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.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Women and Rape
The readings from this week were particularly indicative of women’s ongoing struggle to control their own lives, destinies and bodies. The topic of rape is all too familiar to young women like us and odds are many girls my age have friends or family members who have been victims of rape. Whitney Walker’s statistics, which say one in four women will be targeted for rape, reveals these violent sexual crimes as the most pressing injustice that faces females in society. It is perhaps naïve that I do not live in a state of perpetual fear of my male counterparts, because, as these readings have made obvious, rape is yet another all too common force which forces women into a state of fear and powerlessness.
Susan Brownmiller’s article was indeed very informative but definitely had some weaknesses. I thought it was very interesting how Brownmiller explored the analysis of rape over the years and used that to show the perpetuation of the patriarchy. The discussion of the Freudian inaccuracies (and the subsequent pattern for other researchers to follow in Freud’s footsteps) when it came to studying rape was a classic male-dominant misinterpretation of the subject. It was hard to comprehend the stupidity of the criminologist Dr. David Abrahamsen’s study of eight rapists—he ultimately concluded that “the sexual frustration which their wives caused is one of the factor motivating the rape” (277). This conclusion is an utterly nonsensical assertion which tries to blame females for the act of a man raping a woman. It truly sheds light on just how deeply entrenched patriarchical thought is in our world. It is sadly not a surprise that “she was asking for it” is the response many people have to this violent and inexcusable crime.
I did take issue with the author’s tone in this piece though, as she concluded that “rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” (172). I would certainly agree that rape is an exercise of aggression and power but to distort the act itself into a male crusade to keep women down is both unfair and untrue. This is where Brownmiller’s feminism gets too caught up in itself and her statements blaming “all men” certainly serve to alienate any male reader and confuse her ultimate message. Furthermore her illusion to Myrmidons was just ridiculous; to say that police-blotter rapists perform these crimes for the benefit of all men in our society is not a very accurate view about the purpose of rape. Rape is weapon with the intent to harm, there is no doubt about it… but rapists as the “front-line masculine shock troops” for the all men campaign to keep all women in fear? Come on, Brownmiller, my dear old dad would not appreciate that.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
women and cesarean
It seems here that between these two articles the main issue or dilemma is practicality vs. natural birth. It amazes all the way we have come from having natural births to having injections, drugs, cesarean section. While it is great that science has improved in the 21st century certain things such as the priceless and only experience of giving birth have been forgotten. The problem is that we take easy for what is supposed to be hard and in take away this unforgettable experience that only women can go through. However, sometimes unbearable pain can lead us to the less painful choice.
I think that woman should be able to decide what procedures, wether natural birth or cesarean, they want to have because its their bodies. My problem is when they are misinformed. The dogma is that anything that is scientific is better and safer. Therefore, women in order to protect the life they carry decide to take drugs, have cesarean. Many women don’t know that, as Henci Goer informs us, “A 2004 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. Many women do not know that “Cesarean delivery is suspiciously convenient for obstetricians’ schedules and, hour for hour, is paid more handsomely than vaginal birth. Obstetricians say that fear of malpractice suits pushes them to do C-sections more frequently than even they consider necessary” as it says in Atul Gawande’s article. So the real reason for cesareans is not the safety of the child and the choice of the mom but the practicality or less complexity of it. Here the one who is deciding is not longer the women with the child because she is in a state of ignorance and relies on the hands of the doctor. Many times the risks of having a cesarean are not told to the mothers before having the kids.
I wonder if women knew that “in 1933 the New York Academy of Medicine published a shocking study of 2,041 maternal deaths in childbirth. At least two-thirds, the investigators found, were preventable. There had been no improvement in death rates for mothers in the preceding two decades; newborn deaths from birth injuries had actually increased. Hospital care brought no advantages; mothers were better off delivering at home” (Gawande, pg5) they will still choose to have cesareans. These mothers are kept in the dark about the many risks of having cesareans. I wonder if science and its practicalities keep evolving the ethics, morals and values of choice will fade away. Would science take away woman’s right to choose and justify it with scientific terms that no one knows about and with claims of safety? What happens with woman’s right to choose?
I think that woman should be able to decide what procedures, wether natural birth or cesarean, they want to have because its their bodies. My problem is when they are misinformed. The dogma is that anything that is scientific is better and safer. Therefore, women in order to protect the life they carry decide to take drugs, have cesarean. Many women don’t know that, as Henci Goer informs us, “A 2004 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. Many women do not know that “Cesarean delivery is suspiciously convenient for obstetricians’ schedules and, hour for hour, is paid more handsomely than vaginal birth. Obstetricians say that fear of malpractice suits pushes them to do C-sections more frequently than even they consider necessary” as it says in Atul Gawande’s article. So the real reason for cesareans is not the safety of the child and the choice of the mom but the practicality or less complexity of it. Here the one who is deciding is not longer the women with the child because she is in a state of ignorance and relies on the hands of the doctor. Many times the risks of having a cesarean are not told to the mothers before having the kids.
