Abu-Lughod: Difference, Choice, and Feminism

In her article, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others,” Lila Abu-Lughod explores the post-9/11 ethics of the “War on Terror” and the justifications made for American intervention in Afghanistan in terms of liberating, or saving, Afghan women. What makes Abu-Lughod’s article so valuable is that it forces us to think about the issues that we are supporting, the issues that we aren't supporting, and more importantly, why. Often, in the face of conflict, we turn to religion and culture instead of history and politics. In turning everything into a cultural issue - we lose the context, and without the context, it is easy to make sweeping generalizations about complicated issues.

Abu-Lughod's article is loaded with important passages and questions, touching on everything from cultural relativism, cultural imperialism and colonialism, feminism, the third world, human rights, and religion - to name a few. In one of her most powerful passages, she writes, "What I am advocating is the hard work involved in recognizing and respecting differences - precisely as products of different histories, as expressions of different circumstances, and as manifestations of differently structured desires. We may want justice for women, but can we accept that there might be different ideas about justice and that different women might want, or choose, different futures from what we envision is best?" (788). What might be best for a woman in the United States might not be what is best for a woman in Afghanistan. There may be some overlap and agreement, but there maybe there won't be. The important thing to recognize is that this is okay to have different views. It is okay to have different beliefs and fight for different causes. Women around the world do not all want the same things, and shouldn't feel like they have to. Abu-Lughod continues, "My point is to remind us to be aware of differences, respectful of other paths toward social change that might give women better lives. Can there be a liberation that is Islamic? And, beyond this, is liberation even a goal for which all women or people strive? Are emancipation, equality, and rights part of a universal language we must use?" (788). These are questions that I think every person should consider.

Abu-Lughod's discussion of respecting and understanding differences connects to the larger idea of choice. I can't help but recognize how dominant this theme has been throughout the semester, and how important it is to recognize that women everywhere deserve to have choices. The same idea applies to feminism. Feminists come in all shapes and sizes. When the authors of Manifesta came to speak, they talked about how there is no one definition of feminism - it means different things to different people. Can a woman be pro-life and be a feminist? Of course. Can a woman be a Muslim and be a feminist? Why not? More importantly, who has the right to argue otherwise? Imposing certain beliefs on others, feminist or otherwise, does not seem to benefit anyone. What we could all benefit from is taking Abu-Lughod's words to heart - we all must ask ourselves how we might contribute to making the world a more just place... for everyone.

Emerging from the Veil

Building upon the readings and class discussion concerning global feminism, the notion of the "veil" seems to have emerged in the past ten years as the predominant figure that United States and other Western feminists have looked to as the example for what feminine oppression is in the third world. The rhetoric of the United States government has truly reinforced these notions of women in the Middle East as women who have lived under repressive regimes for their whole lives and has neglected the cultural and social contexts of Islamic tradition. The generalizations that have been made about the third world are even more prevalent regarding the women in the Middle East because of the events of September 11, 2001. Women have taken a large role in our look into the repressive and extremist Islamic regimes of the Middle East. As Western feminists have taken a deeper look into these extremist governments, they have used these cultures as a basis for the idea of feminism in the Middle East.

The notion of "under the veil" truly resonates with our generation. Just like Pearl Harbor, the Vietnam War, the assassination of JFK, September 11 was the event that our generation will always remember. We will always remember where we were at the moment, and the small story of the connections we all had to people in the World Trade Center. The face of 9/11 is the "terrorists wearing the turban," and the "women under the veil." These conceptions are truly unfortunate because they have come to envelop all of the Middle East. This has become a contemporary type of "colonial feminism." It is a positive notion to include the fight for the rights of women alongside the fight against the terrorists in the world. Their intentions are a direct threat against human rights and included in that, as Bunch notioned, is the idea of women's rights. I think Abu-Lughod discounts the value of looking at different parts of the world through a lens of religious tradition and cultures. I think this is especially important in regions of the third world where religion essentially shapes the lives of the people. This is something that Westerners are not accustomed to. In my psychology class, we are looking at collectivist versus individualist cultures. The US, being very individualistic, is vastly different from these different regions that live collectively. We simply cannot fully understand the customs.

Many women in the Middle East have defended the burqa. This is completely understandable and we need to begin looking at this in a different light. Just as women place high value on their own individual success and progress in the United States, many Muslim women have placed an extremely high value on being respected. However, many women claim, as well as other scholars, that these women are subjected to harassment and looked down upon without the burqa. The only argument I would have is that in this case, they simply are not given the choice here. We do need to understand the cultural context, but the freedom of choice is very important for women and I think a first step into achieving rights. When women can decide, that is progress.

Abu-Lughod questions: "What does freedom mean if we accept the fundamental premise that humans are social beings, always raised in certain social and historical contexts and belonging to particular communities that shape their desires and understandings of the world?" (786). I think we do need to understand that this notion is somewhat true. However, I agree that the notion of interrelatedness that came up in the Mohanty article, and even more so here. Cultural relativism does discount interconnectedness on a certain level and we must realize that working with each other and understanding each other is the only way we can come to progress for the overall rights of women, where I believe, just the right to have our own opinions and beliefs, lie at the basis. Working within a framework may be the only preliminary way to address the situation and once a change has been made, new strides can come about. We really cannot discount the foreign aid that we have given to oppressed peoples and countries in need, but we must realize that questions about different regions produce different answers. I think we have come a long way since 9/11 regarding "women under the veil," but we still have a long way to go.

"The Third-World Woman"

In the discussion of "Third-World Feminism," a host of new problems arise concerning Western literature and our understanding of the notion of women in these countries that we have only heard about, read little about, or seen false depictions in movies and on TV. Both the processes of colonization and decolonization have led Westerners to take on a superior role to countries that we consider "third-world." The concept of Woman versus women is a very important one. While analyzing the role of females in these different cultures, we first have to contextualize in a sociological, political, and economic way the roles of the Woman. After understanding the history of these countries and their different cultures, we can then assess the state of women in the country. I think this is a very important distinction, and a trap that we have fallen into in the discussion of feminism in the US - overgeneralization without understanding cultural and historical contexts. The concept of "the Other" is something many of us have seen, for example, in history classes when studying the US soldiers' perception of people in Vietnam. Never have I read any literature concerning the role of "the Other" in the dialogue about feminism. Ethnocentric universalism can lead us down a very dangerous path, but so can cultural relativism. I think cultural relativism is a better way to initially approach the study of the role of women in "third-world" countries. We must contextualize their roles and then link their roles back to the interrelatedness of human beings, and human and women's rights.

