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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

News Flash-- "Celebrity Slim Down"

In today's society, the media is very influential to the public through advertisements, stories, and incessant messages of how people should live their lives. The unreasonable expectation of what a female body should look like is perpetuated by the celebrities in the media, and causes women to be unhappy with their own bodies.

"People" Magazine is one of the most popular magazines that revolves around celebrities and human-interest stories. It is very widely recognized, and on the day after the Oscars, received 51.7 million views on the website. This magazine serves as a place where individuals can get their "fix of the hottest breaking news, celebrity photos, and fashion."

In each issue of "People", there is a special section that is titled "Celebrity Slim Down", and then goes on to say "FROM THEN TO WOW! STARS REVEAL HOW THEY LOST WEIGHT." The September issue shows four celebrities: Jennifer Hudson, Angie Everheart, Kevin Federline, and Patti Stanger. Next to a picture of Hudson wearing a shirt that says, "Lose for Good," there's a little bubble that says, "Lost 20 More Lbs!" It also shows a picture of her when she was "heavy" in Sept. of 2008, and then shows two current ones where she is 20 lbs lighter. Kate Hudson should have been able to feel comfortable, sexy and beautiful in her own skin, without furthering the image that you have to be a size two in order to feel good about yourself. According to Hudson, she "ate chocolate almost every day," but kept a food journal in order to help her keep track of her diet. In today's society, women should be able to feel confident no matter what their body looks like, and work out and change their diets in order to be a healthier person overall, rather than try to fit into what the media designs to be attractive.

Angie Everheart's picture shows a drastic transition from 2009 to this year, where she was pregnant. Everheart dropped from a size 16 to a 6. Since July 2009, Federline has lost 25 lbs after being dedicated to a strict diet in order to get his physique back. Patti Stanger has lost 25 lbs since March 2009 "post-breakup". Stanger's method included using Sensa over the summer, which is an appetite suppressant powder that she sprinkles over every meal. Apparently, she is motivated to lose more and states, "I want a fitter body so I can get out and date!"

The fact that "People" Magazine finds it necessary to advertise these success stories that glamorize weight loss in sometimes unhealthy ways is negatively affecting our society. This weight loss section is objectifying the bodies of both women and men. If you really think about it, the whole concept of clothing sizing in society today is ludicrous. As opposed to in the past where people would construct their own clothing to fit their body type, society pressures women today to fit into specific sizes. The most desirable sizes for women are 2's or 0's, which is incredibly small and hard to attain if you're not naturally petite and if you've been through puberty.

In Susan Douglas' book titled Sexism, she discusses how important it is to note group mentality. Once social expectations are formed of what qualifies as beautiful, it is hard to break that mold and be comfortable in your own body, especially if it is not as perfect as those of celebrities and supermodels. In addition to these unattainable social expectations, Douglas also discusses how women's bodies have become like projects. In class (10/21/10), we discussed some ways in which we treat our bodies like objects: Dieting, working out, hair styling, plastic surgery, make-up, hair removal, clothes, nails, tanning, jewelry, piercings, and tattoos. This obsession with how we look leads us to consider a very important question: why do women find it necessary to spend so much of their lives worrying about how they look, and having their lives revolve around it like the celebrities in "People" do? Is it for themselves, other women, or men.

One component that definitely is relevant to this question is the struggle for power. Some women resort to focusing on their looks because they think it gives them an advantage in the work setting or in the social setting. When Patti Stanger states that "I want a fitter body so I can get out and date!" she is implying that the main reasons that men are attracted to women are physical, and that she is playing into this game by trying to make herself more desirable. Even though she went about losing weight in a very unnatural way that may be dangerous to her health, she still put her body through it in order to go on dates and impress men.

This magazine also creates expectations that are not ideal for the typical woman. Most women can't afford a personal trainer and nutritionist six days a week, or take expensive supplements that make them lose weight. In addition, it is a very ridiculous demand to pretend like it is normal to drop 10 sizes after having a baby in a year. In order for magazines to portray a healthy and normal image of women, they could interview celebrities who follow a healthy diet, and exercise in a healthy manner. In addition, they could consider different social classes, and suggest workouts that you can do at home, or that are easy to do in free time. This way, women who have to work a lot and are also responsible for their children will be able to stay fit without feeling the need to pay for a personal strength and conditioning coach.