I wonder if women knew that “in 1933 the New York Academy of Medicine published a shocking study of 2,041 maternal deaths in childbirth. At least two-thirds, the investigators found, were preventable. There had been no improvement in death rates for mothers in the preceding two decades; newborn deaths from birth injuries had actually increased. Hospital care brought no advantages; mothers were better off delivering at home” (Gawande, pg5) they will still choose to have cesareans. These mothers are kept in the dark about the many risks of having cesareans. I wonder if science and its practicalities keep evolving the ethics, morals and values of choice will fade away. Would science take away woman’s right to choose and justify it with scientific terms that no one knows about and with claims of safety? What happens with woman’s right to choose?
Monday, March 22, 2010
News Flash: Woman Hired as DC High School Football Head Coach
One of the major sports headlines in Thursday, March 11th’s issue of the Washington Post revolved around the hire of Natalie Randolph as head coach of the Coolidge High School football team. While the hire is extremely exciting and shows that women have come a long way in earning respect in the sports realm, only time will tell what this hire actually means for women. Discussion surrounding the hire, however, makes it evident that there remains a belief that men are simply more fit to coach athletics than women.
Randolph has experience both coaching and playing football. She was a wide-receiver for Washington D.C.’s professional women’s football league, the DC Divas, for five years and spent two years as an assistant coach for H.D. Woodson High School. According to the Washington Post article, not a single woman serves as a head football coach at any high school in the country. In 1985, Wanda Oates, another Washington DC-area resident, was hired as head football coach of Ballou High School. Oates only lasted one day on the job, as opposing coaches pressured the superintendent to remove her because they did not want to coach against a woman.
Unsurprisingly, one of Randolph’s main concerns surrounding the new job are her fellow coaches. Alan Goldenbach, author of the Washington Post article, quoted Randolph as saying, “After the first week, I had more apprehension about the other coaches than about the players,” in response to her initial hire as assistant coach at Woodson. “It was about proving myself to the other coaches.” Perhaps statements like that of an anonymous fellow DC football coach, also quoted in the article, are to blame for this feeling that she must prove herself: “All I know is, I don’t want to be the first one to lose to her. That’s going to be wild.” Of course, because Randolph is a woman, it would be incredibly embarrassing to lose to her. Never mind that she was hired by an athletic department who clearly thought she was well deserving of the position. Why should that earn her any respect?
The fact that Randolph is more concerned about earning the respect of other coaches than her players suggests that a generational gap may exist. Younger generations are more accepting of the fact that women can do everything men can do. One of Randolph’s players, Oluwakemi Bamiro, was quoted in a subsequent Washington Post opinion article by Michael Wilbon. "It's not like she's new to us. She's here as a teacher. I've learned a lot from her. I guess it's because she's a female coach. But if you think about it, women coach men in other things, like music." For some, this concept is not difficult to grasp. The players do not seem to be phased, but older men in the community seem to be threatened by a powerful woman infringing in territory that was once all their own.
Washingtonpost.com allows registered readers to voice their opinion on published articles by commenting on the website. A quick glance at these comments shows that there is still a relatively widespread view that women are incapable. One poster, kmm88, writes, “We are still a society that distinguishes between males and female. As long as that is the case this is a bad idea. As a male, if a female urologist came to examine me I would surely have the right to refuse and to request a male. I can choose to be bathed by a male nurse, if I want. Why would we make these boys play for an ‘alternative’ type of coach, instead of a ‘traditional’ type of coach. Suppose these boys don't want to be guinea pigs for some social ‘PC’ experiment? It is not fair.” How is this any different than Rudolph, who is also a science teacher, instructing students in the classroom? She knows science. She knows football. The notion that just because she is a woman she is an ‘alternative’ coach is ridiculous. All coaches have different personalities. Some coaches are screamers, some never raise their voice. Some coaches befriend their players while some employ a strictly business attitude. Coaching style does not necessarily have anything to do with gender.
The belief that because Randolph is a woman she is an “alternative” coach and must prove herself is a perfect example of patriarchal society. In Allan G. Johnson’s article, “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us,” he defines patriarchy as a belief that “women and men are profoundly different in their basic natures.” In a patriarchal society, there is an assumption that a woman cannot effectively discipline and instruct high school boys simply because she is a woman. Her background, talents, and knowledge do not matter. Johnson writes, “Above all, patriarchal culture is about the core value of control and domination in almost every area of human existence.” Those men who are embarrassed about the prospect of being outcoached by a woman or think that her players are sacrificing a “normal” high school football career are clearly taken aback by the possibility of their dominance diminishing.
The fact that this hire is a national headline proves that people are still fixated on gender in the athletics arena, despite being decades after the passing of Title IX. Especially in male-dominated sports, tension surrounds the involvement of women. Attitudes surrounding Rudolph’s hire are evidence that many men remain uncomfortable with the thought of women encroaching on their precious macho territory.
Concluding on a more positive note, the hire of Rudolph is extremely exciting and does show that a significant part of society is moving beyond gender stereotypes. It will be incredibly interesting to see how she fairs on the field; hopefully she can embarrass more than a few of her male counterparts.