Mohanty talks of "women as an already constituted and coherent group with identical interests and desires, regardless of class, ethnic or racial location, implies a notion of gender or sexual difference or even patriarchy which can be applied universally and cross culturally" (64). As we have been recently discussing in class, this is a very "second wave" approach to feminism. Today, we have in fact made strides to begin to contextualize feminism in a number of ways. The article shows that it may be dated (1988). The concept of the "average third-world woman" implies all of the stereotypes we hold as Westerners as well as a type of superiority that our lifestyle and the meaning of a woman in our culture is somehow superior. All over the world, women are seen as "victims of male violence," as "universal dependents," "victims of the colonial process," and stuck within familial systems and religious ideologies. Women do not deserve to have this "subject status" (67) that lowers them to a level of being placed in a group rather than seen as a group of unique individuals from many different cultures who practice many different customs - many of which are different from the West. Mohanty correctly points out that the ORIGINS of oppression need to be put into question in order to fully understand the situation of women in different parts of the world. She is a bit rash and overly critical of Western texts that have made the effort of writing about women in the third-world, although she has some valid points, I think she discounts that magnitude of the fact that a dialogue has been opened, and from here we can expand on this, modernize this, and use it to begin understand the historical and cultural contexts of the history of women in different parts of the world.

Women of the west are in no way superior to the "third world women." We are blessed to live in such a prosperous nation, and therefore have access to many things that women in the third-world do not - the right to vote, education, etc. However, in many cultures, this does not play a relevant role. We must understand this and understand that some people do not understand the Western way of living.

Development cannot be seen as the "all-time equalizer" (71) but rather a process of educating women about their options - therefore, giving them the chance to have rights. We cannot reinforce divisions in order to make progress, rather we must understand specific cultural discrimination against women, which in turn, can begin to open up dialogue for solutions. Mohanty brings up the feminization of poverty and the impact of this in the third world. I think this rings even more true in the "third-world" than in the West because we have a generalization of these women as all impoverished and oppressed with no rights and no hope to ever gain rights. I agree with Mohanty that we must move from our binary judgments regarding females and patriarchy, always as the victim. By placing these women within different contexts of their culture, we can begin to see their roles and expose any injustices they may be facing.

Bunch's article sheds a different light on the situation of women in different parts of the world. I think she brings up a very important point that the rest of the world does not see 9/11 as a pivotal moment as people in the US do. I think her article is a bit unpatriotic and extreme when talking about different administrations, because we cannot all place ourselves in the shoes of the President of the United States, especially when a catastrophe like 9/11 occurs. She does raise some valid points. Human security versus national security is a very good distinction that we do not often make in the US. Being abroad last semester in Paris, I had the opportunity to take a human rights course. The professor focused solely on the UN and its policies and evolution since the 1950s. He placed a much greater role on human rights and UN policies like CEDAW than I have ever seen taught in a class in the US. Here, we are much more focused on the policies of the US government, which seem to center around US security. The US is seen as a role model in the world, and the national security model of defense, rather than an open model of dialogue and coexistence has subsequently taken hold in other regions of the world.

I think asking the question, Why have feminist not had a greater impact on global issues? is extremely important. Examining the answers to this question could lead down many avenues that begin to explain the new role that feminists need to take on to have an international voice concerning human rights. US feminists and women of the rest of the world need to support EACH OTHER, and by doing so, begin to understand each other, because there is power in numbers when working under a system mainly dominated by patriarchial values. However, this is more and more dissipating, and women have a role to fill on the international scene.

NEWS FLASH: The Decrease in Childbirth Options for Women

This Tuesday, the New York Times published an article entitled Maternal Deaths Decline Sharply Across the Globe (Grady 2010). These new findings, published in the medical journal The Lancet, seem to support the notion that maternal healthcare is improving. We think we are doing better, and in some ways this is true. At the same time, many women don’t have access to the kind of maternal care that they want, or that they need. I am not saying that the statistics published in this study aren’t important. What I am saying is that such studies shouldn’t overshadow the fact that more women are having less options when it comes to childbirth. I firmly believe that all women should have the choice to give birth however they want, as long as its safe, and that choice should be supported.

Four days before Grady’s article was released, The New York Times published a different article, With the Closing of a Hospital, Women’s Childbirth Options Diminish (Dominus 2010). The hospital that the article is referring to is St. Vincent’s Hospital Manhattan. After a long struggle to stay afloat, the board of St. Vincent’s Catholic Medical Centers voted on Tuesday, April 6^th, to officially close St. Vincent’s Hospital Manhattan. Sadly, with the closing of St. Vincent’s, the local community is losing some of its essential community services, and women all over the city are losing one of the most unique obstetrics departments in New York City.

The obstetrics department at St. Vincent’s Hospital Manhattan was well known for providing a full range of childbearing options for women. Women hoping to experience anything from a low-tech childbirth to a scheduled Caesarean could find care and support at St. Vincent’s. The department, run by Dr. George Mussalli, was exceptionally midwife-friendly and considered the hospital of choice for home midwives in the event that they needed to transfer a patient. Dr. Mussalli’s own obstetrics practice, Village Obstetrics, describes itself as committed to “minimally invasive obstetrics care” and a low caesarean section rate, in addition to working collaboratively with midwives and doulas. Even in a place like New York City, this kind of approach to childbirth is hard to find. Dominus writes, “In a city where you can live however you want, as long as it’s safe – and sometimes even if it’s not – it seems absurd that there are so few places where women can give birth however they want, as long as it’s safe” (2010). Women who want to have the option (and support from their doctor) of natural birth, or any other option that deviates from the standard/norm are not able to access facilities that can provide such services.

In fact, just this past November, another one of New York City’s natural birth clinics closed its doors. Like the obstetrics department at St. Vincent’s, the Bellevue Birth Center was a unique facility. In their article, Bellevue Natural-Birth Center, Haven for Poor Women, Closes, A.G. Sulzberger and Nick Pinto explain, “The Bellevue Birth Center was celebrated as a landmark for the natural-birth movement in New York City when it opened in 1998. The luxurious natural-birth center, designed to feel more like a home than a hospital, was the only one of its kind dedicated not to Manhattan’s trend-conscious set, but to poor, mostly immigrant women on Medicaid.” In addition, “the center gave healthy women the opportunity to give birth in a comfortable environment absent the frenetic bustle of a normal hospital delivery ward. Roughly 85 percent of the patients were Chinese- or Spanish-speaking immigrants, most of them referred through Gouverneur Healthcare Services on the Lower East Side. (All midwives were required to be fluent in either Mandarin or Spanish).” At Bellevue, expecting mothers were allowed to walk around and bathe in Jacuzzis to naturally reduce pain, and had the option to choose to forgo common but invasive medical techniques like induced labor and epidural blocks. “Unlike women who chose natural birth at home,” the authors write, “patients had immediate access to hospital facilities if there were complications.” Now, with the closing of Bellevue and St. Vincent’s, there are less than a handful of natural birth facilities available in New York City. If this is the case in of the United States’ largest cities, then it seems fair to assume that women who don’t have access to such metropolitan areas also don’t have access to very many birthing options.

