News Flash: To Shave or Not to Shave?

Catherine Saint Louis’ article, “Unshaven Women: Free Spirits or Unkempt,” is centered on the societal expectation that women should remove all of their body hair. Women choosing to let their body hair grow are taking the path of least resistance, and in effect, allowing all women to have more freedom.

Saint Louis’ article, which was published on April 12, 2010, begins by mentioning several celebrities who were spotted with noticeable body hair. Most recently, Mo’Nique, showed off her unshaved legs at the Golden Globes. Media reactions were extremely critical, and many assumed that she simply forgot to shave her legs. An assumption that Mo’Nique forgot to shave her legs is completely absurd when considering the amount of time and energy celebrities spend preparing for the big night. Nobody “forgets” to shave their legs for the Golden Globes. Anyone that was shocked to find out that her unshaved legs were intentional was not thinking clearly.

The negative response by the media, as Saint Louis’ points out, was “designed to make every ‘tween girl snap to attention and realize that leg hair is not allowed.” This idea is expressed in Ariel Levy’s novel, Female Chauvinist Pigs. A chapter titled “Pigs in Training” discusses how young girls are influenced by what she calls “raunch culture.” Young girls internalize everything that the media presents them and feel the need to do what is considered sexy, because they see no other choice. No teenage girl wants to deviate from the norm. If shaved legs are what are considered acceptable, then you better believe young girls will be shaving religiously.

Amanda Palmer, who used to sing for the Dresden Dolls, once made a display similar to Mo’Nique’s, but of her unshaved armpits. “People say you’re making a statement, but I’m not,” she says in the article. The notion that anyone who chooses to keep their body hair intact is trying to make a statement is definitely a widespread one. Untamed body hair is a stereotypical feminist trait. The idea that perhaps a woman would like to spend her time doing something other than shaving her legs or that her armpits suffer from razor burn is lost on most of society. If a woman has visible body hair, the general assumption is that she is making a stand against the oppression of women.

Palmer went on to say that she “likes reminding younger fans that they have a choice.” Women like Palmer can serve as powerful role models to a younger generation. Joan Brumberg’s “Body Projects” discusses how “the body has become the central personal project of American girls” (97). Appearing the way that society suggests that you should consumes the lives of many young girls. Diets, training bras, and piercings are three examples that Brumberg gives of “body projects,” and hair removal is undoubtedly just another aspect of appearance for women, young and old, to dwell on.

Mo’Nique has referred to her unshaven legs as “a black woman’s thing.” Danielle C. Belton, a blogger, explains in the article that when she was younger her parents wouldn’t let her shave her legs because it was “something white people do.” This is somewhat reminiscent of “Ain’t I a Woman?” by Sojourner Truth. Here, black women were not allowed to do something that would have given them what many consider a defining characteristic of the female sex. This may have caused black women to seem less feminine than white women, because we generally base our female stereotypes on the white, middle to upper class woman rather than women as a whole.

Of course, the issue of whether or not men find body hair attractive comes into play. This is just another example of how patriarchy affects our everyday lives. Most women are guilty of shaving their legs and other body parts solely because they will be coming in contact with someone of the opposite sex. Shouldn’t we be doing things to satisfy ourselves, and not the men in our lives?

As Bojana Anglin, a student at the University of California-Berkeley, says in the article, “Women have a measure of freedom that they aren’t exercising.” Women who criticize other women for not shaving are only further eliminating choice for women. Our bodies belong to us, and we should be given the choice to do with them what we wish. Society tells us that we must remove our body hair in order to be deemed attractive. Women who reject this standard are taking the path of least resistance and as a result, giving other women the choice to opt out as well.

Newsflash: Mommy Mafia

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/wayoflife/04/13/mommy.mafia.jen.klein/index.html

This newsflash is one that I thought, even though not immediate or as shocking or relevant as other headlines, caught my attention. This article acknowledges the kind of competition that occurs between mothers who are trying to gain the mother of the year award from their peers. Yet whats interesting about this phenomenon, is that women, instead of being able to to network with each other and help each other assume better roles as mothers, especially single-mothers, they are competing against each other. Women are so competitive, and we have seen it in so many aspects of women's lives, whether or not its on the abortion or porn debate, women have no been able to unify as a single group with a common cause since what seems like ever. This article struck me because what it suggests is that even on issues like motherhood, women still feel that they need to compete with others "enforcing local social structures and norms and judgers of all who dare do things differently. The mommy mafia can be brutal" wow it sounds like women are almost employing the same sort of patriarchal structure to express their duties of motherhood.

