Earlier in the semester, I completed a Media Culture Project which analyzed an episode of "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" in which Kim poses for Playboy. In my review of the episode, I found it quite disturbing that Kim appears to be extremely hesitant at first about posing nude for the magazine, yet by the end of the episode she claims to be so happy with her decision, even suggesting that by posing nude she in fact is serving as role model for younger women by showing them a "normal body."
Interestingly enough, I recently stumbled across a recent post which explains that in a new interview with Harper's Bazaar, Kim admits to regretting her decision to pose for Playboy.
I'm sorry I did Playboy. I was uncomfortable," she remembers, though at the time she was excited. "Go for it," she recalls her mother saying. "They might never ask you again. Our show isn't on the air yet. No one knows who you are. Do it and you'll have these beautiful pictures to look at when you're my age.
Kim's reflection help illuminate many issues that persist in our current pop and media culture. Although we now see that Kim in fact regrets her decision, the episode in which she pretends to be SO happy is one that still airs from time to time, influencing young viewers. Kim's recent statement simply reminds us of the reality of Raunch Culture, and of the necessity to be aware of its reach, hopefully forcing individuals to evaluate the information they receive through popular media with a critical eye.
As Lady Gaga and Beyonce's video for their song Telephone hit the internet last month, news sites, blogs, and commentators flocked to their keyboards to offer up their best interpretation of the video. Of all of these, I have found Aylin Zafar's "Deconstructing Lady Gaga's "Telephone" Video" - posted on The Atlantic website - to be the best I have encountered thus far. Zafar's analysis clearly discusses the video's statement on gender constructs and is not one to miss!
The recent Newsweekarticle, titled “Remember Roe! How Can the Next Generation Defend Abortion Rights When they Don't Think Abortion Rights Need Defending?” caused quite the stir amongst activist blogs and leading young feminists when it hit the internet last Friday. The article, written by contributor Sarah Kliff, details the alleged disinterest that the younger generation has towards defending abortion-rights and suggests possible consequences the movement might encounter if this trend continues. However, the number of outraged commentaries and responses that were sparked by Kliff’s article and that have since overtaken the feminist online-space throughout the past week perhaps suggest a different situation. In fact, the recent debate over abortion and its role in the new health care reform bill is one that has been widely discussed at all ages. And while a level of activism amongst the younger generation may not parallel that of the baby-boomers’ decades ago, it is difficult to claim that the number of young, pro-choice, and politically active Americans is severely lacking.
Kliff first begins her article by profiling the feminist activists who belonged to the “postmenopausal militia.” She describes this group as “a generation of baby-boomer activists now well into their 50s who grew up in an era of backroom abortions and fought passionately for legalization” (Kliff). Amongst these activists is NARAL president Nancy Keenan along with other leading members of major abortion-rights groups such as Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women. And while these women fiercely fought to legalize abortion, Kliff suggests that the “lack of passion among the post-Roe generation” has proven to be quite worrisome for these older activists who plan on retiring within the next decade and thus fear for the future of the movement.
To support her argument, Kliff largely references recent NARAL research that documents the “intensity” of young voters with regards to abortion. The study of 700 young adults found that “more than half (51%) of young voters who opposed abortion rights considered it a ‘very important’ voting issue, compared with just 26% of abortion-rights supporters” (Kliff). Kliff uses these findings to suggest that intensity of young, pro-life activists is waning while young supporters of the pro-life movement are moving forward with great strength. Kliff’s assertion, however, is not a new complaint: for years, older generations who had to fight daily for their rights see the future generation as taking these accomplishments for granted and becoming complacent with a right which may not necessarily always be a guarantee. But while older generations may view this to be the case, it is still quite clear that our youth still remains opinionated on the issue of abortion. Recent figures suggest that as many as 61% of young people support legal abortion in “all” or “most cases.” Additionally, the backlash amongst younger activists to Kliff’s article similarly demonstrates the passion that still exists in younger generations today.
Many online forums, blogs, and commentary sites erupted in outrage last Friday after Newsweek posted Kliff’s article online. In one young feminist’s response – titled “The Newsweek Article: Reflections by a Young Prochoice Activist” – Elise from Kansas addresses the comments made by Kliff which “disparage [her] generation's involvement in the pro-choice movement” (Higgins). Elise writes:
My peers and I are full-time feminists. We're planting pro-choice gardens at the University of Northern Kentucky and throwing Sextivals at the University of Kansas. We're working with organizations like Choice USA that lift up the voices of young people. We're volunteering for local, statewide and national organizations. And we're blowing up the Internet with the tools and information to create change. There are thousands of us working hard for the movement every day. How disappointing to find that those in positions that we will surely take someday doubt our passion (Higgins).