The one exception that I know of (though I certainly hope that there are others) is the Tuba City Regional Heal Care Corporation in Tuba City Arizona, run by the Navajo Nation and financed partly by the Indian Health Service. In class, we read Denise Grady’s article Lessons at Indian Hospital About Births, and discussed the benefits of maternal care at a hospital like Tuba City, that “prides itself on having a higher than average rate of vaginal births among women with a prior Caesarean, and a lower Caesarean rate over all.” There are four other hospitals in New Mexico and Arizona, run by the Indian Health Service, that offer vaginal birth after Caesarean to healthy women. In general, “nurse-midwives at these hospitals deliver most of the babies born vaginally, with obstetricians available in case problems occur. Midwives staff the labor ward around the clock, a model of care thought to minimize Caesareans because midwives specialize in coaching women through labor and will often wait longer than obstetricians before recommending a Caesarean. They are also less likely to try to induce labor before a woman’s due date, something that increases the odds of a Caesarean.” Another interesting fact the article brings up, is that in the rest of the country, nurse-midwives attend about only 10 percent of vaginal births. Donna Rackley, a nurse-midwife in Tuba City said that in Tuba City, “if labor is slow but there is no sign of fetal distress and the patient wants more time, the doctors will wait.” In the rest of the United States, there are very few hospitals, and doctors, that can insure the same thing.

Elan McAllister, president of Choices in Childbirth, a non-profit organization based out of New York City, is cited in the article about St. Vincent’s as well as the article about Bellevue. According to their website, Choices in Childbirth “strives to improve maternity care by helping women make informed decisions about where, how, and with whom to birth. Through education, outreach and advocacy, we provide information to the public about women’s rights and options in birth.” McAllister said that Bellevue’s natural-birth center, “should be a model that the other city hospitals are looking to replicate… And now, if you are uninsured and want that, I wouldn’t know where to send you” (Sulzberger and Pinto 2010).

In all three models, St. Vincent’s, Bellevue, and Tuba City, natural childbirth is, or was, a choice offered that every mother had the option to make. As Dominus explains, “the range of options at St. Vincent’s, in Greenwich Village, was about as wide as any expecting mother could want. You need a scheduled Caesarean? By all means. You want to give birth at home on your futon with incense burning and monks chanting on your iPod? So be it.” Now that two of these three institutions that provided such overwhelming support for women are gone, what does this mean for women?

In his article, “How Childbirth Went Industrial,” Atul Gawande (2006) addresses this very issue. Gawande has a problem with what he calls the “standardization” of childbirth, which makes it easier for doctors to deliver babies but doesn’t necessarily consider what is best for the mother. Gawande doesn’t say that c-sections are always bad, but he emphasizes that they aren’t the only option. He believes that doctors should be taught a wider variety of practices and procedures to ensure that women have access to all options and that they understand that they have to (and can) do what is best for each individual woman and her baby. What is important about Gawande’s article is that he is pushing for women to have choices and access to information to make informed choices, throughout the entire process of pregnancy and childbirth.

Overall, what is at issue is the importance of choice, in all stages of pregnancy. In class we talked about how a wide range of options should be available for women. What if we were to combine resources, so that a woman could have a midwife or a doula and an obstetrician, all in the same hospital, in the same room? Choices in childbirth should be available to ALL women, regardless of class, ethnicity, language, or anything else. Unfortunately, with the closing of so many natural birth friendly facilities, choice is becoming less and less of an option.

Dominus, Susan. "With the Closing of a Hospital, Women's Childbirth Options Diminish." The New York Times. 9 Apr. 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2010. .

Gawande, Atul. "How Childbirth Went Industrial." The New Yorker. 9 Oct. 2006. Web. 24 Mar. 2010. .

Grady, Denise. "Lessons at Indian Hospital About Births." The New York Times. 6 Mar. 2010. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. .

Grady, Denise. "Maternal Deaths Decline Sharply Across the Globe." The New York Times. 13 Apr. 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2010. .

Sulzberger, A.G., and Nick Pinto. "Bellevue Natural-Birth Center, Haven for Poor Women, Closes." The New York Times. 7 Nov. 2009. Web. 13 Apr. 2010. .

News Flash: The Body Hair Taboo and the Impact of Media on Body Image

It is all too common in our society today that the female image is guided and determined by how celebrities are depicted in the media. This is longstanding trend that has impact on everything ranging from hair styles to handbags. The result of media culture and reliance on celebrity image to in turn define female image is a narrow funneling of what exactly is deemed as acceptable and the ‘right’ image of the female. Catherine Saint Louis takes an interesting examination of this characteristic of our society in her New York Times article “Unshaven Women: Free Spirits or Unkempt?” What is unique about Saint Louis’ article though is that she examines the shock and uproar that results when a female celebrity is seen with body hair and how society perceives this as an aberration and an unnatural occurrence. The media culture that is present in this nation where celebrities are looked to as the ideal images creates an atmosphere where women are forced to walk a narrow line. and this is clearly highlighted when a celebrity strays from this short list of acceptable characteristics.
The short list of characteristics used to define what is feminine is shown most clearly when a woman strays from these standards, for example by growing body hair. Perceptions play a large role is shaping body image and the title of Saint Louis’ article highlights the inherent dichotomy in the perception of the female’s decision to let body hair grow. This decision today cannot be viewed as a simple circumstance that arises for no reason at all and instead is labeled by society as either an act of a free spirited individual or someone who has no regard for their image. To the contrary, I would argue that celebrities care very much about their image and Saint Louis cites several in her article. The contemporary example Saint Louis cites is Mo’Nique who was outed as a non-leg shaver while wearing a shorter dress to this past Golden Globes Award ceremony. Other A-list celebrities are included, such as Julia Roberts and Madonna. These are three women who capitalize off of their recognition and their image, yet have been known to sport leg, underarm, and pubic hair. I also feel Saint Louis’ inclusion of the three different areas where women are not expected to have hair is an interesting and beneficial piece of this article. Referencing Madonna’s 1985 appearance in Playboy as the spread, in all senses of the word, Saint Louis shows the different degree of acceptability and reactions to hair that has developed over time. Madonna’s more intimate pictures that “drew cheers not jeers from readers” provide stark contrast to the nasty reaction Mo’Nique received for having leg hair and underscore the strict body image those women perceived as ‘normal’ are forced to adhere to today.[1]
So Saint Louis’ article shows that people today are apt to label body hair on women as “disgusting” but what do the undertones in this article really prove?[2] The biggest message that this article provides, whether Saint Louis intends to or not, is that women are held under great scrutiny and are often met with criticism when they don’t meet society’s desired standards. The standards set by the continual and unavoidable influx of rail thin models and celebrities in society today are beyond the limits of attainability for many women. So while a woman may face scrutiny for placing a few too many calendar days between shaving her legs this culture of continually striving to look like the models is also what leads to eating disorders and other impacts that females are witnessing today. Curtis Sittenfeld’s essay in Listen Up about life as a girl touches on the panic that ensues when a girl’s body begins to stray from the steady and ‘normal’ prepubescent body to the ‘awkward’ and changing body as hormones take the driver’s seat. Portions of the essay such as, “every day during the summer after your junior year in high school, you run two miles to the country club, then you climb 250 flights on the StairMaster” reflect the lengths that are taken to fulfill the desired standard body image for many women.[3] While Sittenfeld’s essay is a fictional set of circumstances measures like this do not seem unrealistic for young girls and women in the pursuit of an idealistic body image. It is the unrealistically high standards driven by our nation’s media culture that drive many females to go to great lengths in order to fulfill not just an ideal body image but one that society has even labeled as the norm for today.
As mentioned earlier, this narrow perception of what defines an acceptable woman has changed over time. Whether through analysis of the appreciation of Madonna’s naked body in 1985, even “with no sign that she had used a razor anywhere,” or adolescent female expression of sexuality today it is clear that times have changed.[4] I do not intend to argue that we have progressed from a perfect time when everyone was cheerful and women were accepted for who they were and not who they were trying to be because this would be inaccurate. The necessity for women to adhere to certain social norms has always been true but I feel that media culture and the reliance on celebrities and models as stock images of femininity has exponentially narrowed the boundaries of acceptability for female body image. Ariel Levy provides a helpful expression of the differences over the past decades that have changed with media culture as she states, “when I went to high school, you wanted to look good and you wanted to look cool, but you would have been embarrassed to look slutty.”[5] This is included in her chapter ‘Pigs in Training’ that highlights the prevalent sexuality in younger and younger females. Thongs, short skirts, tube tops, and even sex have been mainstreamed for young women in society and this is a result of the ubiquitous presence of images of women bearing these articles or engaging in these acts. Levy even points out that the tabloid fascination with Paris Hilton’s sex tape has led to a similar instance with an eighth grader where “like Paris Hilton before her, the dissemination of her amateur porn swiftly resulted in a major uptick in her level of popularity and celebrity.”[6] No, not every eighth grade girl is making and distributing sex tapes but images, people, events, and other aspects of the media are exacting more influence than ever. One of the greatest impacts from the media is the ability to present a specific personality, image, and set of characteristics that is common among a small group of women and attribute this to the entire female population, causing anyone who is different to be scrutinized. Saint Louis’ article is not a manifesto attempting to tear down the societal structure that has led to the constriction of the female image in society. I even think Saint Louis’ acknowledgement and highlighting of those celebrities with body hair as different has just that effect in alienating them from the norm as something ‘weird’ and ‘different.’ Weird and different are not the commonly accepted standards for the female in society and definitely not what has become characteristic of media in our society. Therefore, even while Saint Louis may not be trying to take a controversial stance she does provide a starting point for evaluating the role that media and celebrity culture has taken on our society. While there may be no particular person or people to blame, certainly not celebrities and models for being who they are, there is clearly issues present in our society that show clear signs of stemming from what we see in the media. I think through education and acceptance of what truly is a standard body image and personality type may lead to countless benefits for women and society as a whole. This is of course a massive undertaking but as Saint Louis highlights with the transition in turning of perceptions from 1985 to today, from acceptance to rejection, changes and evolution can and do take place. There is nothing stopping a reversal of these trends in society today and rather than the attempts at homogeneity we need to push for individuality and the acceptance of women for who they are, even if they have hairy legs.
[1] Catherine Saint Louis, “Unshaven Women: Free Spirits or Unkempt?,” The New York Times, April 15, 2010, Fashion and Style.
[2] Catherine Saint Louis, “Unshaven Women: Free Spirits or Unkempt?”
[3] Curtis Sittenfeld, “Your Life as a Girl,” in Listen Up: Voices of the New Feminist Generation, ed. Barbara Findlen (New York: Seal Press, 2001), 3-10.
[4] Catherine Saint Louis, “Unshaven Women: Free Spirits or Unkempt?”
[5] Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (New York: Free Press, 2006).
[6] Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.

