News Flash: Twitter Gets Way Personal

Julia Baird’s article in Newsweek entitled “Twitter Gets Way Personal” discusses how a woman in Florida named Angie Jackson recently provided people with a live Twitter-feed during her abortion. It is important to question what this act is saying about the role of media in our society, and it is also important to analyze Jackson’s case in regards to the effect it can have on women’s issues. Although Jackson attempted to use a form of media to normalize the act of getting an abortion in the hope of overcoming the negative stigma associated with it, she may have actually done more harm for women than good. By providing these graphic and raw details of her body during an abortion, Jackson is perpetuating the notion of the female body being “disordered,” “abnormal,” “unclean,” and “diseased,” and she is actually causing women to think twice about having an abortion instead of making the process seem more normal.

Firstly, it is important to realize that all of this is only possible due to the advancement of media in our society, and it is because of the increasing ways for us to communicate with one another that stories like this will emerge. The media is extremely influential when it comes to adopting gender role ideology and perpetuating gender stereotypes in our society. Advertisements, magazines, movies, music videos, and other forms of media all contribute to and endorse a hierarchy of gender and provide us with information about sex. Not only does the media shape our views in regards to gender, but it also shapes our ideas when it comes to body image and what is considered to be “the norm.” More specifically, society endorses the belief that the female body is diseased, disordered, or unclean when compared to the norm of the male body. There are countless advertisements for scented tampons or ways to remove body hair, indicating that a woman’s body is not natural and needs to be altered.

In Baird’s article, she explains that Jackson’s Twitter account provided her followers with immediate information about her abortion. At first glance, this can be seen as a positive improvement in regards to how women are represented through media because there is no longer a mediator that negotiates what information is published, where it is published, and what context it is published in. The instant news feed of Jackson’s abortion is a way for her to tell her own story and to express her sexuality and beliefs the way she wants to. This is a direct contrast to what we saw in Gloria Steinem’s article entitled “Sex, Lies, and Advertising.” Steinem conveyed that advertisements are arranged with specific intent and that companies target a pre-established notion of what a woman should look and act like, excluding women who do not fit this mold (Steinem). In a way, Jackson’s ability to take media into her own hands can be seen as an improvement to alternate media forms.

However, Jackson’s act of Twittering during her abortion fails to use her power over the media in a positive manner. She ends up providing information that has negative consequences in relation to how the female body is viewed in society. The way that Jackson describes her body during her abortion is consistent with society’s notion of the female body being diseased, unclean, and disordered. Jackson’s comments and details of the abortion portray her body negatively and endorse the idea in society that a woman’s body needs to be “fixed,” or that it is inherently abnormal due to the changes that result from pregnancy and menstruation. When asked what she told her child about her abortion she responded with “I said that mommy was very sick with something called a fetus” (Baird). The language used to describe pregnancy in this case implies that her body is “diseased” instead of viewing pregnancy as a natural biological process and abortion as a safe alternative for a woman who does not choose to carry out her pregnancy. She provides other graphic details about cramps, bleeding, and dissolving pills, and this further underscores how Jackson is perpetuating this idea of a diseased, unclean female body. This portrayal of the female body is problematic because it allows us to think of male bodies as “healthy” and “natural”; because men do not get pregnant, do not menstruate, and do not have abortions, they are deemed normal and “healthy.” This concept can be highlighted in Fausto-Sterling’s article entitled “Hormonal Hurricanes,” where she explains how menstruation is often deemed abnormal and is seen to produce unnatural effects in women (Fausto-Sterling 121). Jackson unknowingly perpetuates this ideology through her vivid description of how her body is reacting to the abortion.

As alluded to above, there is a major problem with this increasing inter-connectedness in the media, and that is the constant availability of uncensored information. The fact that Jackson is able to provide this raw detail and emotion without any type of mediator can be shocking for some people, and this direct link between the author of the piece and the public will be interpreted differently by all different types of people. For example, the details about cramping and bleeding may deter some women from wanting to get an abortion simply out of fear. In Jackson’s effort to serve as a link to others and to eradicate the negative stigma associated with getting one, she may be doing exactly the opposite. Presenting people with this uncensored, raw experience of having an abortion will help pro-life supporters justify why abortions should be avoided.

Finally, the fact that a woman is providing a live Twitter-feed during her abortion demeans the act of having an abortion, and instead of normalizing the process it makes a mockery of it. In Baird’s article she recalls one woman who was talking about having a miscarriage at work and the women claimed, “It’s no different to me saying what I had for lunch” (Baird). This attitude toward the female body does not necessarily allow others to feel open and comfortable in disclosing similar information, it simply demeans what is really occurring. Abortion and miscarriage are serious issues that can affect the health of a woman, and there is no reason why they should be viewed as the equivalent of a sandwich. Instead of endorsing a woman’s right to choose and creating awareness of safe options for women, Jackson is using her Twitter to trivialize the act of having an abortion, and is ultimately being counterproductive to her effort.

