Follow Up: Responding to Julia

I found the articles from this week to be slightly disturbing but also very significant. They discuss difficult topics such as rape, sexual harassment, and murder, but these are things that are very much a part of life and need to be talked about. I think that the New York Times article, “A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.’s”, which discusses rape in the army today in Iraq, is extremely relevant to our discussions of rape on Monday in class. Gloria Steinem’s article, “Supremacy Crimes”, while on a slightly different topic, murder, shares a substantial foundation with the other article. Both see women as targets for the male gaze, domination, and violence.

Steven Lee Myers’ article was not shocking to me after reading those personal stories for Monday’s class, but it definitely opened my eyes as to what goes on in military barracks behind the scenes. I do not pay enough attention to current events but I definitely had never heard about any of the issues that were mentioned in this article. The fact that a woman was raped and “had no confidence her case would be taken seriously” is a tragedy (Myers, 1). Rape more often than not causes serious psychological harm to the victim, and it is a tragedy that the military is only first altering the way they deal with sexual violations of any sort. Just because these men and women are out there fighting for our country does not mean that they should not receive the same type of care and treatment, physical or mental, that the average human being can receive in the comfort of their community. I think it is really sad that many times the victim does not alert anyone of what happened because she/he fears getting into trouble or negatively impacting their career.

Gloria Steinem’s article, “Supremacy Crimes”, was most interesting to me. I never really understood the reasons behind the typical stereotype of the serial killer or sadistic murder. The statistics are there but it just seems odd, although its sickening and insane to murder anyone, no matter who is committing the crime. The white, middle-class male is virtually responsible for all the “serial, sexually motivated, sadistic killings” (Steinem, 1). Why? They are addicted to the “drug of superiority”, or the idea that the pressures of being of this status in society forces these men to become addicted to their success and domination over others. When they do not dominate, they kill. It is absolutely ridiculous and incomprehensible to me that “the ability to dominate someone is so important that even a mere insult can justify lethal revenge” (Steinem, 3). Steinem proposes that we need to challenge the foundation that masculinity is based upon, but I honestly do not see how that will alter the mindsets of those stereotypical male serial killers.

Steinem’s article made me think of the movie, American Psycho, with Christian Bale. He is a white, male, upper class part time serial killer part time businessman. He constantly needs to be in control, and since nobody can ever be the best at everything, or dominate in all aspects of life, he simply kills people. For those who haven’t seen the movie, it is a satirical thriller, poking fun at many aspects of upper-class society in the 80’s, but it really gets to the point of Steinem’s article. Patrick Bateman, the main character, wants to fit in and is envious of everyone else and what they have that is better than what he has. Clearly, this is no reason to murder someone, yet there are plenty of people out there, as we have read, that are “addicted to supremacy”, that will “kill even when it worsens their condition or ends in suicide” (Steinem, 2). I wanted to show one of the better scenes of the movie, which displays Bateman’s psycho killer persona best, but it was a little too graphic for this setting. So, here is a clip that provides some insight into the mad mind of Patrick Bateman.

MAIN POST: 3/31/10

Each of the readings for tomorrow’s class brought to light important issues regarding violence and abuse and their possible relation to class, gender, and race. Further, the readings also illuminated the possible detrimental effects that can spur from the pressures or generalizations related to a given identity. While a recognition of common issues definitely offer possibility for friendship, support, and understanding, the negative ramifications associated with group categorizations often go unnoticed. Group identities carry pressures, inaccurate assumptions, and even enhanced danger despite their goals of greater equality and respect.

In her article exploring the role of race and gender categorizations and their relation to violence of women of color, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw scrutinizes the unanticipated and undesirable results related to these identities. However, she does acknowledge, as many individuals have in the past, that group organization and shared experience maintain a certain power over the “pleas of a few isolated voices,” (Crenshaw, 1). It is important to realize that the coming together of marginalized groups helps members to find solace, support, and understanding in their problems and fight for change. Further, the power of many demands the attention of others who may otherwise not listen.

Crenshaw makes an important point, however, that these groups made up of many individuals fighting for a cause, so often lead to wrongful presumptions and flawed inferences in reference to group members. Crenshaw suggests that “ignoring the differences within groups frequently contributes to tension among groups,” (Crenshaw, 1). We saw this situation in our reading earlier this semester about The Rag newspaper members who felt left out and ignored because of their race. A common example of this type of generalization is when there is one black student in the class and the teacher looks to that individual, expecting him or her to offer the entire “black” perspective. When thought about, such a generalization is clearly very presumptuous as any response could hardly represent the views of an entire race. However, before I ever heard this idea I had never realized the absurdity of such a comment. Obviously, it is natural to look to people with different backgrounds for their experience and opinion, but it is completely inappropriate to expect an individual’s view to encompass the views of their entire race.

When we form groups and search for a sense of common understanding, those involved as well as outsiders must understand that the grouping does not diminish individuality or render each person exactly the same. Further, this individuality within a group can actually be a key aspect of the success of the overall goals. Crenshaw suggests that “through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us and negotiate the means by which these differences will find expression in constructing group politics,” (Crenshaw, 15). With a recognition of members’ differences and an appreciation of the value of differentiated experiences, groups can touch upon a broader range of people and extend their purpose to a greater population rather than just the assumed race, gender, or sexuality associated with their cause.

Feminist groups, for example, often bring together women fighting for greater respect and equality for women. Almost always, however, group members have other causes they value as well. In other words, in joining a feminist group, a black woman may hope to channel her arguments for race equality as well. Rather than an individual fighting for a cause that most members of the group may not feel passionate about, Crenshaw suggests that all groups fighting for change must come together, recognizing and capitalizing on the “[intersecting] point,” of each of these categories.

Gloria Steinem’s essay “Supremacy Crimes,” also points to possible negative externalities associated with gender, race, class, and sexual categorizations. Steinem focuses on the pressures associated with being a white, male, and middle-class. She makes a very interesting point that most of the serial killers and mass-murderers in our society have been white men with money. She suggests that the “drug of superiority” is addicting and damaging as white men expect power and success and consider “dominance as a natural right,” (Steinem, 1). When white men expect everything to come easily and success to be a given in their lives, little bumps or setbacks anger some to the point of unrestrained aggression and violence. Perhaps these men want to obtain the superiority and dominance they believe will bring them happiness, or perhaps they believe that murder will help them prove to themselves their worth and ability. Steinem calls for us to recognize this overwhelming trend and delve in to the potential causes of such terrible behavior.

Why do we expect power and dominance to go along with simple characteristics of white, male, and economically privileged? Is it possible that the “promise of superiority” carried by the “white male factor” is to blame for these mass murders and irrational behavior? Why is it that people are so in need of power and a feeling of dominance? Are we so insecure with ourselves that we must resort to violence to satisfy our desire for confidence and power? How is it possible that we allow social constructions to gain such power that they are assumed true for each member fitting in to a specific category? Further, how do we maintain individuality and a recognition of personal identity when we are constantly forcing group labels and generalizations upon each portion of our society.

Follow Up: Responding to Rachel

In attempting to synthesize these texts, the theme of education was unanimous. I believe the way sex education is being taught or not taught in this country is playing an enormous role in our overtly sexualized teen population and the aggressive rape statistics of young adults. While these authors all allude to the need for better sex education, the proposed content of such education is not discussed. While most shocking is the movement to teach abstinence only or nothing at all, it is important to analyze how sex education is being taught, even in the most liberal of institutions.