Randolph has experience both coaching and playing football. She was a wide-receiver for Washington D.C.’s professional women’s football league, the DC Divas, for five years and spent two years as an assistant coach for H.D. Woodson High School. According to the Washington Post article, not a single woman serves as a head football coach at any high school in the country. In 1985, Wanda Oates, another Washington DC-area resident, was hired as head football coach of Ballou High School. Oates only lasted one day on the job, as opposing coaches pressured the superintendent to remove her because they did not want to coach against a woman.
Unsurprisingly, one of Randolph’s main concerns surrounding the new job are her fellow coaches. Alan Goldenbach, author of the Washington Post article, quoted Randolph as saying, “After the first week, I had more apprehension about the other coaches than about the players,” in response to her initial hire as assistant coach at Woodson. “It was about proving myself to the other coaches.” Perhaps statements like that of an anonymous fellow DC football coach, also quoted in the article, are to blame for this feeling that she must prove herself: “All I know is, I don’t want to be the first one to lose to her. That’s going to be wild.” Of course, because Randolph is a woman, it would be incredibly embarrassing to lose to her. Never mind that she was hired by an athletic department who clearly thought she was well deserving of the position. Why should that earn her any respect?
The fact that Randolph is more concerned about earning the respect of other coaches than her players suggests that a generational gap may exist. Younger generations are more accepting of the fact that women can do everything men can do. One of Randolph’s players, Oluwakemi Bamiro, was quoted in a subsequent Washington Post opinion article by Michael Wilbon. "It's not like she's new to us. She's here as a teacher. I've learned a lot from her. I guess it's because she's a female coach. But if you think about it, women coach men in other things, like music." For some, this concept is not difficult to grasp. The players do not seem to be phased, but older men in the community seem to be threatened by a powerful woman infringing in territory that was once all their own.
Washingtonpost.com allows registered readers to voice their opinion on published articles by commenting on the website. A quick glance at these comments shows that there is still a relatively widespread view that women are incapable. One poster, kmm88, writes, “We are still a society that distinguishes between males and female. As long as that is the case this is a bad idea. As a male, if a female urologist came to examine me I would surely have the right to refuse and to request a male. I can choose to be bathed by a male nurse, if I want. Why would we make these boys play for an ‘alternative’ type of coach, instead of a ‘traditional’ type of coach. Suppose these boys don't want to be guinea pigs for some social ‘PC’ experiment? It is not fair.” How is this any different than Rudolph, who is also a science teacher, instructing students in the classroom? She knows science. She knows football. The notion that just because she is a woman she is an ‘alternative’ coach is ridiculous. All coaches have different personalities. Some coaches are screamers, some never raise their voice. Some coaches befriend their players while some employ a strictly business attitude. Coaching style does not necessarily have anything to do with gender.
The belief that because Randolph is a woman she is an “alternative” coach and must prove herself is a perfect example of patriarchal society. In Allan G. Johnson’s article, “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us,” he defines patriarchy as a belief that “women and men are profoundly different in their basic natures.” In a patriarchal society, there is an assumption that a woman cannot effectively discipline and instruct high school boys simply because she is a woman. Her background, talents, and knowledge do not matter. Johnson writes, “Above all, patriarchal culture is about the core value of control and domination in almost every area of human existence.” Those men who are embarrassed about the prospect of being outcoached by a woman or think that her players are sacrificing a “normal” high school football career are clearly taken aback by the possibility of their dominance diminishing.
The fact that this hire is a national headline proves that people are still fixated on gender in the athletics arena, despite being decades after the passing of Title IX. Especially in male-dominated sports, tension surrounds the involvement of women. Attitudes surrounding Rudolph’s hire are evidence that many men remain uncomfortable with the thought of women encroaching on their precious macho territory.
Concluding on a more positive note, the hire of Rudolph is extremely exciting and does show that a significant part of society is moving beyond gender stereotypes. It will be incredibly interesting to see how she fairs on the field; hopefully she can embarrass more than a few of her male counterparts.
nEWSFLASH!!!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/abortion.health.care.vote/index.html
movement.
It's very fitting that we are discussing abortion issues because, as Emily just stated, sadly, yet hopefully for the benefit of all those uninsured people in America, the pro-choice movement, suffered a blow both in the passing of the new health care bill, and during the health care debate in The House. My article discusses the reasons why the health care bill is a victory for the pro-life group and a blow for the pro-choice. This was a historical monument, that unfortunately, has marginalized women's health care. Not only because the President, had to re-assure the anti-abortion Democrats and basically bribe them into signing this bill or passing it, by assuring them that the federal government would not be funding health care clinics that offered abortions, and would exclude all tax-payers for paying for abortions nationally. Obama states promised that the abortion legislation and funding would stay as it has in status-quo. Which isnt bad for the pro-choice movement, it just doesn't help our cause. Democrats appeased the minds of the pro-life advocates by assuring everyone that the Hyde bill which prevents federal funding from going to abortions will remain in tact, and that tax-payers will not end up paying for abortions.
