The Role of Doulas, Midwives, and Patient Advocates in Reproductive Justice

Alcohol Advertising

A look at gender representations in alcohol advertising.

Video Project: The Men's Right Movement

Here is my video. When I made this video, I did not know how people would react. I found this very humorous... Tell me how you feel.

Monkeys and Unequal Pay

Even monkeys know that unequal pay for equal work is WRONG. It's hard to believe that we live in a country where humans can't see this travesty - or decide to do nothing about it. Plus, the monkeys are funny 

Christianity and Non-normative Sexualities

Gender Performance and "Uptalking"

Growing Up Gendered

Growing Up Gendered, which I wanted to call A Children's Guide to Gender (but it wouldn't fit on the title page…).

~ Brooke 

Gendering Children

Thinking about how we think about gendering children.

You Don't Say?

The following are images from the "You Don't Say?" Campaign out of Duke University. The premise of the campaign is to encourage people to think before speaking as the words one delivers can have negative implications that were never intended in the first place, especially to those around us.

http://sftimes.co/?id=528&src=share_fb_new_528

Thoughts? It seems like a good campaign on the surface to me, but I'm continually learning of hang-ups with these sort of campaigns from you all.

~ Brooke

The state of california treating women's body without dignity?

http://tellmenow.com/2014/04/women-prisoners-sterilized-to-cut-welfare-costs-in-california/

Isn't this even more blatant an example than illegalizing abortion of taking women's freedom to use their own bodies away?

Drop everything and read Britney Cooper, @professorcrunk.

If you only read one person today, read Britney Cooper, on Twitter as @professorcrunk. I've been reading her pieces for awhile now (she has great thoughts on just about everything, from white liberals to Beyonce) and came across a recent one titled, "A black girl's constant fear: Why I thought I'd never live to see 33."

This article brings me back to Kimberlee Crenshaw's discussion of shifting the analytic frame to one focused on the experiences of black women. Cooper shares her own lived experiences, but encourages us to do something with these stories, to let them move us to action and greater understanding. Like Crenshaw points out, if we being to shed light on these stories, we can elucidate structural forces of oppression that are often overlooked in the discussion of helping black men.

Cooper says, "Black women have been passing these narratives around the blogosphere and social media to each other, posting collective laments, and wondering if anyone else cares." I care, and I hope you will too. 

Are You A Feminist?

LOL

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/are-you-a-feminist

Boss or Bitch?

If a man is:

sexually positive
very rich
an entrepreneur
very cocky
attracted to women
is really good at something and be proud of it

there is no problem. He's more likely what we would call a "boss". However, when Nicki Minaj is all of those things, she becomes a "bitch".

Clearly our notions of gender prescribe women to be un-boss. We criticize women when they step into the category of men/masculinity and threatens its separation as a category distinct from that of women/femininity.

I was not exposed to Nicki Minaj until last week when a friend told me how excited he was about her new track.

This track "Boss Ass Bitch" linked here is really fun - however if you are offended by explicit language then maybe you shouldn't click on it.

The verses just sound really vile and silly if I haven't taken feminist philosophy. Now it sounds subversive and empowering. It's funny too I can't stop laughing listening to it.

Here is a blog post that says everything that I need to say here: "Nicki takes patriarchal notions of femininity and womanhood, reclaims them, and makes them work for her. In doing so, she reverses the paradigm of female inferiority and submissiveness and creates a model of empowerment for those who look up to her."

To relate to the unbalanced marriage issue. Nicki Minaj clearly wears the pants in a relationship: she is a cold "rich bitch" and is proud of it.

When we realize that sex is about power unbalance between genders in our culture, Nicki clearly has that power like a "Jamaican" during sex with men. This may sound very unfeminine, but Nicki has the good humor to see that she would be considered a "bitch". She doesn't care a bit and uses the B word positively.


what do you think? How does Nicki Minaj fit or doesn't fit into a feminist discourse?