The upsetting part about this issue, is that while women become more empowered, whether it be through education or their careers, we have inherentley become more competitive, and its because we had too. We had to assimilate to be able to compete with men at the same level. But motherhood is something so special and specific to women, something that literally expresses out motherly instincts and sort of biological duty in life, yet it is something that women also have encorporated into the winning-game. Yet the funny part about this, is that there is no winner in the mommy-game, there is no one women who can single handedly, and universally, be called the best mother. Its a competition with no judges or rules, hardly a fair competition and one that should be used as a forum for women empowerment. The problem I see with this growing mommy-mafia, is that while more women decide to have careers, they feel the strain of being a mother more and more, and that can be seen in many cases all over the world. It is not uncommon. Yet the beauty of this issue is that its the perfect example of a moment where women need to empower themselves, and look at their past and present to make decisions on their own, and not for the mommy-mafia or the rest of the patriarchal world who is saying that you should have already lost those 20 lbs after your pregnancy.

I wonder if women are ever going to be able to come together and unify for a common cause. Being a woman in itself is something that if ordinary enough, we could all come together for. Yet because women vary in shape, size, beliefs, religions, etc. that unity is scarce. Yet if there is something that all women experience together, similarly and differently but basically equally, is motherhood, and I really believe that mothers should have more outlets to come together and learn from one another as opposed to competing against each other. I can only see this drift getting bigger and bigger, and eventually leading to more drifts because of competitiveness on issues with no real winner. First wave and second wave feminsts have struggled to unify women on common causes, and sometimes on just one cause, so I think what is important for 3rd wave generation feminsts is to be able to recognize that as we become more successful, we too will become more competitive, and it is important for us instead of drawing a line in the sand, to draw a circle and try to get everyone to step inside of it, regardless of their position, and try to work together for a common cause, give and take.

Newsflash: Abortion Doctor's Killer Sentenced to Life in Prison

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/01/kansas.abortion.roeder.sentence/index.html?hpt=T1

Just a few weeks ago, on April 1, 2010, Scott Roeder was sentenced to life in prison without parole eligibility for 50 years. Roeder, an anti-abortion militant who was also a member of anti-government activist group the Montana Freemen, had a history of militancy and mental instability that hinted at his capability for more extreme political violence. Roeder’s anti-government and anti-abortion extremism eventually led to his tragic assassination of one of the few doctors in the United States who specialized in late-term abortions. On May 31, 2009, Dr. George Tiller was shot in the head at point-blank range during a Sunday worship service at the Reformation Lutheran Church, where Tiller was serving as an usher.

Scott Roeder, the convicted shooter, committed this abhorrent act of violence in the name of the pro-life movement. Any rational person can see the premeditated cold-bloodedness of Roeder crime, but the sheer hypocrisy of Scott Roeder’s act is also glaringly apparent. There is a genuine logical disconnect, in my opinion, in any violent action taken against abortion providers. Militant activists who claim to be “saving babies” go about their mission to preserve innocent life by subsequently threatening or taking lives or innocent doctors, nurses, security guards and receptionists at abortion clinics providing completely legal health services.

In my research of Dr. Tiller’s death, I happened upon a set of statistics provided by the National Abortion Federation, which records acts of violence committed in the name of the anti-abortion movement. (link: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/violence_statistics.html) It was truly shocking to see that Dr. Tiller’s murder is just one of many extreme acts of violence against clinics (including bombings, shootings, stabbings, arson, chemical attacks, etc) that occur every year in the United States. How does man who claims to be pro-life, a man who calls this crime an “act of love”, justify taking the life of a respected doctor and beloved father and husband? Shouldn’t pro-lifers, simply by nature of their moral position reject violence as a means of resisting ideas with which they disagree?

It seems that in the context of controversial issues such as abortion, that extreme beliefs inspire extreme actions. The death of George Tiller is far more than just an act of violence against one man though; it is an outward attack of women’s rights to reproductive freedom. Tiller’s killing was an act of domestic terrorism. It was a violent assault motivated purely by a disjuncture in moral beliefs.