Again, as I stated in my last wall-post I cannot stand those who call those who believe in pro-choice as murderers. There was yet another outburst made by a pro-choice advocate and this time in the middle of a monumental health care bill debate by a GOP Representative Neugebauer, who during the debate in the house yelled out about the bill "It's a baby killer!". These kinds of statements and outbursts, which are some-what backed by moderate democrats has not only weakened the pro-choice movement, but made it seem as if the debate or the issue is starting to turn into one that is more commonly seen as a pro-life one. Also in the article is states that "To appease abortion opponents, Democrats also added language requiring anyone whose policy does cover abortion to pay -- separately -- a small surcharge, with the funds kept separate." It's funny that Democrats feel that this is going to appease the minds of those who are against abortion, because paying a small surcharge for abortion, makes me feel like the issue is just being dealt with , financially, behind closed doors, "separate". Which isnt the way its supposed to be. Women shouldn't feel like their abortion is wrong or different. And moreover, as if this wasnt enough for those against abortion, Representative Stupak even argued that the new federally run community health clinics have to have more restrictions on abortions! This is absolutely ridiculous, this is as if we are putting restrictions on a drug. The accessability of abortions, should remain as is if not more open, and more restrictions, as if there weren't enough, are not necessary. But again, poor Obama, even though he is pro-choice, he had to remind everyone that federal funding will not be used in abortions and that pro-life advocates could remain calm. Which is annoying because I believe that some of the federal funding should be allocated to new abortion clinics. For Obama to stand down on this issue, is sad because while I understand that there is a much bigger picture here, the message he is sending is one that makes it seem like federal relations with abortions or abortions having to do with the government or influenced by the government is very wrong and unacceptable. I understand that if there was federal funding it would seem very one-sided and would make the pro-life Democrats uneasy about passing the bill. Which is legitimate, it is a tricky issue, and I dont think that the Health care Bill is the forum or the bill in which abortions rights or funding, etc should be handled, changed or dealth with. Again, its a personal issue and I think that some of the clinics would benefit from having federal funding. Wouldnt that help the abortion procedures? Couldnt that help scientist or doctors find better ways of performing abortions? I think that it is ridiculous that the Republicans tried to make the abortion issue, included in the health care bill, and issue so big, that it would prevent them from passing it. It makes it seem as if they had nothing better else to target but abortion issues. And the worst part? These are mainly MEN. I cannot understand or empathize with men who take positions on this issue because its simply not an issue that they can truly have an opinion on. Yet regardless the real issue here, is that no, tax-payers wont have to pay for abortions, and no federal funding will not go to clinics to perform abortions. This has been the way it has always been, and unfortunately no progress has been made. The only beneficial part of this bill is that now some of the health care insurance will include an abortion option as part of the coverage. Which is exciting, yet it will be interesting to see which states actually allow for clinics to support these kinds of insurance policies. Some believe that federal funding will eventually end up in the hands of the abortion clinics and in the tax-payer bills, because the language says that courts could allow community clinics to provide abortions, which is the way it should be. I don't think this is a national issue but a personal issue, I think that abortion should be offered in some health insurance packages, I am impartial to the federal funding aspect, and I think that this debate should continue to be discusses on the state-level, community level, and not as a way of trying to repress a bill.
Abortion
I'm going to respond to Muscio's article "Abortion, Vacuum Cleaners and the Power Within". For me, the abortion argument is both an upsetting argument, and one that really has passionate followers, both pro and anti. I am passionately on the pro-choice side, and whenever I hear about people standing outside of abortion clinics, holding up baby-killer signs it infuriates me. This debate infuriates me. While I believe, and strongly acknowledge, that both sides have a right to feel what they feel, I can't STAND those, who feel it necessary to make the other side look terrible or who feel that their way is the only way. And I appreciate Muscio's article because at first when i started reading it, I felt like, oh man here comes another girl who is saying just horrible things about abortion and how its killing lives and horror stories, and yet she didnt. Muscio says that abortion is painful, yet she believes that by having a greater communication or outlet between women will help diminish the abortion debate. I have some issues with her argument. The first being, while abortions are not fun day at the park, I do believe now that there are different methods, less painful methods of carrying on abortions, and so while I do not belittle her story and her pain as a reason to avoid "the vacuum" I simply do not think that it is relevant, because having a child is just as painful, so if its about the pain aspect, I dont care. Secondly, yes the world would be better if we could find ways to avoid having abortions or having more organic ways, but science isnt perfect and neither are abortions. Of course there should be movements and or projects/experiments to try and find these better options but until then, we are stuck with what we have. Making women scared about the pain that is going to happen when you have an abortion is just terrible, I mean the worst thing that could happen is for someone to have a child and abandon it, which happens a lot.Another thing is, yes this is a patriarchical issue, but at the same time, its not. Its a biological issue, but an issue that isnt an issue, its just nature. Women are the one's who carry the child, so regardless, this is always going to be an issue that women will deal with. Blame it on eve if you want, but thats the way its ALWAYS been. And so I believe that if a woman decides to have sex, like this girl did, then it is wonderful and lucky that she has the option of aborting having a child if she isnt ready for it. I mean this argument can go on forever. Women who are raped shouldnt have to feel guilty about not wanting to carry a rapists' child. Or what about a 14 year old who messes up? Is that child going to be happy as an adopted child? Or is that child going to be happy being supported by a 14 year old and vice versa? My point is, women are going to have sex. And we SHOULD if we decide to have sex (obviously excluding rape) have awareness of birth control methods, which is something Muscio