Marriage, Family, and Related Pressures

            In Orkin’s Vulnerability by Marriage, she discusses marriage and the imbalance of power that is so often a part of it. She believes that women are made vulnerable by marriage, and this can be proven by looking at which party in a relationship can leave without facing grave consequences. This essay led our class to a discussion of marriage and the planning that women must do if they want to have a family. However, we did not discuss the consequences or societal/familial pressures faced by people, largely women, who do not want families, or do not see the likelihood of a family in their future to be great enough to build plans for the future around one.

            For as long as I can remember, I have not seen marriage or a family in my future, even in the sense of “well if it happens it happens,” which is a situation some people are in, as Dr. J pointed out. Also for as long as I can remember, my family members have told me that I will “change my mind” or my “clock will start ticking” or I’ll “find the right guy” – that, in one way or another, I will end up doing what they want me to do. It seems to me that women face difficulties no matter what their plans for their futures are – both of these options come with their own set of problems.

            In our discussion in class, we discussed the planning that many women do regarding their futures – trying to get their whole career in before they’re 30 or so, so they can have a family and care for their children. We then discovered that many young men are similarly planning for their futures, although they don’t necessarily need or want to accomplish their career goals as early as women. I am interested to know if men who don’t think they will get married or have a family face the same chiding and/or sage advice from family members like their female counterparts do. My first thought is that they do not, although their family members might say similar things about maturing and subsequently wanting to settle down. However, after hearing from men in class who did not meet our more traditional expectations, I wouldn’t be too surprised to hear that they do hear similar things from family or society. What have your experiences been?

44 Stock Photos That Hope To Change The Way We Look At Women

Check it out. 

Did it work? Comment below.

Take this Privilege Test and Post your Score!

I'm not sure how good of a test this is...its from buzzfeed... but the idea is interesting. Take it and post your score!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/how-privileged-are-you

Stop Telling Women to Smile

Yesterday's New York Times featured an article about street artist Tatyana Fazlalizadeh and her recent  work in Atlanta focused on street harassment. This article, along with the images of Fazlalizadeh's work depicted on her website (linked above), made me think about the power of visual disruptions of public space to raise consciousness about different issues. As we all begin to think about our final video projects, the idea of disrupting space is one that keeps coming back to me. 

In the NYT article, Fazlalizadeh maintains that her work is art first and foremost, but that she does not mind being cast as an activist. With street harassment being such a pervasive issue, especially in large cities like Atlanta, and especially New York, her messages resonate with people who are forced to encounter verbal harassment on a regular basis. It is important not to underestimate or undervalue the impact that visual disruptions of space can have. In addition to comforting the women who experience street harassment through these messages of solidarity, her street art forces people to check themselves, at least momentarily. For people who don't think street harassment is a "big deal" (*eye roll*), this might be one of the few times they are condemned for their behavior and bother to listen/notice. Fazlalizadeh's street art helps reclaim public space for women by forcing harassers and would-be harassers to check themselves and their behavior. 

For a more local example of disrupting and reclaiming space, the Rhodes Peer Advocate Center's Clothesline Project does a great job with this. As many of you probably remember, the Clothesline Project stayed in the quad between Palmer and FJ for several weeks, displaying messages from survivors and allies to bring attention to sexual assault. Taking up public space with important messages like these forces people who might not otherwise engage in these discussions (think: prospective students and college tour guides) to at least be exposed to the issue at hand. Like Fazlalizadeh's street art, the Clothesline generated lots of discussion on campus and provided away for survivors to have their voices heard without having to confront people face-to-face.

Another recent example are the signs by @ConscRadicals posted around campus dealing with racism. I have heard and seen many people stop to read and talk about the signs and their various messages like, "'I do not see color.' No wonder you can't see your privilege!" 

All of these are great examples to keep in mind as you film your final projects or continue with your activism. Please share your thoughts and other great public disruptions of space you may have seen or heard about!

Stop apologizing for femaleness and/or femininity.