The numerous posts similar to Elise’s not only prompted Nancy Keenan to release her own statement in response to the article, but Newsweek also included an addendum to the original piece which included reactions from several of the leading blogs. While reading through some of the responses, it becomes clear that “passion” is not what is lacking amongst the younger generation. In fact, “NOW’s Erin Matson who started an online petition to demand that Newsweek interview younger pro-choice leaders, wrote that she was ‘shaking with anger’” (Dailey). Additionally, all of the outrage appropriately directed me back to a previous blog-post I had written in response to Inga Muscio’s piece, “Abortion, Vacuum Cleaners and the Power Within.” Not only did I question whether Muscio was deranged, but I wrote the following:
Muscio is ultimately trying to suggest that the debate and issues surrounding abortion today cannot be viewed through the binary of pro-life/pro-choice. It is true that often the issues needed to be dealt with regarding abortion are pushed to the side, but Muscio seems to be stating that this large problem is a result of the pro-choice system itself and not, as I believe, due to the fact that currently there is no pro-choice system; the ‘choice’ is still regarded as heavily under threat to this day and many people who perhaps would otherwise be fighting for an overhaul of current abortion procedures are instead fighting just to keep this right of women a right.
As someone who considers herself to be a supporter of women’s rights (although not always an active one) and moderately aware, my previous comments made me realize that even amongst us in the younger generation who are not working on the front line, there still exists a level of “passion” that cannot be denied.
What I believe Kliff meant to suggest in her article (although the point was unfortunately lost within the several unfounded comments) is that “For a generation of women who have grown up without knowing the reality of back-alley abortions or total reproductive restrictions, the fight for abortion rights, while important, seems less urgent” (Daily). Over at Jezebel, the point is clearly illustrated by one user’s comments: “While I am unequivocally pro-choice, I've never, ever felt that my right to choice was actively being threatened, and I'm sure that's part of the reason I've never participated in a pro-choice organization” (Daily). However, this tendency is not one that is solely unique to the reproductive rights movements. Political figure and commentators continue to critique the failure of the youth – particularly on university campuses – to voice their opinions and debate about the validity of war. Yet, as many have suggested, the previous incentive (i.e. the draft) for young adults to voice their opinions simply does not exist in the same way today as it did then. Consequently, I think what will prove most important to the future of the pro-life movement is the ability of the older generations to understand that we have grown up in a different time that has considered abortion to always be a right. Instead of dwelling on our understandable inability to fully sympathize with the struggle that many baby-boomer activists endured, it would be more useful to harness the curiosity, interest, and passion of the younger generation in order to protect these current rights rather than simply state that there remains no one for them to pass the torch on to.
Works Cited:
Daily, Kate. "Remember Roe? Young Activists Say They've Never Forgotten." Newsweek (April 20, 2010).
Higgins, Elise. "The Newsweek Article: Reflections by a Young Prochoice Activist." RH Reality Check (April 20, 2010).
Kliff, Sarah. “Remember Roe! How Can the Next Generation Defend Abortion Rights When they Don't Think Abortion Rights Need Defending?” Newsweek (April 16, 2010).
We are all familiar with feminine-hygiene product ads. They normally feature smiling and twirling women who wear white, are elated to have their periods, and have never felt better. The advertisements imply that their product can make you feel ‘clean’ and ‘fresh,’ and most avoid using the word ‘period’ or ‘blood’ altogether. However, the recent launch of Kotex’s new U by Kotex product line has taken a new (and actually fresh) approach to advertising, creating quite the “media hoopla” in response (Kim). Instead of using constant euphemisms and censoring the discussion of menstrual-related issues, the new ad campaign for U by Kotex seeks to “parody such conventions” and bring a level of frankness to the conversation (Newman). Unfortunately, Kotex’s new approach has proven “to be a bit too frank for some networks” (Newman). According to a recent New York Timesarticle, the original U by Kotex ads were ultimately banned from three broadcast networks due to their use of the word ‘vagina’ (two of the three networks additionally refused to run ads with ‘down there’ in place of ‘vagina’). Merrie Harris, a representative for Kotex, explained that “the whole category [of feminine hygiene] has been very euphemistic, or paternalistic even, and we’re saying, enough with the euphemisms, and get over it” (Newman). The ads were initially intended to show that “tampon is not a dirty word, and neither is vagina,” but the networks’ ban against Kotex’s original commercials clearly demonstrates that people think otherwise. Although the debut of the U by Kotex ads has made a great stride in dismantling the sterilization of fem-care advertising and breaking the taboo surrounding menstruation, it also reminds us that society continues to view women and their natural processes as disordered to this day.
