Survivor.” Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generation. Ed. Barbara Findlen. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press, 2001.
MtJoy, Roxann. “Disturbing Rape Victim-Blaming Pamphlet Handed Out in Tennessee.” Change.org. Mar 2 2010. Dec 3 2010. < http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/disturbing_rape_victim-blaming_pamphlet_handed_out_in_tennessee>.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Follow-Up: Responding to Aridelle's Post 12/2/10
I found Lil Abu-Lughod's arguments in "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?" to be very a very interesting read, because her arguments related directly to my current life and my past experiences. She brings up a good point by questioning whether we really should become involved in Muslim women's lives. In a way, Muslim women are being silenced and oppressed in their culture by being forced to conform to social expectations enforced by a strict patriarchy. But if we look at the situation in a different light, our involvement and the concept of us pressuring Muslim women to act and live how we think is right is also a form of silencing them. Our involvement also may be unfair in the sense that our viewpoint on what constitutes as freedom and righteousness is strongly tainted by our own cultural ideals.
I can relate Abu-Lughod's piece to different areas in my life now through the reading that we are doing in Anthropology. In this class, we read a book titled "Women and Islamic Revival In a West African Town." One concept I could connect between our reading in WMST and the book I read in Anthro was how dominant males are in Islamic society. For example, we read in "Women and Islamic Revival" that while men congregate in groups at specific times in mosques to pray, women only pray isolated in their own homes, whenever they have time off from doing their house chores. Although there is an apparent imbalance of power and freedom between men and women, we must ask ourselves if intervening is the right thing to do. Do we really know what's best for Muslim women?
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Response to Aridelle's Post: 12/2/10
I reacted most to Bunch's article "Whose Security" because I both agreed and disagreed with her points. I believe that 9/11 and its reverberations throughout our nation have been twisted in ways to support some policies that are less than ideal or acceptable for lots of American citizens as well as foreigners. I couldn't help but think about the TSA scandal with the invasive pat-downs vs. intrusive body scan option that many travelers have to make when flying on airplanes. I have read articles and watched some videos about this new technology and every TSA official and even some randomly sampled people said generally "If it protects us/makes our national security better, then by all means." Who says it makes national security better if we don't even know the long-term effects of radiation sitting on the skin? Plus, I think that unless everyone goes through the scanner or some equally thorough search, they are not much help beyond discouraging terrorists from trying to take bombs or weapons onto planes on the off chance that they might get searched. What is the point of the scanners if you could easily let an armed terrorist go through because you just didn't end up picking him or her for the scanners? Also, national security prioritizes the state over individuals, a fact that these scanners' implementation obviously show - we invade your privacy to ensure all our safety. But when is the fine line between ensuring our protection and overstepping boundaries? I am not a conspiracy-spotter where I think everything the government does is leading us down a slippery slope, but even so we need to be aware of the balance between individual person, citizen or not, and state.
The main point I disagree with Bunch on is America's deteriorating commitment to human rights in wake of 9/11 - by us becoming hyper-aware to these countries where our attackers have their bases, we become more curious about them and in doing so uncover human rights violations that we didn't know existed there. Granted, the way we are going about things might not be the best way, but I think it was a bit strong for her to say that 9/11 has completely shifted our politics inward. It is technically the government's job to protect us, but protecting us doesn't mean a complete tradeoff of individual rights here and abroad - such a thing would be against the principles we were founded on.
The main point I disagree with Bunch on is America's deteriorating commitment to human rights in wake of 9/11 - by us becoming hyper-aware to these countries where our attackers have their bases, we become more curious about them and in doing so uncover human rights violations that we didn't know existed there. Granted, the way we are going about things might not be the best way, but I think it was a bit strong for her to say that 9/11 has completely shifted our politics inward. It is technically the government's job to protect us, but protecting us doesn't mean a complete tradeoff of individual rights here and abroad - such a thing would be against the principles we were founded on.
Identity Issues of Women in the Middle East 12/2/10
In Cynthia Enloe’s Chapter “Updating the Gendered Empire”, she observes the ways the government operates in regimes like that of Afghanistan and Iraq, very few think of researching women, but in reality it is important to study femininity in order to see the varieties of masculinity that come as a result. The problem with most governments is that they are still primarily masculinized, being that the representation of women is scarce due to their lack of education in many countries. Afghanistan and Iraq do not have a strong approach in their promotion in female education and although for example Iraq no longer has Sadam Hussein in power, very little has been done to help in the advancement of women due to the continuance of the masculinized nature of the government. Their are about two female representatives in the government committee in Afghanistan and of these two, one was shot and killed. Kabul which is the surviving female diplomat has received explicit threats, such as the beating of her son, in order to pull out of the government. Once again this is an explicit ways in which women in power in these countries continue to be harassed thus discouraging many women from taking these positions of power if their well-being is put at risk. Those educated Afghan and Iraqi women ask to be fully autonomous and effective citizens by being able to change the constitution and implementing rights for women such as: a mandatory education, freedom of speech, be able to vote and run for office, equal representation, etc. Unfortunately since there is a low number of female diplomats they hardly have a voice when it comes to ratifying their constitution. In Iraq many women activists were outraged to find out that not one of those few female diplomats were included in the committee towards ratifying Iraq’s new constitution. This goes to show how women are shunned by the political sphere, thus if they are shunned in knowing what goes on in the government since they are not allowed to participate. This brings in to play another issue in which this lack of knowledge/involvement, may produce lack of female interest since they think that their voices will not be heard then why put the effort. This lack of female support was especially seen at a rally in August 2003 made by the OWFI (Organization of Women’s freedom in Iraq) in which 60 people came out to demonstrate on the issue of violence against women. Unfortunately although this issue was crucial to women, there were more men involved. Then one must study the spheres in which women express their opinions which are more closely related with private spheres. The author gives the example of a beauty parlor shop in Iraq where women do discuss politics and are comfortable enough to voice their opinions among other women because they know their views will be heard and taken into account. This is the problem with these types of governments which do not make it a comfortable/equal environment for women to break out of the private sphere and partake in the public/political sphere. The United States supposedly has been trying to make strides in facilitating this for the women in these countries, yet very little advancements have been noticed. If anything there is a retrogression that is occurring as the author talks about how the older generation seemed to be able to get better education than the younger generation which is probably due to the theorizing that “With some wars and postwartimes women’s sphere of economic, social, and even political influence widens. With other wars and postwartimes those spheres dramatically shrink. The key casual factor here is whether the war-waging and postwar government is masculinist” (p. 297). Is the War in Iraq, which is fueled by a strong masculinized force, necessarily helping the advancement and liberation of women?
In the article by Lila Abu-Lughod, she talks about this liberation that the United States wants to help the women of Afghanistan and Iraq accomplish, but then their comes into question whether they really want that type of liberation. Since the American culture is completely different from those cultures in the middle east it is difficult to come up with a common ground to define the same type of liberation. The elimination of the Burka is stressed by the United States as a major factor towards eliminating the oppression of women and being able to give them a sense of personhood, and although some Afghan/Iraqi women may agree, there are other that will not let go of these symbolic cultural/religious traditions. Thus comes into question whether these Muslim women need saving. This is a difficult task, especially for the United States in coming to understand the immense differences in the women of these cultures from American women and their different views on how these Afghan/Iraqi women seek to achieve equality/liberation. The U.S. has to be knowledgable and understand their culture first, in order to even begin to help the people in it.
