News Flash: A Politically Neutral Abortion Debate?

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/nyregion/27bigcity.html

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.

Heather Dockstadter, Women’s Studies Lecture (March

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

News Flash: Is Rape Caused by Evolution or by the Environment?

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.

Same-Sex Marriage/Parenting/FAQs

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?

Steinem and Myers on Female Oppression in the Military and Violent Crimes

Gloria Steinem’s “Supremacy Crimes” and Steven Lee Myers’ “A Peril in War Zones” and “Living and Fighting Alongside Men” raised several interesting and thought-provoking issues that I had never considered in depth prior to reading these pieces. I found that each article provided a unique and useful perspective regarding the oppression of women in diverse and unique environments and scenarios, and moreover, new perspectives concerning the nature of those who are performing such oppression.

Steinem’s article, which focused on the various high-profile (and under recognized) violence crimes that have occurred in recent times, drew attention to the ways in which such crimes have been covered and recognized by the public/media. Steinem begins her essay by focusing on the Colorodo high school shootings, arguing that while the news focused on the fact that the men responsible for the shootings were “young,” and the “youth of America,” there was little emphasis on the fact that they were men. However, what is more interesting is that the majority of violent crimes are, indeed, performed by those who embody the patriarchal norm: white, heterosexual men. Steinem made interesting points in questioning what might have happened had the shootings been performed by young women, “Would we be discussing their youth more than their gender, as is the case so far with these male killers?” Of the various violent crimes that I have read/heard about through various media outlets, I had never considered such questions or issues. Steinem’s piece is very important in that it provides a new way of questioning a topic so prominent in our society through the framework of patriarchal norms.

In a similar vein, Myers offers several interesting facts and perspectives through his two pieces on women in the military. While I was well aware of the patriarchal/hetero-normative ways of the military, I had never considered the potential implications that this might have for female officers. In ”A Peril in War Zones,” Captain White’s case reveals the issues faced by women in the military who are victims of sexual abuse: for example, women who have been sexually abused/assaulted often fail to come forward due to the general understanding that their “commanders’ focus on the mission overshadows other concerns,” such as rape. In White’s case, she had “no confidence that her case would be taken seriously and so tried to cope on her own.” The fact that most women do feel this way is a difficult issue to tackle, as the perils of war will certainly continue to overshadow (what appear to be) more minor issues in the grand scheme of things, such as sexual assault.

Furthermore, I was shocked by Myers’ finding that “A woman in the military is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq.” I hardly believed this statistic when first reading it, and feel that it effectively highlights the severity of this situation.

I found that these three articles were incredibly enlightening and fairly “new” in terms of my understanding of female oppression, and I look forward to seeing others’ reactions on the matter.

Levy, Brownmiller, Morgan, and Walker

All of the readings for this class made me think back to a class that I took last year called Gender, Power, and Violence. In that class we learned how different institutions exerted their power over women in different ways and in some cases this power was exerted through violence. Once again, I found myself disturbed and disappointed while reading these articles about how men are able to maintain their power over women in society. Morgan’s article was especially poignant for me as it reminded me how difficult it must be for some women to live their lives in a state of constant fear after being raped. In addition I think that her story of how callous people acted towards her after she tried to report her rape is a big issue because as I learned in my class last year, this occurs way more often than people realize it does. All of the readings in one way or another addressed how women are prevented from changing their role in society. Levy’s chapter served as a foundation for how younger girls are trained to act in a way that puts them in a vulnerable position with men because society is telling them that in order to fit in they need to act in ways that are sexually degrading. I thought that her point about how young girls are constantly taught abstinence in schools, yet all they receive are messages of sex from the media was particularly interesting. It is almost as if they are placed in a situation where they can’t win because in order to practice safe sex they need to inquire about ways to do so, however this puts them at risk of being labeled as “whores,” or allows men to say that the girls are asking for it.

Additionally, I thought that Brownmiller’s excerpt was also very interesting. I found it shocking that 71 percent of rapes in Amir’s study were planned rapes and 43 percent of rapes had two or more men assaulting one woman. I often never think of rape as a pre-meditated act because of the context that I am in. I usually think of college campus rapes in terms of men refusing to stop when a woman says no, but I think that it is also unsettling to think that the majority of rapists in this case actually planned out what they were going to do before they did it. Walker’s piece about self-defense provides an avenue for women to feel safer, and I think that this is a good way for women to combat the power that men possess in society. If more women begin to challenge this balance of power maybe we will finally see a change in behavior from men, and in Levy’s case, also from women.