Dr. Tiller has been the target of violent hate crimes before. Since being shot outside of an abortion clinic in the 90s, he has worn a bulletproof vest and traveled in an armored vehicle in daily working life. It is not difficult to see why Tiller has long been the target of extreme anti-abortion groups. Dr. Tiller was one of the few doctors who provided abortion services to women in their third trimester of pregnancy. In the already highly charged debate over abortion, late-term abortions have always been the hardest to defend and obtain. His opponents called Tiller a baby killer, and yet if we look at the law it Kansas, it clearly states that “post-viability abortion procedures are legally allowed when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman’s health”. This makes the termination of a late term pregnancy in Kansas an issue of serving the health and interests of a woman over those of her unborn fetus. As a supporter of a woman’s right to chose, even I have some moral ambiguities on the termination of a viable fetus, but when you take this issue on a case by case basis it become obvious that Tiller was simply serving the best interests of his patients, as any doctor should, and doing so with the support of Kansas law. To many of his patients, Dr. Tiller was a true hero who put interests of his women patients even above his own safety. Tiller was once quoted defending his work, saying “women and families are intellectually, emotionally, spiritually and ethically competent to struggle with complex health issues—including abortion—and come to decision that are appropriate for themselves”. This very attitude, true respect and outward defense for a woman’s decision about her health, unfortunately made Dr. Tiller a target for murder.

Our readings on abortion have made it clear that the decision to have or not have an abortion is extremely trying both physically and emotionally. It is not a decision to be taken lightly and once made it is not a decision to be questioned or criticized. Allison Crews, a teen who chose to carry her pregnancy emphasizes in her article “And So I Choose”, that “our bodies are our own, our futures ours to mold. No one should be allowed to interfere with them… We have the right when, where, with whom and how were bear children” (148). This is a concept that Dr. Tiller understood with more clarity than most. His assassination was a hate crime committed not only against him but also against all women and their constitutional rights.

Dr. Tiller’s murder was a tragic and calculated act of hatred, but his legacy as a man who helped thousands of women, will not be diminished by the act of a single terrorist. Perhaps the most poignant message we can gather from Tiller legacy is “trust women”, a phrase which Tiller described as a personal motto for his work. As we see in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5TugO8Zl3o) making a difference in women’s lives was the ultimate goal of his services. This motto, “trust women” is a phrase that is often overlooked by pro-lifers in the discussion of abortion. Though George Tiller is gone, let us hope his life serves as a lesson to all that it is time we stop treating women like they are morally handicapped. A pregnant woman is the only one who can and should make decisions about her body, her health and her future. This is a concept that Tiller embraced fully, and it is truly appalling that Scott Roeder felt justified in murdering Tiller for this belief. Pro-choicers everywhere can rest easy after Roeder’s sentencing, that this murderous extremist will now spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Lady and the Tramp