In the article by Lila Abu-Lughod, she talks about this liberation that the United States wants to help the women of Afghanistan and Iraq accomplish, but then their comes into question whether they really want that type of liberation. Since the American culture is completely different from those cultures in the middle east it is difficult to come up with a common ground to define the same type of liberation. The elimination of the Burka is stressed by the United States as a major factor towards eliminating the oppression of women and being able to give them a sense of personhood, and although some Afghan/Iraqi women may agree, there are other that will not let go of these symbolic cultural/religious traditions. Thus comes into question whether these Muslim women need saving. This is a difficult task, especially for the United States in coming to understand the immense differences in the women of these cultures from American women and their different views on how these Afghan/Iraqi women seek to achieve equality/liberation. The U.S. has to be knowledgable and understand their culture first, in order to even begin to help the people in it.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Response to Hannah's Post
In countries where Herak comes like Sarajevo, the mentality of male supremacy remains a constant thus a major military tactic in those countries is to suppress the people and women in particular through tactics such as rape. I am surprised to know that Herak had been punished for his crime and imprisoned although he mostly committed these atrocities due to military orders. Herak felt remorse, but unfortunately most of the horrible actions he did were done to establish his masculinity in order to gain respect from his comrades in the military. If he were to back down from raping or killing anyone he was commanded to, automatically his masculine credibility would be obliterated, thus one could say that peer pressure and acceptance by other men triggered most of his negative actions. The opposite occurs in the United States military in which the actual rape incidents happen among the comrades themselves. The United States he is supposedly more advanced in mentality and has gone through the whole feminist movement continues to undermine women as well. Many of the rape cases that occur by men sexually assaulting women officers/privates go unpunished and undetected. The difference with Herak’s case is that they would rape the enemy and trust their own, but in the case of these U.S. military officers there was no trust within the troops especially by the women because many had passed through some sort of sexual assault/harassment and did not have the support of the military in punishing those who committed the crimes. Another difference within the rape crimes is that in the U.S. army these rapes were not done to fulfill officer’s orders, they were done voluntarily by the officers; yet both Herak’s and the U.S. officers’ rapes were done to establish their masculinity.
Main Post Continued
In Cynthia Enloe's other chapter, "Spoils of War", she talks about the hiring of prostitutes by U.S. Soldiers in Japan, and how this behavior is permitted. This knowledge troubled me because even if prostitution is legal in that country, it may not be morally right. Many young girls are forced to go into prostitution in Japan against their own will, and I believe that the U.S. should stand against this business rather than supporting it. By allowing our soldiers to buy prostitutes, we are just promoting the male hierarchy and disrespect towards women and their bodies.
The two articles that Steven Lee Myers wrote in the New York Times coincided with the theme of male domination in Enloe's chapters. After reading these articles, I was shocked to learn of how common sexual assault and rape are in our military. In a system that is supposed to enforce justice, how can so many unfair acts exist in our troops? I don't think that women should be put in a situation where their own human rights are not respected, especially when fighting for their country. Sexual abuse in our troops is unacceptable, and there is no excuse for it.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Response to Hanna's Post: 11/29/10
In Myers' articles as well as in Enloe, the way that military men seem to treat women was extremely upsetting to me. I know that not all military men or soldiers rape or assault or stalk their female comrades or female citizens of whatever country they are occupying, but it really frightens me because they are really men with power - power that they can show off and easily get. They have much more access to various firearms and explosives and they, unlike some novice or civilian rapists or "assaulters", know how to use them very proficiently. They are usually much more in shape than the average civilian man because they have to be - they take great care in maintaining their physique and stamina, which makes them highly lethal predators if they turn down that route. For example, a woman who is being held down by a super-fit soldier has a very low chance of throwing him off versus a normal, lanky, more fat-than-muscle civilian doing the same thing. Also, they are trained in hand-to-hand combat - they have taken martial arts and probably know what nerves and blood vessels to pinch, what airways and organs to go for, and which bones to break to quickly subdue their enemies, which can easily morph into female victims. All of these circumstances and more make male soldiers inherently harder to fend off if they decide to rape or attack a woman. Plus the conditions are ripe to cause perfectly normal people to go off the deep end or let previous predators troll around without much care about being caught since commanders are focused on their missions. It really made my blood boil about how women felt that they couldn't or shouldn't report assault or rape because then their units or commanding officers would think that they were undermining the unit's mission or solidarity. Assault and rape is what undermines both these things - if women cannot trust their male comrades, the unit's cohesiveness falls apart because suspicions are high and bonding opportunities low. If the unit fails to work together, how can they hope of achieving their mission? I think that if commanders and female soldiers feel that way, they are just going to push down problems for the short term and then have a whole mess to deal with in the long term. If unit solidarity and ability to accomplish missions are the things that commanding officers are most concerned about, they need to foster environments where rape and sexual assaults are NOT tolerated, taken seriously, and can be easily reported stigma-free.
Plus it's all about the conditions. Those stressful conditions can make the male soldiers go batshit crazy, if you excuse my language; unfortunately, they can turn into rapists and assaulters because they are super-stressed, grieving, feel powerless in the chaos that is battle and war (hello, Ms. Steinem's "Supremacy Crimes"), feel powerless to protect friends, live up to expectations, or change a mistake. War is like the crockpot of doom - add stress, feeling powerless, close quarters and opportunity, 'insatiable' and often frustrated sex drives and testosterone, and ability to get away with rape or assault because of commanders' attitudes and army atmosphere of 'mission above all' to one normal man - and voila, one horrible rapist coming up. I'm sick of people blaming it all on the conditions. I'm sorry, but I have been under extreme stress in my life before and never have I gone around raping men as I please. I've found better outlets for my stress, like writing, reading, and running. Who says it's unavoidable, even expected, that male soldiers in war zones and bases assault women just because the harsh conditions make them lose it or slowly morph them into someone(thing) else? I find that hard to believe. Men, including soldiers, are not animals ruled by their lower anatomy; they, or at least most of them, have at least some shred of integrity and self-control. If war strips men of those things, why don't all army men rape and assault? Obviously not all male soldiers become rapists or assaulters. I don't think people should excuse or sympathize with male soldiers who raped or attacked women because they "just lost it" or "the stress got to them." Everyone is responsible for their actions and when you are held to high moral standards and given a position of power as you are in the military, you are expected to adhere to those standards and use your power wisely. With great power comes great responsibility and by ignoring or downplaying rapes in the military forces, we are absolving men of the responsibility inherent in their job and letting power run amok down the path of violence and fear.
Plus it's all about the conditions. Those stressful conditions can make the male soldiers go batshit crazy, if you excuse my language; unfortunately, they can turn into rapists and assaulters because they are super-stressed, grieving, feel powerless in the chaos that is battle and war (hello, Ms. Steinem's "Supremacy Crimes"), feel powerless to protect friends, live up to expectations, or change a mistake. War is like the crockpot of doom - add stress, feeling powerless, close quarters and opportunity, 'insatiable' and often frustrated sex drives and testosterone, and ability to get away with rape or assault because of commanders' attitudes and army atmosphere of 'mission above all' to one normal man - and voila, one horrible rapist coming up. I'm sick of people blaming it all on the conditions. I'm sorry, but I have been under extreme stress in my life before and never have I gone around raping men as I please. I've found better outlets for my stress, like writing, reading, and running. Who says it's unavoidable, even expected, that male soldiers in war zones and bases assault women just because the harsh conditions make them lose it or slowly morph them into someone(thing) else? I find that hard to believe. Men, including soldiers, are not animals ruled by their lower anatomy; they, or at least most of them, have at least some shred of integrity and self-control. If war strips men of those things, why don't all army men rape and assault? Obviously not all male soldiers become rapists or assaulters. I don't think people should excuse or sympathize with male soldiers who raped or attacked women because they "just lost it" or "the stress got to them." Everyone is responsible for their actions and when you are held to high moral standards and given a position of power as you are in the military, you are expected to adhere to those standards and use your power wisely. With great power comes great responsibility and by ignoring or downplaying rapes in the military forces, we are absolving men of the responsibility inherent in their job and letting power run amok down the path of violence and fear.
Main Post: "Men in Militias, Women as Victims"
In Chapter 7 of The Curious Feminist, Enloe begins by describing the life of Borislav Herak, a Sarajevan man with a pretty normal, yet unsuccessful life. Herak worked in a textile industry, pushing a cart in the early 1990’s. He did not have a very good romantic life; it mostly consisted of reading pornographic magazines in his room.
In 1991, Herak’s life changed because of the war that arrived in Sarajevo. He was forced to flee to the surrounding mountains of the city and join the militia due to his current circumstances, whose intent was to pursue ethnic Serbian territorial control. This militia also committed many crimes against women and other citizens. By late 1992, he was captured by Bosnian forces, who would try him for murder and mass rape.
