Within the assigned chapter of reading in Anne Fausto-Sterling’s book, the author explores several fundamental issues concerning women’s health. Sterling analyzes the way in which society uses biological theories to perpetuate social inequalities. Frequently we may not even recognize this phenomenon is taking place, however when direct examples are identified it seems shockingly obvious. Although Sterling offers multiple persuasive arguments regarding these health issues, I think it is imperative to keep in mind her book was published in 1992. While eighteen years may not seem like a large amount of time in the context of women’s oppression, there have been significant scientific developments made during this time that may be accidentally overlooked if one is not aware of the book’s copyright date.
Despite the fact the scientific research Sterling evaluates is semi-outdated, several of the points raised continue to strike close to home. Sterling suggests biological differences between men and women have been socially conditioned to imply specific and inferior traits about the female sex. The author claims that society has historically perceived women as “by nature emotionally erratic [and not to be] trusted in positions of responsibility” (Sterling, 91). As I continued to read, I could not help but think of one specific incident that occurred a mere several years ago. While making a speech, the former president of Harvard University made several comments implying women to be biologically inferior to men in the field of science. Although when called under question the administrative bigwig claimed his statements were supported by scientific research, the general message had been clear: women are biologically inferior to men – at least in regard to science. One of the aspects I find most intriguing about this situation, and also in general, is that someone is such a high position of academic stature would be willing to publicly orate such a fact without a significant amount of evidence behind it.
I think this point is emphasized throughout the course of Sterling’s text. Although society possesses a general understanding of PMS and menopause, along with a variety of other women’s health concerns, Sterling points out there is not a wealth of scientific evidence to support these claims. It seems as though our cultural understanding of women’s health is more the result of historical interpretation than an educated analysis. As Sterling evolves her argument, she calls for reliable scientific research and provides examples of several feminist scientists who have begun to do just that. Parlee, for example, distinguished four different types of scientific studies – correlation, retrospective questionnaires, daily self-reports, and thematic analysis – and deconstructs the problems within each one.
It is easy for an individual to become overwhelmed in the face of such a large-scale problem. Sexton’s poem offers an example of one means of approach the issue at hand. “In Celebration of my Uterus” appreciates the physical woman and uses a unifying tone throughout the prose. This encouraging-toned rhetoric is what women need to value their worth and understand themselves without the bias of a male-dominated society. In addition, Valdes raises an interesting statistic within her brief article on being an aerobics instructor. “Studies show that seventy-five percent of adult women in this country think we are too fat, though only twenty-five percent of us actually weigh more than the standards set forth by Metropolitan Life’s weight tables” (Valdes, 26). I think this is an interesting point because it implies how women come to see themselves within our cultural context, and the outlook tends to be grim. In order to break free from these social barriers, we must come to an appreciation and acceptance of ourselves before more steps can be taken.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Teal - one of the key things to remember when reading Fausto-Sterling's "Hormonal Hurricanes: Menstruation, Menopause, and Female Behavior," is the date of publication. However, even though it was written in 1987, I think it is important not to cast off Fausto-Sterling's article as "outdated." She presents an important history of our society's attitudes and perceptions of women's bodies and minds. Guided by the idea that "women's reproductive systems direct their lives," our society has perpetuated certain messages: "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" (91-92).
ReplyDeleteFausto-Sterling discusses how these misguided assumptions have influenced real-life practices, especially in medicine and medical treatment. In doing so, the medical world helped generate the view of "the naturally abnormal woman." There was (and still is) an inherent belief that women are diseased, disordered, unclean, and incapable. I find it interesting, and somewhat horrifying, that by basing current medical treatments on past medical studies and beliefs, women today may be receiving improper, unnecessary, or even dangerous treatment. While we tend to view science as fact, it is clear that our social and cultural norms shape those facts, and even vice versa.
Although her article had very compelling points, at times her views seemed biased and extreme. I think that it is important to recognize how we make many decisions based on cultural and social norms, and these decisions have consequences. There need to be new studies and new research that scraps the traditional conception of what is "normal." There really is no such thing. Fausto-Sterling is hopeful that "thoughtful studies" that disregard traditional biomedical model will come up with new, multidimensional experimental approaches (110). At the same time, she seems to be saying that this new research will only come from feminist biologists and social scientists. If we are truly going to change the way we look at women's health, these goals can't just be taken up by those with a feminist agenda. Maybe that is a good place to start, but somewhere along the line the rest of the medical community needs to be brought into the picture. If med students are being taught the traditional medical model, then these "biological myths" will continue to be reinforced in medical practices. Also, in the context of present research, I agree with Teal. It is important to remember that a lot has happened since this was written, and hopefully there have been significant scientific developments that have addressed (and will continue to address) these issues surrounding women's health.
After reading about what the president of Harvard University said about women, I was reminded of a scene in the movie "Anchorman". Maybe it is because I am girl, but when I hear people claiming that girls are not as strong or smart as boys are I think they sound just as ridiculous as Will Farell does in this scene where he says, "I'm the man who discovered the wheel, and built the Eiffel tower out of metal.. and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain the third of the size of us. It's science." His ludicrous claims do not make him sound any smarter just because he adds the phrase, "it's science" on at the end.
ReplyDeletelink: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEqgWrJ6Hf4