Levy’s discussion of abstinence brought me back to last year’s “I Heart the Female Orgasm” lecture. The speakers and the audience discussed how different sexual relations might be, both on an intimate and violent level, if sex education actually taught students how to have sex. Although this may seem obvious, students are given such little information, that they have no other recourse for “learning” than to absorb content in the media or watch porn. The problem with this approach is that the entire concept of sex as a personal and pleasurable experience is lost. Instead, students feel the need to replicate what they see on TV only because it means bragging rights.

Imagine how different things would be if sex education taught students how to masturbate. Or, more to the point, how to love and enjoy their bodies. This is such a crucial component of any sexual relation, yet because it is ignored most kids grow up believing their bodies and sex are something to be ashamed of. If sex were not presented as such a mysterious and scornful act, I doubt we would see the same amount of “swifter” girls.

On a more serious note, the fact that aggressive, demeaning sex is so rampant in the porn industry teaches that that kind of sex is the status quo for all sexual relations. I cannot help but draw the connection between the power trips men take on porn sets to the power seeking desires of a rapist. Not only could sex education do a better job of teaching our students about their bodies and reproductive functions, it could dismantle the horrifying trend of sexual assault.

Follow Up: Responding to Rachel

I found today’s readings to be very interesting and I felt that I could attempt to relate to them a bit more than recent discussions on abortions and childbirths. Ariel Levy’s chapter, “Pigs In Training”, was the one that I could actually personally relate to, as I have been through middle school & high school and know what girls can be like in terms of how they present themselves to their classmates. The other three articles, while I have not had any experience with rape, were quite thought provoking for me, and I definitely have some feelings I would like to share about Whitney Walker and Emilie Morgan’s stories. All in all, I found a common theme that tied these readings together; that of a feminine obligation to meet unsubstantiated male expectations as well as to be compliant to male dominance. Clearly, these authors are not supporting these ideas but they are beliefs that many a woman may hold to be true. We know better than to believe these ideas.

As I read Ariel Levy’s, “Pigs In Training”, I was slightly surprised by some of the things I heard, but unlike Rachel I wasn’t totally dumbfounded. To my knowledge, these things did not go on in my schools, but I will say that it was obvious that a select few girls dressed to impress the boys. I remember hearing about “Swiffer Girl”, who I have met (a couple years after the “incident”), and I was actually shocked. I was floored that someone my age would come up with such an absurd idea! I know that this sex culture is all over the place and has immersed itself in young teenagers, but considering the fact that I could not fathom such an idea at the time, I think it definitely makes its way into certain pockets of the country earlier than others. I think that it has a lot to do with the type of area one is raised in and the family life that one has. Children in cities often grow up “faster” than children in suburbs, as they are forced to be more independent at an earlier age. I think that this might have something to do with this idea, but when it comes to dressing up for the boys, I think that that occurs everywhere. Robin, a student at the school in California that Levy discusses states, “Sexually, we didn’t really do anything, but you wanted to look like you did” (Levy, 150). The idea that girls wanted to play the part and be perceived as one thing when they really aren’t, seems like a bad case of immaturity, but I think that’s just part of growing up and becoming an adult. You realize that you don’t have to be someone you’re not; unfortunately in high school most teens have yet to realize this fact of life. David put it bluntly, “What girls don’t understand is guys always want girls. If every girl dressed casually, you’d still like girls. It’s like, you don’t have to exhaust yourselves” (Levy, 151). Well put.

After reading Emilie Morgan’s story, “Don’t Call Me A Survivor”, I was extremely appalled at the situations that she found herself in. The fact that she was raped 3 times, 1 of which was a gang-rape, and molested at the detoxification center that she entered after being found naked and passed out in the gutter of a parking lot, is completely dumbfounding. As I read this I tried to understand her situation but I honestly couldn’t even fathom what she dealt with in the slightest bit. How does someone get themselves in the same situation 3 times before the age of 18? How could she have been so submissive? I was actually frustrated as I read because I could not comprehend how that happened to her. Women need to be strong and stand up for themselves, a message that Whitney Walker expresses in “Why I Fight Back”. Young girls and mature adult females need to always know that they can and should fight back against males whenever they are in a situation where the male expects the woman to comply to their domination. Females need to always know that they have control over the situation. Without this attitude, we will have girls such as Emilie Morgan, who think being raped is a part of being a woman. I don’t think this is a fault of Morgan’s, because I believe this comes from the parent, and the fact that her parents punished her for being raped is clearly a sign that they were not exactly the understanding type nor did they instill these strong-willed beliefs in her.

Main Post for 3/30

The readings for today touched upon the issue of rape. While Susan Brownmiller in “Men, Woman, and Rape” provides her viewpoint of the meaning of rape, Whitney Walker in “Why I Fight Back” and Emilie Morgan in “Don’t Call Me a Survivor” provide first hand accounts of being raped and the implications it had for each of them. Also, on a separate yet connected subject, Levy in her chapter, “Pigs in Training” reflects upon young girls in today’s society and controversial issues surrounding their promiscuity and the importance of sex-education programs.

Brownmiller argues that rape had been defined by men rather than women. I agree with many of Brownmiller’s points specifically when she defines rape as an “exercise in power” that perpetuates male domination of women. She adds that it keeps women in a state of fear. This was certainly how Whitney Walker felt after she was raped, which inspired her to take up self-defense classes. Men feel in control and I agree with Brownmiller’s statement: “Men who commit rape have served in effect as front-line masculine shock troopers, terrorist guerillas in the longest sustained battle the world has ever known (282). However, I do think this comes off pretty strong, and I wonder what other reasons motivate men go through with this act.

Whitney Walker’s essay “Why I Fight Back” inspires women to be ready and willing to fight back. It brings up the question: How do both men and women defy “rape culture”? Can the system at large be changed? Whitney who took self-defense classes after an attack wanted to stop seeing herself as a failure. After the classes, she felt strong and stated, “I refuse to be weak” (129). She adds, “with self-defense, I am in control” (129). Women need to feel in control like Whitney in order to move forward in society. I think her main message is that when women realize they are in control and liberated to fight back, the system will in turn be changing. While it might take years before we see change, will small steps, it will gain more force.

I enjoyed reading Levy’s chapter “Pigs in Training.” It is important to make the comparison of the “Pigs in Training” to a “Female Chauvinistic Pig.” These “Pigs in Training” are as Levy writes, the girls who embrace raunch culture not because they find profit and empowerment through it, but because they do not know any other way to be. These young girls’ behaviors are outrageous—dressing in slutty, tight clothes, giving erotic performances for boys’ pleasure, posting nude photos and videos of themselves through the web, and hooking up with each other for male attention. I was also shocked to read that many girls were having sex without really feeling sexual; they did it because they feel it is what is expected of them. These girls are feeding right into Levy’s raunch culture where they are doing whatever it takes to gain access to the men and be seen through the male gaze. This is similar to the behavior of Playboy models and video vixens, which we have discussed in class.

After reading the chapter, I have gained a better idea of where these girls are getting these ideas from. The media constantly bombards these girls and women with raunch culture, leaving them without the tools to even make a knowledgeable choice about their actions. I found particular curiosity in Levy’s discussion of the Abercrombie and Fitch clothing line, which caters to American’s youth culture. In the past, I admit to shopping there, which in my school was the “cool thing to do.” However, I always noticed certain clothes with really inappropriate phrases on them and wondered why anyone would buy them. Phrases on thongs read “Eye Candy and “Wink Wink” and there is even a shirt that includes a picture of a girl opening her blouse and exposing herself with the saying “Show the Twins” (http://www.americandecency.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/showthetwins.jpg) and another one showing a female running nude, stating “Female streaking encouraged.” (http://www.americandecency.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/female-streaking.jpg) Yet, to my surprise, they were bought out by young teens. What is this teaching our youth culture?