Writing during the height of the Second-Wave feminist movement, Anne Sexton was “one of the first who dared to create poetry about breasts and wombs, abortion, and menstruation” (Schneir, 329). Instead of shying away from matters that pertained to a woman’s body – a subject which, at the time, was unmentionable – Sexton “broke new ground, shattered taboos” and “struck a note of joy and transcendence in celebrating woman’s physical nature” (Schneir, 329-330). Yet although Sexton would later receive the Pulitzer Prize in 1967 for her poetry, her writings still managed to be unfavorably received throughout her career; the New York Times Book Review attacked one of her compilations in 1962, saying “It would be hard to find a writer who dwells more insistently on the pathetic and disgusting aspects of bodily experience” (Schneir, 329). It is clear, however, that the reviewer is referring to the “disgusting aspects” of a woman’s body.
Throughout history, American society has tended to view the natural processes of women as ‘abnormal’ and ‘diseased.’ Writing in 1987, Anne Fausto-Sterling, in her book – Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Women and Men – suggests that the lack of evidence behind ideas about biologically-based sex differences stem from the idea that “women’s reproductive function, so different from that of ‘normal’ men, places them in a naturally diseased state” (Fausto-Sterling, 99). In her chapter ‘Hormonal Hurricanes,’ Fausto-Sterling demonstrates how this tendency to view women as disordered can be seen with relation to menstruation. Not only were women for many years considered to be too fragile (due to their reproductive organs) to get an education, 19th century scientists concluded that menstruation rendered women “more or less sick and unfit for hard work” (Fausto-Sterling, 93). Changes women underwent during menstruation were considered to be ‘symptoms’ of a larger disease: one could find headlines in daily-newspapers that read ‘Erratic female behavior tied to premenstrual syndrome’ and ‘Violence by women is linked to menstruation’ (Fausto-Sterling, 94). And while many of these misconceptions have since been debunked, Fausto-Sterling leaves readers today with the important, and relevant, question of how to deal with the underlying assumption that women have a physiologically abnormal status? (Fausto-Sterling, 96).
Perhaps one of the largest proponents in perpetuating the disordered stigma surrounding women’s bodies is the feminine-hygiene industry. As Andrew Meurer, an executive at Kotex, explains, “For the past 50 years, advertisers – Kotex included – have been perpetuating this cultural stigma by emphasizing that the best menstrual period is one that is ignored” (Newman). In a recent article by Susan Kim – also the author of Flow: The Cultural Story of Menstruation – she recounts how the public has historically responded to feminine-hygiene ads. Although a ban on all advertising of sanitary napkins, tampons, and douches was lifted in 1972, Kim explains that “a prompt tsunami of outrage from offended viewers caused advertisers to back-pedal away from anything that might be seen as graphic or upsetting (i.e. instructive or useful),” forcing feminine-care ads to play only during daytime TV for years. Additionally, the word ‘period’ itself wasn’t even used in a TV ad until 1985 which also sparked a huge outcry (Kim). Consequently, advertisements which have had to cater to the comfort of society have in turn furthered the stigma surrounding women and menstruation; Kim accurately states that “decades of artful euphemisms, visual symbolism and indirect language” has “vilified, demonized, over-simplified and reduced [menstruation] to a disgusting and embarrassing nuisance and hygienic crisis” (Kim).
Fortunately, the new U by Kotex line is hoping redefine the feminine-care industry by encouraging women to change the conversation surrounding feminine care from one of shame and embarrassment to one of open, honest dialogue. According to Mr. Meurer, Kotex is really “trying to touch women and say we care about this conversation,” adding that “we’re changing our brand equity to stand for truth and transparency and progressive vaginal care” (Newman). The campaign’s tagline has appropriately been coined “Break the Cycle” and visitors to the U by Kotex website are “encouraged to sign a ‘Declaration of Real Talk’ that addresses the code of secrecy that makes girls feel uncomfortable talking about their bodies” (Kim). However, recent backlash to the line of advertisements has only further demonstrated how our society still views women and their reproductive systems as taboo and not to be discussed. As Ms. Harris has pointed out, the broadcast networks’ reaction to the original ads “is very funny because the whole spot is about censorship” (Newman). Although the original and more upfront ads that used the words ‘vagina’ and ‘down there’ have been banned – for now – Kotex’s new and honest approach to addressing menstruation is sure to begin initiating a change in rhetoric throughout the industry. And until the rest of society is willing to accept women’s bodies and processes as normal and not illicit topics that one must avoid, girls who hope to receive accurate information regarding feminine care can do so at the U by Kotex website. One can find instructional videos of how to correctly use the products using real actresses and POV angles instead of unclear drawings that most other brands include, a real step in helping to chip away at this “deeply ingrained mortification” that most girls feel regarding their periods (Kim).