The story of Borislav Herak leads Enloe to question how a “nobody” can transform into someone whose face is the icon for the “Bosnian rapes”. She look to examine “How ethnicity gets converted into nationalist consciousness, how consciousness becomes organized, and how organized nationalism becomes militarized” (Enloe 101) by first exploring gender. Because Herak was a man raised to think of himself as needing to be masculine, he was more likely to follow orders such as the command to rape and murder women. If he denied such demands, his masculinity would be called into question. When Herak was interviewed, he told how he was ordered to rape young women, and did so because it was what he had been trained to do. This scenario that Herak was in (willingly or unwillingly), was one in which there was a social expectation that men be not only aggressive, but sexually aggressive. This reading reminded me of the DKE incident, in which pledges for this fraternity paraded around campus reciting a chant that was sexually aggressive and supported rape. Enloe's examination of Borislav Herak is very representative of the cultural dynamic that coincides with abnormalities in society, such as political, social, economic or sexual struggles.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Main Post: Supremacy Crimes and Enloe for 11/22/10
In "Supremacy Crimes," Steinem looks at the alarming trend of violent crimes being committed by what the media calls 'our children,' which deceives us from seeing the real perpetrators of these horrific crimes - white, heterosexual, middle-class males, or what we would call the average guy. Steinem asserts that most of these crimes, including ones that have no motive other than to kill, are committed by these individuals so they feel powerful over other people. She says that "[w]ite males--usually intelligent, middle class, and heterosexual, or trying desperately to appear so--also account for virtually all the serial, sexually motivated, sadistic killings, those characterized by stalking, imprisoning, torturing, and "owning" victims in death," throwing out as examples women-murderers Ted Bundy and David Berkowitz. The reason that these killings are so monopolized by this "average white guy" group is due to the fact that these men are "most likely to become hooked on the drug of superiority," or in other words, they are addicted to feeling powerful especially when controlling other people's fates. They wish to create this feeling of superiority in more extreme ways because our materialistic, racist, patriarchal, heteronomative society tells them they deserve this power, that it is right and normal that they have and use it. They first settle into and revel in this awesome power they were just handed without any test or conditions - they see their having power as the natural order. Therefore, when they feel powerless in their lives, they see it as an abnormality or that their God-given superiority was wrongly snatched away from them - killing is an appropriate way to express their anger at this loss and regain their rightly-held power. Steinem argues that covering up these perpetrators' crimes and hiding behind their life experiences ignore a real cause of their behavior so society's "drug-murder" connection is never addressed; this act also marginalizes men who have rejected violence, which is possible for this stereotypically aggressive sex to do. She concedes that people of color and women do commit murders, but not nearly as many as white men do; when they murder or get murdered get dissected in terms of gender, socioeconomic status, and race, but not when this disproportion of white, male, middle-class murderers commit crimes. Why do people ignore all these factors when these more common scenarios of white men killing people - be it other white men, black people, women, gays and lesbians, transsexuals - happen in society? By ignoring the patriarchy in society, "[w]e will never reduce the number of violent Americans, from bullies to killers, without challenging the assumptions on which masculinity is based: that males are superior to females, that they must find a place in a male hierarchy, and that the ability to dominate someone is so important that even a mere insult can justify lethal revenge." Steinem concludes that until this view - namely, that males must show their power and superiority over others, especially women, and that they have the right or even the duty to restore this power to themselves through violent means - supremacy crimes will not stop.
In Enloe's "Whom Do You Take Seriously?," she delves into the meaning of silence and how the silencing of certain groups or people feeling silenced affect society and politics. She asks why certain people feel silenced - fear, indifference, valuing listening over contributing, etc. But "[r]egardless of the cause, silences rob the public of ideas, of the chance to create bonds of understanding and mutual trust (70)." These silences then transmit over to the political realm where we all need to speak as and be seriously listened to as citizens to build up and maintain a healthy political life. She uses current or recent democracy rallies in Southeast Asia as examples of peoples trying to make more voices heard and taken into consideration publicly. However, within these movements, some people or groups still feel and/or are silenced just by leaders' behavior and ideas. She then applies these ideas to how Asian-Pacific women are victims of violence. Summarizing the views of Hannah Arendt, Enloe asserts that Arendt and other political scientists believe female domesticity and sexuality are still considered "private" affairs that do not have a place in political and public debates. However, these and other female "private" matters must be discussed openly if we ever hope to overturn patriarchy and male dominance in politics. This dichotomy between public and private - and how women belong naturally in the private sphere and thus away from political life - is the first tool in silencing women's voices. By keeping women in the private sphere, violence and abuse against them is also regulated to this sphere and rarely talked about; government has been slow to catch up on laws and officials to protect women and female victims become doubly silenced with this threat of violence against them. "Together, these two silencings have set back genuine democratization as much as has any military coup or distortive electoral system (73)." Since women in these Southeast Asian countries are now challenging the violence they endure, democratization is now feasible since true democracy cannot flourish wherever rape or violence against women is ignored, denied, tolerated, or trivialized. Trivialization of a seemingly untrivializable occurance can occur in four ways - it can be explained as inevitable, so rare as to not merit state resources or time, unimportant compared to other concerns, and incredible because of the deficiency of the messengers. Enloe says that one tool used to silence women and trivialize violence against them is the idea of "respectability" because publicly speaking out against this isn't something a "respectable" woman would do, so anything she says about this violence is unimportant and not taken seriously. An example of women breaking this silence was in factories located in the Asian Pacific in the 1990s - they spoke out against sexual harassment, something that risked their "respectability" since male owners depended on selling the idea that single women working in factories would not jeopardize their respectability, dishonor her family, or reduce her chances at finding a husband, thereby being able to pay these women lower wages. However, all the main factors affecting factory women - wages, filial responsibility, consumer trends, marriageability, and political activities - determine the level of silence these women's experiences of sexual harassment are put under. Speaking out as a woman - about sexual harassment, no less - is a serious risk to these women's, not their abusers', reputations; people think that being abused and talking about it doubly lessens a woman's femininity and purity. Because of this stigma around sexual harassment, women have had to get creative in expressing their political sentiments publicly because conventional ways have been imbued with masculinized respectability and ideas (men should be involved with politics, not women, etc etc etc.); CAW in Hong Kong is one such example of this creativity. Enloe includes by saying that violence against women has been used as a rallying point for pro-national movements because it is seen as the government's inability to protect its weakest citizens, but more often violence against women has been interpreted as an insult or weakness to a nation and its regime, which "marginalizes women's own voices. their own political interpretations of that violence (80)." Therefore, "[w]omen's experiences of violence then have become politically acceptable only if those events could be converted into the dishonoring of the 'nation' (81)." If a woman's experience of violence does not feed into this view, her sharing this experience is destabilizing and should be discouraged. Sovereignty of a nation has also been used as a tool to silence women by preventing violence against women to be established as a violation of international laws protecting human rights. Finally, Enloe concludes by saying that just the fact that violence against women can and does win public recognition is not a good barometer for if that recognition is positive, authentic, or contributing to democratization and the end of patriarchy. She offers some questions as a barometer - are all forms of violence against women allowed public recognition, are women at risk for losing their respectability or credibility by speaking out, how important is this issue for the state, and if and how does the threat of violence continue to silence women?