In conclusion, Jackson’s decision to Twitter during her abortion will be interpreted differently by everyone. However, it remains clear that when discussing processes related to the female body there is often a negative stigma of unnatural, abnormal, and disordered attached to these processes. This event highlights how important media can be not only in forming our ideas and beliefs, but also in perpetuating these ideas and beliefs. It is especially interesting that in this case this occurred unconsciously; Jackson believed that she was actually helping women, and I am sure that she may have helped some, but in reality she was perpetuating the imperfect view that society has adopted for the female body.

Walker and Shah and Female Sexual Power

The Collins, Walker, and Shah articles present unique and interesting perspectives with regard to feminism, sexuality, and racial/ethnic/cultural differences in both modern American culture, as well as several cultures from the past. While there was one particular topic that linked all three articles: the controversial notion—or question—of black/ethnic sexual power, I was most intrigued by the connections between Walker and Shah’s article, as they each provide a distinct point of view with regard to female sexual power in general, a topic which we have discussed at great length (particularly with regard to Levy).

Walker, a black woman who “had sex young and, after the initial awkwardness, loved it,” is predominantly concerned with sexual power for women in general, her race entering the discussion as more of a side-note or afterthought. Walker hopes to communicate that sexual intercourse and advanced/pre-mature sexuality is not necessarily a bad thing. Walker accounts for the negative aspects of advanced sexuality, and how attention through “chamelionlike identities” can often be misinterpreted as sexual power. However, Walker also indicates that while she did exercise a component of this chameleon like behavior in order to “master the art” of having different men (with different preferences for women) fall in love with her, there were also other elements to here advanced sexuality that did, indeed, make it something powerful; she argues “my quest was not simply a search for popularity, but a definite assertion of my own nascent erotic power.” She equates knowledge with power, and indicates that a knowledge of sex and sexuality meant increased power for her; in reading Walker, I could not help but think of Levy, and how she would have been quick to challenge most of these points.

That being said, Shah might also challenge Walker’s ideas. Shah, a professed feminist, is concerned with her sister’s advancing sexuality and tendencies towards tight clothing, which she deems to be something her sister is only doing in order to gain the “popularity” and “attention” that Walker spoke of in her article. Shah was not only concerned with her sister’s “self-objectifying” behavior in the context of American culture, but she was even more displeased to discover that her parents essentially sanctioned such behavior, as long as it was in the context of her true Indian heritage. For me, the conversation that occurred between Shah and her sister on page 225 stood out: Shah questions her sister’s choice in clothing, pushing her sister to admit that she only dresses the way she does in order to impress and attract boys, but ultimately, her sister responds “I like these clothes for me.” Whether or not Shah’s sister is being truthful at this point is not clear, however, I think that Walker might have made a valid point about this conversation—that although some girls and women dress a certain way to gain popularity, that does not mean that there are not “healthy” components to her sexuality as well. I think that Walker makes her case most poignantly when she states, “Fortunately, there is no magic recipe for a healthy sexuality; each person comes into her or his own sexual power through a different route at her or his own pace.” Indeed, I believe that the various feminist camps are quick to judge certain components of female sexuality, and it is important to weigh the different aspects, as Walker has.

Hormonal Hurricanes, Sexton, and Valdes

I truly appreciated Fausto-Sterling’s article, “Hormonal Hurricanes,” for its underlying sarcasm – whether written intentionally at the time or only obvious to readers now because of the progress that the medical community and society has made in understanding the reproductive processes of women. In discussing all of the diseases and problems associated with menstruation, Fausto-Sterling suggests that “If menstruation really casts such a dark shadow on women’s lives, we ought certainly to know more about it – how it works, whether it can be controlled, and whether it indeed warrants the high level of concern expressed by some” (93). While her suggestions seem completely logical to the current reader, her proposal – put forth in 1987 – went entirely against the trends in the medical community regarding research on women’s reproductive systems. As she points out, the studies were unacceptably incomplete, methodologies were flawed, and most shockingly was that Fausto-Sterling seems to be one of the first persons to highlight these research deficiencies and their resulting effects they have had on public opinion. Fausto-Sterling poignantly states that “[the fact] that so many scientists have been able for so long to do such poor research attests to both the unconscious social agendas of many of the researchers and to the theoretical inadequacy of the research framework used in the field as a whole” (101). While Fausto-Sterling’s article left me feeling extremely appreciative by how far society has come throughout the my lifetime, it also made me consider the present-day feminist debates and where we go from here now that problems of brain size or no longer the problem.