At the center of the new U by Kotex campaign is an attempt to “normalize” the existence of women’s bodies and the female experience, a mission that is not all that new to some. In fact, this month’s production of the “Vagina Monologues” at Colgate does just that. The play –written in 1996 – was composed by Eve Ensler “in order to shine a light on the female experience that is rarely talked about” (Lowe). The director of the play, sophomore Dena Robinson, recently told the Maroon News that “It doesn’t matter how many times you say [vagina], it never sounds like a world you want to say,” hoping that audiences may feel a little different by the end of the play (Lowe). Interestingly, the same article quoted freshman Nathaniel Goehring: “I felt like I wasn’t really in on the joke. I never felt uncomfortable, I just felt like, since I don’t have a vagina, a lot of the monologues were irrelevant for me,” Goehring said. “But the same would probably be true for many girls if they attended ‘The Penis Monologues’.” However, one may argue that Goehring’s comment illustrates the importance of such efforts as the Monologues. Even if Goerhring was unable to necessarily relate to all of the content performed, he still sat through the production and felt comfortable by the overuse of the normally-feared word ‘vagina,’ the Clittails – not to be confused with cocktails – being served, and the female genitalia decorations covering theater. Similar to the aim of the new U by Kotex campaign, Robinson added that “The vagina is not something to be scared of or to regard as vulgar. It’s a beautiful thing. I hope the audience can walk away more aware of the issues women face and feel empowered to take action” (Lowe). Although the recent censoring of the U by Kotex ads has once again shown that society continues to view women’s natural processes as ‘abnormal,’ it’s effort to “listen” and “hear” what women say about themselves, as Fausto-Sterling once suggested, is a large step towards rejecting previously held notions and helping our society “understand that men and women have different reproductive cycles, both of which are normal” (Fausto-Sterling, 121).
Works Cited:
Kim, Susan. “How to Advertise Down There.” The Huffington Post, March 17, 2010,
Lowe, Sydney. “Vaginas That Talk: The Vagina Monologues Celebrate Female Empowerment.” The Colgate Maroon News, March 3, 2010.
Newman, Andrew Adam. “Rebelling Against the Commonly Evasive Feminine Care Ad.” New York Times, March 15, 2010: B3.
Schneir, Miriam. Feminism In Our Time: The Essential Writings, World War II to the Present. New York: Vintage Books, 1994.
I was very pleased to have been assigned Lila Abu-Lughod’s article for our last reading, especially as we move into our Global Feminism Projects. Abu-Lughod raises several important issues regarding Western views on Middle Eastern women and their supposed “need to be saved,” and I was particularly satisfied with her emphasis on explaining the role that colonialism has played in shaping our rhetoric and beliefs. Early in the article, Abu-Lughod suggests the following: “the question is why knowing about the “culture” of the region, and particularly its religious beliefs and treatment of women, [is] more urgent than exploring the history of the development repressive regimes in the region and the U.S. role in this history” (784). I think that Abu-Lughod correctly highlights that by ignoring past colonial occupation of many of these Middle Eastern countries, we are unable to understand why we use the rhetoric we do, and consequently fail to address ways to counteract this tendency.
Additionally, I found Abu-Lughod inclusion of specific country examples to be most interesting especially since I currently am taking a history seminar focused on the interwar period in Egypt – a time that directly reflected the 1882 British occupation and responded in many ways to colonization. As many modern Egyptian scholars have suggested, the Orientalist imagery that the West has consistently associated with Egypt has led us to view Egypt as a “veiled protectorate of Britain,” utilizing the traditional covering of women for political means. It is within this framework that Abu-Lughod states that we must re-evaluate how view issues that are ‘other’ from what we believe to be the norm. As Mohanty stated in her article, one issue that Western feminist rhetoric has encountered is the formation of the “Third World Women,” suggesting that women from all countries other than the West all lack the same rights and are striving for the same goals. I think that Abu-Lughod’s inclusion of country-specific examples helps to demonstrate that within each country and population groups, different norms, traditions, and environments all converge and influence how people in these specifics areas view and value their lives. It is impossible to speak of the Middle Eastern women as one entity – however, just as the British did in Egypt, it allows for useful political rhetoric that mobilizes the masses.