In Enloe's "Whom Do You Take Seriously?," she delves into the meaning of silence and how the silencing of certain groups or people feeling silenced affect society and politics. She asks why certain people feel silenced - fear, indifference, valuing listening over contributing, etc. But "[r]egardless of the cause, silences rob the public of ideas, of the chance to create bonds of understanding and mutual trust (70)." These silences then transmit over to the political realm where we all need to speak as and be seriously listened to as citizens to build up and maintain a healthy political life. She uses current or recent democracy rallies in Southeast Asia as examples of peoples trying to make more voices heard and taken into consideration publicly. However, within these movements, some people or groups still feel and/or are silenced just by leaders' behavior and ideas. She then applies these ideas to how Asian-Pacific women are victims of violence. Summarizing the views of Hannah Arendt, Enloe asserts that Arendt and other political scientists believe female domesticity and sexuality are still considered "private" affairs that do not have a place in political and public debates. However, these and other female "private" matters must be discussed openly if we ever hope to overturn patriarchy and male dominance in politics. This dichotomy between public and private - and how women belong naturally in the private sphere and thus away from political life - is the first tool in silencing women's voices. By keeping women in the private sphere, violence and abuse against them is also regulated to this sphere and rarely talked about; government has been slow to catch up on laws and officials to protect women and female victims become doubly silenced with this threat of violence against them. "Together, these two silencings have set back genuine democratization as much as has any military coup or distortive electoral system (73)." Since women in these Southeast Asian countries are now challenging the violence they endure, democratization is now feasible since true democracy cannot flourish wherever rape or violence against women is ignored, denied, tolerated, or trivialized. Trivialization of a seemingly untrivializable occurance can occur in four ways - it can be explained as inevitable, so rare as to not merit state resources or time, unimportant compared to other concerns, and incredible because of the deficiency of the messengers. Enloe says that one tool used to silence women and trivialize violence against them is the idea of "respectability" because publicly speaking out against this isn't something a "respectable" woman would do, so anything she says about this violence is unimportant and not taken seriously. An example of women breaking this silence was in factories located in the Asian Pacific in the 1990s - they spoke out against sexual harassment, something that risked their "respectability" since male owners depended on selling the idea that single women working in factories would not jeopardize their respectability, dishonor her family, or reduce her chances at finding a husband, thereby being able to pay these women lower wages. However, all the main factors affecting factory women - wages, filial responsibility, consumer trends, marriageability, and political activities - determine the level of silence these women's experiences of sexual harassment are put under. Speaking out as a woman - about sexual harassment, no less - is a serious risk to these women's, not their abusers', reputations; people think that being abused and talking about it doubly lessens a woman's femininity and purity. Because of this stigma around sexual harassment, women have had to get creative in expressing their political sentiments publicly because conventional ways have been imbued with masculinized respectability and ideas (men should be involved with politics, not women, etc etc etc.); CAW in Hong Kong is one such example of this creativity. Enloe includes by saying that violence against women has been used as a rallying point for pro-national movements because it is seen as the government's inability to protect its weakest citizens, but more often violence against women has been interpreted as an insult or weakness to a nation and its regime, which "marginalizes women's own voices. their own political interpretations of that violence (80)." Therefore, "[w]omen's experiences of violence then have become politically acceptable only if those events could be converted into the dishonoring of the 'nation' (81)." If a woman's experience of violence does not feed into this view, her sharing this experience is destabilizing and should be discouraged. Sovereignty of a nation has also been used as a tool to silence women by preventing violence against women to be established as a violation of international laws protecting human rights. Finally, Enloe concludes by saying that just the fact that violence against women can and does win public recognition is not a good barometer for if that recognition is positive, authentic, or contributing to democratization and the end of patriarchy. She offers some questions as a barometer - are all forms of violence against women allowed public recognition, are women at risk for losing their respectability or credibility by speaking out, how important is this issue for the state, and if and how does the threat of violence continue to silence women?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Follow-Up: Responding to Aridelle's Post 11/18/10
I enjoyed reading the article titled "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color" written by Kimberle Williams Crenshaw. This article raised some very interesting points in regards to identity politics. I have noticed, especially in my time at Colgate, the grouping together of certain peoples and the assumption that because they are in similar groups there aren't a lot of differences that exist between the people in the group. As a student athlete, I have noticed that people tend to assume that athletes are not very intelligent. For example, after my friend told her classmate that she was on the soccer team, her classmate gave her a look like she was stupid, and decided to play a more dominant role in the projects that they were working on because she second-guessed my friend's overall intelligence. Just as athletes are stereotyped at Colgate, so are women of color. Crenshaw discusses the tough situation that women of color are stuck in as a result of social constructs and society's perception of them. I really felt bad for the women that Crenshaw is describing because women who face domestic violence are in a very limiting, dangerous situation where they don't have a lot of influence over their well-being. I liked how this author went into such great detail in regards to each aspect of domestic violence towards women, and examined how society responds to this issue with their biases construing their views.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Response to Aridelle's Post: 11/18/10
As I was reading these articles, I found myself getting angry because it is unbelievable the power that the threat of rape holds over me and the rest of womanhood. One of my best friends in high school was raped and I was the first person she confided to. It happened when she was about 16 - she was on a date with a boy she really liked and after dinner, they went for a walk. He forced her into an alley where no one could see them, raped her, and left her there. He was the quintessential date rapist - someone she knew and trusted, someone she really liked. She never knew the violent monster that lurked underneath the surface until it was too late. As she was telling me this story in a stoic voice, I was shocked. She was perfect to me - she was beautiful, smart, sassy, and confident, everything I was not. How could this have happened to her? I could not fathom that she had had this horrible crime committed against her. And she wouldn't press charges! I tried to convince her to put her rapist behind bars, both for her sake and for other girls who have been or might become his victims, but she kept telling me that she did not want to bring it up back into her life since she finally put it behind her. I couldn't help thinking about her while reading Emilie Morgan's story, which was both heartbreaking and horrifying. I have so much respect for both these women because I think I would have lost myself if I was raped. They are not letting the rape own them, but they are trying to master their rapes; in other words, they are actively trying to heal and fight the insecurity and fear the rape instilled in them. I don't think many of us are capable if being so strong - at least, I don't think I could be since I am a very emotional, pensive person and I feel like being raped would destroy me and my inner life.
I realized when my friend told me her secret that rape is all around us. Rape victims are everywhere, but rapists are too. And the terrifying thing is that you cannot pick either of them out, which is exactly the point Brownmiller made in her book. First, for rape victims, we don't like to think that these women are out there because that brings up a lot of tension, not-so-nice feelings, and facts that we would rather like to deny. By not thinking about them, we don't realize that people we know and love may be rape victims, too. I had NO IDEA that my best friend in high school was a rape victim; only I and her best guy friend knew then and her family still doesn't know. She did not exhibit any characteristics that we think all rape victims have. She was strong and fearless, willing to take risks and have fun - traits we would never associate with a typical rape victim. Also, since many rape victims are not "special women" - they didn't have traumatic childhoods, past rapes, abusive boyfriends or husbands, get stalked, what have you - they could have be us "normal women" too. We could have been or could become rape victims because rape threatens every one of us and we are not willing to accept that. In addition, we like to think that rapists are special cases, that they had a bad childhood or they were raped themselves - the ordinary does not intrigue or excite us unlike the abnormal, hence why all those psychologists and sociologists did studies on the stereotypical, tortured rapist. The fact that ordinary, normal men that did not have any trauma or experiences that would explain their raping exist is frightening. Why do these men rape? To get some sick experience of power? To humiliate? Because they think it's fun? We don't know and not knowing terrifies society as a whole, especially women in this case.
I realized when my friend told me her secret that rape is all around us. Rape victims are everywhere, but rapists are too. And the terrifying thing is that you cannot pick either of them out, which is exactly the point Brownmiller made in her book. First, for rape victims, we don't like to think that these women are out there because that brings up a lot of tension, not-so-nice feelings, and facts that we would rather like to deny. By not thinking about them, we don't realize that people we know and love may be rape victims, too. I had NO IDEA that my best friend in high school was a rape victim; only I and her best guy friend knew then and her family still doesn't know. She did not exhibit any characteristics that we think all rape victims have. She was strong and fearless, willing to take risks and have fun - traits we would never associate with a typical rape victim. Also, since many rape victims are not "special women" - they didn't have traumatic childhoods, past rapes, abusive boyfriends or husbands, get stalked, what have you - they could have be us "normal women" too. We could have been or could become rape victims because rape threatens every one of us and we are not willing to accept that. In addition, we like to think that rapists are special cases, that they had a bad childhood or they were raped themselves - the ordinary does not intrigue or excite us unlike the abnormal, hence why all those psychologists and sociologists did studies on the stereotypical, tortured rapist. The fact that ordinary, normal men that did not have any trauma or experiences that would explain their raping exist is frightening. Why do these men rape? To get some sick experience of power? To humiliate? Because they think it's fun? We don't know and not knowing terrifies society as a whole, especially women in this case.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Violence Against Women: Rape
The article by Susan Brownmiller, “Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape,” the author concludes that rape is “is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear. She saw rape as an exercise in power that perpetuates male domination of women” (p. 272). The she goes on see how other great thinkers, authors, etc define rape and to her surprise there were hardly any information or articles written on rape in psychology journals. In the 1950’s a school of criminology was founded which was pro-Freudian and even those Freudian criminologists were reluctant to tackle the rape issue head on. They defined Rape s an an “uncontrollable urge…a ‘neurotic overreaction’ that stemmed from his ‘feelings of inadequacy’…he was ‘a sexual psychopath’” (p. 276). Many of these Freudian criminologists saw rape as a mental disease in withhold their patriarchal mentality by empathizing with the rapists by saying that due to having this disease, they suffer more than the victims. Then came Marvin Wolfgang who gets credit for his theory of the “subculture of violence.” This theory led him to the “Wolfgang Theory” in which he studies 2 variables: social class and violent crime. He comes to the conclusion that those in lower socioeconomic classes in which the majority may be people of color are the ones with high rates of crime, thus “Wolfgang would be the first to say that social injustice is one of the root causes of the subculture of violence” (p. 278). One of Wolfgang’s students, Menachem Amir, further researches his mentor’s subject and narrow’s his search by concentrating on statistic numbers in Philadelphia in which he finds that 90% of the rapists in that state belonged to the lower occupational scale “in descending order from skilled workers to unemployed” (p. 279). He also researched the gang rape phenomenon in which planning and coordination was a major factor in that type of rape and in which sexual humiliation of the victim was higher than in individual rapes. The conclusion of the author’s argument is that the rape is the perpetuation of male domination over women by force. What I saw that was lacking in this article was the rape that occurs with women upon men which also happens in today’s society, but goes unreported. This is another type of rape that has not been researched thoroughly and is lacking information.