Gwendolyn Mink’s article “Lady and the Tramp” brought up a number of interesting issues regarding welfare politics and the role that feminism has played in the pursuit of equality for mothers. Mink starts off with a very valid argument that should speak to any woman, she says that “welfare reform risks many of the rights and protections upon which women’s security and equality depends.” With reforms such as the Personal Responsibility Act, poor single mothers were stripped of their entitlement to welfare—and Mink argues that this “war” against poor women is really a war against all women. It was interesting to me (though perhaps not surprising considering the largely white middle-class upbringings of women in Congress) that most women did not vehemently contest the Republican welfare paradigm. I personally had never even heard of the Personal Responsibilities Act, perhaps because I was 6 years old when it passed, but it seems so obvious to me that it is genuine and unprovoked attack on poor women with children; the members of our society with the most need for government welfare were subsequently denied their right to that welfare and ultimately “a million more children have been driven into poverty.” Mink presents this issue as a women’s one and called for a return to true sisterhood, for women to uphold the rights of the poor mothers as they do their own. In my opinion it should also largely be considered a children’s issue, a social problem that economically hurts mothers but perhaps more importantly, harms the next generation. Poor children are the members most negatively impacted by growing up in families with a single parent who tries to assume dual responsibilities of breadwinner and caregiver. It seems obvious that this Act not only disenfranchised the women who most need government help, but even more tragically their children who also suffer the consequences of having a poor single mother. The larger societal issue of class inequality is discussed by Mink but is not given the full attention such a massive issue deserves. The underperformance of lower-class children in schools may be directly correlated with the lack of a parent who can devote themselves to anything but work. There is a vast advantage for children with a mother (or any caregiver) that can devote the necessary time and energy to that child's education and upbringing. I think the impact that the Personal Responsibilities Act has had on children could be included in Mink’s argument to further emphasize the sustained inequality that the act promotes. In terms of the author’s argument for a “payment” in the form of welfare for the exhaustive work of a parent assuming a dual role in the household, I believe her idea is good in theory, but simply could not be applied to the full extent here in America. We already hear battle cries aimed at Democrats for turning the United States into a socialist welfare state after this most recent health care bill. I cannot even imagine the opposition that a bill proposing government subsidies for stay at home moms. I definitely think mothers or fathers who are parenting alone deserve a safety net from destitution. However a socially provided income for solo parents would never pass in Congress, it is simply an unrealistic burden to place upon the state and would result in chaotic complications when it comes to figuring out who actually deserves this welfare and how much. Instead more immediate action should be taken to reform the traditional roles of families, because this would have a more lasting social impact than simply dishing out money where it is needed. Changes should be made which allow women to claim independence for themselves, with or without children, rather than being economically dependent on a husband OR on the state. Although Obama has already made strides in this direction, there needs to be action to change the role of fatherhood, especially in these poor communities where a single mother is the only parental figure in her child’s life. All of these poor single mothers had to get that sperm from somewhere. By forcing poor single fathers to take a more active role in raising their children we can release the burden of dual responsibility falling unfairly on the mother. The deeper social issue in Mink’s argument should promote equality using a bottom-up strategy, by reforming the longstanding problem of care giving always falling squarely on the mother’s shoulders, such changes (in addition to providing welfare where it is still needed) could begin to reverse the plight of poor single mothers.

the powerful or the powerless, who is the real victim?

It is sad to realize that smart women such Ragel and Hakim- Dice have to find themselves in dehumanizing experiences. Many times those women who are the most vulnerable for economic reason tend to be the ones that are neglect and oppressed by our society. If we see young women stripping in the clubs or performing in a clubs as a go go girl we immediately think of them as sluts or that they do not have self respect. However, very few times we think about what could have made them end up there. We do not ask questions like, what part of society has failed to do its job, to see young girl stripping for money? We tend to blame the victims rather than those who are truly responsible and should be accountable because they have the money.
I believe that Ragel is right when she says that knowledge is power and that all low-income women should be able to get an education in college She argues that it is in this way that they will discover the power they have and become more independent. However, what are the chances of all low income women to go to college. Higher education can be very expensive and the quantity of low income is very high. Ragel comments in her story that she was humiliated bt these people because they made her feel guilty of her poverty. It is disheartening to see that those who are poor have to beg and still be looked down on because they are looking for help, a way out of their misery. We tend to blame those who are most fragile and powerless instead of challenging those who are in power. Hakim-Dice lack of money for her education made her think of herself as a Go Go girl. This type of easy earning jobs can even go as far as prostitution. We ask ourselves why are women going out in the streets and selling their bodies. But we think about these problems with our eyes of the upper middle white women. We blame the victim again and we call them names such as whores, sluts to make clear the difference between “them “ and us. These women many times opt for these jobs because they want a piece of bread. Their position is different to ours because they have no education and their chances of getting a high earning job are very limited. I think this is all to start to build a sisterhood. We should empathize with these women and look at those who are powerful and have the power to make change in our society such as providing free education for low income women and creating jobs for them as well.

QUEER PARENTING-NAPLES

I'm going to focus my blog post on the arguments for queer parenting. First and foremost, let me start by saying that I am completely for same-sex marriage. I think that we as a culture, have been conditioned to believe that "marriage" or "family" are all words that can only be associated between a man and a woman. Isn't that a little ridiculous?