Throughout the course of the semester, I have been lucky enough to have a class filled with personal anecdotes from a professor who is a Muslim, but also is of Indian descent with strong family ties in both Egypt and Pakistan. Having spent considerable time in many Middle Eastern countries, it is quite eye-opening to hear her take on the position of women in many of these countries. While we often hear in the news that all Middle Eastern women lack essential rights – an assumption largely based on the fact that women in the Middle East mostly cover themselves to some extent – my professor has been able to show my classmates and I that this truly is not the case everywhere. While she has tremendous issues with the current regime in Saudi Arabia, many women in India, Egypt, and Pakistan really do have the same choices as many women do in the West. However, it is often times very difficult for us to believe this because we are unable to fathom why a woman would choose to cover herself and remain confined to the house (as many do in rural Egyptian villages). And while we often talk of the debate between whether we should extend our reach onto other populations or simply mind our own business, even if human rights violations are occurring, what I have learned the most from my seminar is that through truly learning and engaging and listening to another culture, one begins to realize that there is no formula for how to address these issues – whether they be issues at all. Additionally, one may take note of Arvind Sharma’s comprehensive study, Are Human Rights Western?, in which he proposed over 40 ways in which are current human rights rhetoric may be consider Western, consequently causing one to question whether then our conception of ‘human rights’ are in fact universal. Although much remains uncertain, what remains known is that current discourse in dominated by Western imperialism and rhetoric, and in order to truly engage in a global partnership and understanding with countries that differ from our own, a conversation must begin and be devoid of any political agendas – a task that seems quite impossible today and even throughout the years to come.
Throughout the duration of our course, in discussing meanings of feminism and problems for women in the “world” today, we have consistently made note of these various feminist authors’ problematic under-recognition of women from other races socio-economic statuses, cultures, societies and regions. I found Chandra Mohanty’s “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonia Discourses” to be extremely useful in the context of our coarse, as it was eye-opening and certainly broadened our understanding of contemporary feminism in the global sphere. Much like the works of Patricia Hill Collins, Rebecca Walker, and Sonia Shah, Mahonty addresses—arguably, to a more significant effect—the problematic nature of racial/ethnic/cultural divides in Western feminist discource.
Her focus, in this article, is on “the production of the ‘Third World Woman,’ and a problematic element of homogeneity in western feminism. Mohanty’s uses “homogeneous” warily, as she notes that, while “western feminist discourse and political practice is neither singular nor homogeneous in its goals, interests or analyses…it is possible to trace a coherence of effects resulting from the implicit assumption of the ‘west’ (in all its complexities and contradictions) as the primary reference in theory and practice” (62). What I found most interesting about Mohanty’s peace was her ability to connect the second-rate, and “otherness” characterizations of third world women in Western feminist discourse to the core problem for western feminists—the underlying patriarchal system. Indeed, Mohanty argues that “it is only in so far as Woman/Women and ‘The East’ are defined as Others, or as peripheral, that (western) Man/Humanism can represent him, itself as the centre” (81). In other words, by continually asserting this “otherness” of eastern women and isolating them from the western feminist movement, women are only hurting their cause/endeavors to deconstruct patriarchal norms in which man is the norm and woman is “other.”
I found Chandra Mohanty’s article – “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourse” – to be an extremely enlightening and a fresh change of pace from our previous readings. In class, we consistently have had to negotiate with many of the readings between their validity and tendency to speak from a predominantly white, middle-class perspective (i.e. Levy). However, not only does Mohanty’s article address this line of discourse, she also suggests that this tendency has in fact had a large effect on how the ‘Third World Woman’ has been constructed. At the heart of her argument, Mohanty argues that “it is in the production of this ‘Third World Difference’ that western feminisms appropriate and “colonize” the fundamental complexities which characterize the lives of women of different classes, regions, cultures, races, and castes” (335). Not only is Mohanty’s argument useful for us in moving forward in this class and studying women and global politics, but I also find her argument to be an appropriate framework through which we may retroactively assess past readings that have promulgated this ‘ethnocentric universalism.’
Mohanty presents three main principles that are present in Western feminist discourse on women in the Third World. First, the category “women” in itself suggests that that women are an “already constituted, coherent group with identical interests and desires” (337). Second, there exists a variety of methodologies to demonstrate “the universal cross-cultural operation of male-dominance and female exploitation” (346). Lastly, the issue of presenting women as subjects of power is also discussed.
In all, Mohanty presents some intriguing examples that she has isolated in the current literature that highlight these three principles that she sets forth. Her discussion definitely raises some important points that I definitely believe will be useful to keep in mind when reading not only feminist works that deal with the Third World, but also as I personally evaluate the text for my Global Feminism Project.