Feminist Welfare Politics

Although I found Gwendolyn Mink’s accusatory tone and vast generalizations off-putting, Mink raised several interesting points worth considering. Within her article The Lady and the Tramp, the author identifies welfare reforms as a “war against poor women” (56). While the intention of self-proclaimed “feminists” in Congress clearly was not malicious, Mink attempts to reveal how the Personal Responsibility Act perpetuates inequality, especially within the lowest social strata of the population. Mink asserts that the (relatively) new welfare legislation “distinguishes poor single mothers as a separate caste, subject to a separate system of law” (58). Mink hopes to draw attention to the potentially unnoticed disparities within our legal system and demonstrate how such imposed laws may alienate a specific group of people. In order to overcome the perpetuation of control over a vulnerable number of women, Mink believes welfare must be accessible. To her, “welfare… is a condition of women’s equality” (58).

Mink proceeds to offer a brief context of second-wave feminism, suggesting many of the policy claims made by these women marked a transition to “independence through paid employment” as the new primary goal of white feminists. This argument is extremely controversial in its large generalization of individual motivations, however once the reader recognizes the exaggeration within the statement it is possible to find some truth behind it. Middle-class feminists, Mink reasons, understood the home to be their historical site of oppression. In attempting to challenge this tradition, women turned to paid employment as a means of liberation and independence. What Mink believes many people fail to realize, however, is that “when middle-class women moved into the labor market, they did not trade in their caregiving obligations” (60). Now working as an employee was supplemental to the existing responsibility within the home setting.

In order to compensate caregivers for their parenting efforts, Mink concludes with the challenge “to lead policymakers to give poor mothers’ caregiving work the dignity it is due by providing it an income” (62). By suggesting mothering deserves to be on payroll, Mink supports her notion that parenting within the home is work in itself and should be thus rewarded as so. The author makes sure to mention men would not be excluded from this type of income, as not to create more divisions of inequality within our society – the wage for caregiving should be available to all those qualified.

Although Mink raised several interesting arguments throughout the course of her article, I was rather irritated by her vast generalizations and eagerness to place blame on others. As she attempts to unveil why the Personal Responsibility Act was passed, Mink asserts that over time recipients of welfare have been labeled with “radically charged images of lazy, promiscuous and matriarchal women” (59). While there is undoubtedly a stigma attached to welfare and various stereotypes that accompany it, we are reminded that such misconceptions are undeserved because every situation is unique to itself. Although Mink is quick to dispel any biases surrounding women on welfare, she finds no problem in stating “Republicans won their war against poor single mothers with the complicity of millions of other feminists” (56). Even if Mink intends to shock the reader with her blameful language in hopes of drawing attention to the subject, it seems hypocritical to fault such a diverse body of people with the same offense. Instead, I think it would be more productive to approach the topic of welfare with an inclusive approach. Peggy McIntire, for example, recognizes her advantage as a white female and calls upon the reader to join her in a comprehensive effort to promote women’s rights. An individual is likely to be deterred from supporting Mink after being blamed with years of inequality among struggling mothers. Mink’s article would have been more effective had she used more progressive and encouraging rhetorical strategies.

Gender, Work, and Equality: The Mommy Tax

In her article "The Mommy Tax," Ann Critenden highlights several important and controversial issues that both women and men face when they choose to have children. Despite the article being slightly outdated and sometimes extreme, Critenden makes several points that forced me to think about issues that I realized I wasn't very familiar with. I think many people are familiar with the issue of equal pay between men and women in the workplace, but Critenden's focus on mothers (and parents) provides a new framework for consideration.