acknowledges she should have done. Yet, I dont believe that women shouldn't have the option of raising a child. Not to mention, a lot of women end up single and parenting the child on their own, its just not fair, and many agree. So for those women, who think abortion is terrible, I think thats fine, and thats fair. Then THEY dont have to ever have one. But for people to constantly be making other people feel bad about REALLY personal decisions, that carry a LOT of factors both socially and economically is SO frustrating to me. Because this is America, and we pride ourselves on our diversity and our freedoms. And while I disagree with late-term abortions, I believe that abortions are a personal choice and a free choice and if they are done early enough in the pregnancy then that is something more legitimate and noble and I can completly understand that position. And while talking about it in a group setting, like Muscio suggests, maybe beneficial, and may help one figure out the right decision personally, I don't think thats a solution because its not. Helping women find the "power within" isnt going to make the reality of a child, fade away, and I am not sure how it would make the abortion debate disappear. Because if she is saying that it will make those who are against pro-choice better understand the decisions made by those women who took it upon themselves, to make a decision about their body and their child, then great, if she cant find this miracle "power within" im sure she would get paid a lot of money. But this movement is just, it would have to be a cultural change, one that doesnt have religion in it because religion plays a huge part in this debate. And i dont see religion fading out of peoples lives and beliefs anytime soon. Abortion is something that in some states is legal and in some illegal, and if it is either/or in one's state, then I believe that the people of that state should respect it, disagree with it if they want, but respect it. And if not, move to another state. Sorry if this offends anyone, but this debate gets me heated, not because I dislike pro-life people but because i hate the way that they yell and criticize the other side. I just, I hate it.
Newsflash: Miscarriage a Crime?!
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/utah-abortion-bill-punishing-miscarriages-preventing-crime/story?id=9955517
My newsflash will discuss a recent legislation in Utah that was passed this past month, which institutes new restrictions on the rights of a pregnant woman. This bill that was passed attempts to further restrict a women’s right to choice, also opens up a controversial loophole which makes it possible for women to be charged with murder in the event of a miscarriage.
Before I discuss this matter though, I am compelled to address the impacts of the monumental health care reform bill that was passed just hours ago. This bill certainly seems to promote progressiveness in this nation’s health care system. Unfortunately, Democrats that were desperate enough to ensure this reform passing have riddled the bill with earmarks and stipulations to try to gain the support of more moderate members of Congress. As a result, women’s health care has been marginalized; the bill includes amendments, which limit the right to reproductive health care, including (but not limited to) abortion services. So although this legislation is a promising victory to improve our nation’s problematic health care system, it also marks a sad and largely silent loss suffered by the pro-choice movement.
Now back to the Utah legislation. Just weeks ago, in early March, Utah passed a controversial abortion bill that was intended to prevent planned assault on a fetus, but has now open the door for a woman to be charged with murder if their own behavior causes a miscarriage. The implications of this law may produce extremely backward and negative outcomes, allowing a sentence of 15 years to life in prison if a woman’s “reckless behavior” causes her unborn child to die.
This means in the state of Utah prosecutors could seek murder convictions… and anywhere from 15 years to life in prison… against women who miscarry after not wearing their seatbelts or for returning to a partner who has a history of physical abuse. This is truly upsetting, and many discussions of this Utah legislation have related the state’s government to that of the Taliban.
This bill was passed in response to a recent event involving a 17-year-old pregnant girl in Utah. After her boyfriend threatened to leave her if she carried her pregnancy to full-term, the young girl paid a man $150 to beat her up in hopes of inducing a miscarriage. The Utah legislation is severely misguided in their attempts to promote “a culture of life”. First of all, the girl’s act was obviously done is irrational desperation. To knowingly inflict pain on herself proves her distressed and tragic circumstances, it is foolish to think that someone in that mental state would consider the law’s penalty in their situation. Furthermore, this girl was essentially a child, impregnated at 16 years old. By Utah state law, she could not even have an abortion if she wanted to without parental consent. How then can we punish her for taking matters and her body into her own hands (even if she is using a very distorted and misguided method).
This law in Utah was written so broadly following this event that it allows for a woman in ANY trimester of her pregnancy to be subject to a murder trial if her baby does not survive the full 9 months. It simply states that any reckless behavior during the time of her pregnancy is grounds for arrest. And it is the arresting officer that has the right to make the judgment about what constitutes “reckless”. The part that is really ridiculous to me is the circumstance of returning to an abusive partner. It is truly appalling that a woman who suffer beatings from a violent partner (but does not or in unable to leave him) can be punished by this new law. This shows that in Utah, time, energy and government funding is not put into programs to stop violence against women, but instead used to criminalize pregnant women for any mistakes, accidental or otherwise, that would cause a miscarriage.
Historically, opponents of Roe v. Wade and other pro-choice legislation have always directed their political sentiments against the doctors who perform abortions, more so than the women who ask for them. Now the tables have turned, and many pro-lifers are revealing their hatred and disrespect toward any woman who does not carry a pregnancy to full-term. This is truly a tragic turn of events, and unfortunately this “anti-pregnant woman” trend is occurring elsewhere in the country. This article mentions a few other cases that have placed restrictions or discriminated against pregnant women. One in which an Iowa woman was jailed after falling down the stairs (accidentally!) on suspicion she was trying to kill her fetus. Another event, which charged a Mississippi woman for murder when she refused to have a C-section and then her baby was stillborn. And still another when a woman, whose life was put in danger from an ectopic pregnancy (outside the uterus, where the fetus has chance of survival), was denied an abortion at a Catholic hospital because the fetus still had a heartbeat.