Feminist is not a four-letter word. We heard this emphatically from Dr. J on the first day of class, meaning that feminist/m is not something bad or something to be ashamed of. This recently came up in a conversation with my brother (the one with whom I consistently argue about feminism). He said something to the effect of feminists wanting women to be better than men. I quickly corrected him and asserted that feminists do not want any rights/privileges above those of men; we simply want equality.
This point is spoken very eloquently and sometimes humorously by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie in a TEDx presentation: Inspiring ideas about Africa. A couple of points from the video I wanted to comment on:

• "Gender as it functions today is a grave injustice." The sad part is that many men and women do not realize this. My brother would fall into this category. He refuses to recognize that inequalities exist today; and when he does recognize they exist, he says that just as African Americans did, women will eventually gain equal rights (justified apparently by the fact that African Americans gained rights before women, so we just have to wait our turn...). Brad, we are not in a post-civil rights world. African Americans are still fighting for rights. The law may say one thing, but culture often says another. Adichie also asserts that we should be angry about this because anger has a long history of bringing about positive change.
• Adichie asserts that we must raise our sons AND daughters differently than we do currently. Further, she posits that our cultural definition of masculinity is too narrow and as such is the source of further discrepancies between and oppression of women. We teach girls to be ashamed, to silence themselves and that "pretense is an art form."As a developing developmental psychologist, a lot of my studies thus far has focused on the development of children from a psychological perspective and parenting has been shown to have a huge impact on children; society also has a huge impact.
• "Men and women are different - biologically and hormonally. Socialization exaggerates the differences and they then become a self-fulfilling prophecy." The most common (and easiest) argument made by opponents of feminism is that men and women are different. Yes, I think we can all agree on that point. But others may fail to recognize the reasons why men and women are different: the social system which we are indoctrinated into has a huge effect on who we become.  A girl and boy have the same potential at birth; the way we raise them determines how they come to view themselves and what they believe they are capable of. When the world tells boys that they must be strong and successful and girls that they should subserve their goals and dreams to those of men, it is likely that exactly will happen.
• Adichie also recognizes the intersectionality of gender, class, and race. She discusses a black male friend of hers who just didn't understand how "as a black woman" was any different from being a black woman. Her final point in this video was that "culture does not make people; people make culture." Further, she asserts that we must change culture to address the oppression of women. 

Something I would add to Adichie's assertion that we should raise boys and girls differently is that we need to change the way that children view femininity and masculinity. Sexist ideals are rampant in children's literature (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx8RRIiP53Q), so even in a welcome and open home environment children are influenced by the mass media, which tells them who they should be and how they should act. Are there any specific examples you can think of besides those raised by Colin Stokes? Any ways/ideas to change the culture in which we live? 

A Response to Thursday's Class

This blog post is in response to one of the movies that we watched yesterday- Sarah Bacot’s film about LGBTQ life at Rhodes. Just as a refresher, the film profiled seven or eight different queer Rhodes students about their experiences in coming out and finding an accepting social group on campus.

I thought the movie was well made; the interviews were well prepped and thought out and the interviewees themselves were interesting and personable. The one thing that stood out to me as strange about the film, however, was the positivity shown by the interview subjects themselves about the nature of queer life at Rhodes.

What caught me off guard was that these conclusions (“It’s been a good experience,” “I haven’t experienced anything too bad,” etc.) seemed to contrast the characterizations of friend groups as “support groups,” and the general consensus among the interviewed that Rhodes is not an openly queer-friendly campus.

I realize that this is a weird sort of distinction to make, and as a heterosexual, cisgender, male, perhaps I am out of place in doing so (if that’s the case, then I’ll apologize here), but I couldn’t help but think that the film in general was shedding an unusually positive light on the nature of Rhodes as the school deals with social and political issues regarding gender and sexuality.

That was a long sentence.

Did anyone else feel this way about the film? The part of the film that rang most true for me was the conversation between, excuse my forgetting their names, the short-haired brunette and the black, glasses-wearing male. For a brief moment, the two vented about some of their frustrations with Rhodes’ attitude towards queerness, and for some reason that segment seemed extra genuine in comparison to the “Rhodes isn’t that bad” answers.

The fact that one student simply sent a letter, and the written reason for his/her choosing not to appear publicly in the film as a gay Rhodes student, was also indicative of what seemed to me to be a more understandable reaction to the social structures of our college.

Let me know what y’all think!