I definitely think Abercrombie and Fitch has gone too far in advertising and promoting sexuality in their clothing line. Just take a look at their catalogue (http://www.johnrobertpowers.net/Locpics2006/stlouis_nickg3.jpg) which is covered in deliberate porn by featuring naked girls and boys. Furthermore, the label on the catalogue advertises its "mature content" and states that parental consent is recommended for youth under age 18. This is not effective at all from preventing young kids from reading it. Rather, I think this statement communicates to youth culture that “If you read me, you’ll be cool.” The warning makes the magazine all the more desirable and kids love to rebel. By purchasing the catalogue, our youth are buying into a lifestyle that encourages promiscuity. Overall, Abercrombie and Fitch along with other retailers such as Hot Topic as Levy mentioned should remove the clothing. While in the end I understand that it is all about making profit, look at what the repercussions on our youth can be. What does this say about the future of womanhood?

Another point that I found interesting in Levy’s chapter is her discussion on the longstanding debate over how best to prevent STDs and teenage pregnancy. This is particularly a controversial topic considering the “2010 Obama administration budget eliminated $170 million in funding for abstinence-only education after a series of reports showed these programs to be ineffective” (NY Times 2010). She addresses problems with Abstinence-Only Sex Education, which is telling kids that sex is something special and it should be saved for marriage. What are young kids supposed to think about that when nearly half of all marriages end in divorce?

However, a recent NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/education/03abstinence.html) showed quite the opposite and rather indicated for the first time that abstinence-only education helped to delay their sexual initiation. What was interesting about this study was that it only focused on 662 African-American students at urban middle schools. I am curious how the results will differ across socioeconomic, ethnic and racial boundaries. Also, I wonder how this would play out in different types of schools (private/public and urban/suburban/rural) along with other areas across the country. Seeing how conflicting results can be for the effectiveness of sex-ed programs, I agree with Levy that better sex education is needed. I also think that by analyzing more data, we will be better able to find out which method of Sex-Ed works best and then change our procedures accordingly.

FOLLOW UP POST: Responding to Hilary

            Just as Hilary noted in her post, I found the readings for tomorrow’s class somewhat interesting, but ultimately frustrating and confusing.  I really like the idea of an assignment including an article and a subsequent response of disagreement to the initial article.  However, after reading both articles, I only became lost and annoyed with a seeming muddle of opposing facts and stances with no coherent final conclusion to what I had read.  One article, “The Score: How childbirth went industrial” by Atul Gawande, largely supported obstetric methods while the other article, written by Henci Goer, serves as an opposition article arguing for natural childbirth.

            I definitely had never before thought so extensively about childbirth methods as these articles forced me to.  Personally, I sort of just assumed that c-sections were performed when there was an emergency or when the parents, for whatever reason, preferred that method.  I also assumed that vaginal childbirth was the most common birthing method.  I never thought about the possible detrimental effects related with cesarean section style births as being any worse than those related with natural childbirth.  Instead, I took for granted possible dangerous and deadly side effects related with any pregnancy and childbirth.  I think that despite Gawande’s push for “institutionalized” birth practices and Goer’s argument for natural childbirths, every pregnancy calls for a different approach. 

Therefore, while institutionalized birth approaches are definitely smart as they create a basic and reliable method for delivering babies-a process that should not be sort of understood by doctors -a single approach is not appropriate for every mother and every baby.  In other words, I find complete institutionalization of child birth naïve and dangerous (in the situation that a non-standard pregnancy situation were to arise).

            However, I also do not agree with Goer’s stance that non-natural processes are entirely overused and inferior to natural vaginal childbirth.  I agree that there must be a degree of care taken in the decision of whether or not to perform obstetric practices during childbirth.  As Goer suggests, a “cavalier attitude” (Goer, 8) towards unnecessary surgery and drugging is dangerous and potentially destructive.  However, I do not agree that natural childbirth is always the answer.“we are losing our connection to yet another natural process of life,” (Gawande, 10).  I appreciate that he recognizes a potential flaw of obstetric births.  However, many childbirths would result in death of the child and/or the mother if it weren’t for the obstetric techniques that have been developed over recent decades.  While a happy medium should be found between natural and clinical childbirths, completely ignoring advances in medicine would be illogical and dangerous for many mothers and babies.

I think that Goer largely tries to ignore the beneficial aspects of methods and birthing practices such as cesarean sections and the epidural.  Throughout his entire piece, I felt he was bashing clinical childbirth without even mentioning or acknowledging the amazing feats it is capable of. In not acknowledging the positive outcomes of obstetric childbirth methods, I felt that Goer’s argument was too extreme, and he therefore, lost credibility and respect in my eyes.  He is so focused and intent on proving his point, he seemed willing to stretch the truth or ignore some of the reality.  Further, despite the statistics he did provide, I was still not convinced by the end of Goer’s article.

As Hilary noted, the idea of sisterhood and women helping each other is a really good suggestion.  Through many aspects of our life, we need a support system and pregnancy is, without a doubt, one of those stages in life.  Further, the help of a woman, who understands at least somewhat our situation, has potential to drastically improve the pregnancy and childbirth process. 

Additionally, I think that the intense and wide array of ideas displayed in these two articles is evidence to the fact that every woman experiences something different, and doctors must be prepared to act as such.  I found it somewhat hypocritical of Goer to reprimand obstetric techniques as becoming too “industrialized” and standardized while he simultaneously called for natural childbirth in almost every situation.  He wanted to maintain the “art” of childbirth, however he hoped for a dramatic decrease in some of the most creative and thought through methods of childbirth.  As I noted in my post about a woman’s right to abortion, each woman has different circumstances and therefore, a different solution as to what is right.  We cannot ignore the fact that there is not a single right answer to any of these debates.  Women deserve recognition that each individual needs and wants something personal and different.

Follow Up: Responding to Hilary

After reading the two articles about childbirth, I was thoroughly confused about whose stance I should believe. Since I do not know that much about childbirth, I felt I had much to learn in terms of the basic facts. Gawande opened my eyes to the history of childbirth over the centuries, as well as the complications and such that can come from birthing a child. Goer’s article harshly critiqued Gawande’s article and proposed that Gawande contradicted himself as well as came to the wrong conclusion. In the end, I was absolutely confused and I simply do not know what to believe. All I can base my personal feelings on the matter is on those that I know that have gone through pregnancy and childbirth before.

Gawande’s article, “The Schore-How Childbirth Went Industrial”, discussed the importance that modernization of obstetrics has had on women. This modernization has worked in women’s favor in resulting in less risky birthing experiences. After Gawande discussed the complications that can occur during the birth process I actually became frightened because it definitely opened my eyes to the wide array of problems that can occur. But, Gawande goes on to say that birthing has become a lot less complicated over the years and through technological advancements, doctors have been able to save many more lives, mother and baby. With cesarean sections, the mortality rate for newborns has become lower. Gawande states, “Scheduled C-sections have lower maternal mortality than vaginal delivery” (Gawande, 10). This confuses me because he promotes c-sections and discusses how they are so successful but then says, “We are losing our connection to yet another natural process of life. And we are seeing the waning of the art of childbirth” (Gawande, 10). So, Gawande left me with a bit of confusion as to where he stands on the matter.