These events and the Utah legislation were truly shocking and upsetting to me. I feel lucky enough to live in a part of the country that largely respects a woman and the decisions she makes about her body, however, this is a sobering reminder that not all women have the freedom to make choices about their bodies and pregnancies. In fact, in Utah a woman does not even have the freedom to act “recklessly” (whatever that means) for fear that she could be jailed for murder. A Utah senator, who seemingly understood the injustice of the legislation after it passed, was quoted saying, “We all make reckless choices in our lives and most of them do not come with criminal burdens. This one does.”
My newsflash will discuss a recent legislation in Utah that was passed this past month, which institutes new restrictions on the rights of a pregnant woman. This bill that was passed attempts to further restrict a women’s right to choice, also opens up a controversial loophole which makes it possible for women to be charged with murder in the event of a miscarriage.
Before I discuss this matter though, I am compelled to address the impacts of the monumental health care reform bill that was passed just hours ago. This bill certainly seems to promote progressiveness in this nation’s health care system. Unfortunately, Democrats that were desperate enough to ensure this reform passing have riddled the bill with earmarks and stipulations to try to gain the support of more moderate members of Congress. As a result, women’s health care has been marginalized; the bill includes amendments, which limit the right to reproductive health care, including (but not limited to) abortion services. So although this legislation is a promising victory to improve our nation’s problematic health care system, it also marks a sad and largely silent loss suffered by the pro-choice movement.
Now back to the Utah legislation. Just weeks ago, in early March, Utah passed a controversial abortion bill that was intended to prevent planned assault on a fetus, but has now open the door for a woman to be charged with murder if their own behavior causes a miscarriage. The implications of this law may produce extremely backward and negative outcomes, allowing a sentence of 15 years to life in prison if a woman’s “reckless behavior” causes her unborn child to die.
This means in the state of Utah prosecutors could seek murder convictions… and anywhere from 15 years to life in prison… against women who miscarry after not wearing their seatbelts or for returning to a partner who has a history of physical abuse. This is truly upsetting, and many discussions of this Utah legislation have related the state’s government to that of the Taliban.
This bill was passed in response to a recent event involving a 17-year-old pregnant girl in Utah. After her boyfriend threatened to leave her if she carried her pregnancy to full-term, the young girl paid a man $150 to beat her up in hopes of inducing a miscarriage. The Utah legislation is severely misguided in their attempts to promote “a culture of life”. First of all, the girl’s act was obviously done is irrational desperation. To knowingly inflict pain on herself proves her distressed and tragic circumstances, it is foolish to think that someone in that mental state would consider the law’s penalty in their situation. Furthermore, this girl was essentially a child, impregnated at 16 years old. By Utah state law, she could not even have an abortion if she wanted to without parental consent. How then can we punish her for taking matters and her body into her own hands (even if she is using a very distorted and misguided method).
This law in Utah was written so broadly following this event that it allows for a woman in ANY trimester of her pregnancy to be subject to a murder trial if her baby does not survive the full 9 months. It simply states that any reckless behavior during the time of her pregnancy is grounds for arrest. And it is the arresting officer that has the right to make the judgment about what constitutes “reckless”. The part that is really ridiculous to me is the circumstance of returning to an abusive partner. It is truly appalling that a woman who suffer beatings from a violent partner (but does not or in unable to leave him) can be punished by this new law. This shows that in Utah, time, energy and government funding is not put into programs to stop violence against women, but instead used to criminalize pregnant women for any mistakes, accidental or otherwise, that would cause a miscarriage.
Historically, opponents of Roe v. Wade and other pro-choice legislation have always directed their political sentiments against the doctors who perform abortions, more so than the women who ask for them. Now the tables have turned, and many pro-lifers are revealing their hatred and disrespect toward any woman who does not carry a pregnancy to full-term. This is truly a tragic turn of events, and unfortunately this “anti-pregnant woman” trend is occurring elsewhere in the country. This article mentions a few other cases that have placed restrictions or discriminated against pregnant women. One in which an Iowa woman was jailed after falling down the stairs (accidentally!) on suspicion she was trying to kill her fetus. Another event, which charged a Mississippi woman for murder when she refused to have a C-section and then her baby was stillborn. And still another when a woman, whose life was put in danger from an ectopic pregnancy (outside the uterus, where the fetus has chance of survival), was denied an abortion at a Catholic hospital because the fetus still had a heartbeat.
These events and the Utah legislation were truly shocking and upsetting to me. I feel lucky enough to live in a part of the country that largely respects a woman and the decisions she makes about her body, however, this is a sobering reminder that not all women have the freedom to make choices about their bodies and pregnancies. In fact, in Utah a woman does not even have the freedom to act “recklessly” (whatever that means) for fear that she could be jailed for murder. A Utah senator, who seemingly understood the injustice of the legislation after it passed, was quoted saying, “We all make reckless choices in our lives and most of them do not come with criminal burdens. This one does.”