I think most government and company policies only scratch the surface of an issue that they should be facing head on. I found it troubling that both Virginia Daly and Cindy DiBiasi - women who fought back against the system - were essentially silenced by the system and the law. For DiBiasi, the process was so draining and overwhelming that she ended up not suing her employer at all. Cases like hers are discouraging, yet this seems to be the norm, not the exception. A lot of women are having to decide between having a career and having a family. For some people, this may not seem like such a big deal. Why not just pick one? Why not have both? It is strange to think that this decision may be framed as a choice. Critenden explains, "Americans have a hard time realizing that such deeply personal choices as when or whether to have a child can be powerfully circumscribed by broader social or economic factors. American women, in particular, are stunningly unaware that their "choices" between a career and a family are much more limited than those of women in many European countries, where policies are much more favorable to mothers and children" (108). The choice may seem simple to those of us who haven't had to consider it - have a career or have kids. But the reality for most parents is anything but simple. The social norms, stereotypes, and laws in the US make it very difficult for parents to actually have both without facing negative consequences - consequences that Critenden says could be prevented if more appropriate laws were in place.

At the Manifesta lecture, several students expressed concerns about the administrations handling of sexual misconduct and assault. Jennifer and Amy talked about how sometimes it can be difficult for people (in that case, the administration) to grasp the importance and/or severity of an issue. They suggested framing the issue in terms of another issue - something that Critenden does with the mommy tax and anti-discrimination laws - a possible step in reducing the mommy tax by expanding antidiscrimination laws to cover parents. She explains that Joan Williams, a law professor, argues that "the design of work around masculine norms can be reconceptualized as discrimination" (107). Perhaps in this light, more people would realize the significance of the issues faced by mothers, fathers, children, and families in our country and begin (or hopefully, by now, to continue) to work together towards positive change.

The Institution of Marriage

The institution of marriage for gays and lesbians has been met with both overwhelming support and massive opposition in recent years as state legislation have begun to make this possibility a reality. The legal system is tedious in many aspects, and the differences between civil unions and marriage itself can be a bit complicated. Whatever any proponent or opponent has to say about this heated debate, we live in a free democratic society that paradoxically is blocking fundamental freedoms for a growing community in our society. Organizations like the Human Rights Campaign provide the basic information that all people who have privilege to make change in this country need access to in order to be educated on the matter. The difference between civil unions and marriage was foreign to me before reading a fact list. Marriage provides an avenue for gay and lesbian couples to conduct their lives like a heterosexual couple. The economic benefits of marriage are astounding, and to think many of these things can't be shared by life partners who share the same love that a heterosexual married couple does is troubling. The recent legislation is a positive first step to enact these changes into law. However, just because civil unions are permitted in a state like Vermont, not all gay and lesbian couples can realistically live in Vermont. This is a simple reality and may seem repetitive, but after reading the economic hardship that gay and lesbian couples have to go through because they are not recognized in the same manner as heterosexual couples, it is outrageous to think of a couple from a place like New Mexico traveling to Vermont because their basic rights are denied in their home state.

Aside from the basic denial of human rights and rights as a U.S. citizen, these people are law abiding citizens who contribute to the well-being of our nation, who pay their taxes, who are in love, and who want to live their everyday lives like normal people. I admired Naples article about "Queer Parenting" because she brings a very realistic twist to the current situation in our country. In this day and age, the amount of same-sex couples is on the rise and becoming "more normal" by our societal standards. I agree, there is no doubt that a heterosexist regime exists within the institution of marriage, but through all of this active legislation, lawmakers and activists are working to deconstruct that regime and allow same-sex couples to share in the long coveted institution of marriage. Patriarchy will continue to exist in society whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed. Naples is extremely practical in that organizers of this movement need to work to achieve the political goals instead of attacking the institution itself. Our society is full of institutions, and sometimes in order to enact change, people must work within those institutions to help re-shape thought and eventually alter an institution to be contemporary to the general societal norms of the times. The uproar that the same-sex marriage debate has created shows the pride within the gay community to be recognized in this manner. With scientific and technological advances, as well as progression in society, many same sex couples have the privilege of having children. Why should they be denied the rights that a heterosexual couple with children has? This is intentionally marginalizing a sector of society.

Naples discusses her partner's pregnancy and the classes they attend and experiences they have together during these nine months. Naples points out that her partner frequently found herself talking to other pregnant women, lesbians or not, and coexisting without pointing out any fundamental differences - mainly because, in reality, there are no fundamental differences between a pregnant lesbian woman and a pregnant heterosexual woman. It is a societal construction and the institution of marriage that has led us to believe these things. But working for change within the institution can truly change how society thinks. Heterosexual privilege must be challenged, but it cannot be completely denied. Gays and lesbians must find an equal playing field to hold constructive debates concerning these privileges.

Ettelbrick's article truly went against the constructive progressivism that Naples was discussing. She is looking to the institution of marriage as something that is barbaric - when this institution has a huge bearing on the shape of our society. I think she attacks the institution for the wrong reasons, and does not present any answers as to what rights gays and lesbians should be granted if it is not marriage. The economic benefits as well as the personal satisfaction through a union that is recognized legally and by society is what the gay and lesbian communities have been working towards as a first step into coexistence. Ettelbrick is denying any coexistence and acting as if she needs a red carpet rolled out for any lesbian or gay relationship. Therefore, the privilege is simply shifted rather than eliminated. Marriage will not make gays and lesbians invisible, but rather accepted. Relationships and family diversity will only be encouraged by allowing gays and lesbians to marry and live the married life as a heterosexual couple does. I agree with her that rights and justice really do go hand in hand. However, how is marriage not accepting gay and lesbian couples into society?? I think this is a huge step for our nation, and for human rights in general.

Marriage would make a gay or lesbian more "mainstream." However, with the economic rights as well as other legal perks to being married, isn't this what a gay or lesbian couple could hope for? By legalizing gay and lesbian marriage, this does not force gay and lesbian couples to be the same as heterosexual couples - but rather, allows them to enjoy the same rights if they so desire. It is equalizing our conception of human beings, of equal rights for all, a concept that this nation was founded upon. Power relations would both promote different kinds of relationships as well as legal perks. I disagree that marriage for gays and lesbians would lead to sexual oppression. I look to it as an avenue of acceptance and a huge step for these two communities. Granted, the institution of marriage is heterosexually dominated, but these things cannot change overnight. This first step is monumental into moving forward. Ettelbrick condemns the institution of marriage itself, it seems to the point where she even is condemning it for heterosexual couples.

Ettelbrick ends her chapter talking about a path to recognition for the gay and lesbian communities, and I think this directly corresponds with the message that Naples hopes to convey in her article. Marriage provides different rights and privileges that many gay and lesbian couples have the right to enjoy. If a gay or lesbian couple does not wish to marry, even if it becomes universally legalized, that is their choice. However, these couples should have the right to participate in the institution of marriage and in society as they wish - as equal human beings.