In conclusion, the over-the-top image that magazines create for women's bodies leads to a lowering of self-esteem in women of all social classes and lifestyles. The pressure to fit in in society is immense in our culture, and it is being made even harder to do so with the ridiculous standards that have been equated with beautiful and desirable.

Works Cited

Douglas, Susan J. Enlightened Sexism. New York: Times Books, 2010. Print.

News Flash: The Feud between the Pregnant Women and the Drug Giant – Novartis and Mommy Discrimination

The Feud between the Pregnant Women and the Drug Giant – Novartis and Mommy Discrimination
Despite the widespread belief that women have achieved equality with men, the economic sphere is still one place where women are undeniably behind. Wage gaps, sexual harassment, glass ceilings, hiring and promotion discrimination, and a myriad of other problems – all of which somehow are keep hidden or are ignored unbelievably well – still put women at an extreme disadvantage in the workforce. For instance, Cynthia Enloe reveals these problems in the sneaker industry where big-name companies outsource their factories overseas to make more profit, which they do by paying women very low wages, concentrating their factories in military-run countries where they cannot strike or organize, and slyly relieving their responsibility for these women by using subcontractors and cleverly worded loopholes in their conduct codes (Enloe 46-48, 49-50, 52, 54-56). She asserts that these foreign women were and are routinely taken advantage of by money-hungry companies who play to foreign oppressive political regimes “to exert pressure on those women so that their constructions of femininity would make their labor cheap (Enloe 60).” By twisting how these women workers thought of themselves as daughters, potential wives, and patriots, these companies and government reaped the monetary and social benefits of keeping these women working despite horrible injustices and dangers.
While Enloe has a legitimate point in bringing these foreign women’s plights to light, she contributes support to the false idea that these problems only happen in third-world countries where female inequality is more well-known and, sadly, more expected. Sex discrimination in the workforce also happens in developed countries such as the United States, where sexism purportedly does not exist anymore. A blatant example of sex discrimination within the American workforce comes from the drug giant Novartis, which ironically was labeled as one of the 100 Best Companies for working women (Working Mother); male sales managers promoted men over women regularly and routinely fired women for being pregnant. The case against Novartis emphatically reinforces Crittenden’s argument that mothers are the most disadvantaged group in the workforce because employers see them as undesirable and inefficient workers because they have the most attachments to detract them away from their jobs, resulting in a high “mommy tax” they still have to pay despite lower wages.
The women’s case against Novartis has garnered much attention because of people’s sheer disbelief that such discriminatory actions by Novartis’s male managers were left unpunished for so long. The company has to pay about $250 million in punitive damages to their 5,600 women employees, which does not include compensatory damages for the primary plaintiffs (“Going to Get”). The plaintiffs each won about $500,000 to $600,000 dollars, totaling another $3.4 million (“Going to Get”). Even though this particular case is over, any of Novartis’s female employees are allowed to sue the company for personal discrimination, so Novartis is expected to pay another couple million dollars to these employees (“Going to Get”); in addition prosecutors are trying to force Novartis to give these women back pay, or lost salary due to demotion or termination for being pregnant, upwards of $37 million (“Going to Get”). Novartis’ settlement is one of the biggest ever in the history of sex discrimination cases in the workplace and a victory for all working pregnant women and mothers.
Novartis apparently had a long history of sex discrimination before any of their violations were finally revealed. Email chains, interviews, and TV broadcasts revealed how male bosses made sexually inappropriate jokes towards their female employees, routinely passed over female sales representatives for promotions even if they were top performers which effectively restricted their income, and fired pregnant employees like Raelene Ryan, Amy Velez, and Holly Waters. Such an email chain between Novartis’s Human Resources department and Raelene Ryan’s boss, Jim Hansen, shows his disrespectful attitude towards women as well as his blatant attempts to terminate her employment because she was pregnant regardless of her flawless record as a top sales representative (“Terminating the Pregnant Employee”). Hansen’s suggestive comments about her appearance and sexist jokes that included insensitive references to domestic violence peppered Ryan’s experience with Novartis (“Terminating the Pregnant Employee”). Then when she became pregnant, he actively sought to force her out of her job; he emailed Human Resources frequently saying things like he would “[o]bviously like to fire this person [Ryan]. She is 6 months pregnant, too, just to let you know (Terminating the Pregnant Employee”).” as well as “As you are aware, she is going to be terminated for falsification once the baby is delivered. As we discussed, we will continue to pay her maternity leave, however, she will be terminated so I can fill the position (“Terminating the Pregnant Employee”).” Holly Waters, who claimed that she was bringing in the most revenue for her boss, reported being harassed by her male coworkers and then let go when she was seven-and-a-half months pregnant, leaving her in no position to find another job to pay for her expenses (“Holly Water-Novartis”); Amy Velez also was fired for being pregnant even though she had great reviews (“CNN”). Other instances of Novartis’s prejudice against pregnant mothers are still being revealed, indicating that this company has a long way to go into ensuring that its female employees are treated fairly.