I truly believe that for the most part, the majority of society has done away with the notion that feminine hormones are a disease and are other than ‘normal’. And while biological claims for women not being able to participate equally in society – such as education and demanding work – are no longer present, what still remains is the question of how we now must face true biological differences. Within the current feminist movement, there are two sides. There are those that feel that any acknowledgement of difference leads to discrimination and must be done away with: no segregated bathrooms, no separate sports teams, nothing. However, others suggest that it is fine to recognize biological difference and that equality can be recognized simultaneously acknowledging inherent differences. I believe the current debate is almost even more difficult to resolve because we can no longer prove that women are just as equal to men in all facets of life. It is undeniable that men are stronger, for example. What I think is the problem is this idea of “being equal.” Fausto-Sterling touches upon this idea in a different capacity when she discusses male systems and behavior as normal. Why can’t female strength and male strength both be seen as the norm, and female strength not be considered as “not equal to male strength” and instead just another form of strength? While are society and medical community has progressed immensely since 1987, what still remains is a male-dominated conception of normal. And while I consider myself in the camp of those who believe that women do not need to ignore their differences, I do believe that these differences will continue to be seen as problems, deficiencies, or inadequacies until both male and female characteristics are equally consider normal, and not one above the other.

Advertising and The Body Project

Steinem’s article and Brumberg’s article both discuss ways in which women receive and emit messages of identity through body expression and through images seen in advertisements on television and in magazines. Steinem’s article presented several interesting issues to ponder. Hearing the perspective from an insider helped confirm some of the beliefs I had about advertising in magazines, and it also provided me with new information. Steinem’s explanation of how important the content of the editorials surrounding the advertisements can be was extremely interesting, and I was also surprised at how picky the companies can be. For example, Eastern airline did not want to be advertised in a magazine that featured lesbian poets because they claimed to be a family airline and their consumer may get the wrong idea. In addition, I thought her point about how Ms only incorporates media for white women and that black and Hispanic media were excluded even though there were black and Hispanic readers was compelling. This made me think of the ways in which people in power, and in this case corporations, solidify the type of consumers that buy their products. This idea is highlighted with the following quote: “The main function was to create a desire for products, teach how to use products, and make products a crucial part of gaining social approval, pleasing a husband, and performing as a homemaker. Some unrelated articles and short stories were included to persuade women to pay for these catalogs. But articles were neither consumerist nor rebellious.” This quote shows how gender and racial norms are reinforced and perpetuated through advertising content and placement. Despite these challenges, I think that Steinem does a great job of presenting direct and feasible solutions for her readers. The solutions appeal to people and suggest direct ways in which we can make a difference.

In addition, Brumberg’s article also discusses ways in which women are constantly being asked to establish an identity based on appearance. She makes the point that adolescent women are constantly defining their self-esteem based on external factors rather than internal ones. I also think that her point about how mass-produced clothing enabled women to gain autonomy when it came to appearance because it took the control out of the hands of their mothers is interesting because while this was true at the time, I think that today mass-produced clothing decreases autonomy and encourages women to conform. Women and men are constantly conforming when they buy the latest jacket, or purchase the sneaker that is “in.” Finally, I thought that Brumberg’s discussion about body piercing was also especially thought provoking. I liked how she discussed body piercing as a form of rebellion for certain aspects of culture, and I think that her point about the increasing difficulty in creating a level of intimacy in relationships was a good one. She claims that it is no longer sufficient for a woman to wear her boyfriend’s class ring and to allow this to be their intimate connection; women are now resorting to nipple piercings and genital piercings to share this intimacy due to the fact that the boundary between public and private has become so blurred.

Of Gender and Genitals/Middlesex 2 and 3

Several things caught my attention while reading Fausto-Sterling’s chapter, however I think that most profound point that she makes is that if these sexual and anatomical differences are occurring in society and we are eliminating them with surgery, how are we ever going to progress and see sex and gender on a continuum instead of two distinct categories. At the beginning of the chapter when she was describing what happens when an intersexual baby is born and the many decisions that parents are faced with, it sounded like she could have easily substituted “intersexual” with “life threatening disease” or “severe mental disorder.” Fausto-Sterling describes the hospital environment almost as being a disaster. She writes, “While anatomical clarity was important for the young child, Money, the Hampsons, and those who followed their lead argued, it was even more important for the child’s parents. As Peter Pan might have said, ‘they had to believe’ in their child’s gender identity for that identity to become real. (Fausto-Sterling 64) By eliminating the different variations of sex organs we are choosing to endorse our current system of gender and sex identification. These practices are causing us to regress instead of seeing things on a continuum.