** Note: posted late b/c Blackboard was down, and I only read the Mohanty b/c I was unable to fine the Bunch online.
In a recent New York Times article, titled “Subway Ads on Abortion, a Pretense of Neutrality,” Susan Dominus presents a comprehensive discussion of recent organizations’ attempts to create politically neutral forums through which women facing the decision to abort or keep a child, women coming out of an abortion, etc. may seek guidance, support, and potential answers to their questions.
The star forum of this piece is the recent “Abortion Changes You” campaign, spearheaded by founder Michaelene Fredenburg. While Fredenburg claims the aim of her (arguably) politically neutral organization is to provide for women “a safe place to experience their own range of emotions, apart from the controversy and debate” (Dominus, 2010, p. A14), an examination of her website (abortionchangesyou.com)reveals the campaign’s blatant pro-life undertones. Indeed, there is a rising camp of women, organizations, and forums (with both pro-life and pro-choice core beliefs) that hope to digress the abortion debate away from the traditional political (pro-life/pro-choice) dichotomy and towards a more education and support-oriented design, or one that is “pro-women.” However, an examination of these so-called “politically neutral” groups who claim to support and educate women –those groups discussed in Dominus’ article, as well as certain authors we have discussed in the classroom—highlights the inherent tension that exists between “pro-life” and “pro-women” beliefs, as the organizations with core pro-life beliefs have expressed significant biases in their “educational” pursuits. While PN/PC[1] groups have, indeed, provided unbiased forums for women to be educated/seek guidance in an entirely fact-based manner, the PN/PL groups have failed to thoroughly conceal their core motives and do not provide women the unbiased, or “safe place to experience their own range of emotions” (Dominus, 2010, p. A14)
Of the various “politically neutral” groups, organizations, and writers who claim to provide a forum or resource for women contemplating abortion/seeking guidance post-abortion, several have developed pro-life undertones. In doing so, these organizations transgress the extent of their professed goals, which are 1) to educate ands support women, 2) to transfer the debate from its political context to one that is “pro-women,” and, in doing so, to remain politically neutral. Indeed, the “Abortion Changes You” website offers creator Michaelene Fredenberg’s personal narrative of her abortion experience as well as a number of links to support centers based on region. Though there is no mention of an anti-abortion agenda on the website, the first link in the “Find Help” section within the Manhattan region is “Project Rachel,” an initiative of the Roman Catholic Church to “present the truth of the impact and extensive damage abortion inflicts on the mother, father, extended family and society” (Dominus, 2010, p. A14). The website includes few—if any—positive testimonials of women who have chosen abortion. Indeed, Dominus is correct to argue that “ Ms. Fredenburg...intends to help women who are suffering emotionally as a result of an abortion. But a site that seems to convince women that there’s only one appropriate emotional response, exquisite pain, is troubling — especially when its founder claims to be creating a judgment-free space.” (Dominus, 2010, p. A14)
Similar anti-abortion groups, writers, and organizations are equally problematic. Inga Muscio, for example, in her article “Abortion, Vaccum Cleaners, and the Power Within” also hopes to divert the abortion discussion away from the political dichotomies, as she finds that the “squabble between pro-lifers and pro-choicers only serves to keep our eyes off the target: patriarchal society” (Muscio, 117). Instead, she claims that “the gift for human rights is inside each and every individual on this earth” and dreams of “informal health collectives where we discuss things like our bodies and our selves” (Muscio, 117). While the supposed goal of Muscio’s paper is to provide information for women considering abortion about the option of “organic abortions,” her incredibly graphic, grotesque, and shocking portrayal of her own personal “vacuum cleaner” abortion experience in comparison to the “magical” experience of an organic abortion does little to educate or support the woman in need. Instead, we are (yet again) left with an extreme experience of one particularly biased individual with a clear agenda in mind—to terminate the use of clinical abortions.
Conversely, the majority of “politically neutral” organizations with pro-choice undertones (PNPC), however, have proven their ability to inform, educate, and support a variety of women from an extensive array of standpoints. Indeed, organizations such as the “Doula Project,” (Dominus, 2010, p. A10), offers free emotional support and information both to women with plans to terminate their pregnancies and those who choose to forgo abortion. The Doula Project offers a spectrum of pro-life and pro-choice options for support. Dominus makes this neutrality clear: “Such a person might see progress in a consortium of abortion clinics that have started counseling women more fully about adoption options. She might be encouraged by the work of ProLife, ProObama, a group that aims to support social programs reducing the need for abortion.” (Dominus, 2010, p. A10)
Much like the “Doula Project,” Colgate Women’s Studies Assistant Heather Dockstadter’s accounts of her experiences at one Atlanta Abortion Clinic reveal another organization that has successfully provided support, education, and information for women facing the choice of abortion. The center, which offers not only abortions but also delivers babies, provides extensive counseling services for those who are doubting or unsure of their decisions—services which provide the facts of abortion, both positive and negative.