Female Immigrants: Slipping Through the Cracks

Proper protection of female immigrants against abuse in this nation is certainly not being witnessed. Similarly to how there are gaps in healthcare coverage for certain demographics of women, there are also groups of women that are not afforded the same protection against battering and abuse as their counterparts. These women are literally slipping through the cracks under a flawed set of laws that forces silence upon them. What fosters this silence is often the failure to provide the proper information to these women about how and why they can utilize the law for their protection. Crenshaw highlights this issue in her text, and points to how there is a long history of immigrant women suffering in silence. Originally this began with a law that for all intents and purposes forced immigrant women to stay in a marriage with a U.S. citizen for two years if they wanted to achieve citizenship. What this unfortunately led to was many immigrant women that were “reluctant to leave even the most abusive of partners for fear of being deported” (Crenshaw 4). While this particular issue was rectified under the Immigration Act of 1990 the situation for immigrant women still remained where they were unable to voice their troubles and seek help. One interesting circumstance that Crenshaw points to in order to highlight why these women were unable to seek help is the language barrier. The language barrier was an issue both because many immigrant women were unable to properly locate the services that would protect them and also because even if they did locate the proper clinics or shelters they were turned away because the shelters lacked “bilingual personnel and resources.” This clearly illustrates how services are at times limited to only those who are English speakers, which immediately nullifies the rights to prevent abuse and to achieve help to end these circumstances of many of the inhabitants of this nation. Regardless of how one stands on immigration laws and the presence of illegal immigrants in this nation it is unacceptable to allow the persistence of violence against anyone, particularly those who are stuck within the lifestyle of battering and violence. One important point that Crenshaw highlights is that in order for effective change to be witnessed the root of issues must be addressed. While certain provisions can provide immediate alleviation of a problem it is often the case that these changes only alter one aspect of why and how a woman is being battered and not taking steps to prevent the issue altogether. One example of this is the Violence Against Women Act of 2000. Changes need to take place from the grass roots and work their way up because it is often the case that the marginalized women that are being abused are unfamiliar with congressional measures that in effect will minimally benefit them. A widespread education program, perhaps in the form of an ad campaign, may be one effective measure to present this issue to the entire public and shed light on this forgotten demographic. Presenting this as an issue is the first step to solving the issue and this is something that has not yet occurred. Simply presenting services does not ensure that all women will be able to access them, and just how we have seen that healthcare access was unequal but has undergone helpful changes, a fundamental restructuring and the provision of information and aid will be necessary if this problem is ever to be fixed.

Sex, Sexuality, and Silence

Ariel Levy's chapter "Pigs in Training" from her book Female Chauvinist Pigs has both strengths and weaknesses. As we discussed in class, Levy presents a very white, upper class, euro-centric, feminist view that can be frustrating and difficult to negotiate. Despite the inherent bias in Levy's arguments, I think it is important not to cast aside all of her views as irrelevant. Although it is sometimes unclear, the underlying message of this chapter addresses two very important issues: binary constructions and silencing. According to Levy, our culture perpetuates contradicting messages about sex: there is a discrepancy between what teenagers see and experience in their everyday lives and what they are taught in school. In our culture, sex is everywhere - TV shows, magazines, and movies to name a few. But in school, many teens are taught to "just say no," or in some cases, they aren't taught about sex at all.

In class, we have talked a lot about how our society has a tendency to see things as either right or wrong, black or white, normal or abnormal. Often, we fail to recognize, or talk about, anything in between. I think that Levy provides a strong example of this in her discussion of the (relatively) current political approach to sexual education. From Levy's standpoint, many conservatives promote abstinence-only programs, while many liberals promote a relaxed approach with little to no boundaries or limits. As Levy points out, "both of these approaches can ultimately have the same result: a silence about the complexities of desire, feminine desire in particular" (167). This notion of "silencing" has larger implications - when issues are silenced, people are silenced. If we don't talk about sex and sexuality open and honestly, we run the risk of perpetuating oppressive ideas and behavior.

News Flash: Women in the Navy

In her article, “Hormonal Hurricanes: Menstruation, Menopause, and Female Behavior,” author Anne Fausto-Sterling presents a history of the regulation of women’s activities. Today, the idea that women are rendered incapable – both mentally and physically – of performing certain tasks or participating in certain activities because of their hormonal psychology or reproductive systems may seem antiquated. When we read about past examples of women being excluded from activities or positions because their hormones make them too emotional or their reproductive systems make them too vulnerable seem silly and obsolete. Unfortunately, they still exist. A prime example of this is the United States Navy’s ban on female submarine crew members. This example supports the notion that despite how far we’ve come in our thinking about women’s physical and mental capacities and capabilities, on some level we still deem women incapable.

The Navy’s submarine policy has been debated for decades. Just last month, an ABC News exclusive announced that the Navy decided to begin the process of lifting the ban on women serving on submarines (Kerley 2010). According to the article, spokesmen for the civilian Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen all indicated that their clients support lifting the ban. As a result, on February 19th Secretary of Defense Robert Gates signed a letter notifying Congress of the Navy’s policy change. The only possible problem would arise if Congress decided to pass legislation “specifically barring the policy change,” a decision that would have to be made during the thirty-day window that began when Gates signed the letter.

Currently, the Navy has more than 50,000 women in the 330,500-strong service (MacAskill 2010). Still, the first time women were allowed to serve aboard naval warships was in 1993. According to ABC, the Navy said has said that women have been banned from submarines “partly because of the close quarters and limited sleeping areas” (Kerley 2010). Although submarines are one of the last places in the military that women are excluded from, they will still be barred from entering the Seals, the Navy’s special operations combat team (MacAskill 2010). A Defense Department official told ABC News that the hope is for 12 to 18 ROTC or Naval Academy graduates will enter submarine training. Hopefully by then, that group will include a few women.

Overall, the result seems promising. Women are a big step closer to serving on U.S. submarines. However, even if Congress also supports lifting the ban, women won’t be able to physically serve on a U.S. submarine for almost two years. This is because the Navy has to alter several submarines before they can accommodate female members. Since officers are already separated from the other enlisted personnel on submarines, female officers will likely be the first women to be accommodated into the program. In addition, women will not be allowed to serve alone – the policy will require at least two women to be on board. Other ideas include having junior female officers bunk with more experienced female officers, to create a sort of mentor system. There will also be restrictions for pregnant women – a policy that is also implemented on surface vessels (Kerley 2010).

When asked about the policy, Naval and government leaders have said that the time has come to “broaden opportunities for women” (Kerley 2010). Although I applaud the Navy’s actions to include women on submarines, I find it troubling to think that 2010 is “that time.” What took so long? When will it be time for women to be Navy seals? When will it be time for women to fight on the front lines? My point is this: women are still being restricted from positions of leadership and power. Fausto-Sterling explains that throughout history, certain messages have been clear: “women, by nature emotionally erratic, cannot be trusted in positions of responsibility. Their dangerous, unpredictable furies warrant control by the medical profession, while ironically the same “dangerous” females also need protection because their reproductive systems, so necessary for the procreation of the race, are vulnerable to stress and hard work” (1997:91-92). Perhaps some of these messages no longer seem relevant. But in the context of this example, I think it is important to realize that these myths about women’s bodies and minds still exist. Maybe they manifest in different ways, but the underlying belief is the same: women are incapable.