I also found the discussion of “Phall-o-metrics” to be pretty interesting considering that it seems that even in these instances the stereotypes and cultural traditions of being more of a man is correlated to penis size. I think that the discussion of how intersexual males are usually infertile is also very interesting because it shows that it is ingrained in our minds that a man has to have fully functioning sex organs in order to be considered “masculine.” This is touched on in Book Two of Middlesex when Cal is talking about how he cannot have children and this is why he has never gotten married. I think that this is profound because people are often “legitimized” in society when they get married or have a baby. These are events that hold enormous significance in people’s lives, and the fact that intersexual people cannot have children and may never get married due to their discomfort with their sexuality shows how alienated they can feel as a result of what is considered to be the “norm.”

Middlesex, Book 1 and Fausto-Sterling

I first read Middlesex around the time it came out in 2002, and I was only in eighth or ninth grade. While reading Book 1 of Middlesex for the second time, now in the context of our recent discussions of gender and sexuality—and, in particular, in the context of Anne Fausto-Sterling’s Sexing the Body—I couldn’t help but notice several details of the book that I did not notice during my first reading. Moreover, I began to question whether or not certain components of the book were purely creative, or, instead, if Jeffrey Eugenides made deliberate literary choices in constructing his characters and plot.

For example, in “That Sexe Which Prevailith,” Fausto-Sterling discusses at length the history of hermaphrodites and intersexuality, which she claims to have spawned from Ancient Greek mythology. Fausto-Sterling argues that there are at least two Greek myths that incorporate the idea of transgendered individuals; one, she claims, tells the story of Hermes and Aphrodite, who “produced a child so thoroughly endowed with the attributes of each parent that, unable to decide its sex for sure, they named it Hermaphroditos.” (Fausto-Sterling, 32) Interestingly enough, Desdemona and Lefty, the incestuous grandparents of Cal in Middlesex, come from Greece; in reading this again, I couldn’t help but question Eugenides literary choices and whether or not he considered the history of Hermaphrodites in relation to Greek myths.

In a similar vein, I never once thought to question why Eugenides chose to make Cal born a girl, who then later chose to become a man; why not the other way? Fausto-Sterling cites a study conducted by a Johns Hopkins urology professor which revealed that most hermaphrodites ultimately choose to identify as male. Indeed, Fausto-Sterling quotes a hermaphrodite named James who said, “It is easier to be a man, You get more money (wages) and you don’t have to be married. If you’re a girl and you don’t get married people make fun of you” (Fausto-Sterling, 42). Again, Fausto-Sterling’s observations and arguments present an alternative way of looking at the construction of the various characters and plots in Eugenides’ Middlesex.

Dualism, Bois, and The Hairstory of an Androgynous Young Feminist

I particularly enjoyed how our three readings - Fausto-Sterling, Levy, and Myhre - built not only off each other, but also off of the commonly held conceptions that most hold with regards to gender. Fausto-Sterling begins her piece by discussing how the second-wave feminists viewed gender; to them, the social institutions that we have constructed around gender, "themselves designed to perpetuate gender inequality," in fact "produce most of the differences between men and women" (3). Yet, as Levy points out, these social constructions are not only played out between men and women, but also can be seen occurring within the lesbian and transgender communities as well.

I was quite intrigued by Levy's observations for several reasons. There is a commonly held belief that in lesbian couples, there always is the butch partner and the more feminine partner: think Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi, Melissa Etheridge and Tammy Lynn Michaels. However, as Levy's observations reveal, there is a clear sentiment amongst butch (and boi) lesbians that femmes are inferior. Acting like a man, as the bois are described as doing these days, is looked upon favorably, but what I believe is very telling is the use of the term 'boi' to begin with. These new generation of lesbians appear to be acting in many ways like stereotypical men, yet they clearly see the need to separate themselves from heterosexual male. Instead, by calling themselves "boys", they appear to be stepping into a role that they can claim their own and dominate. Additionally, Levy points out, "the confusing thing, of course, is why somebody would need serious surgery and testosterone to modify their gender if gender is supposed to be so fluid in the first place" (127).

Fausto-Sterling I believe would suggest that 'butch flight' occurs because regardless of how fluid these lesbians claim to be, we still are extremely offset by "bodies that are so unruly" and that "blur the borders" (8). This clearly can be seen in Mhyre's anecdote about her hair and rejection of 'feminine' upkeep. As Mhyre points out, her presence perhaps troubles onlookers the most because we are unable to categorize her into the social constructions that define gender. As Fausto-Sterling discusses, gender has always represented social forces that mold behavior, and when these behaviors are rejected but the gender is not parted with entirely, it leaves the onlooker extremely uncomfortable because we cannot place her presence into the precise category of woman, or butch lesbian, or transsexual, etc. But perhaps what disturbs those who hear Mhyre's story the most is that she is not a woman trying to play down her 'feminine' qualities and appear more manly. She simply is presenting her body as she is, leaving one to consider the role of gender as a social construction and the attributes we have always been told are associated with our own gender.