In the article, “Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color,” by Kimberle Crenshaw brings awareness to many aspects that affect women of color specifically. The author presents intersectionality as a way of framing the interactions of race and gender when it comes to violence against women of color. She uses intersectionality as a way to show the interaction of racism and patriarchy. The author focuses on the limits and struggles that women of color face for example women who are illegal and are faced with the constant threats by their husbands of deportation which the men use as a tool to continue oppressing the women. Thus the cycle of domestic violence continues because these women do not have the resources to find out information outside the home and also language becomes a huge barrier. The author also explains how counselor find it harder to help women of color who have been battered because then many have to spend hours locating resources and contacts to meet the housing and other immediate needs of these women. Then there is the issue of whether domestic violence is stereotypes as a minority problem, thus the author delves into to identify the gender dynamics in the black community and the way the household functions as a whole. The issue of black-on-black violence comes to the surface and other important issue within the community come to play which further accentuate the violence among everyone not only women.
“Don’t Call Me a Survivor” by Emilie Morgan is about a young woman who was raped at the age of thirteen and was repeatedly raped and even gang raped as she got older. She went passed through much physical as well as mental abuse when she entered the rehab center in which she underwent more humiliation. It was not until her last rape that she was able to seek a support group of women that had undergone similar situations in which her healing process.
In the article, “Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color,” by Kimberle Crenshaw brings awareness to many aspects that affect women of color specifically. The author presents intersectionality as a way of framing the interactions of race and gender when it comes to violence against women of color. She uses intersectionality as a way to show the interaction of racism and patriarchy. The author focuses on the limits and struggles that women of color face for example women who are illegal and are faced with the constant threats by their husbands of deportation which the men use as a tool to continue oppressing the women. Thus the cycle of domestic violence continues because these women do not have the resources to find out information outside the home and also language becomes a huge barrier. The author also explains how counselor find it harder to help women of color who have been battered because then many have to spend hours locating resources and contacts to meet the housing and other immediate needs of these women. Then there is the issue of whether domestic violence is stereotypes as a minority problem, thus the author delves into to identify the gender dynamics in the black community and the way the household functions as a whole. The issue of black-on-black violence comes to the surface and other important issue within the community come to play which further accentuate the violence among everyone not only women.
“Don’t Call Me a Survivor” by Emilie Morgan is about a young woman who was raped at the age of thirteen and was repeatedly raped and even gang raped as she got older. She went passed through much physical as well as mental abuse when she entered the rehab center in which she underwent more humiliation. It was not until her last rape that she was able to seek a support group of women that had undergone similar situations in which her healing process.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
News Flash: Millionaire Matchmaker
When buying magazines I am usually lured by the catchy titles of articles on the front cover that advertise the best outfits and hairdo’s, how to please your boyfriend, and the secrets to staying fit. I usually buy Cosmopolitan most of the time, but this time I decided to buy a new magazine that I had never heard of called “Complete Woman” because it had one of my favorite celebrities on the front cover, Kim Kardashian, and it also had interesting articles. I came upon on particular article that caught my attention which was an interview with Patti Stanger from the Millionaire Matchmaker TV show on Bravo. My housemates and I are huge fans of this show and can watch it for hours, but after taking this Intro to Women’s Studies course it got me to see the show on a different lens. This show is about this woman named Patti who has millionaires pay to join her matchmaking club and in return she introduces them to attractive women that fulfill most of the qualities that they want in a woman. She has a high success rate thus she is known for her great matchmaking skills. She has very few women in her club, which she refers to as “millionairesses,” but she mostly caters to men.
In the “Complete Woman” magazine there is an interview with Patti called “Matchmaker, Matchmaker Make me a Match (And a Fortune!).” In a sense this show basically objectifies women because it makes them seem like full-package dolls for men. Patti has her assistants go out to find women that have that “complete package”: beautiful, sweet, and intelligent. According to Patti, most millionaire’s want “a Madonna in the bedroom, Martha Stewart in the kitchen, and Mary Poppins in the nursery” and Patti does her best to fulfill such requests thus perpetuating the patriarchal ideals upon these women. When watching the show I was appalled to see how harsh Patti was with some of the women because of the way they dressed. She suggested that they wear more fitted clothes and show more skin, thus making the women seem more like objects by having them emphasis their physical assetts and practically serving them on a platter to the millionaire men. She is promoting the idea that women have to change their physical appearance in order to please men. One may doubt whether the basis of her matchmaking is based on superficial interests rather than love because she advises the women to look at the men”s attire when looking for a millionaire and if their shoes are not expensive or are not well dressed then they should not bother talking to them. I would think that those millionaire’s that wear the less expensive shoes are more genuine and less cocky than those that are only interested in women for their looks.
One problem that I had with this show is that Patti hardly chose or brought any women of color as possible candidates for the millionaires. What does this say about race and class? Most of the men that joined her club were while wealthy male’s, thus it leads me to ask whether women of color were less appealing to them because Patti never brought them as an option. Patti wanted to choose classy, educated, and beautiful women for the bachelor’s, yet there are many women of color today that fulfill these traits. She is promoting the perpetual image in society that praises europeanized features. For example, a couple of days ago I saw one of her episodes and she turned away a white woman who had beautiful big curly hair and told her to come back next time when she had her hair straight. She promotes the image of the all white American girl with the fabulous body and straight hair. Patti herself is a thick woman with curves and I think that it is unbelievable that she has yet to introduce any black women to the bachelors. In the book Enlightened Sexism by Susan Douglass, in the “You Go, Girl” chapter, black women show the different types of stereotypes that black women fall under such as being outspoken, loud, and overly sexualized. Stereotypes usually remain ingrained in society, thus many that are not familiar with women of color choose to stay away from the unknown which is probably why many millionaire’s do not go for strong outspoken women, and may not appreciate the curves. Patti instead perpetuates the submissive type and the objectification of women by men in society because she advises the women in her interview by saying that “He (the millionaire) must always be the leader....You want him to make the dates, arrange reservations, pick you up and take you out. He’s in charge and you’re along for the ride so you just need to smile, look good, smell nice, sit back and relax because all he wants is your company.” This goes on to further the objectification of women because she encourages these women to just sit there like barbie dolls and provide entertainment for these men. Patti herself is not the submissive type and is very outspoken, thus why should she contribute to this patriarchal oppression. Unfortunately Patti is faced with the difficult situation in which she has to please the men because she has to cater to their interests in order to find them their type of girl that would be an ideal match for them. It is ironic that this sexist interview with Patti would be in this magazine called “Complete Women” because it is not promoting a good image of women and instead emphasizes the patriarchal ideals in which women please men and paints women in a negative light by making them look like gold-diggers by when advising them to always go for the guy with the expensive shoes. It is shows like the Millionaire Matchmaker that is stomping the progress of women in today’s society because they see that it is the blond air-heads that are able to catch the successful men. Are we retrogressing in our feminist advances in society?
Work Cited
Susan J. Douglass, Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work is Done, 1st edition, Times Books.
Complete Woman Magazine. October/November 2010 edition. “Matchmaker, Matchmaker Make Me a Match (And a Frotune!) by Stephanie Lauritzen, pp. 37-39.