These issues are not just present in the military. In fact, it is possible use this example of the Navy’s submarine policy to explore examples of this exclusion present in other institutions, especially, as Fausto-Sterling points out, in the medical profession. True, we are in the process of lifting the ban on women on submarines – but in other areas women’s positive capabilities are still not accepted or recognized.

Kerley, David, and Luis Martinez. "Exclusive: Navy to Lift Ban on Women Serving Aboard Submarines." ABC News. ABC News Internet Ventures, 23 Feb. 2010. Web. 7 Mar. 2010. .

MacAskill, Ewen. "US Navy Moves to Lift Ban on Women Serving in Submarines." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 24 Feb. 2010. Web. 7 Mar. 2010. .

Childbirth

I found Atul Gawande’s article “The Score” very difficult to read at times. The author uses graphic and explicit language to describe the birthing process in a brief historical overview. As someone who still needs to lie down after having my finger pricked at the doctor’s office, I especially had trouble making it through the evolution of methods used to deliver “stuck” babies. In addition to being turned off by Gawande’s casual rhetoric, I found Goer’s falsification of many of the statistics within “The Score” to be particularly interesting. While reading Gawande’s article, I couldn’t help but question some of the statements the author offered throughout his piece. The author suggests “those of us in other fields of medicine don’t use these measures anywhere near as reliably and as safely as obstetricians use theirs” (7), when referring to obstetrics being perceived as having little scientific justification of their actions. Since already skeptical of Gawande’s appreciation of accurate information, I was not entirely surprised when Goer discounted several of the author’s numbers within her response piece.

Although I believe Gawande’s article contains many deep flaws within its arguments, I am not in complete support of Goer’s deconstruction either. While Henri Goer does an effective job of identifying the paradox and seeming lack of attention to the individual woman within Gawande’s piece, she too seems to be on the far extreme at the opposite end of the spectrum. Goer seems to go over-the-top in comparing excess newborn harms to those in vaginal birth when she suggests “cuts,” “mother’s negative early reaction to mother” and “failure of breastfeeding” as differentiating problems between the two types of births. I would be curious to see how small the percentage is of these instances in c-section babies and then consider whether or not the trade-off would be worth the risk.

Noticing this potential exaggeration is not intended to imly c-sections should be the go-to solution. I was surprised and impressed by the statistics provided on the success rate of normal vaginal births however think it is important to recognize each author comes from a very opinionated and (possibly) extreme stance. Goer’s recommendations are simply not accessible to all women. Hiring a “doubla” most likely comes at no small cost and it seems unrealistic to suggest Rourke may have prevented her birth complications had she had a doubla present.

The Woman's Right to Support, Regardless of Choice

Inga Muscio’s essay, “Abortion, Vacuum Cleaners and the Power Within,” struck me as an interesting piece of writing but as one with a questionable message. From the very first paragraph in her text it seems that Muscio will be sharing pro-life sentiment as she proclaims she is “adamantly against clinical abortions” (LU 112). As the story goes on though and Muscio familiarizes the reader with the gritty details of clinical abortions and her personal experiences with three separate abortions it comes to light that Muscio is not necessarily pro-life but anti-external-dependence. Muscio criticizes ‘western medicine’ and the reliance upon doctors to perform abortions when there are other options available; options that she herself has successfully implemented. Muscio’s bolstering of herbal methods of abortion that can be accomplished without the use of doctors or invasive medical procedures is where I disagree with her stance regarding abortion. One of the most beneficial aspects of clinical abortions is that those individuals searching for help have the services of skilled professionals to aid them through the difficult process. These are not only medical professionals but mental health and counseling professionals who can help women and their partners decide the best available options and if they so choose to follow through with the abortion these professionals can provide much needed support. My happiness for Muscio regarding her personal success is tempered by my incredulousness regarding her repeated, three times to be exact, unwanted and unfulfilled pregnancies. While Muscio supports a system of choice where women can control their pregnancies on their own, without clinical measures, I personally think Muscio is a model of questionable decision making. Muscio’s own use of “he was fun to romp with and blah dee blah blah blah” to explain how she got pregnant in one instance underscores her own inability to explain why she got pregnant as well as her level of immaturity during the decision making process to have sex in the first place (LU 116). However, from a realistic standpoint I understand that education about contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies will still leave margin for those people who become pregnant even still. In this regard my stance on abortion parallels Allison Crews’ from her essay, “And So I Chose.” Crews’ last paragraph beginning, “being pro-woman, being pro-choice, means being supportive of any reproductive choice a woman makes for herself” most closely resembles what I feel to be the best method to help woman deal with this difficult issue (LU 148). Crews’ main focus on being supportive of the decision a woman makes is an aspect I feel is missing from Muscio’s method of avoiding clinical abortion. While clinical abortion may leave a woman with more physical pain in the immediate wake of abortive procedures, I feel the support systems and counseling staff at clinics can help soothe, or avoid all together, the deep emotional wounds that can result from terminating a pregnancy and that can last for many years. There is truly no one correct way of guiding this issue, however I feel Muscio’s stance is misdirected and Crews’ focus on support systems and the importance of personal choices aided through support from positive individuals presents a favorable model that can easily be followed.

