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.”