Even though Novartis has not officially cited reasons for its male managers’ discrimination against their female employees, Crittenden’s theory of the ideal worker does provide motive for male managers to pass over women for promotion. Crittenden asserts that “[f]or most companies, the ideal worker is ‘unencumbered,’ that is, free of all ties other than those to his job. Anyone who can’t devote all his or her energies to paid work is barred from the best jobs and has a permanently lower lifetime income. Not coincidentally, almost all of the people in that category happen to be mothers (Crittenden 87-88).” These male managers seemed to believe that all female employees were teetering on the edge of this encumbrance because there was always the looming possibility of them getting married and having children; these women may already have been encumbered by even desiring a family of their own. By keeping these women with essentially capped salaries by passing over them for promotions, they minimized the damaging blow they would take if these women quit their jobs or reduced their time working to be at home with their family – a scenario that happens much less frequently with male employees, making male employees more “predictable” and “reliable.” It is much easier for a company to cut a female sales representative than a female boss or executive because lower-level jobs have a larger pool of qualified replacements that can be found more readily and are willing to accept lower pay. Novartis protected their own interests in ensuring its more unpredictable employees who would not be satisfied with devoting their life to their job – meaning women, especially pregnant women – stayed in low-level positions whereas promoting “safer” employees who would be more likely and willing to dedicate their lives to their jobs – meaning men, especially single men.
Once these managers had confirmation of their encumbrance – their pregnancies – they wanted to get rid of these women as soon as possible even if these women were top performers. They felt that these women could not be as devoted to their jobs as men could be since their families would automatically take precedence over their job. However, since firing women because they are pregnant is illegal, they had to resort to other more sneaky tactics to make these women uncomfortable to get them to quit on their own or if that strategy did not work, use pretexts to justify their termination to bring in other employees that would be unflinchingly, wholly dedicated to their job without the distractions of a family. Novartis discriminated against these women despite their high performance rates because the company saw them as investments whose return rate would inevitably go down with a baby in the way. To continue getting the same amount of work and profits out of all its employees since making money is the most important goal, Novartis eliminated who it considered the least efficient and most costly investments, or its pregnant women employees.
After Novartis fired these women, they had paid the “mommy tax” in that being a mother cost them their jobs and they still have yet to pay all the expenses that motherhood incurs. Crittenden states that “[t]he reduced earnings of mothers are, in effect, a heavy personal tax levied on people who care for children, or for any other dependent family members (Crittenden 88).” The wage gap between men and women still exists in the workforce and Novartis is no exception – a statistical analysis confirmed that male Novartis employees earn $75 more a month than its female employees, so even Novartis-employed women were already at a disadvantage in providing for themselves and existing families (“Cheerleaders”). Once the pregnant women were fired, they had no income, a baby on way, and no plausible way to look for a job, as Holly Waters points out (“Holly Waters-Novartis”). By choosing to have a family, they were forced to leave their job because Novartis did not believe that they could have and handle both, leaving these women without any sort of monetary safety net – their first installment in paying the unpayable “mommy tax” for the rest of their lives.
The Novartis case is both infuriating and sobering to women everywhere, especially working women and expectant mothers. The fact that Novartis got away with this discrimination in this day and age is shocking, but it also shows both men and women that sexism in the workplace is not dead, but actually alive and thriving. In addition to depicting the very real continued existence of sexism, it raises consciousness and awareness about the hidden discrimination against mothers in the workplace and the monetary and social price mothers pay for being caregivers. Hopefully Novartis’s discrimination, as unjust as it was, incites working mothers and all women to recognize that sexism is not dead and to campaign for women’s inequality in the workplace and beyond.
Works Cited
Crittenden, Ann. “The Mommy Tax.”
Enloe, Cynthia. The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.
Glovin, David and Patricia Hurtado. “Novartis Must Pay $250 Million in Gender Bias Lawsuit (Update 5).” Bloomsburg Business Week. May 19 2010. Nov 5 2010. .
Edwards, James. “At Novartis, It’s Pregnant Women vs. Cheerleaders Among the Sales Reps.” BNET. Mar 10 2010. Nov 5 2010. < http://www.bnet.com/blog/drug-business/at-novartis-it-8217s-pregnant-women-vs-cheerleaders-among-the-sales-reps/4373>.
---. “Terminating the Pregnant Employee: Novartis Emails Lay Out the Appalling Tale.” BNET. May 26 2010. Nov 5 2010. .
---. “Who’s Going to Get What in the $250M Novartis Sex Discrimination Verdict.” BNET. May 19 2010. Nov 5 2010. .
“John Stossel: Holly Waters-Novartis Case.” Uploaded June 16 2009. Nov 5 2010. .
“Novartis Gender Discrimination CNN.” Uploaded June 7 2010. Nov 5 2010. .
“Novartis Pharmaceuticals.” “Working Mother 100 Best Companies of 2009.” Working Mother. Nov 5 2010. .