Abortion Shaming

In light of our recent discussions around ethics, I found this article to be extremely relevant to not only the issue of what makes something morally right or wrong, but also to the issue of reproductive rights (a subject extremely relevant to feminism today). Leah wrote a great post on reproductive rights a few weeks ago and, as it is an issue I too am passionate about, I wanted to shed some more light on it. 

One issue that often comes up when we think about ethics and reproductive health is the question of how morally wrong those are who past judgment on those who either perform, support, or receive abortions. The article posted above is basically a very brief summary of an article published in a science journal by two bioethicists from the University of Toronto called Reducing Stigma in Reproductive Health. 

The original article criticizes abortion-shaming (which is not so different from slut-shaming--something we see and hear much more frequently at Rhodes College). The authors write that, "Gynecologists who undertake lawful abortions, for instance, should be afforded the same respect as others, not denigrated as 'abortionists'," and go on to call stigmatizing "a barbarous and unacceptable form of regulation that a humane society must reject." 

The article actually justifies other forms of stigmatization, such as stigmatizing cigarettes, which has obvious health benefits for both users and non-users alike, but what do we gain from stigmatizing abortion? Who really benefits in this situation? Do pro-lifers find a moment of release in yelling at a patient exiting a Planned Parenthood? Are they really doing it out of a genuine place of love and concern or is more from fear and ignorance?

Much of this returns to a debate that is very common in medical ethics—how we judge separate individual and public health. Of course, public health is not affected at all by one woman’s decision to or to not get an abortion, but what many fail to realize is that it does not affect the woman’s individual either. Some many argue that it is emotionally scaring, but the truth of that is also that most women do not regret their decision at all. What it comes down to is that the decision to get an abortion, whether or not they are a Christian and whether or not they find it morally sound, is one person’s decision only and that person deserves to make that decision without having any quick character judgments made about them. 

Post-Graduation Activism

As I am about to graduate, I wonder about many things. In fact, I worry about many things. While career, housing, graduate programs, and money are key issues that I find very important, I also believe that being apart of a social activism group is important. At least being supportive of great causes.  In the past four years at Rhodes College, the one real thing that I have learned is that college students and young adults are imperative to social progress and real change.

The real question: How do we take the readings and lessons from class and apply them to the real world? Not only has this been a question all throughout the course, it is a question that I need help answering. I do not believe that I am a bigot and/or a sexist in any way, but inaction is action and a decision. Some of the real challenges of any student are to to find real time for these causes and make a difference.. I am not necessarily looking to become active in a group, but I am looking to make a difference in any way possible.

The readings from class are geared mainly towards a personal philosophical adjustment. It is how as an individual I am supposed to act. Well at least on a greater scope, I believe that it is the general direction of this course. Personally, I have changed some of my views and life decisions such as supporting anti- gender performative norms. But is that it for me? Most students should take a course like this. But I am lost on practical applications. This class has been great so far, though. I would like to hear some thoughts about this.

 

Autonomy: A Perusal of Reason and Human Capacities

             It is interesting that the majority of philosophy that is taught has generally been developed by white males. As Friedman points out, though the personal qualities of someone in particular do not directly affect their view, there is a risk that they might only consider a view that coincides with their singular experiences.  Yet, I have traditionally held the view that ad-homonistic points do injustice to the argument at hand, but exposure to Friedman’s ideas is causing me to question this idea.

Almost all philosophy up until the twentieth century has been written by white men. The first woman philosopher I can think of off the top of my head is Simone de Beauvoir. Conceptions of autonomy do not specifically exclude women, but the baseline theoretical conceptions that have been developed are not the only important aspects to autonomy nor are they the kinds of autonomy that we see in practice. Friedman suggests that autonomy as it has been realized thus far is an autonomy of white men. This kind of autonomy does not mean the same thing for women. She also provides the important caveat that white men are sometimes subjected to some of the same disadvantages that this kind of autonomy has for women.