On the other hand, Goer’s article, “How Childbirth Went Industrial: A Deconstruction”, discusses the importance of natural childbirths. Goer makes no bones about his aversion to cesarean sections and is clearly in favor of vaginal births. Goer expresses the importance of midwives and doula and how they can even be more knowledgeable and successful than obstetricians. Goer attempts to disprove Gawande’s theories of c-sections and provides factual evidence to prove that c-sections are not as safe as Gawande states. Goer states, “A 2003 systematic review of the research found that women were more likely to die from complications directly attributable to cesarean surgery compared with women birthing vaginally” (Goer, 4). Now what do we believe? This statement contradicts Gawande’s ideas completely. Who is correct? Goer also emphasizes the importance of having all women “have access to the safest vaginal birth practices. We should not expect them to choose between vaginal birth with avoidable harms and cesarean section” (11).

What I have concluded from these articles is that despite the varying views on cesarean sections and vaginal births, it is important for women to have the say as to what they want to do for them and their baby. It is all about personal opinion and what is best for the individual. Society should not judge what decision they choose to make. Also, as some of my group members have mentioned previously, I truly think that it is not about the birthing process, it is about the joint health of the mother and child. The most important goal of childbirth is to get the baby out as safely as possible and to make sure the mother is safe.

Follow Up: Responding to Hilary

I, like Hilary did not know which side to take between the notions set forth by Atul Gawande and Henci Goer. It’s interesting to read about the evolution of childbirth and the advent of medical technology that has altered the child-rearing process. Goer criticized Gawande’s article in terms of the necessity of performing C-Sections and believed he provided unreliable data for his analysis.

I had no reason at first to doubt any of Gawande’s conclusions. I felt that the take-home message of “How Childbirth Went Industrial” is that women can have a safe, easy C-section or they can undergo difficult, risky labors and then have cesarean surgery. He provided an extensive amount of data, which I had no reason to doubt, but then Goer analyzed it I was surprised at how unreliable it was. It made me wonder how mothers and mothers-to-be can be truly informed about this issue as it is a huge decision in one’s life.

I see where the controversy of childbirth practices lies in the sense that some women prefer to keep the process natural by avoiding the Cesarean Section. There are certainly positive and negative consequences to a C-section. Gawande reveals a positive to this approach to medicine, while Goer criticizes his statements. I agree with many of Goer’s arguments; I feel that in many cases, Caesarian Sections can be the safest and most efficient way to deliver a child. As he states, it is “comfortable” for obstetricians, can be performed “consistently,” “easy to teach,” and is a “simpler, more predictable way to intervene.” However, like Hilary, I think that Goer’s response was extremely condescending. The way he could have argued his points should have been laid out differently.

I liked Gawande’s comparison of OB's to carmakers:

“Obstetrics went about improving the same way Toyota and General Electric did: on the fly, but always paying attention to the results and trying to better them. And it worked.”

There are negative consequences to this "on the fly" approach. When you choose to give birth in a hospital with an obstetrician, the general assumption is that the doctor must do something, while it will be dangerous to just wait and see what happens. What has the standardization of childbirth created for women? I wonder if this standardization process really is the best technique for childbirth. While many individuals benefit from cesarean sections, some see that obstetricians and hospitals are restricting women’s ability to give birth normally; many people strongly hold the belief that “natural birth” is the best way.

While it has improved outcomes, as Gawande notes, I think it has also robbed women of something vitally important. I agree with Gawande when he says, “We are losing our connection to yet another natural process of life. And we are seeing the waning of the art of childbirth.” Goer adds, “Standardization meant applying obsetric interventions to everyone needed or not.” I think it is a tough call in some cases of whether or not to have a C-section because on one hand, safety for the mother and child is most important, yet so many women will do anything in their power to have birth the natural way. But what exactly is natural? I think its meaning is more ambiguous than previously thought. I was shocked when I heard about a woman who, when she heard that her baby could die and would need an emergency c-section, she told the doctor, “I would rather have my baby die than have a c-section!” It makes me wonder: Do we care more about the process of birth than the product?

After reading these two articles, I conclude that the mother and baby mortality rate was much higher before modern medicine developed to what it is today. We have so many choices that help us to have the kind of birth experience we desire, with safety as the top priority. In moving forward in our society, if OBs and midwives work together, we can achieve the best possible outcome in birth situations. Like Hilary notes, safety of mother and child must be the highest consideration in any circumstance. This collaboration will result in beneficial outcomes and revolutionize the child-rearing techniques.

Main Post for 3/25

The dissension that propels the divide between Atul Gawande’s article, How Childbirth Went Industrial, and Henci Goer’s response, How Childbirth Went Industrial: A Deconstruction, has shaken and confused my previous knowledge and beliefs about childbirth. Suffice it to say that after reading the two diametrically opposed views and not having any medical background myself I have no idea whose side to believe. As I distrust my ability to medically assess these two opposing ideas, I can only share my gut reaction while reading these articles.

Having read Gawande first, I was tempted to defend my newfound knowledge of obstetric advancements when I later read Goer. Contentious medical opinions aside, however, Goer’s reply struck me as condescending and hasty. Not only is her article poorly written when compared to the beautiful prose and organization of Gawande, but her condescending tone right from the start is a red flag for subjectivity. While Goer accuses Gawande of using prejudicial language, she herself is guilty of this tactic. I believe Goer also stretches her defense by incorporating evidence that is weak at best. The use of ambiguous language in her list of cesarean side effects illustrates this point, “unsatisfactory birth experience, poor overall physical functioning, poor overall mental health and self-esteem, possibly depression,” (Goer, 5).

Rhetoric aside, I was bothered by the fact that Goer attacked Gawande for taking a pro-obstetric advancement stance. To the contrary, I believe he laid out an engaging personal story, an historical context, and some thoughtful commentary along the way. Gawande even openly admits to his own struggle to reconcile the obstetric trend, “It is not mere nostalgia to find this disturbing. We are losing our connection to yet another natural process of life. And we are seeing the waning of the art of childbirth,” (Gawande, 10). Although Goer criticizes Gawande for presenting only one view, I think he did a far greater job of providing both sides of the story. Perhaps the best proof of this is that after reading his article I felt informed and interested, not coerced or brainwashed. In fact, I found Goer’s article so fanatical that she immediately lost her credibility and my respect.

Even though Goer believes there is a simple solution to the latest industrialization, she fails to explain some key points. Repeatedly she pronounces natural birth or birth with the assistance of forceps as superior and safer to cesarean section; however, Goer ignores the fact that using forceps is a highly skilled procedure which very few obstetricians are qualified for. Another alternative suggested is the use of a doula, “By rejecting doula care, Rourke condemned herself to fighting the system with no one in her corner,” (Goer, 10). I do not doubt the benefit Rourke would have receive if she had a doula during labour; however, if doulas are the only way to give birth naturally then it appears that childbirth has become the latest privilege. It only takes watching one episode of 16 and Pregnant to confirm that not every pregnant woman/girl has access to or knowledge of alternative forms of childbirth.