Gawande and Goer: A Discussion of Childbirth

I found the discussion regarding childbirth between Gawande and Goer's articles to be quite informative especially in light of the New York Times article that recently reported that cesarean births have reached an all-time high in U.S. at 32%. And while all three articles come to leave the reader with varying conclusion on the state of childbirth in the U.S., what is interesting is the the NY Times article highlights several important points both made in the Gawande and Goer articles.

First, the NY Times article reinforces the point made in both articles about childbirth having become institutionalized to an alarming extent in the U.S. “We should do inductions for good solid medical reasons, not for convenience or the day of the week,” stated Dr. Macones said. The article mentions the increase in C-sections due to fears of OB/GYNs of being sued, but fails to fully suggest what then can be done about the problem. Grady mentions certain trends in c-sections today, like having repeated c-sections after the first, but she never cites a study that suggests this practice is unnecessary.

Secondly, Grady brings into the conversation the issue of cost and danger: all 3 authors seem to take separate stances on whether our institutionalized method of childbirth has higher risks for the mother and child, but they all three make note of the infamous issue of 'cost.' And while I understand Grady's point that c-section cost almost double that of vaginal births, one must also recognize her other point in that lawsuits are a real threat and problem. Yes, one solution for those doctors who simply perform the surgery out fear is to gain protections for these doctors, however, if c-sections are deemed necessary by the doctor for the benefit of the mother and child (in which hopefully most cases being performed it is), then I have trouble responding to the critiques of Grady and Goer against c-sections. I think Gawande has an interesting spin to his article in that he shows that an educated women in the field, Rourke (who Goer describes as having "unrealistic anxieties" due to her profession), is able to let go of her insistence on having this natural birth, reminding us that not all c-section are performed because we are eager to slice and dice patients now days. For me, it simply drove home the point that childbirth is dangerous and extremely scary. Some women want to do it naturally, but others do not. And regardless of the high costs, if a c-section means the mother and child are going to have a safe delivery (which Goer claims as having equal chances as vaginal birth in most cases, non-emergencies) then I believe the decision is the woman's and whatever makes her feel most comfortable. If your doctor recommends you have a c-section, and that is what you feel most comfortable with (even though, you may perhaps be able to give birth vaginally hours later), then I believe the decision is completely personal in nature and we should stop criticizing the system. Until extensive studies show that such c-sections are causing great harm, then I don't understand why the public is so concerned with which form of a childbirth a mother chooses.

Abortion Readings

I found all of these readings to be especially interesting since I just wrote my News Flash on a woman who chose to provide a live Twitter Feed during her abortion. As I talked about in my News Flash and was consistent in these readings, much of the discussion surrounding abortion deals with the negative impacts it has on a woman's body. Both chapters in Listen Up provided emotional and honest first-hand experiences of abortion and I found them to be extremely poignant. I have always been Pro-Choice, however I do not think that I have ever read a first-hand detailed description of what an abortion actually entails. The chapter by Muscio was so vivid that at one point I had to stop reading because I could not bear to think that any person would have to experience something like that. After reading the accounts of these women, I pondered Muscio's point of how our patriarchal society has this power over a woman and I agree with her. I don't think that people fully realize when they are fighting for abortion rights or claiming to be "pro-choice" that they are in a sense claiming power over someone else's body. The fight really comes down to the power that each woman holds over her own body. I think that my view on abortion is similar to the view that Crews expresses in her chapter. To me, it is simply illogical as to why anyone but the woman herself would get to decide the rights she has over her own body.

All of these readings address the theme of men being in control in our society, and this is highlighted by the fact that throughout the majority of our history men have been the lawmakers in our country, and like Crews mentions men are the ones who are "needed to deliver babies." I thought Crews brought up a really interesting point of how men dictate the process of birth and stipulate when and where a woman should give birth. Crews is definitely right in the fact that the choice surrounding becoming pregnant and giving birth should be made by the person who is actually going through the experience. In addition, Arcana's article suggests that regardless of the circumstances women need to discuss their abortions and the need for choice. I agree with this, but I also see some danger in doing so. While reading Muscio's chapter I thought that for me the details of the actual abortion were instrumental in helping me realize how serious it actually is and helping me reinforce my belief that women should have the right to choose, however as I mentioned in my News Flash this open discourse could also backfire and enable people who are pro-life to depict abortion as a sinful process.