In the “Complete Woman” magazine there is an interview with Patti called “Matchmaker, Matchmaker Make me a Match (And a Fortune!).” In a sense this show basically objectifies women because it makes them seem like full-package dolls for men. Patti has her assistants go out to find women that have that “complete package”: beautiful, sweet, and intelligent. According to Patti, most millionaire’s want “a Madonna in the bedroom, Martha Stewart in the kitchen, and Mary Poppins in the nursery” and Patti does her best to fulfill such requests thus perpetuating the patriarchal ideals upon these women. When watching the show I was appalled to see how harsh Patti was with some of the women because of the way they dressed. She suggested that they wear more fitted clothes and show more skin, thus making the women seem more like objects by having them emphasis their physical assetts and practically serving them on a platter to the millionaire men. She is promoting the idea that women have to change their physical appearance in order to please men. One may doubt whether the basis of her matchmaking is based on superficial interests rather than love because she advises the women to look at the men”s attire when looking for a millionaire and if their shoes are not expensive or are not well dressed then they should not bother talking to them. I would think that those millionaire’s that wear the less expensive shoes are more genuine and less cocky than those that are only interested in women for their looks.
One problem that I had with this show is that Patti hardly chose or brought any women of color as possible candidates for the millionaires. What does this say about race and class? Most of the men that joined her club were while wealthy male’s, thus it leads me to ask whether women of color were less appealing to them because Patti never brought them as an option. Patti wanted to choose classy, educated, and beautiful women for the bachelor’s, yet there are many women of color today that fulfill these traits. She is promoting the perpetual image in society that praises europeanized features. For example, a couple of days ago I saw one of her episodes and she turned away a white woman who had beautiful big curly hair and told her to come back next time when she had her hair straight. She promotes the image of the all white American girl with the fabulous body and straight hair. Patti herself is a thick woman with curves and I think that it is unbelievable that she has yet to introduce any black women to the bachelors. In the book Enlightened Sexism by Susan Douglass, in the “You Go, Girl” chapter, black women show the different types of stereotypes that black women fall under such as being outspoken, loud, and overly sexualized. Stereotypes usually remain ingrained in society, thus many that are not familiar with women of color choose to stay away from the unknown which is probably why many millionaire’s do not go for strong outspoken women, and may not appreciate the curves. Patti instead perpetuates the submissive type and the objectification of women by men in society because she advises the women in her interview by saying that “He (the millionaire) must always be the leader....You want him to make the dates, arrange reservations, pick you up and take you out. He’s in charge and you’re along for the ride so you just need to smile, look good, smell nice, sit back and relax because all he wants is your company.” This goes on to further the objectification of women because she encourages these women to just sit there like barbie dolls and provide entertainment for these men. Patti herself is not the submissive type and is very outspoken, thus why should she contribute to this patriarchal oppression. Unfortunately Patti is faced with the difficult situation in which she has to please the men because she has to cater to their interests in order to find them their type of girl that would be an ideal match for them. It is ironic that this sexist interview with Patti would be in this magazine called “Complete Women” because it is not promoting a good image of women and instead emphasizes the patriarchal ideals in which women please men and paints women in a negative light by making them look like gold-diggers by when advising them to always go for the guy with the expensive shoes. It is shows like the Millionaire Matchmaker that is stomping the progress of women in today’s society because they see that it is the blond air-heads that are able to catch the successful men. Are we retrogressing in our feminist advances in society?
Work Cited
Susan J. Douglass, Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work is Done, 1st edition, Times Books.
Complete Woman Magazine. October/November 2010 edition. “Matchmaker, Matchmaker Make Me a Match (And a Frotune!) by Stephanie Lauritzen, pp. 37-39.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Response to Hannah's Post
In the Article by Atul Gawande I was intrigued specifically by the question of whether medicine is a craft or an industry. It is sad to see how medicine has gotten corrupted and has turned into an industry. Doctors are no longer concerned with trying to master the art of facilitating the chances for children to come out through natural means because there are they are too busy trying to increase their prestige turning out higher numbers of healthy babies and that is through C-Section. Today when doctors encounter a problem during the childbirth process, these seek c-section automatically because it is the easiest procedure with fewer risks for the baby. Caesarian has now become the most reliable option that produces effective results. This has definitely become an industry because not only are the rates of child birth in a year getting higher thus more prestige for the hospitals, but also doctors are getting paid more as well as supported by the author when she says that “Skeptics have noted that Caesarean delivery is suspiciously convenient for obstetrician’s schedules and, hour for hour, is paid more handsomely than vaginal births” (10). Also another problem with this medicine industry is that because of the Apgar score, doctors and hospitals are mainly focusing on the numbers from this Apgar score which only reveal the health level of the child, but then they completely ignore the mother’s health. The mothers that undergo Caesarean take longer to recover than thus that reproduce in a natural way through the vaginal passage. Doctors are only worried about popping the babies out as fast as possible in order to get more patients, but some completely disregard the after effects that this easy-solution surgery like Caesarean have on the mother. Her recovery is more painful because she has to recuperate from the stitches and in some cases may be at risk of infection or tearing the wound open again if the mother does not take care of herself correctly. The field of medicine has unfortunately become an industry which thus corrupts many doctors by motivating them to get higher result thus it no longer becomes an issue of perfecting the craft, but instead of reliability.
Response to Hanna's Post: 11/11/10
I was a bit uncomfortable reading Gawande's article because I felt her descriptions of childbirth were too graphic for me; I consider myself a very open person who is not grossed out very easily, but I actually had to stop reading for a while because I got a little queasy which I think is because I have no interest in being a mother. I have never wanted kids for as long as I can remember, probably in part because I find them annoying and I don't think I would be a good mother. Plus I think the stories of various family members who popped out babies like nothing - my maternal grandma was the oldest of thirteen - somewhat traumatized me because I could never imagine going through the pain of childbirth voluntarily that many times. I know that bearing children is a huge part of being a woman and that many women do become mothers, but I didn't feel any personal connection to this article or felt as though it would be relevant to me as a woman. However, I agreed Gawande's stance that obstetrics have been steamlined to the Cesarean section and her seemingly disagreement with mothers' and doctors' reliance on this practice even though it decreases infant and mother mortality. I believe that when a woman becomes pregnant, she has to deal with the consequences of deciding to become a mother; if she wanted to have children, consciously tried to get pregnant, then succeeded, having a difficult pregnancy that might have risks is a consequence that she has to deal with. Risks are the norm in motherhood and mothers need to be prepared to deal with them. Getting pregnant and then deciding to get a Cesarean section even though you don't need one seems like a cop-out to me - you should show that you are willing to put yourself through pain for your child to bring him or her into the world all through your will. I feel like any woman who becomes pregnant immediately signs a contract where she accepts the risks that her pregnancy and delivery may entail, including the threatening of her own life. To effectively cop out by having scheduled, unnecessary C-sections undermines a mother's importance and her connection with her baby.
How Childbirth Went Industrial & A Deconstruction 10/10
In "How Childbirth Went Industrial: A Deconstruction", Henci Goer analyzes Gawande's article through skeptical eyes. She questions whether the packages offered in hospitals are actually beneficial for patients, or whether they are putting them in danger. Unlike Gawande, Goer has conflict with C-sections, because they are unnecessarily dangerous in most situations. Goer's argument also differs from Gawande because she presents a factual, point-by-point presentation of her views, while Gawande utilizes a real-life story to support hers.
In Atul Gawande's article title "The Score", she describes Elizabeth Rourke's childbirth story, beginning with when she wakes up in the middle of the night with intense contractions, a week past her due date, and ending with her decision to have a natural childbirth. The vivid and descriptive writing style that she utilized in this article got me very involved in the story, and made the vague concept of childbirth more solid and able to grasp for me. In general, childbirth seems like a very stressful event, especially when it was described in the situation where a woman gave birth in the parking lot of the hospital. The main character, Elizabeth, chose not to get an epidural because she would not feel in control under the influence of such strong medicine, yet was forced to get an epidural and a C-section. This seemingly necessary procedure eliminates the concept of freedom of choice that women have during childbirth. One of the other options that Elizabeth considered would be hiring a doula, also known as a birthing coach. All in all, this article had a great impact on me because not only did it make birth more a more realistic and scary idea, but it actually provided me with information, and helped me realize how "human birth is a feat involving an intricate sequence of events" (Gawande 3). Gawande then goes on to describe the medical advances that were made in order to help with this intricate series of events, and how this opened up conflict involving doctors' decisions with the babies and patients. She then describes the Apgar score, which was supposed to help doctors excel in delivering babies, yet this system did not work because some doctors had the wrong intentions. This article raises an important question: are these recent advances in medical technology always necessary, and when and to whose order should they be used?