After combing through the differences of these two articles, I am left with three imperative yet poorly articulated ideas. The first is the importance of recognizing the power of women helping women. Whether one chooses a midwife or a doula, the sisterhood and experience that is shared between women is something that no male obstetrician can compete with. As the brownbag Obstetrics and Childbirth in a time of Henry VIII illuminated, just because a man has Dr. in front of his name does not necessarily mean he’s more qualified than a midwife. Gawande ,too, alluded to this during his recount of obstetric history, “Doctors may have had the right tools, but midwives without them did better,” (Gawande, 4). The second idea is that having the flexibility and open-mindedness to accommodate for a dynamic delivery is imperative for both the mother and fetus’ health. If women are told that one form of delivery is superior to another, then they run the risk of choosing what is socially acceptable versus what is best medically. It comes as no surprise that Rourke suffered forty hours of labour as she tried to maintain her rigid delivery plan, “I wanted no intervention, no doctors, no drugs…I didn’t want any of that stuff. In a perfect world, I wanted to have my baby in a forest bower attended by fairy sprites,” (Gawande, 2). I do not believe doctors should be judged for sending an early labourer home, increasing Pitocin, or deciding on an emergency cesarean section. Accepting that all forms of childbirth can be perfectly healthy will hopefully allow for even higher survival rates. Finally, the third idea is that women should have the ultimate authority over their bodies, which ties into the conversations we have had regarding abortion. Whether childbirth involves doulas and hot tubs or surgeons and scalpels is of little importance if the end result is a healthy mother and child. Just a women should have the right to choose an abortion, so too should they have the right to choose the terms of their delivery.

Newsflash: "More Men Marrying Wealthier Women"

A recent article in The New York Times suggests that the traditional paradigm of gender roles in this country has become obsolete as more and more women are ascending the rungs of higher education and powerful careers. As the title, “More Men Marrying Wealthier Women,” reveals, columnist Sam Roberts chronicles this striking role reversal and its impact on conventional notions of marriage. While the article proudly celebrates the advancement of women in society, it also alludes to the troubling relational problems resulting from this patriarchal disturbance. Roberts makes light of this side effect by dismissing it as little more than an inconvenience for single women and an ego blow for men. The implications of challenging our patriarchal system, however, are immense and should not be taken casually. Roberts’ error is not in what his article says, but in what it fails to say. Thus, while “More Men Marrying Wealthier Women” gives readers a quick glance at shifting trends, the gravity of such change can only be understood upon further investigation.

Roberts begins by revealing a shocking fact about academic and economic standing among couples, “Men now are increasingly likely to marry wives with more education and income than they have, and the reverse is true for women.”[i] At first glance the news of higher education and earnings for females seems great; no doubt it speaks to the progress of the feminist movement and equal rights. Yet as we know too well, success for women in a patriarchal society means checking domesticity and docility at the door in order to be seen as aggressive, persistent, and competent. As men have dominated classrooms and offices for far longer than women, the average male feels a sense of entitlement to occupying the position of “breadwinner”. For some men, women who infiltrate this position are deemed threatening because they no longer fulfill the role of submissive housewife. As a man in Roberts’ article states to a woman, “You are confident, have good credit, own your own business, travel around the world and are self-sufficient. What man is going to want you”?[ii]

The double bind, in which women yet again find themselves, is that the advancement of women comes at the price of emasculating the men around them. Dr. Kenji Yoshino refers to this predicament in his book, Covering, as reverse-covering demands, “demands that an individuals act according to the stereotypes associated with their group.”[iii] Yoshino goes on to explain the problems that emerge when we classify passive and nurturing as “feminine” and aggressive and powerful as “masculine”:

What makes women distinctive is that the dominant group – men – regularly imposes both covering and reverse-covering demands on them. Women are uniquely situated in this way because their subordination has more generally taken a unique form. Un-like gays and racial minorities, women have been cherished by their oppressors. Men have long valued the “feminine” traits women are supposed to hold, such as warmth, empathy, and nurture[iv]

An extremist, like Ariel Levy, might even go so far as to say that women who earn the respect of men in the workplace and, as a result, potentially lose the respect of their husbands, are taking one step forward and two steps back, “A new sort of loophole woman who is ‘not like other women,’ who is instead ‘like a man.’ Or, more precisely, like a Female Chauvinist Pig.”[v] If maintaining higher female to male ratio in universities and offices means becoming FCPs and scaring off husbands, have we really progressed? It seems the male hesitation towards role reversal is an indication of the challenges of equality that still lie ahead.

It must be noted that the degree to which successful women experience this reverse-covering demand varies greatly. Roberts makes a point of acknowledging that race, ethnicity, and religion all contribute to the cultural norms that shape our opinions of gender roles, “Particularly, African-American men who are educated want a traditional home where they are the breadwinner.”[vi] Thus, this article does not simply involve gender relations, but gender relations as they relate to individual upbringing and cultural norms.

Although this article does not begin to address all the implications of men marrying wealthier women, it does provide the reader with a foundation to ask important questions. If men continue to feel insecure about their educational status and income can we anticipate a change in dating and marriage rates? Will the breadwinning wives be able to raise children, or will that responsibility be transferred over to the husband? What about the stigma placed on working moms versus stay-at-home moms? Will women celebrate each other in this historic moment or continue to judge one another?

Ultimately, “More Men Marrying Wealthier Women” is a great advertisement for the feminist movement, but it does not tell the whole story. While women may be better educated and hold greater careers than their husbands, they are still paid less than their male counterparts. President Obama recently reminded all Americans that by signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, “We are upholding one of this nation’s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness.”[vii] It is obvious we have much work to do before women can truly hold positions of power without being ostracized or treated unfairly; yet, the message Roberts hits home about female accomplishment is a powerful one. If the reversal of gender roles continues, we might just hear the words “sugar mama”, not daddy.

---

[i] Sam Roberts, “More Men Marrying Wealthier Women,” The New York Times, January 19, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/us/19marriage.html?emc=eta1

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Kenji Yoshino, Covering: The Hidden Assault on our Civil Rights (New York: Random House, 2007), 23.

[iv] Yoshino, 147.

[v] Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (New York: Free Press, 2006), 96.

[vi] Roberts

[vii] Sheryl Stolberg, “Obama Signs Equal Pay Legislation,” The New York Times, January 29, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html

FOLLOW UP POST: Responding to Michele

I agree with Michele in almost all aspects of her blog post.  Her responses to the readings were very similar to my own and I could relate very much to all of her thoughts on abortion.  I too feel that the readings for Tuesday’s class opened my eyes to different opinions and experiences on abortions, however I still feel that my beliefs on abortion still hold very strong.  I definitely believe that each woman should have the right to an abortion.  At the same time, however, I believe that women also have the right to birth their child if they so choose.  Therefore, I find abortion to be a very personal issue in which there is no “right” decision that follows for every individual.  Some women are ready to be moms while others are not.  Some women are ready to give birth, while other women are not.  While I have always believed abortion to be an individual decision, these articles really opened my eyes to the faults and extremes of judgment so common in an issue that is largely no one’s business to asses except the individuals involved in conception.

Although I didn’t consider it at the time that I read Inga Muscio’s article on the “suck[y]” nature of abortions, Michele makes an interesting point, highlighting the hypocricy in the fact that Muscio condemns modern clinical abortions despite the fact that she has had two herself.  I do agree that Muscio’s adamant view, arguing that “abortion sucks,” (Muscio, 112) both literally and metaphorically, is somewhat hypocritical.  I believe, however, that Muscio is in a very credible position to state her opinion on clinical abortions since she herself has experienced two of them.   

Muscio did not argue that women do not have the right to an abortion or that women should not have the choice whether or not they want to birth their baby.  Instead, she suggested that based on personal experience, clinical abortions are extremely draining, painful, and messy compared to organic methods including “praying, massaging, tea drinking, talking, and thinking,” (Muscio, 116).  She holds that clinical abortions “ruthlessly sucked” out her insides, causing difficulty walking, extreme pain, and “gaping wound[s],” (Muscio, 114).  I think that while her description of clinical abortions is extremely negative and painful sounding, she has a full right to describe them as so. 