So, the real argument, or the one that a lot of people try to bring up in efforts to undermine same-sex marriages, or make them look evil, is the effect it will have on a child. In Naples' article, she states that in CT, couple of the same sex can co-parent a child without being married. Okay first off, whats wrong with that picture? The two arguments that stem from this are that same-sex marriages will undermine heterosexual marriages, and that it will disturb some sort of social balance that we have created. I have friends who come from homosexual households, and while yes, it was hard and sometimes awkward for them to be at school with their parents, it was a happy stable household. I'd have to look at some real statistics, and personally ask more kids who have been in these kinds of households to truly come to a conclusion about whether or not children suffer any sort of social or mental backlash. Which I doubt, but then again society puts so much pressure on us, both visibly and invisibly, that the pressure to conform can get overwhelming .I think the issue with this debate, is that our culture, has been conditioned forever, literally since the dawn of time, to believe that unity should be between a man and a woman. But cmon even some of the greatest poets, writers, and hottest guys ever are homosexual. This is both a social issue and an economic/political issue, in the sense that people believe that the social order cannot be disrupted, but the other side is that, if we are openly acknowleding that two homosexual parents care for a child, why arent they able to reap the same economic benefits of marriage? Well some states agree, I think in Vermont they allow same-sex marriages, and has that disrupted any sort of social order? Not that I have heard of. But again, I think that this issue of having a child is different between homosexual race, and gender. For lesbian women, I think that more people would be willing to allow two women to care for a child on the basis that they are women, more so than if it were two men. And of course, having a mother is beneficial without a doubt, and without one, can be detremental to the gender role growth of a young girl for example (Spillers). Yet, I feel that there is no reason why single fathers, versus two homosexual men, cannot care for a child equally as caring and loving and as well as the former. I think its interesting that Naples points out that for black homosexual men, the economic incentive, or the act of being married legally, is even harder for them. Which leads me to wonder how this sort of profiling can still be so transparent today? Is this some sort of hierarchical system ?

As an army brat, I have very idealistic views of our military. My dad always encouraged my sister and I to attend one of the academies and pursue a career in the military, but neither of us obliged him. Personally, I had seen the military lifestyle firsthand and did not want to live it for the rest of my life or put my family through it. Despite the War in Iraq, both of my parents would have wholeheartedly supported a decision to make that my career. The simple fact that my dad always condoned going into the service makes reading articles about the hardships women go through shocking. Particularly because my dad and all of his coworkers that I have met have never shown anything but respect for women, it is sometimes even hard to believe. The facts don't lie though, and for every man in the military who respects women, there could easily be another who does not.

Steven Lee Myers' article, "Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In," detailed some of the troubles female soldiers face but essentially concluded that women are making major strides and have had a positive impact on our armed forces. His other article, "A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.'s" does not have the same relatively positive tone. As I read the article, I was shocked at the statement, "A woman in the military is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq." These women are in a difficult spot because they feel that in reporting sexual harassment, they are jeopardizing the efficiency of their missions. They feel that it can take the focus off of the goal at hand. "So it's kind of like that one little thing is nothign compared with 'There is an I.E.D. that went off in this convoy today and three people were injured.'" These women are told to put their country first, so it is incredibly hard for them to worry about themselves and their rights as women. Additionally, depening on the rank of the person committing the assault, these female soldiers could be jeopardizing their careers if they file reports. It is sad that so many of these strong, confident, and brave women are forced to simply, "Drive on."

I felt that Steinem's "Supremacy Crimes" tied in nicely with "A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I." I can definitely see how women encroaching on men's previous superiority in the military could be cause for the current sexual harassment problem. The military was once completely male-dominated, and with women rising higher and higher in the ranks, men are feeling threatened. They are now, in some cases, forced to take orders from the "weaker" sex. White men, in general, are threatened by minorities encroaching on what was once their territory in all aspects of life. I do think it is interesting, given these statistics, African Americans are considered the violent ones, when white men are responsible for the highest percentage of hate crimes and mass killings. Perhaps this is because white men control the media, and thus, the information that is accessible to us? It all comes back to the patriarchy we live in.

Crenshaw's article, "Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color," was very powerful. The issue of silencing certain statistics and issues so as to prevent the further enforcement of stereotypes is perpetuating so many problems. Instead of considering short-term stigmas, long term results must take precedence. I think, as Crenshaw concludes, that being aware of intersectionality is the most important thing. It is nearly impossible to give any one person a single identity, so we all must be aware of our differences and how they privilege and marginalize us.