Follow-Up: Responding to Rachel's Post 11/4/10

In "The Lady and the Tramp", Gwendolyn Mink brought up some very important issues in relation to welfare and single women. Her article revolved around the politics of this topic, and how single women with children are stereotyped as being "lazy, promiscuous, and matriarchal", leading to a lack of support from Congress. In reading this article, I found that I could identify with Mink when she described how it was hard for her to relate to poor women stuck in a situation where they require welfare. Although I do acknowledge that this is a serious issue, and an unfair circumstance for most of these women to be in, I would find it very difficult to spend my time fighting for this cause because as far as I can tell, it does not directly affect my life. I know that sounds very selfish to say, but I believe that most white, middle-class women feel the same way due to the fact that the conflict of welfare is not relevant to their lives. It is like the concept of "womanism", created by black women, where they felt like they were not recognized. In this situation though, it is more representative of economic discrimination.

Response to Aridelle's Post 11/4/10

This article was interesting in how it framed welfare as actually not helpful to women, which is a major reason it was created in the first place. I had never thought of welfare as something that could be harmful instead of beneficial - I only knew it was for poor people who needed help getting on their feet and that was it. I do agree with her in that being a mother is extremely important and should be recognized as a job that deserves pay - not only are mothers responsible for raising the next generation with good values, but also they spend a lot of money as mothers. For example, new mothers have to buy expensive food, diapers, formula, bottles, clothes, and baby-safe appliances - when they are working jobs that only pay minimum wage, they cannot afford all of the necessities for their babies, never mind themselves. However, I had a lot of issues with her arguments though in that I don't think she was being fair or realistic when accusing certain women of making mistakes in the welfare system. First off, she made the point that the feminists campaigning for welfare are usually women that have never been on it and will never be on it, so the changes that they push for might not be the changes that poor women want or need. But what did she expect? Middle to upperclass women have the time, energy, and resources to campaign; poor women, who are usually working all the time while caring for their family, don't have the time, energy, or resources for push for welfare providing what they need. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt since I do think these middle- to upperclass feminists are trying to do good for all women, but they are just misguided on some issues because they don't have personal experience with these problems poor women face; they shouldn't be blamed for that, they should get be educated about it by poor women, by women on the inside, in the know. I felt like it is almost like a Good Samaritan situation - the right intention is there, but the right means may not be clear or used. There needs to be more communication between these two groups of women about what poor women really need and then unite these two groups into a concerted effort to push for these reforms. Second, I don't think the maternal vibe that feminists in ages past used to construct welfare is all bad. Granted I don't believe that poor women are lesser beings that need to be held by the hand, yet I think the "she can just suck it up and do it" does not encompass the myriad of situations poor women are in. There has to be a balance between nurturing and tough love. There are probably some poor women out there that are just not motivated or don't want to do work - they need the tough love wake-up call. There are probably a lot of women who, frankly, bust their butts everyday - they need support, encouragement, and women to tell them that "you can do it and we're right behind you every step of the way." It seems that society is really bad at finding a middle ground and welfare is no exception.