In Atul Gawande's article title "The Score", she describes Elizabeth Rourke's childbirth story, beginning with when she wakes up in the middle of the night with intense contractions, a week past her due date, and ending with her decision to have a natural childbirth. The vivid and descriptive writing style that she utilized in this article got me very involved in the story, and made the vague concept of childbirth more solid and able to grasp for me. In general, childbirth seems like a very stressful event, especially when it was described in the situation where a woman gave birth in the parking lot of the hospital. The main character, Elizabeth, chose not to get an epidural because she would not feel in control under the influence of such strong medicine, yet was forced to get an epidural and a C-section. This seemingly necessary procedure eliminates the concept of freedom of choice that women have during childbirth. One of the other options that Elizabeth considered would be hiring a doula, also known as a birthing coach. All in all, this article had a great impact on me because not only did it make birth more a more realistic and scary idea, but it actually provided me with information, and helped me realize how "human birth is a feat involving an intricate sequence of events" (Gawande 3). Gawande then goes on to describe the medical advances that were made in order to help with this intricate series of events, and how this opened up conflict involving doctors' decisions with the babies and patients. She then describes the Apgar score, which was supposed to help doctors excel in delivering babies, yet this system did not work because some doctors had the wrong intentions. This article raises an important question: are these recent advances in medical technology always necessary, and when and to whose order should they be used?
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Response to Rachel's Post on the Abortion Topic
“ABORTION”...this is a word that no longer holds that aspect of taboo because it has been legalized in various states but this word was once hard for me to say. I come from a traditional/ religious background and have gone to Catholic schools my whole life until I came to Colgate University. Since coming to Colgate, I would say that a handful of friends and girls that live in my neighborhood have had a baby at such a young age and are all single mothers. I got to see first hand the struggle that they have to go through everyday and how many had to sacrifice their college careers and change their plans for their future. I saw these young ladies as troopers and was completely against abortion until my best friend who is like my sister got pregnant. She is the one person that I admire and love unconditionally. She had a rough life growing up especially because she was brought over from Mexico at the age of 2 and does not have her papers, thus it is hard for her to continue an education in the United States. Since she is not legal in this country, she could receive no financial aid when seeking to go to college but her motivation was so strong that she was able to go to college while working to pay her tuition. She is the most strong willed person I have ever known, but was stomped when she found out that she was pregnant that summer before starting her senior year of college. When I first found out I was really excited, but she did not seem as thrilled. She felt that the world was caving in on her and that all her hard work in school would go to waste and she would become just another statistic, thus she resorted to abortion and surprisingly I found myself in approval with this decision. This was her body and it was her future, and nobody had the right to condemn her for her decision. Unfortunately after she underwent the procedure, she was no longer herself and fell into a huge depression. I had never seen my best friend so weak and vulnerable, and it was painful to see her in this condition especially since I was so far in Hamilton, NY and could not be there for her like I would have liked to. After some time she underwent counseling and was able to get back to her old self, and now had a stronger fire that burned from within her which motivated her to keep moving forward and fulfill her dreams of becoming a mathematician. Through this whole experience, I got to view abortion differently and am now more open towards accepting it and knowing that each woman has the power to choose over her body. Nobody should ever condemn or judge someone else for their actions, because everyone has their reasons for doing it. I find myself stronger and more educated on the issue as well because I have learned a lot through my friend’s experience and I am more open to talk about such topics. At first I though that my friend was a unique situation because I had never met anyone who had, but then as I began to talk about it to my friends they all referred me to talk to one of their friends on campus who had thought about abortion or had actually undergone the procedure. Through talking to these young women and how they were able to cope with their decision, I felt that I was able to help and support my best friend even more during her healing process and was no longer ignorant on the subject. I can now say the word “Abortion” and be able to about it freely and educate others on the subject.
Follow-Up: Responding to Rachel's Post 11/9/10
In Judith Arcana's chapter, titled "Abortion Is a Motherhood Issue", she illustrates the strong relationship between motherhood and abortion through the lens of politics. Arcana uses her experience to analyze how women choose to have abortions, and approaches the argument from different viewpoints. All in all, I thought this chapter seemed pointless, and like she was ranting about abortion issues that weren't as important as some other aspects of this decision. When Arcana said that, "choosing to abort a child is like choosing to send it to one school and not another... choosing whether or not to send it to Hebrew school, to catechism, to Quaker meeting" (226), I thought these examples were very irrelevant and not at all equal to the magnitude that choosing life or death has for a baby. Although I did not believe her argument to be so strong, I did believe that her conclusion was good. I agree that: "We need to speak of our abortions, not in the atmosphere of guilt and shame created by the spiritual and emotional terrorism of the contemporary abortion movement, but in open recognition of our joy or sadness, our regret or relief--in conscious acceptance of the responsibility for our choice" (Arcana 227).
The other article that sparked my interest the most and I found I could relate to in my life right now was "Abortion, Vacuum Cleaners, and the Power Within", a chapter in Listen Up, which is edited by Barbara Findlen but written by Inga Muscio. The vivid imagery and clever writing style of this piece made it an easy read which I could get absorbed into and actually enjoy. Although the topic of this chapter was definitely not light, Findlen used humor and metaphors to make the topic more relatable. She also used her personal experiences and vivid imagery to get the reader to feel like they're there, such as "I still remember the ugly swirl designs and water marks on the ceiling" (Findlen 113). I thought one of the most relevant discussions that Findlen provided was when she decided she didn't need the abortion vacuum and instead turned to more natural methods such as getting massages, talking to friends, finding recipes, and being confident without a trace of doubt. This reminded me of the movie our class watched last night, titled "Orgasm Inc." This movie also discussed the notion that you don't always have to resort to medical treatment and bend to a patriarchal society. The old woman in the movie who desired orgasms through normal intercourse first wanted a tube inserted into her spine to create stimulation, but finally realized that she could attain the desired result through natural, more normal tactics. Women don't have to be pressured to submit to the system, and as Findlen would say, "The real fight for human rights is inside each and every individual on this earth" (Findlen 117).
Monday, November 8, 2010
Main Post: Abortion for 11/9/10
In Arcana's article "Abortion is a Motherhood Issue," she asserts that society's separated view of abortion and motherhood - that either a woman has one or is one, but cannot be both - is wrong because a woman forever becomes a mother as soon as a baby is conceived in her womb; she says "[a]bortion is a motherhood issue. Abortion is neither a separate subject, nor a subject in a different category (225)." The main reason for this alienation between abortion and mothering is a strategic maneuver by pro-life women who wish to paint women who have abortions as immoral, selfish, and murderers - essentially as nonmothers because they believe that no real mother would voluntarily kill her child. Arcana sees no difference between abortion and mothering because abortion is a decision made by a mother and a hard one at that - "[c]hoosing to abort a child is a profoundly made life choice for that child, a choice made by a woman or girl who is already a mother, however ignorant, angry, sad, hopeful, or frightened she may be (226)." Aborting a child does not demote that mother to a nonmother because she is making what she believe to be the best choice for her baby, which is what a mother is supposed to do. Arcana calls out for mothers to not feel guilty or ashamed for aborting their babies because they are responsible for their children and they did what they thought would be best for their children - sparing them a life of misery, sadness, and poverty that would await them given the circumstances they would have been born into, knowing that they could not do enough for them at this time.
In Crews' article "So I Chose," she talks about her experience as a teenage mother who chose to give birth to and raise her son. She grew in an extremely pro-life home, and feeling that she had turned into one of the girls that pro-lifers ridicule, she turned to pro-choice websites for support in her choice to keep her baby; instead of finding this solace, she was also ridiculed for being irresponsible and selfish because "[w]hile many of these women professed to be 'pro-choice,' [she] quickly learned that for them the only choice that is acceptable is the choice they consider 'right' (146)," namely abortion (146). With support from her mom, she tried to navigate through all these people telling her what she should do with her baby without listening to what she wanted to do - she was "tired of being pushed around (148)." When she was holding her baby, she realized what "pro-choice" is supposed to mean to support mothers' decisions, no matter what they may be, in regards to their reproductive rights and children, Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, which is what she experienced with the websites - being pro-choice means accepting that women are the rulers of their bodies and futures and have the right to determine where or if children fit into their lives or the lives they wish to have.