Still, it is an injustice, in my view, to teach concepts of autonomy that are flawed without acknowledging those flaws. Some flaws that philosophers traditionally try to exclude from their arguments are those biases the creep unbeknownst to the philosopher his/herself.   Though Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, for example, provide views on autonomy that are well known and respected, these views are coincidentally aligned with traditionally male values. Furthermore, these ideas of autonomy are by no means the final say in what autonomy is. It is likely that each of their views possesses a male bias. I think this bias is apparent in all of them.

It is my understanding that each takes reason to be independent of all other human functions and abilities. Reason is taken to be the purely calculating ability of the human. It is independent of the passions, of spirit, of emotions, of desires, of appetites, etc… Yet reason can interact with all of the human capacities. If reason was truly independent, then would it not be lacking in understanding? To understand emotion, one must possess empathy. Reason, by the above definition fails to constitute full understanding. This may be indication that reason is not the almighty concept it is made out to be. Yet, I believe that without reason empathy would not exist. Empathy appears to be a synthesis of the human capacities for emotion and reason.

Perusing these ideas tends to align my perspective on reason with Friedman’s. She points out that traditional ideals of autonomy have been grounded in reason, and that this may not be a well-grounded justification itself. Reason in this sense—the sense I attempted to express that Kant, Aristotle, and Plato take—involves a detachment from emotion. Such a detachment realized in behavior is typically masculine. Friedman makes these points—considering autonomy and not Plato, Aristotle, and Kant specifically—far better than I, and I will leave it where she has.

 I would like to add, however, an interesting idea inspired by Friedman’s point regarding the ideal of autonomy versus the use of autonomy. The use of anything or the act of anyone can be consider as a performance—performance in the sense of success/fail as with athletes. All performances require an attitude. For example, generally an attitude of confidence or disregard for others opinions is required to perform well, whereas an attitude of cowardice will generally result a bad performance. Attitudes require emotions, passions, and feelings. They are mental states of the human being. Reason cannot be exercised (as far as we know) independent of mental states. We may think of reason in an idealized manner (i.e. as pure and independent of other things), but reason cannot be employed without a mental state. Thus human reasoning is never independent of emotions and passions. This further aligns my perspective on reason with Friedman’s suggestions.

Here, I begin to doubt the ideal of reason as presented by those renowned philosophers and with it the idea that an argument can stand independent of its author. I do not mean to say that logic (the field of logic) is skewed by emotion nor do I mean to say that we should consider ad-homonyms a valid option for argument invalidation. I mean merely to suggest that we cannot ignore other factors that might have possibly contributed to a view that are not immediately apparent in that argument. 

Real women with brains.

"Now this is how clothes should be advertised."

Interesting article about state of nature

We talked earlier about the state of nature and whether or not people would naturally be violent and motivated only by selfish desires. Interesting view that goes against most established views on the state of nature.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/is-it-natural-for-humans-to-make-war-new-study-of-tribal-societies-reveals-conflict-is-an-alien-concept-8718069.html

Coming Next Week!

Hi all, 

I wanted to pass on information about an event coming up next week. It is a play being directed by a theater minor for her senior piece. The following is a description: 

"In David Ives's seductive, darkly funny Venus in Fur, a playwright-director, Thomas, has written an adaptation of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's classic erotic novel Venus in Fur, the story of an obsessive relationship between a man and the mistress to whom he becomes enslaved. At the end of a long day in which the actresses Thomas auditions fail to impress him, in walks Vanda, very late and seemingly clueless, but she convinces him to give her a chance. As they perform scenes from the play, the lines between writer, actor, director, and character begin to blur. An unsettling drama, a playful comedy, Venus in Fur​ also constitutes a masterful exploration of the art of acting - onstage and off."

It also touches on the power struggle between men and women in general, the objectification of women, and the danger of idealizing each other (both men and women). We will be having a "talk-back" after the show where the audience can ask questions and offer feedback after the show. I'm really excited to hear what people have to say about it. I think it will spark some interesting conversation and maybe some controversy.

I think it'd be worth it to attend one of the shows. It's running Monday April 7 and Tuesday April 8 at 7:30 at McCoy Theater.