Muscio juxtaposes clinical abortions with more natural methods of abortion that seem entirely less imposing, dangerous, and traumatic than clinical abortions.  Personally, I never knew methods such as massage therapy and tea-drinking were effective in executing abortions.  Given her experience with both methods, Muscio is definitely in a strong position to promote one method over the other.  I think that if she were to judge someone for opting for a clinical abortion, that would be hypocritical.  However, instead, I think that she hopes to make public her own experience for the benefit of women in her position, faced with the decision of whether or not they want a clinical abortion.  Muscio suggests that there are alternate options that may be less painful and damaging.

I think that her push for greater discussion about women’s bodies and “our selves” is very important.  She holds that “healing starts from within,” (Muscio, 115) and that women must concentrate on the “power within” their own circle of friends and family (Muscio, 117).  Muscio urges us to establish a greater connection and understanding of ourselves.  She wants us to study and examine what works for us, what hurts us, what makes us happy, what makes us feel powerful, and what makes us feel free.    She suggests that if people were more aware of organic abortions, “there wouldn’t be much of an abortion debate,” (Muscio, 117).  While her bias and preference toward natural abortions is definitely obvious, I think that Muscio’s larger argument for a greater inner understanding is crucial.  I believe that all too often, personal abortion decisions are swayed or judged by completely uninvolved and unaware individuals.  People must understand that the choice for, or against, abortion should be a personal decision, free of judgment and debate from or against others.

I also found Allison Crew’s essay very interesting, with very important messages on the topic of abortion.  Like Inga Muscio, Allison Crews calls for “more information,” saying mothers need to be “supported in their choices, whatever they may be,” (Crews, 143).  I fully and completely back Allison Crews on this point and could not have said it better myself.  Crews recognizes and understands that the decision among abortion, birth and subsequent adoption, or birth and subsequent raising of the child is a different issue for every single woman, each of whom has very different circumstances than any other woman. 

Growing up in a pro-life household, Allison Crew most definitely had opinions, probably seemingly laws as she was a child when they were first introduced to her, imposed on her constantly.  She now has realized that this fight against pro-choice women that she participated in before she was even a teenager was the result of “anti-abortion points that had been burned in to [her] mind,” (Crews, 144).   Before she knew herself and had any chance to examine her inner workings and opinions, Crews experienced intense opinions and judgments she didn’t even realize she had a choice in forming.

As Michele mentioned, a turning point in Crews’ life took place when she was 12, an initially regular day when she was protesting outside an abortion clinic with her mother.  She witnessed a girl enter and eventually exit the clinic.  Upon her exit, a man yelled at her “the blood is on your own hands! You know what you did; only God can wash the blood away,” (Crews, 144)!  The pain and desperation Crews recognized in that girl’s eyes struck a chord inside her.  She realized that the girl “had the right to make a choice for herself and her future without being harassed and intimidated,” (Crews, 145).  Crews realized that the girl was being judged based on her age, sex, and state of reproduction (pregnant).  Crews connected her thoughts and realized that this girl had the right to search inside herself and to execute a decision based on her own feelings and concepts of what is right rather than the opinions and bias of random outsiders.

I was also very interested and surprised by Crews’ story of the negative responses when she searched for “solace” in the feminist, pro-choice online community.  She assumed, like I also assumed, that these women would “support [her] right to choose, support [her] right to become a mother,” (Crews, 146).  She quickly realized however, that they considered abortion the only choice.  Thereby, not endorsing any choice after all.  Many of these women were extremely judgmental, calling her an “irresponsible teenager” (Crews, 146) despite the fact that they didn’t even know her or the personal details of her situation.  These women told her that she was “responsible for the ‘backsliding of the feminist movement,” (Crews, 146), a claim I find entirely ludicrous and conceited.

I find these exclamations extremely hypocritical, naïve, and arrogant.  These women fight for the choice of abortion, the right of a woman to choose to undergo a medical procedure, however they simultaneously condemn any choice other than abortion.  Personally, I believe that is the “backsliding of the feminist movement.”  These women reprimand and rebuke a choice that a woman has made.  They scorn the research and regard with contempt Allison Crews’ attempt to make the informed, unbias, confident, and right decision for herself.  I think that support for women and a recognition that the abortion decision is a personal choice is absolutely crucial in our society. How can women form a confident and assertive decision if they are constantly swayed by the opinions of those around them?

Women must experience education on the topics and opinions surrounding abortion and further, they must always be able to find a support system, no matter their decision.  However, how do we create an environment, completely free of bias, on an issue so ridden with personal opinions and beliefs?  Further, with an issue as important as the life of a child, how is it possible to completely remove emotion and intensity from discussions in hopes of effectively educating individuals on their options?  Also, is it even realistic or effective to remove emotion from abortion discussions?  Or is it naïve to assume that emotion can be removed from education and understanding since abortions/childbirth are, no matter what, emotional and absolutely life-changing?

Follow Up: Responding to Michele

Abortion is a very controversial topic. These readings discuss abortion and the various ways of viewing it and how to deal with it. I agree with Michelle in the sense that I gained a broader perspective on the topic, but it did not necessarily change my stance on it. Hearing true-life examples of women going through abortion and the issues surrounding it helped me understand the various viewpoints. Society, as Michelle writes, is a powerful force on these women and I believe this statement to be true. I also think that all the readings go back to idea that it is up to the mother to make the decision.

I enjoyed reading Arcana’s piece and like Michelle, appreciated her neutral stance on abortion. It was interesting how she tied together the relationship between abortion and mothering. She writes, “Abortion is neither a separate subject, nor a subject in a different category” (225). I think she takes a strong stance in showing how closely connected the two are in a society where “abortion, along with contraception, miscarriage, and adoption…are all usually separated from discussions of mothering, even when those discussions are carried on in the voices and writings of women of consciousness” (225). Why have we routinely separated these terms in society? It is important to see these all as inter-related because as Arcana argues, abortion is “the concern of women who are taking responsibility for the lives of their children” (225). It is the mother who decides what to do so there is no reason not to see the interconnectedness of these two issues. It all goes back to the choice women are making, which is also seen in the other readings for today’s post.

In “Abortion, Vacuum Cleaners and the Power Within” Inga Muscio presents her views on abortion and claims to have had it three times in her life. I agree with Michele that she is a hypocrite by saying “abortion sucks” yet she had it done on her. What kind of message is she sending to her readers? It was interesting that after having an abortion 3 times in her life, she relates it to a vacuum, which cleans up messes. She provided a very thought provoking analogy: “a pile of kitty litter on the floor is treated much the same as an undesired embryo” (112). This made me question: what do we really think of abortion?

Muscio struggles with the notion that she only had one choice once she came to the conclusion that she wanted an abortion. She had to go to a clinical abortion because as she put it, “What other goddamn choice did I have?” (Muscio, 113). Even when she was fully able to exercise her right to terminate a pregnancy, she did not have a choice. This goes back to the limited range of choices that women have in a patriarchal society, which maintains the status of women as second-class citizens. It serves to keep women oppressed in society. What if a woman did not want to submit to a clinical abortion? What other choice did she really have? This serves to decrease a women’s self-worth in a predominantly male-dominated society. How can women find empowerment while being restricted in society?