Despite the Atlanta Clinic/Doula Project’s ability to provide factual information about abortion from an unbiased standpoint—they, like the pro-life organizations—fail to depart from the political framework of the debate. Indeed, in providing unbiased and factual education to women about abortion, these organizations are inherently emphasizing their beliefs that it is a female’s right to choose. An analysis of these various PNPC and PNPL organizations indicate that, perhaps, it is more or less impossible to have politically neutral organizations that are geared towards supporting women in the context of abortion. The failure of some organizations to omit pro-life bias and properly educate women about abortion experiences, risks, etc., as well as the failure of other organizations to conceal their pro-choice sentiment indicates that it may be impossible to de-politicize the debate and unite pro-life and pro-choice groups on the basis of “educating and supporting women.” On a more political note, perhaps the education and support should be left to the pro-choice camp, whose doctrine—female choice—inherently supports the “pro-female” goals of unbiased education and support.
Works Cited:
Dominus, Susan (2010, March 26). In Subway Ads on Abortion, a Pretense of Neutrality. New York Times, p. A14.
Muscio, Inga. “Abortion, Vaccum Cleaners, and the Power Within” in Listen Up: Voices from The Next Feminist Generation, ed. Barbara Findlen (Seal Press: Emeryville, CA), 1995.
[1] For the duration of this newsflash, I will refer to “politically neutral” groups with pro-life core beliefs as PN/PL’s, and “politically neutral” groups with pro-choice core beliefs as PN/PC’s
Rape exists in society because it is evolutionarily advantageous for men to carry and pass along a certain gene that gives them an urge to rape women.Believe it or not, this appalling claim was actually developed and supported by evolutionary psychologists in the 1980’s.Leaders in this field claimed the men who carried rape genes possessed a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not because they could not only reproduce with willing mates, but could also reproduce with unwilling ones, thus increasing their chance of creating offspring that would pass on these characteristics to future generations.These evolutionary psychologists used this logic to explain why men are compelled to rape women.In Sharon Begley’s article in Newsweek entitled “Why Do We Rape, Kill, and Sleep Around?” she refutes this argument by claiming that the evolutionary costs of rape are far larger than the evolutionary benefits.She points out that evolution does indeed cause humans to adapt and to mold their behavior based on social and physical demands, and because the evolutionary costs of rape outweigh the benefits, this is not the reason why men are raping women.In assessing why rape occurs, evolutionary psychologists failed to realize the effect that the existing gender hierarchy has on men along with the gender roles and stereotypes that are perpetuated by the media, and how these external factors cause men to rape women.
Before addressing more plausible causes for why men rape women in our society, it is important to show how the evolutionary basis for the rape gene is falsified.Begley refers a study conducted by Kim Hill that evaluated the evolutionary costs and benefits of rape for a 25 year-old man.If this evolutionary basis for rape was accurate, Hill assumed that rapists would target only women of reproductive age (10-60 years old) even though rape victims often fall outside of this age group.Hill then calculated a rapist’s fitness costs and benefits.For example, a rapist loses fitness points if the woman’s husband or relatives kill him or if the mother refused to raise the child.He would gain fitness points based on the fertility of the victim (15%), the chance that she would be able to conceive a child at the time of the rape (7%), that she would not have a miscarriage (90%), and that she would not let the baby die even though she had been raped (90%) (Begley).The results of this cost benefit analysis show that the evolutionary costs far exceed the benefits, and that it was as much as 10 times more costly than beneficial (Begley).Therefore, it does not make sense evolutionarily for this trait to be adapted and passed on to future generations.
Instead of turning towards evolution to explain why men commit these awful acts of sexual violence towards women, the discourse should really be turned towards the gender hierarchy that is in place in society.As Gloria Steinem points out in her article entitled “Supremacy Crimes,” it is white, heterosexual, middle class men who usually perform hate crimes and mass killings in our society, and their identity is often overlooked when discussing these crimes (Steinem).The fact that these men embody the patriarchal norm that our society endorses and that this is never addressed in the discussion of their actions suggests a lot about how society views our social hierarchy in terms of gender, race, and class.The people who commit these crimes are often deemed “troubled,” or their actions are attributed to their young age, yet no one is addressing the real problem; these crimes are committed because their superiority and dominance are challenged in some way or another.This can be applied to sexuality and the same influences can be seen when trying to explain why men rape women.Men are in a position of undeniable power in our society that affords them numerous privileges.However, in times when this dominance and power are challenged or threatened, men feel the need to gain it back and one way of doing so is by exerting their force over women.It is because of this hierarchy that men feel that it is acceptable to want to regain this power and dominance.Rape takes place as a result of distorted power relationships and not because it is naturally occurring based on its evolutionary benefits.