~ Brooke

Anna's moral dilemma in Frozen

What would you do with the trolley problem? If you can't decide, then what would you do if you were Anna in the Disney movie Frozen? If you were told you are going to be saved by a kiss, are you going to give up the kiss to block a blade coming down on another human being, Elsa? In this case, you are choosing to save yourself and saving another human being. If Anna and Elsa were “mushrooms” suddenly mature in a world without prior human connections, in a Hobbesian “sate of nature”, then Anna would definitely save herself. There is, however, never a time in our lives where we are disconnected to other human beings like mushrooms. Then what is the use of the "state of nature" dreams but to misguide us to think that justice in substitutionalist universalism is the only mature moral option?

In “The Generalized and the Concrete Other: The Kohlberg-Gilligan Controversy and Moral Theory”, Seyla Benhabib articulates what she calls an “anticipatory-utopian critique of the universalistic moral theories”. The problem that resides in the old white men’s moral political theory is that they took the experience of that particular group of old white men to be the experience of everybody else (which is the meaning of “substitutionalist” they can substitute anybody with the persons in their thought experiments). How is it that you can imagine what it is like to be a woman, or more specifically the women sitting next to you this morning on the bus, if you have been a man all your life? This leads to Benhabib’s first criticism: disembodiment and disembededness are not accurate descriptions of the conditions of social actors.

Feminist critiques assume that the gender-sex is an axis of oppression against women. Even our language is implicitly patriarchal. Whatever that is feminine are symbolically passive and bad; whatever that is masculine are always active and good. I believe this is an accurate assumption of our society. Feminists like Benhabib criticize that the old white men’s substitutionalist universalism for marginalizing the experience of people associated with femininity: A Kantian universalisable rule is masculine, a consideration to the uniqueness of each person is therefore feminine. Masculinity is maturity and femininity is immaturity. Therefore justice is the only measurement of moral maturity. It is obvious there’s problem with this criteria for maturity. It assumes that women, who are forced to have the biology that signifies femininity, to be feminine and thereby immature morally. Psychological studies that show more women than men adopting the care model of moral theory therefore confirms the claim that men are more mature morally than women. It makes the mistake of putting care and justice on two ends of a maturity ladder. Care and justice should be considered equally as moral options that both lead to moral maturity.

Let’s think about Anna again. Would we say Anna’s action is moral? Most audience would agree. Even the little kids. This is because who Anna is saving is not just another mushroom, but her sister friend that she loves deeply. Maybe moral dilemmas are really a convention of the patriarchal culture. What do you think? Dr.J said it’s better to think about moral dilemmas before they happen. The thing is, they are never going to happen! They help us figure out what we value sometimes but purely thinking that there are universal moral laws that govern everyone is not helpful. It only reinforces the idea that there is only one kind of right and there’s only one kind of people with similar experiences.

Benhabib, Seyla. "The Generalized and the Concrete Other: The Kohlberg-Gillgan Controversy and Moral Theory." The Feminist Philosophy Reader. By Alison Bailey. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2008. N. pag. Print.

Lets look at Books

Sometimes I am struck by the nature of the texts we read as students of a liberal college. There are many novels we meet through our studies, and more we discover through our own exploration of books. As a gender and sexuality studies minor, I tend to find problems in many of these books. More recent texts sometimes try to subtly address the virgin/whore dichotomy, which has remained a staple of literary criticism and theory for a while now. While this theory is described in different forms and given unique backgrounds, the conclusion remains that society (tends to) divide femininity into a binary of "good" virgin and "bad" temptress. We iconicize (is that a words?) this in our ideas of the Virgin Mary and the Temptress Eve. 

So we read texts where authors attempt to undermine these theories. They create dynamic females, and try to give strong literary heroes. But of course, they do this within the Judeo-Christian enculturated structures of gender. Which mean that often times these "dynamic" female characters are such a joke. 

After class, I went back to my apartment, and thought about how wonderful unique contributions of experience could be to our understandings of morality. We could allow Gilligan to impact this idea. Men tend to favor the justice perspective - so having a female perspective allows a deeper understanding of care. Or we can recall the ideals discussed by Benhabib. This would mean recognizing that moral philosophy often excludes women in their privatization of women's experiences. Since this conceptualizes the relevant other as male, we as participants in a "moral" society need to criticize universalistic moral theory.