It was empowering to read how Muscio found liberation by choosing alternative methods for abortion. “I felt like I imagine any oppressed individual feels when they see that they have power, and nobody—not even men and their machines, nobody—can take that away” (Muscio, 117). This is exactly the power that women must realize they have. I think it will be important to step away from patriarchal society and have open discussions of the diversity of options.

In “And So I Chose,” Allison Crews also discusses the idea of reproductive choice as seen in her experience as a teenage mother. The last paragraph really made it clear about what being pro-choice means to her, and I agree with her conclusions. She successfully associated feminism, motherhood, and choice together in a powerful discussion of the issues that mothers and mothers-to-be may face. This is similar to the interconnectedness in Arcana’s piece. Choice, for Crews, is what gives people power in society, just as Muscio revealed in her essay. Without choice, our only option is to submit to the patriarchal system that tells us what we should do with our choices, our bodies, and our lives. This reflects Muscio’s findings on not having a choice in terms of how to get an abortion, as the only plausible way was seen through a clinical abortion. If women do not have a choice in their own lives and bodies, then how are women believed to fight for other rights in the public sphere? How can women rise above the constraints in society? Her essay also made me realize we cannot just focus on reproductive choice but also the other struggles that women face when mothering.

Going back to Muscio’s reading, I agree with her conclusion of the need to create “informal health collectives where we discuss things like our bodies and our selves” (119). This will help women realize their strength and ultimately make a powerful impact in society. As the authors of the readings for today would agree, we need to realize our power from within and understand that we can make decisions and work against the patriarchal system. As Michelle notes, it is the women’s decision and we need to think about where the male comes into play. I think she brings up a very important point and I don’t think there is one correct answer in the debate. What other conclusions can we draw from these authors? How has this idea played out in modern society?

Abortion: GIve Women the Power!

This week’s readings focused on abortion and how it is a very controversial issue with varying viewpoints on it from women alone. After reading these articles, especially the ones that were personalized and discussed womens’ real-life experiences with them, I definitely gained a broader perspective on abortion, although I still stand firm in my personal beliefs on the issue. A common theme that I found in these readings, particularly Inga Muscio’s and Allison Crew’s, was that of society and its influence on women. These two authors expressed their discomfort with society and the power it seemed to have on them as they tried to make their decision as to whether or not they should have an abortion. Judith Arcana’s article also seems to relate to this idea as she expresses the idea that it is the woman who should make the decision, nobody else. Before we can make connections though we must understand each reading individually.

Inga Muscio’s, “Abortion, Vacuum Cleaners, and the Power Within”, is a story of Muscio’s personal experiences with abortions. As soon as I began reading her article, I immediately felt that Muscio was a hypocrite. How could she start her story off telling readers that “ABORTION SUCKS”, and that she is “adamantly against clinical abortions” (112), and then go on to tell us that she had three of them? It is confounding to me that she could say this, and actually bothers me. She uses the metaphor of an abortion as a vacuum cleaner, cleaning up our messes that we have made. Muscio’s first two abortions went terribly, and she felt horrendous during and after them. She was scarred from the first abortion, so it is a little unsettling to readers that she wound up having another one after making a bad decision again. I found her perspective on abortion after she got pregnant the second time to be interesting. She says, “ I had the same choice as before, that glowing, outstanding choice we ladies fight tooth and nail for: the choice to get my insides ruthlessly sucked by some inhuman shit pile” (114). While this is true that women fight endlessly for the right to have an abortion, most of us do not know what it is like to get one. It is very possible that after having one, we might change our opinion on them. Muscio presents the idea of “healing from within”, and how “in this society, we look to the outside for just about everything”, including healing. Her idea of internal healing is very motivating, whether it’s in terms of abortion, or anything else for that matter. She expresses her self-control and asserts her power over that which society has over her. After she gets pregnant for the third time, she decides to give herself an abortion, with the help of her friends, massages, herbal medicines, and reflexology. Her most powerful statement to me was, “The real fight for human rights is inside each and every individual on this earth” (117), showing how much she believes in healing from within and breaking free from the mold that patriarchal society has placed women in. Lastly, she tells readers that she is not ungrateful for all that her predecessors did for her and the rights they gained so she could benefit from them, she simply states that now, with this right, she has realized that clinical abortions are “and oppressive diversion to one’s own power” (117). She strongly believes in the power of the individual and the personal act of an abortion.

In Allison Crews’ “And So I Chose”, she discusses her personal experience with abortion as well as women’s rights and her feminist website. She was raised in a pro-life home, which wound up greatly affecting her decision later in life to get an abortion. She mentions an experience when she was 12 years old as she marched outside of a Planned Parenthood and yelled as a young girl entered with her mom. Crews would never forget the girls face when she left, and her shaking body, as a man yelled at her “The blood is on your hands!” (144). When Crews got pregnant at the age of 15, she made numerous appointments to get an abortion, and kept canceling them out of fear and confusion. Eventually, it was too late to get one, so Crews had the baby. Crews sought solace in the online community of young mothers, yet she was berated with “Irresponsible teenager” and “hopeless breeder” (146), which only made matters worse. She found that her soul was confined, and that those that were supposed to be close to her and help her through the difficult time “were all trying to knock the very ground” she stood on from under her (146). I related this to Muscio’s article because Crews too found that she had to conform to what society created for women, and that if she didn’t, people turned against her. For example, she was told she could not make the adoption decision on her own and she wanted to birth on her own and was laughed at. After having given birth, Crews states, “He was my choice, and, finally, this was my life” (148). This outlook is extremely powerful after she states, “people-who seemed to come at me from every angle and direction-trying to deny me my right to reproductive freedom”. She was able to overcome the boundaries society placed on her, and feel powerful again. She concludes with her idea of “pro-choice” and how it is not about which choice we make, it’s that nobody can deny any of us our right to make these choices.

I found Judith Arcana’s “Abortion Is A Motherhood Issue”, to relate strongly to the articles mentioned above, especially Crews’ article. Crews’ idea on what pro-choice means to her is a lot like Arcana’s ideas in her article. Arcana discusses how abortion is a motherhood issue and should not be separated from them. Mothers are the ones that got pregnant and therefore should be the ones that determine whether an abortion is right for them or not. These mothers should solely be responsible for this, and nobody else should control them, and nobody should be judged if they choose to have an abortion. Arcana says, “every woman who chooses to abort a pregnancy is justified in her decision” (226). No matter what the reason is, if it is not right for the mother to have the baby then who is to say that is wrong? I enjoyed reading Arcana’s article because I appreciated her stance on abortion. She does not criticize those that get them nor does she encourage them. She simply writes to express her neutrality on the issue and her support for mothers to make decisions that are best for them. We have a responsibility to choose.

“Opinion of the Court” discusses Roe v. Wade and the story behind the case. Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, both lawyers from the University of Texas Law School, met Norma McCorvey, a pregnant woman that wanted an abortion. At the time, abortion was illegal in Texas and there were just abortion-referral services. Weddington and Coffee studied the abortion law and eventually “filed a federal suit challenging the constitutionality of Texas’s antiabortion statute” (Feminism In Our Time, 400). This began one of the most influential court cases ever, Roe v. Wade. Thanks to Weddington and Coffee, abortions became legal for women in 1973. This was “a major contribution to the preservation of individual liberties” (Feminism In Our Time, 400). The excerpt provided gives readers insight into what went on during the court case and how the jurisdiction made the decision.

Looking back on all of these readings I took from the authors that it is important to do what is best for you in terms of abortion, and not let society influence you. The mother has total control and authority to make this decision, and nobody else. I am curious where the male steps in here. Do we think that the man should have any say in the issue? It is the woman’s body and she should be able to do as she pleases, but what role does the man play? What if the man wants the baby and the woman does not? How can we reconcile these two differing views?