In Muscio's article "Abortion, Vacuum Cleaners, and the Power Within," she comes out as anti-abortion though she has had abortions before. She likens the slogan "Abortion Sucks" to the vacuum-like machine that aborts a pregnancy because vacuum cleaners "are useful for cleaning up messes (112)" - she asserts that our society sees unwanted pregnancies as messes that must be covered and cleaned up. She relates how she had two abortions and how she remembers exactly what happened each time - the fear, the excruciating pain, the regret, the self-anger for forgetting her birth control, and the machine's vacuum-like sucking of her babies out of her. She continues her story - she would violently confront pro-life demonstrators in front of Planned Parenthoods, so she looked into studying other medicines and healing methods to control her anger. She found that "[h]ealing starts from within (115)." She says that we never look within ourselves to find those things we want most, like love, self-esteem, and fun - Western society has adopted belief in medicine that our health is controlled by others, not us. "In the U.S., we don't (and we're also not encouraged to) look inside ourselves for healing or for finding truths or answers (115)." We always look to other people, to the outside as she did for her first two abortions. After looking inward to herself and finding that she no longer had the self-doubt and fear that plagued her in her first two abortions, when she naturally aborted her third child she felt powerful. She asserts that fighting outward forces forgets the fact that "[t]he real fight for human rights is inside each and every individual on earth (117)" - she says we need to realize that the fight between pro-life and pro-choice distracts from the real problem of patriarchy, which insists that abortions be performed the way they are, taking power away from women in the guise of actually giving it to them. She asserts that if women were able to be more open about themselves and organic, naturally induced abortions were explored, this entire debate about abortion would simply disappear.
In Roe vs. Wade in Feminism in our Time, a brief background of the lawyers, plaintiff, and prosecutor was given before actual excerpts of the case from Justice Blackmun. He starts off by acknowledging the difficulty of this case, the sensitivity of the issue, and the myriad of factors that influence people's opinions on the issue; he pledges to resolve this issue based on the Constitution. Jane Roe, a pseudonym for the plaintiff, brought her complaint to the court that she could not obtain a safe abortion in Texas because of the Texan anti-abortion statutes because her pregnancy did not endanger her life; she claimed that these anti-abortion laws violated her right of personal privacy, which is protected by various Amendments. Background on the anti-abortion laws are given - Victorian taboo on sex to discourage casual sexual relations, the safety (or lack thereof) of the medical procedure, and prenatal life protection - whose reasons such as protecting the mother from a serious life-threatening procedures have largely vanished. The Justice goes on to say that the personal rights expounded upon by the 9th and 14th Amendments do cover a woman's right to choose whether or not to abort her child since bringing a child into the world can cause a slew of problems for the mother, the child itself, and its family. The Court, however, does not allow free rein on abortion at any time for any reasons - they will continue to regulate abortion in certain incidents. They conclude "that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation...(405)." The Court determines that the Constitution's use of the word "person" only applies to postnatal humans, meaning that the unborn are not protected by the Constitution or granted the rights found in the Constitution. However, the Court also decides that the pregnant woman's privacy cannot shield her for her entire pregnancy because another potential life is involved so "it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved (406)." Therefore, the Court concludes that Texas does not the right to override pregnant women's rights, including the right to abort, but does stake an interest in protecting pregnant women's and their fetuses' lives. The Court determines that the "compelling" point at which the state does have an interest in protecting both these lives occurs at the end of the first trimester since the fetus can theoretically live outside its mother's womb (a.k.a. it becomes viable), so the state can regulate abortion after this point but not before. The Court also says that the clause about abortion only being legal when it is to save the mother's life is too vague because it does not talk when this abortion takes place.
In Crews' article "So I Chose," she talks about her experience as a teenage mother who chose to give birth to and raise her son. She grew in an extremely pro-life home, and feeling that she had turned into one of the girls that pro-lifers ridicule, she turned to pro-choice websites for support in her choice to keep her baby; instead of finding this solace, she was also ridiculed for being irresponsible and selfish because "[w]hile many of these women professed to be 'pro-choice,' [she] quickly learned that for them the only choice that is acceptable is the choice they consider 'right' (146)," namely abortion (146). With support from her mom, she tried to navigate through all these people telling her what she should do with her baby without listening to what she wanted to do - she was "tired of being pushed around (148)." When she was holding her baby, she realized what "pro-choice" is supposed to mean to support mothers' decisions, no matter what they may be, in regards to their reproductive rights and children, Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, which is what she experienced with the websites - being pro-choice means accepting that women are the rulers of their bodies and futures and have the right to determine where or if children fit into their lives or the lives they wish to have.
In Muscio's article "Abortion, Vacuum Cleaners, and the Power Within," she comes out as anti-abortion though she has had abortions before. She likens the slogan "Abortion Sucks" to the vacuum-like machine that aborts a pregnancy because vacuum cleaners "are useful for cleaning up messes (112)" - she asserts that our society sees unwanted pregnancies as messes that must be covered and cleaned up. She relates how she had two abortions and how she remembers exactly what happened each time - the fear, the excruciating pain, the regret, the self-anger for forgetting her birth control, and the machine's vacuum-like sucking of her babies out of her. She continues her story - she would violently confront pro-life demonstrators in front of Planned Parenthoods, so she looked into studying other medicines and healing methods to control her anger. She found that "[h]ealing starts from within (115)." She says that we never look within ourselves to find those things we want most, like love, self-esteem, and fun - Western society has adopted belief in medicine that our health is controlled by others, not us. "In the U.S., we don't (and we're also not encouraged to) look inside ourselves for healing or for finding truths or answers (115)." We always look to other people, to the outside as she did for her first two abortions. After looking inward to herself and finding that she no longer had the self-doubt and fear that plagued her in her first two abortions, when she naturally aborted her third child she felt powerful. She asserts that fighting outward forces forgets the fact that "[t]he real fight for human rights is inside each and every individual on earth (117)" - she says we need to realize that the fight between pro-life and pro-choice distracts from the real problem of patriarchy, which insists that abortions be performed the way they are, taking power away from women in the guise of actually giving it to them. She asserts that if women were able to be more open about themselves and organic, naturally induced abortions were explored, this entire debate about abortion would simply disappear.
In Roe vs. Wade in Feminism in our Time, a brief background of the lawyers, plaintiff, and prosecutor was given before actual excerpts of the case from Justice Blackmun. He starts off by acknowledging the difficulty of this case, the sensitivity of the issue, and the myriad of factors that influence people's opinions on the issue; he pledges to resolve this issue based on the Constitution. Jane Roe, a pseudonym for the plaintiff, brought her complaint to the court that she could not obtain a safe abortion in Texas because of the Texan anti-abortion statutes because her pregnancy did not endanger her life; she claimed that these anti-abortion laws violated her right of personal privacy, which is protected by various Amendments. Background on the anti-abortion laws are given - Victorian taboo on sex to discourage casual sexual relations, the safety (or lack thereof) of the medical procedure, and prenatal life protection - whose reasons such as protecting the mother from a serious life-threatening procedures have largely vanished. The Justice goes on to say that the personal rights expounded upon by the 9th and 14th Amendments do cover a woman's right to choose whether or not to abort her child since bringing a child into the world can cause a slew of problems for the mother, the child itself, and its family. The Court, however, does not allow free rein on abortion at any time for any reasons - they will continue to regulate abortion in certain incidents. They conclude "that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation...(405)." The Court determines that the Constitution's use of the word "person" only applies to postnatal humans, meaning that the unborn are not protected by the Constitution or granted the rights found in the Constitution. However, the Court also decides that the pregnant woman's privacy cannot shield her for her entire pregnancy because another potential life is involved so "it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved (406)." Therefore, the Court concludes that Texas does not the right to override pregnant women's rights, including the right to abort, but does stake an interest in protecting pregnant women's and their fetuses' lives. The Court determines that the "compelling" point at which the state does have an interest in protecting both these lives occurs at the end of the first trimester since the fetus can theoretically live outside its mother's womb (a.k.a. it becomes viable), so the state can regulate abortion after this point but not before. The Court also says that the clause about abortion only being legal when it is to save the mother's life is too vague because it does not talk when this abortion takes place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)