Using Benhabib - we can complicate many works within the literary world. Leah hints to this in her precis for class:

 "Benhabib finishes by bringing up the “generalized other” and the “concrete other” to further illustrate these moral perspectives. The generalized other is focused on rights, formal equality, and reciprocity, while similarity constitutes moral dignity. On the other hand, the concrete other is focused on each individual’s needs, equity, and complementary reciprocity, while difference constitutes moral dignity. Benhabib states that Kohlberg and Rawls find it important to put yourself into someone else’s shoes in order to maintain moral reciprocity; however, their veil of ignorance about social conditions causes moral philosophers to ignore the ways that others are different from themselves. Benhabib suggests the use of a communicative model of need interpretations, where moral agents communicate with each other in order to understand each other better when developing morality."

So I challenge you to criticize one of the many texts within English Literature using Benhabib. Analyze A Tale of Two Cities. Create a counter argument for Pride and Prejudice. Flip through the Great Gatsby. Or use one of your own favorite novels. I adore Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita. But holy mercy, this work can be so messed up. Bulgakov presents Margarita as a current day Eve through the elements of fertility, passion, and nudity. Then he portrays her as a temptress through articulating both her passionate nature and resulting nudity. But Bulgakov’s writing DOES STEM from a place of culturally engrained ideas. And without the impact of other experiences, his writing is locked within a place of patriarchy and ethno-centrism.

Try it out yourself. No worries if you're not an English major. I sure as heck am not. 

 

HBD, Gloria!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tabby-biddle/happy-birthday-gloria-ste_b_5025232.html

Ban and Be Bossy

Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of Facebook and founder of the Lean In movement, recently initiated the Ban Bossy campaign, employing the star power of Beyonce, Condoleeza Rice, and Jennifer Garner to illustrate that young girls’ assertiveness is punished through negative labels (e.g., bossy, stubborn, pushy), leading to gender inequality as shown by girls being more interrupted than their male peers, less likely to raise their hands to ask questions in the classroom, and less likely to pursue leadership roles. As the name implies, Sandberg responds to this inequality by calling to ban the word bossy.

The Ban Bossy campaign is not without its criticisms. Most prominently, bell hooks raised a counter movement under the #bebossyandproud Twitter tagline, encouraging women to reclaim bossy instead of banning the word by tweeting that they are “bossy and proud because (fill in the blank)."

This response prompted me to ask a few questions: First, what advantage does bell hooks's movement offer over Sandberg’s? Second, why is this response necessarily juxtaposed against Sandberg’s movement?

Although the ends to promote gender equality are equivalent, the means are different. #bebossyandproud reframes feminist causes from functioning as thought police to functioning as a form of empowerment. “You should not say bossy” becomes “we should embrace bossy.” While both acknowledge the damage inherent in such gendered insults, bell hooks’s campaign places the locus of power and change in those affected by the insults. It says women policed by language should strip the insult of its derogatory intent and embrace it as symbolic of their assertiveness.

Sandberg’s message has a different target audience. While it does not empower the insulted women to own and reclaim the insult, it states that those who insult women should stop insulting them.

Seeing these differences, why are these posed as counter movements? It should be a both/and instead of an either/or. To elaborate, I would still sanction gendered insults that marginalize women as I would promote women to remove the power of those insults (likewise, SlutWalks empower some women to embrace their sexuality and protest rape excuses; however, we should still call out those who insult sexually active women as sluts). I enjoy that some women are able to channel the insult to be a source of energy and a reaffirmation of their strength; however, there is still value in calling out sexist insults. Both arguments should be present to effect change.

In short, there is room for both a “fuck you” and a “fuck yeah.”

Reproductive Justice: It's About Way More than Abortion

One of the issues I'm most passionate about is reproductive rights, health, and justice. Since I'll be missing class next week due to my activism around this issue, I thought I'd share some of my thoughts about it.