News Flash 2: "Male Birth Control Pill Soon A Reality"

In the MSNBC article, “Male Birth Control Pill Soon A Reality”, John Schieszer discusses the new options of male contraception. Since the 1960’s, women have been offered birth control pills taken orally as a form of contraception. Researchers and scientists have been exploring the possibility of creating either a daily pill taken orally, a patch or gel that is applied to the skin, an injection every three months, or an implant that is positioned under the skin every year. Although funding has been an issue in more recent months, scientists believe that within the next 5-7 years a form of male birth control besides the run of the mill condom will be available. Although the prospect of this is exciting for women, as condoms are not always the most trustworthy form of contraception, I have my doubts that men will initially be open to an option like this. After examining some of the works we have read in class, such as Ariel Levy’s “Female Chauvinist Pigs”, Allan G. Johnson’s “Patriarchy, The System”, and Adrienne Rich’s “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence”, I have decided that many men may look at this new form of birth control as a means of demoting them from their dominant role in our patriarchal society.

Schieszer reports that many men fear the act of taking hormones because of the possible side effects involved. A vast majority of men do not wish to medicate themselves like women already have to do on the pill. An interviewee, Scott Hardin, stated “I would rather rely on a solution that doesn’t involve medicating myself and the problems women have had with hormone therapy doesn’t make me anxious to want to sign on to taking a hormone-type therapy” (Schieszer). Although many “guinea pigs” have experienced very little side effects besides some weight gain and some sweaty, sleepless nights, men still seem to focus on the fact that they would be ‘unnecessarily’ medicating themselves while women are already doing that. Is it fair that women must take on this burden and men do not need to? Although most of the articles & books discussed in class do not directly discuss birth control and the pressures that women feel to take it, resulting in men not feeling a sense of responsibility, various themes presented relate to the sense of patriarchy present in today’s society and how men dominate most aspects of life, especially sex.

I take issue with a portion of Schieszer’s article, and that is the way that certain statements were phrased. “Finally, it is the man’s turn” is a phrase picked out from the article referring to the fact that men have not been offered such an opportunity before (Schieszer). While I agree with the idea that a male birth control pill should have been developed years ago, it seems unfair the way they phrase it. “It is time for men to have some control, I think it would empower men and deter some women out there from their nefarious plans”, says Quentin Brown, a 45 year old volunteer to test out MHCs. Brown goes on to say, “Some women are out there to use men to get pregnant. This could deter women from doing this. An athlete or a singer is someone who could be a target and they could put a stop to that” (Scieszer). This seems like an absolutely ridiculous statement to me. Since when have men had a limited amount of power in this beloved patriarchal society of ours?

Although at one point birth control for women was a huge breakthrough that provided females with more control and power, in more modern times it seems a bit unfair that women are the only ones who must take on this responsibility. In Ariel Levy’s “Female Chauvinist Pigs”, she discusses the history of birth control. In 1960, the FDA approved the birth control pill, and in 1972 the Supreme Court allowed unmarried women to have access to the pill. This “had a tremendous impact on the reshaping of American womanhood: women’s liberation and the sexual revolution” (Levy, 53-54). The typical woman was “freed from domesticity” (Levy, 57). Levy later discusses how Hugh Hefner helped fund the feminist initiative to legalize the birth control pill. Although he appeared to be fully on board with the feminist movement, he had the same goal but a different agenda as these females. He sought to enable men to treat the sex movement differently: have sex with liberated females and have no sense of commitment or faithfulness. All in all, Hefner “served the ideas of the women’s liberation movement” but most feminists disliked him because underneath this surface layer, he was not doing it for the right reasons.

I believe that Levy would not only approve of a birth control pill for men, but she would look at it as a mutual & fair share of the burden that both men and women take on when they jointly engage in sexual activity. This sense of equality is what Levy looks for in life and what she often writes about. Levy would greatly disprove of men out there, such as Quentin Brown, who supports the male birth control pill because it would give men more power. Don’t they already have enough control? Levy makes mention of Andrea Dworkin, a former prostitute that penned a novel about sex and rape. Dworkin states, “The end of male dominance would mean-in the understanding of such a man-the end of sex” (Levy). Although she is referring to male dominance in terms of the actual act of intercourse, this can strongly relate to the idea that men could be losing their sense of “male dominance” that they always have had if they begin to take one of these new forms of male birth control. Based on Levy’s choice of topics in her novel, I think that she might agree that men would definitely feel they are losing some of their much-loved supremacy over women if they took the pill.

In Johnson’s article, he discusses the patriarchy system and how it has total control over our society and the individuals in it. Although we participate in this system that controls us, willingly or not, it can be very difficult to simply escape the bounds of the system. Johnson says, “It’s an arrangement of shared understandings and relationships that connect people to one another and something larger than themselves” (Johnson, 34). When examined closer, the defining elements of patriarchy is the “male-dominated, male-identified, male-centered, and control-obsessed character” (Johnson, 38), which all simply aids in creating basic values of restraint and authority in almost all aspects of life. The idea that males dominate in this patriarchal social construct allows stereotypes and definitions of what it is to be “male” and “female” to be formed. Johnson states,

To have power over and to be prepared to use it are culturally defined as good and desirable (and characteristically “masculine”), and to lack such power or to be reluctant to use it is seen as weak if not contemptible (and characteristically “feminine”). (Johnson, 39)

I believe that Johnson’s ideas correlates well to the probable belief amongst men that they should not need to medicate themselves in order to ensure a more reliable form of birth control, as they are “in control”. Taking the pill may take this power away from them. This could potentially be seen as a sign of vulnerability or weakness in a man.

Adrienne Rich discusses in her article, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence”, the idea that women are forced to live under the norms of heterosexuality in our society, more so than men. Although this does not directly relate to the issue discussed in Schieszer’s article, she makes some interesting points about the sources of male power and how this allows men to dominate in society. Rich acknowledges that many men take issue with being a “stay-at-home-dad”, and she states, “I believe large numbers of men could, in fact, undertake child care on a large scale without radically altering the balance of male power in a male-identified society” (Rich, 314) Although men feel that this could lessen their male authority and go against the idea of the stereotypical male, Rich believes that men might be surprised with what they find if they give that type of lifestyle a chance. This could correlate to the birth control issue. Would men also feel that this might take away from their “power”? Rich states, “characteristics of male power include the power of men…to command or exploit their labor to control their produce” by means of controlling “contraception, sterilization, and childbirth” (Rich, 315). Rich’s ideas relate to gender inequalities in terms of sex and can also add to the thought that men may be against birth control as it, like being a stay-at-home-dad, could disgrace them.

Our society today places men in the dominant position to control most aspects of life. This patriarchy consumes us and makes it quite a challenge to escape it. Having a birth control pill that is only for women is part of this patriarchy. Men never had the responsibility of protecting themselves from getting a female pregnant, but now that a birth control pill for men is on the horizon, would men even take it? Based on class discussions, I have decided that it is highly likely that most men will not consider taking this new form of birth control at first because it has been for women only. Men might see taking a birth control pill as something that could diminish their power. But then one must acknowledge that some men, as mentioned in the MSNBC article, look to birth control as a power enhancer for men, which seems unnecessary in this patriarchy we live in. In order to make strides in our society and to create gender equality in terms of the act of sex itself, men need to feel comfortable enough in order to break free from the labels that pigeonhole them, and in turn place unfair burdens on women.