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Response for Thursday, March 11
Rebecca Walker's article "Lusting for Freedom" in Listen Up brings up a lot of issues regarding sex that affect women and girls everywhere - regardless of age, race, affluence, or location. She cites HIV/AIDS, limited access to health care, and parental notification laws as three major obstacles in protecting ourselves. "Moral codes and legal demarcations complicate rather than regulate desire. And judgments like 'right' and 'wrong' only build barriers between people and encourage shame within individuals" (19). It is interesting to think that most regulations are put in place to protect people, but actually end up doing more harm than good. Requiring parental notification for a young woman to get an abortion sounds like a good idea in theory, because that promotes dialogue and gives her a support system. However, if a young woman is uncomfortable in doing so, this can actually be damaging because she will find ways, often times dangerous, to "beat the system." I elaborated on some of my other thoughts on Walker's article in response to classmates' posts in other blogs earlier this week.
Parental involvement in a young person's life, in my opinion, is more important than what is taught in the schools. Most students view sex ed classes as awkward or funny. Nobody really takes them seriously. Middle and high schoolers generally adopt an "I already know everything" attitude. If parents can instill strong values in their children that allow them to make confident and appropriate sexual decisions, that will have a far greater impact than anything a gym teacher is going to say to them in sex ed. They should also try to educate their children on what is fact and what is fiction before they start hearing rumors on the schoolbus. Parents need to not turn a blind eye to such an important issue and try to keep an open dialogue with their children to promote safe sex. Simply asking a daughter if she would like to go on birth control rather than pretending that she will never have sex can go a long way.
Sonia Shah's article "Tight Jeans and Chania Chorris" ephasized the importance of an open dialogue between parents and their children when it comes to sexual behavior. Generational and cultural gaps can lead to major misunderstandings and discussion is vital to allow everyone to be on relatively the same page.
Parental involvement in a young person's life, in my opinion, is more important than what is taught in the schools. Most students view sex ed classes as awkward or funny. Nobody really takes them seriously. Middle and high schoolers generally adopt an "I already know everything" attitude. If parents can instill strong values in their children that allow them to make confident and appropriate sexual decisions, that will have a far greater impact than anything a gym teacher is going to say to them in sex ed. They should also try to educate their children on what is fact and what is fiction before they start hearing rumors on the schoolbus. Parents need to not turn a blind eye to such an important issue and try to keep an open dialogue with their children to promote safe sex. Simply asking a daughter if she would like to go on birth control rather than pretending that she will never have sex can go a long way.
Sonia Shah's article "Tight Jeans and Chania Chorris" ephasized the importance of an open dialogue between parents and their children when it comes to sexual behavior. Generational and cultural gaps can lead to major misunderstandings and discussion is vital to allow everyone to be on relatively the same page.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Serious Business
The beginning of Alisa L. Valdes’ article, “Ruminations of a Feminist Fitness Instructor,” in Listen Up, brings up a very important way in which women are treated as inferior in today’s society: disparity of income. She writes, “Gloria Steinem pointed out that women are a permanent underclass in the United States of America” (25). She provides a few statistics that effectively back up Steinem’s claim. I do not disagree with Steinem’s claim, in fact, I wholeheartedly agree with it. However, I fail to see what significance this has in regard to Valdes’ article. Her debt has little to do with her gender. She herself says, “I realize that only the children of the rich are able to afford to be entry-level journalists for the progressive publications of our nation. The poor become, well, cheerleaders for the status quo. Give me a Y! (Why!)” (29). Valdes blatantly states that her inability to survive as an entry-level journalist has nothing to do with her gender, but rather the economic background of her family. Journalism is a field that is similarly hard to enter for young men. So while Valdes brings up an important flaw in today’s society and I applaud her for reiterating it, I fail to see its relevance to the rest of her argument.
Valdes does have a point in her criticism of the aerobics industry. Particularly when she says, “Anorexics fill my classes like worshipers in a church, and no one stares. Other instructors starve themselves and do cocaine for energy with a regularity that would surprise many of their admirers,” (31) she brings the issues with this industry to the forefront. However, Valdes passes off any benefits that the aerobics industry does bring to women as backwardly justifying what she did as empowerment (30).
Exercise is healthy. While yes, some percentage of the population may exercise to a point that it is unhealthy, that does not mean it is not beneficial to those who do not take it to that level. Some women don’t like to run. Some women get bored on the treadmill. Some women like a little variety. Aerobics is a healthy alternative to more traditional methods of exercise. It gets your heart pumping and muscles working. It provides a sense of accomplishment at the end of a long, hard hour of cardiovascular activity. I fail to see how attending a few aerobics classes is detrimental to anyone, and I also fail to see how it is in any way antifeminist. She makes broad generalizations as to what women’s motivations are for exercising. “Never mind that often those goals—to achieve a flat tummy, to fit into that tiny wedding dress, to lose ten pounds before going to Club Med to find Mr. Right—to not exactly subvert patriarchy” (30). How about to prevent heart disease or lower blood pressure so that they can live longer? To increase muscle mass and improve their stamina so that they can keep up with their children? To simply get their hearts pumping and blood flowing to give them a little more energy? Valdes had the power to promote a healthy way of helping women achieve these goals. Instead, she focused on the things wrong with the aerobics industry, saw it as a lost cause, and moved on.