For several decades, the United States pro-choice movement has worked towards securing the legal right to abortion for women. Although Roe v. Wade declared a right to abortion in 1973, many state laws have been passed in the forty years following which have worked to limit this right. Pro-choice organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) have focused their political advocacy work on fighting these Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws in order to give women the “choice” to have an abortion. There are several issues involving reproductive freedom which are left out of this pro-choice discourse. The pro-choice movement, like many other feminist-led issues, mostly represents the experiences of middle class white women. In response to this lack of representation of all women, a group of women of color worked to create the reproductive justice (RJ) movement. This movement addresses the many systems of oppression which function to deny women of color and low-income women the right to control their reproductive lives.

SisterSong: A Women of Color Reproductive Justice Coalition defines reproductive justice as “the right to have children, not have children, and to parent the children we have in safe and healthy environments.” Reproductive justice connects reproductive freedom to other systems of oppression which contain and control the autonomy of women of color in particular. Intersectionality frames reproductive justice, as it is an understanding of the interconnectedness of these systems of oppression which guides reproductive justice. Intersectionality helps activists to uncover the ways that this system of oppression functions and to continue working towards devising a social movement which addresses all facets of this system.

Whereas the pro-choice movement emphasizes the legality of abortion as a “right” to abortion, reproductive justice emphasizes access to abortion over this legal right. Thousands of women do not have financial or geographical access to abortion, therefore making abortion a choice which is not available to them. The Hyde Amendment, tacked to appropriations bills beginning in 1976, barred the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. This amendment essentially ended the right to abortion for low-income women, as the cost of abortion is prohibitive to their ability to access these services. Due to the passage of TRAP laws, thousands of women are forced to endure mandatory waiting periods and to travel hundreds of miles to access basic reproductive services. This hoop-jumping is only an option for women who have the finances to afford hotel rooms, lost wages for days off, childcare, and transportation out of town. This reflects the inequality of opportunities which are available for women of color and low-income women.

At the same time, abortion access is not the entire scope of issues of reproductive freedom. Women of color have historically been denied the autonomy to birth and raise children in the ways that they want to. In an attempt to “purify” the gene pool of the human race, the eugenics movement sought to end the reproduction of women of color through methods such as sterilization. In fact, Margaret Sanger, a founder of Planned Parenthood and a birth control activist, was a known supporter of eugenics. Sterilization has been practiced as recently as 2010 in California prisons, despite the state banning the procedures in 1979. Birth control has also been used and is still being used coercively against women of color and low-income women. Many women on welfare were pressured to use Norplant, a contraceptive implant which is inserted in the upper arm. When some women were offered Norplant insertion for free, they were often either refused removal or asked to pay for the removal later.

Reproductive justice cannot exist without economic justice, as low-income women will not truly have the right to reproduce if they cannot afford to raise their children. This economic justice includes promoting such initiatives as raising the minimum wage, securing reliable public transportation for all, providing paid parental leave, and providing free or affordable daycare for the children of employees. Racialized mass incarceration plays neatly into this economic system of oppression as well. American de-industrialization led communities of people of color to primarily work in the service sector, which offered fewer benefits and less unionization. This fostered poverty in these communities, which often creates situations which enable crime to occur. The War on Drugs has also been proven to disproportionally target people of color for drug crimes which white people commit at the same rate. Mass incarceration is an extension of reproductive justice’s systematic control of the bodies of people of color. As an extension of the War on Drugs, laws such as the Interagency Policy on Cocaine Abuse in Pregnancy have subjected pregnant women to non-consensual drug testing. This drug testing results in reporting to police, which then leads to the arrests of pregnant women who test positively for drugs. Many of these women are forced to give birth while in shackles; many of them have had their children taken away and put into state custody. Unsurprisingly, the great majority of women who are affected by these laws are women of color and low-income women. These laws have the power to decide who is “worthy” of mothering.

In order for the reproductive justice movement to be truly successful, the goals of reproductive rights, reproductive health, and reproductive justice must be attained. The lack of access to abortion and contraception, and the denial of the right to childbirth both function to deny women of color equal opportunities in the field of reproductive freedom. Through growing the reproductive justice movement, forming alliances, and making important policy changes, this women of color-led movement is working its way toward reproductive freedom.