News Flash: Maternal Healthcare Faliures in the U.S. Today

The healthcare debate in the U.S. is one that everyone has become all too familiar with. One would be hard pressed to go through a day without hearing or reading about the development of healthcare reform in the nation. However, while people have become focused on this issue as an outlet for jabs from pundits and a continual presence in the news, there are serious issues at hand regarding equal health coverage in the United States today. Amnesty International has recently completed a study focused on this very issue, specifically the maternal healthcare crisis, and how too many women are dying in the U.S. while having babies. The effective care of women having birth in the U.S. has declined in recent times and this lack of care underscores other, greater issues surrounding the equal treatment of women both in the U.S. and around the world today.
Jennifer Block, in her article from Time magazine, highlights the main points from the Amnesty International report, titled “Deadly Delivery”, and provides insight on how a woman dying during childbirth is a “systemic violation of women’s rights.”[1] With her article Block proves how the economic disparity among women as compared to men and between white and non-white females is one of the greatest contributors to death during childbirth. These economic disparities are the result of societal trends that maintain the inferior status of women in society and thus by the rigid structuring of gender roles provided by ‘the system’ women have less capability to avoid these childbirth complications. The ability to avoid the causes of death from childbirth is clearly a possibility because the Amnesty International report illustrates how most women are dying not from random complications but because they “are not getting the comprehensive services that they need.”[2] On the same note, while black women in the U.S. are “four times as likely as white women to die from pregnancy-related causes” it is not due to complications like hemorrhage and “they are no more likely to experience certain complications.”[3] These are the most apparent issues surrounding maternal healthcare today and while they only scratch the surface of this large issue the do provide insight on greater problems surrounding the role of women and class difference in society today.
Block’s article and the Amnesty International report provide statistics highlighting the disparate healthcare coverage of women and minority women, but what this perspective of maternal healthcare coverage really proves is the greater failures of equality in society today. The clearest issue linked to maternal healthcare coverage is gender inequality in the workplace. Many Americans today do not have ample healthcare coverage simply because they do not have jobs. Women suffer under the patriarchal system that discriminates against females and where “women lack access to job security and the benefits of social protection.”[4] Women are also faced with the issue of choosing to have children which threatens job security in the first place and can result in greater health risks for women, as the increasing rates of birth-related deaths have shown, potentially from loss of their job and its associated health benefits. It is no surprise to see that many of these trends apparent in the U.S. are paralleled in other nations today. But while other nations are taking proactive steps to alleviate the risks faced by women before, during, and after childbirth the measures taken in the U.S. have lagged behind. For instance, the organization ‘Chile Crece Contigo’ in Chile promotes access to health services and also includes goals aimed at “stimulating women’s employment.”[5] It is this lack of focus on the issues facing women’s health in the U.S. that has placed American women “at greater risk of dying from pregnancy-related causes than in 40 other countries.”[6] The first step to solving this problem is acknowledging that it exists, and more importantly tackling the roots of the issue, such as unequal representation in the workplace.
The examination of different rates of birth-related deaths between white women and black women in the U.S. parallels Peggy McIntosh’s explanation of white privilege. Similarly to how McIntosh explains meritocracy as a myth, I feel people envisage equality under health care in the U.S. too ideally and that this sense of equality is a myth. I do not intend to say that the American public thinks that every single person is provided the same exact health care benefits, but rather that programs like Medicare and Medicaid give people a false sense of comfort with the healthcare status quo. The glaring differences between whites and non-whites under the nation’s health care system are perpetuated by what McIntosh refers to as the “colossal unseen dimensions” of social systems that may be acknowledge as problems but are rarely altered.[7] One cannot even conclude that the current attempts at healthcare reform will change these issues because economic inequalities are maintained by a host of other social systems that may remain virtually unchanged by reforms in healthcare. The median wealth for white, black, and Latino women is a clear indicator of the economic inequalities between women. While white women have a median wealth of $41,000, black and Latino women have $100 and $120, respectively.[8] This unequal access to healthcare between white and non-white women is a direct consequence of racist and sexist aspects within the societal structure today, as well as many aspects of white and male privilege that accentuate the discriminatory racist and sexist practices. McIntosh’s discourse on white privilege aids in understanding the issues surrounding differential healthcare coverage among women and how economic inequality fuels these differences.
Block also highlights that all women will continually be faced with greater risk from childbirth even under conditions where equal access is provided. This is important to point out because it highlights how women are truly in a bind where many of the common practices, like unnecessary C-sections, have become ubiquitous in maternal healthcare and produce great risk for even those mothers that have the best healthcare coverage. This particular point focuses on the issue of healthcare equality on the whole rather than the specific problem of economic influences on maternal healthcare risks. It is important to view this issue through a broader perspective because it aids in highlighting how this is specifically a female issue and also aids in drawing links to this issue on the global scale. Maternal healthcare and sexism in healthcare systems is a worldwide issue that needs to be addressed. While each nation will need to take different approaches to issues of maternal healthcare, as McIntosh comments on the notion of change, the alteration of issues in maternal healthcare will require fundamental restructuring of systems that perpetuate inequalities in the first place.
Many of the points that Block presents in her article are shocking to see to for the United States. It seems unacceptable that as a global leader the U.S. still stands behind 40 other nations in the world today in its ability to prevent death from pregnancy-related causes. The rate of deaths per 100,000 births that doubled from 1987 to 2006 should not continue to rise and many changes will be necessary to turn this around.[9] The diminishment of affects on health from economic disparity in society will be only one among many integral measures needed to implement effective change in both maternal healthcare and the national healthcare system as a whole.

[1] Jennifer Block, “Too Many Women Dying in U.S. While Having Babies,” Time, March 12, 2010, (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1971633,00.html).
[2] Jennifer Block, “Too Many Women Dying in U.S. While Having Babies.”
[3] Jennifer Block, “Too Many Women Dying in U.S. While Having Babies.”
[4] M.J. Stephey, “Why Sexism Kills,” Time, November 11, 2009, (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1937336,00.html).
[5] M.J. Stephey, “Why Sexism Kills.”
[6] Jennifer Block, “Too Many Women Dying in U.S. While Having Babies.”
[7] Peggy McIntosh, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” 1988.
[8] Class Notes 3/11/10
[9] Jennifer Block, “Too Many Women Dying in U.S. While Having Babies.”

A Search for Recognition

The readings for this week have to do with many different issues that marginalized women face in American society today. "Black Sexual Politics" addresses the contemporary popular culture's stigmas attached to Black and Latina women and men. Popular culture has done nothing but exploit these values through JLo's booty and Destiny's Child's messages of female power in their music. These societal recognitions originate in the past, with prominent figures like Josephine Baker. African Americans in general have been attached to a stigma of "wild" sexuality since colonial times - which transferred across the Atlantic to the United States. Collins makes a valid point that the biological racism has turned into more of an economically successful versus impoverished debate, with African Americans usually comprising the majority of the impoverished population - perpetuating the social hierarchy that has taken over today. Popular culture has only pushed these values through intense marketing and use of improved technology. Beyonce and JLo do not appear are the "repressed" and marginalized segments of society, so their sexual freedom seems appealing. But, the women that these superstars appear to emulate them. Sexuality has a fine line in American culture, and we have yet to reconcile and acknowledge the boundary between a healthy sexuality and censoring what is in the media. The talk-show examples are something that I can truly relate to. When nothing is on during the long summer days, Jerry Springer turns into a viable option on TV, purely for its entertainment value. However, when one takes a step back from boredom and passivity, the values that the Jerry Springer show make visible to a large population are absolutely preposterous. Family drama is something that everyone can relate to - but it is turned into a spectacle with the heightened presence of race and sexuality - something that most viewers do not relate to in their everyday lives. These shows highlight the challenges that our society must overcome in relation to establishing a healthy dialogue about sexuality.

With that healthy dialogue would hopefully come a more openness into the world of lesbians. The most striking distinction Rich made that I, and many others, are guilty of, is grouping lesbians in with homosexuals. They are very different and warrant their own cultures. However, especially heterosexual males, have been forced to face homosexuality, but have managed to repress the lesbian identity, with the exception of the "Female Chauvinist Pigs" who participate in lesbianism simply to appeal to men's fantasies and desires. But that is not what the real lesbian culture is today. Historically, men have been oppressive to women in a number of ways - regarding their own sexuality and worth as a human being. The feminist movement has come to a point where the lesbian identity must be identified and integrated into the popular culture. Every female has a different experience, and men cannot continue to discredit that today. Within these differences is finding a personal sexuality. Women should not feel "psychologically trapped" to fit into some mold that society has created. Just as in the "Listen Up" excerpts, the Indian-American identity, or the pre-adolescent sexual exploration, must be discovered on a case-by-case basis. The feminine experience is relative to each and every individual woman.

I think that ultimately, women desire recognition on the continuum of identities. There exist numerous ways of being today, and a certain identity must not be discredited because it has not been historically "normal" in society up to present day. We are at a turning point, and we must create a dialogue in order to establish an open sexuality where it is free and comfortable, but through knowledge and healthy practices.