Furthermore, Begley also addresses the fact that evolutionary psychologists are incorrect in their claim that a universal rape gene exists innately because adapted traits are not necessarily innate and are often selected for based on the social environment in which they occur.Begley uses the example of how men do not share a universal innate attraction towards one type of woman.Begley points out that in some cultures men like their women to have an hourglass shape and in others men find this to be repulsive.She mentions a study published in Current Anthropology that found that men in countries where women are economically independent prefer the non-hourglass figure, whereas men in countries where women are economically dependent on men prefer their women to look like “Barbie” (Begley).Because the environment in which preferences and behaviors occur can vary, the media can play an enormous role in suggesting and influencing how women and men should act and present themselves.
The media in our country helps perpetuate this idea of male dominance in society and this notion is seen in commercials, advertisements, commercials, TV programs, and in movies.Since the media is able to shape the views of our citizens to such an extent it is crucial to realize that this contributes to the gender and power hierarchy that exists.Ariel Levy’s chapter entitled “Pigs in Training” underscores this point by pointing out how girls are made to feel that they should cater to the needs of boys and to dress in certain ways to receive attention even though they may not want to (Levy).Furthermore, girls are being told that they are not the ones in power and that their self-worth is determined by how the opposite sex views them at a very young age (Levy).These messages that are disseminated by the media are instrumental in causing men to feel this dominance over women and the role that the media plays in fostering an environment of rape culture should definitely be evaluated.
In conclusion, the claim made by evolutionary psychologists that rape is an adapted gene that is inherited through generations can be seen as outdated and false.However, this raises an important question of what is in fact causing men to exert such physical violence over women in our society.Begley’s article alludes to the fact that there are factors in society that are responsible for why men rape women.It is important to consider the environmental factors that can lead men to perform certain behaviors, and how the gender hierarchy in society can foster this feeling of male superiority.Men are accustomed to feeling a sense of power and dominance in society because it has been established and accepted that they are the ones in power.It is when this position of power is challenged and jeopardized that some men feel the need to regain it, and this manifests itself in the rape of women.
As I read Ettelbrick’s article and pondered her point about how marriage is an institution and that by getting married you are just feeding into this patriarchal society, a few things came to mind. I agree that marriage does perpetuate this type of society, but I am not sure that I agree with her argument about how gays and lesbians should not fight for the right to get married. Ettelbrick says that she doesn’t want to go “mainstream” and become invisible within the system because she wants relationships of all types to be appreciated. However I think that the real issue here is not about forgetting gays and lesbians by making them invisible, it’s about the acceptance of the system as a whole even when gays and lesbians aren’t included. Because it is a reality that our society values marriage to the extent that it does, it is unrealistic to think that we can change this within the near future. I think that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry because regardless of whether or not it’s perpetuating a flawed system they are placed at a disadvantage by not being able to do so. By no means am I saying that everything about the system is correct, I just think that gays and lesbians refusing to marry because they do not want to go invisible defeats the purpose of the gay rights movement. The movement is for homosexuals to have the same rights that heterosexuals have, and the option to marry someone that they love should be included in that. No one is saying they have to marry their partner, but a same sex marriage amendment would simply provide them with an option to do so. Before tackling the bigger issue of how our system perpetuates sameness by providing people with equal rights, I think that Ettelbrick needs to acknowledge that the opportunity for gays and lesbians to get married would be a positive thing. In order to change the system you are going to need some people within the system to change as well so I think that the civil rights of gays and lesbians need to be honored before we do anything else. I think that Ettelbrick’s overall point and her urge for acceptance of all types of relationships is a great one, but I think that she is being too idealistic in the fact that she assumes it is possible to achieve this while working outside the system.
The queer parenting article also raises some interesting questions of how queer parenting can “de-normalize” gender roles and can challenge the current notion of a “normal” family. In addition, Naples makes the point that queer parenting happens regardless of whether or not the couple is married so the argument that people make about parenting being a reason why gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry is not an effective one. Lastly, the same sex marriage FAQs provides evidence as to how same sex couples are being left out of society and are put at a disadvantage just because the are homosexual. I think that Ettelbrick could address these things more because it is really important to realize that these disadvantages can have enormous effects on a person’s life. While Ettelbrick is accurate in saying that getting married does play into the patriarchal society and does minimize the appreciation of different types of relationships, is it really worth it to go against this and to endorse denying same sex couples all of these privileges that are granted to heterosexual couples?