“I understand now that the gym has really become just another painful way we are all distracted from the serious business of our lives,” she writes (32). Last time I checked, health was pretty serious business.
Valdes does have a point in her criticism of the aerobics industry. Particularly when she says, “Anorexics fill my classes like worshipers in a church, and no one stares. Other instructors starve themselves and do cocaine for energy with a regularity that would surprise many of their admirers,” (31) she brings the issues with this industry to the forefront. However, Valdes passes off any benefits that the aerobics industry does bring to women as backwardly justifying what she did as empowerment (30).
Exercise is healthy. While yes, some percentage of the population may exercise to a point that it is unhealthy, that does not mean it is not beneficial to those who do not take it to that level. Some women don’t like to run. Some women get bored on the treadmill. Some women like a little variety. Aerobics is a healthy alternative to more traditional methods of exercise. It gets your heart pumping and muscles working. It provides a sense of accomplishment at the end of a long, hard hour of cardiovascular activity. I fail to see how attending a few aerobics classes is detrimental to anyone, and I also fail to see how it is in any way antifeminist. She makes broad generalizations as to what women’s motivations are for exercising. “Never mind that often those goals—to achieve a flat tummy, to fit into that tiny wedding dress, to lose ten pounds before going to Club Med to find Mr. Right—to not exactly subvert patriarchy” (30). How about to prevent heart disease or lower blood pressure so that they can live longer? To increase muscle mass and improve their stamina so that they can keep up with their children? To simply get their hearts pumping and blood flowing to give them a little more energy? Valdes had the power to promote a healthy way of helping women achieve these goals. Instead, she focused on the things wrong with the aerobics industry, saw it as a lost cause, and moved on.
“I understand now that the gym has really become just another painful way we are all distracted from the serious business of our lives,” she writes (32). Last time I checked, health was pretty serious business.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Body Projects
Joan Brumberg’s article “Body Projects” brought up a number of interesting points concerning body image and the young women in today’s society. According to Brumberg, young girls believe that body is the ultimate expression of self. At the end of twentieth century, decades of anxiety about various female body parts have culminated into a single powerful mantra that pervades the psyche of American girls: “I hate my body”. Brumberg makes some gross generalizations about the entire female population and some of her statements are too exaggerated. She says, “When we dress little girls in bikinis, we imply adult behavior and unwittingly, we mark them as sexual objects” (118). This statement is a bit perverse. I certainly don’t think putting a three year old tot in a certain bathing suit in any way sexualizes the child. And someone who does associate a bikini on a little girl with a sexual object should be kept very far away from children. Additionally, I took issue with the author’s statements that “a slender body was central to female success”. And “When an American woman dislikes her thighs, she is unlikely to like herself (128). This sounds really ridiculous to me and belittles the entire female gender by implying that our personal happiness is directly dependent on how we feel about our thighs. Many young girls, including myself, might complain about their thighs, but that does not mean that we are so profoundly superficial that our psychological well-being is directly connected to how we feel about a certain body part.
Brumberg’s dramatic tone aside, the text’s main points ring strong and true in the context of today’s body-obsessed society. I found the dieting section about Yvonne to be particularly interesting. Yvonne was just coming into adolescence as society’s views on women’s bodies began to shift away from the matronly dress and full figures of the Victorian period to the onset of the flapper movement and the “century of svelte”. I have always thought of the movement of female liberation in the 1920’s as initiating very positive impact of a female’s position in society. Brumberg has however introduced to me the notion that with this flapper movement came the negative impacts of a body-obsessed female population. In one sense, the “unveiling” of the female body created new freedoms for women in terms of dress, however this was accompanied by increased beauty and dieting demands and the belief that these newly bared body parts must look sleek, svelte and “perfect”. As Brumberg says “This attitude that proclaimed greater freedom also required new internal constraints… What American women did not realize at the time was that their stunning new freedom actually implied the need for greater control of the body, an imperative that would intensify and become even more powerful by the end of the twentieth century” (98).
Brumberg’s dramatic tone aside, the text’s main points ring strong and true in the context of today’s body-obsessed society. I found the dieting section about Yvonne to be particularly interesting. Yvonne was just coming into adolescence as society’s views on women’s bodies began to shift away from the matronly dress and full figures of the Victorian period to the onset of the flapper movement and the “century of svelte”. I have always thought of the movement of female liberation in the 1920’s as initiating very positive impact of a female’s position in society. Brumberg has however introduced to me the notion that with this flapper movement came the negative impacts of a body-obsessed female population. In one sense, the “unveiling” of the female body created new freedoms for women in terms of dress, however this was accompanied by increased beauty and dieting demands and the belief that these newly bared body parts must look sleek, svelte and “perfect”. As Brumberg says “This attitude that proclaimed greater freedom also required new internal constraints… What American women did not realize at the time was that their stunning new freedom actually implied the need for greater control of the body, an imperative that would intensify and become even more powerful by the end of the twentieth century” (98).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)