The Lady and the Tramp

“The Lady and the Tramp (II): Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of welfare Justice” by Gwendolyn Mink focuses on the effects of welfare reform targeting poor single mothers. The problem with welfare is that most women advocating for it are usually middle/upper class women that have not undergone the struggles of most of the recipients of welfare thus most of the changes that come about may not always be beneficial for those on welfare. The author agrees with the idea that the job of a mother in the household is crucial especially when it comes to raising their children, thus their hard work at home should be rewarded monetarily through welfare. The majority of women, some that are even feminists, are against welfare for women that remain at home and believe that they should be working to fulfill their duty in society because since the days of the feminist movement women saw the home as the ground for women’s oppression. I think that more poor single mothers that are on welfare should be introduced into these committees of welfare reform, especially for those advocates who want to promote better opportunities as well as better lives for those on welfare. I disagree with the author in that women should have the right to stay at home, but I also disagree with those that are against welfare and who believe that the single mothers on welfare are lazy and falling back on welfare as a financial solution. It is possible for these poor single mothers to have a job and fulfill their responsibilities as caregivers at the same time. I don’t think that the government should intrude on the lives of these women on both personal and intimate levels such as demanding of these people the details of intimate relationships, to make room for biological fathers in their families, and punishing their decision to bear children (p. 58). These women should not be chastised, but instead should be motivated and given options to encourage them to fulfill their duties as good citizens in society by both obtaining a job and taking care of their children.
The targeted welfare population are single women of color, black specifically. The majority of these women of color on welfare live in communities that do not make it easy for them to step outside the home to look for a job and take care of their children as well. Instead of intruding on these women’s lives and limiting them, the government should be focusing on their children. If the welfare reform requires single mothers to work, the government should make options such as by creating free after-school programs in the communities where welfare is prevalent in order to allow these women to find a job while knowing that their child is in good hands, thus enriching the lives of the children as well as the mother. These single mothers of color are the ones who should be heard and given a voice in order to be able to fulfill both their needs and society as a whole.

Response to Hanna's Post: 11/2/10

I was really struck by Hakim-Dyce's article about how she came dangerously close to becoming a go-go dancer because she had no other way of paying her mounting debt and bills. I know that some women turn to stripping to pay tuition and other expenses because it is so lucrative, but I never understood how they could do something that objectified them so readily and openly. I agreed with Dyce's sentiment that she believed that she was so close to putting herself through a traumatic ordeal because strip clubs and go-go dancing routinely demean the women dancing into lusted-after, sluttified, cash-producing objects. They ironically strip them of their personalities, ideas, and ultimately their humanity - they are reduced down to breasts, butts, and vaginas, just the body parts that men find particularly pleasurable and attractive. Even though strip clubs obviously objectify women, men are also objectified, or at least extremely stereotyped, by both the female dancers and people who do not frequent strip clubs. Men who visit strip clubs are immediately seen as sleazy, sex-obsessed jerks who don't respect women; Dyce herself said that all the go-go dancers she talked to were very cynical about men especially, probably due to their broad assumption that all men are the same - crotch-driven animals ready to have sex with anything on two legs. While some men are misogynistic, disrespecting people, I highly doubt that all men who go to strip clubs are, so their humanity is also lost once they walk in there. The really sad thing about these "professions" is that people's circumstances - dancers and customers - are completely ignored in there; everyone just assumes women go there because they're sluts and men go there because they're horny. Dyce demonstrates this disregard of personal circumstances and background in that she turned to go-go dancing to pay her bills, not because she wanted to; she emphatically did not want to even though she tried to deny her distaste or rationalize her decision. If she did become a go-go dancer, would people beside her friends who knew why wonder or ask why she did it? Probably not. Any type of activity that forgets the humanity of its participants is automatically traumatic and should be avoided, at least in my book. However, I know many other people - men and women - who find stripping and go-go dancing empowering for women because it lets them fully express their sexuality. How does it let them express their sexuality if they are catering to what men want? How is stripping rebelling against patriarchy if it is for the entertainment of men? Is stripping third-wave feminism or enlightened sexism?