Responding Post: Curious and Surprised Feminism

When reading Enloe's chapters "Being Curious about Our Lack of Feminist Curiosity" and "The Surprised Feminist," I was confused to why we didn't read this first before we started Enloe's book. However after reading her introduction, I felt it was a good way to end our class, to summarize most of the topics we have discussed and read about as well as to inspire/motivate us to look at the world more critically and to question the meaning of the words society has used to justify many actions. Enloe's first chapter hones on the theme of curiosity—for us to be genuinely curious about the socially constructed ideas most of us take so lightly or view as the norm/the way things are suppose to be. Enloe encourages us to see pass terms like "natural," "tradition," and "always/oldest"—for us to see how systems such as patriarchy, the military, and others have taken on forms such as nationalism, security, etc. and through this view of the systems, society tends to neglect the gender aspect that goes along with these topics. Society forgets about how masculinity affects women as well as how femininity reaffirms masculinity, how patriarchy has cages women, etc. Given the example for cheap labor being called instead as labor made cheap, is a great example of how society usually don't see pass the surface of situations and simply take things as it is without and inquiry for the deeper picture (i.e.: why women work in sweatshops, how has that come to be the case). 

Chapter 1 of Enloe's book focus on the theme of surprised feminism. And after reading this chapter in addition to all of our other reading I think back to the conversation we had in our earlier class about the connotation and denotation of the word "feminist." Besides the connotations we have heard from people, the media, etc about feminist, I do not think we have come to a one definition of what it means to be a feminist. From our readings we see that in fact their isn't one definition but that there are many forms or ranges of feminist. However, the common theme that I see among the authors who see themselves as a feminist is the elements Enloe expresses in her two chapters: curiosity and surprise/courage. All of our authors started off being curious of life, women studies, society as a whole, and etc. And from the curiosity and critical lens on the world they have been surprised by many things but were all able to develop in the way they wanted and how they wanted to impact the world or bring their perspective into conversations. At the end of the day, all these feminist not only have a greater awareness of our society, but most of them, see a better understanding of themselves and what role they have to bring about/ spark a new mindset or environment for all. Overall these two chapters were a great way to end our course and lead a window open for further exploration about women and gender studies.          

Caroline Potoclicchio's Main Post

In Enloe’s introduction, she introduces the book with the topic of curiosity. She talks about how it takes a lot of energy to be curious, which is a completely valid statement. She talks about many ideas that we are complacent with such as the adjective “natural.” She writes, “Generals being male, garment workers being female- it saves mental energy." She is saying that many people think this is natural. She then talks about tradition and how “Americans have always loved guns… Women have always seen other women as rivals.” She wants to present to her readers in this introduction that we can’t be satisfied with our natural tendency to assume such things. She talks about how she used to be complacent with the term “cheap labor” but then her curiosity, intellect, and fellow feminists lead her to realize that this term turned around has a whole lot more of a meaning: “Labor made cheap.” She also refers to the term patriarchy in her introduction. She writes that “patriarchy is the structural and ideological system that perpetuates the privileging of masculinity.” You can find these patriarchal values everywhere including hospitals, schools, militaries, banks, police departments, factories, legislatures corporations etc. these values downgrade the feminine. She states that it is not just the men who play into the patriarchy, but the women who accept it, and the jokes, gestures and rituals that go into it. She believes that patriarchy is just as abundant as nationalism, patriotism, and post war reconstruction. However with more feminists on the rise, patriarchal systems are less assured for success then ever. Enloe wants to spread the message to keep this progress coming.

 

In Enloe’s “The Surprised Feminist”, she talks about surprise. She didn’t want to claim any predictions among the progress of Feminist and gender issues going into the 21^st century because she knows that certain scenarios have invoked surprise in her. She states that surprise is “an undervalued feminist attribute.” Enloe talks about certain gendered situations that have surprised her over the years such as the NATO-ization of human rights, the rise of the Kosovo Liberation Army, the success of the Women’s National Basketball Association, the appearance of Russian women in brothels in Thailand and Israel, the Columbine High school massacre in Colorado etc. She talks about how in the classroom when a student asks her something that stirs up confusion, she is tempted to lead the discussion in a way that concurs her point, but instead she deals with her surprise in a way that facilitates class discussion between everyone as they explore new ideas. I think that this term of surprise has the synonym of openness, and I think both these terms connect back to curiosity in the introduction. My opinion is that a curious person likes to explore new ideas leading them to be open and prepared for surprise, because they are not the ignorant type to only go along with their own ideas and beliefs. I really enjoyed how Enloe didn't just talk about herself and her success in the introduction and first chapter, but rather put a spin on things and talked about the qualities it takes to be a good feminist, and how she will never be perfect.

A Vicious Cycle

I really like Cynthia Enloe's writing style. She did a good job of addressing her readers and mixing her own beliefs with more factual, professional writing. I was intrigued by her chapter "The Surprised Feminist" and found myself really enjoying her writing style as I read through the chapter. Like Enloe, I was surprised about the subjects she was addressing. However, the most surprising part of the chapter was the short excerpt about a fifteen year old girl, Rachel Wesseh, joining one of Liberia's insurgent armies after her mother was raped (on page 15). She is quoted saying, "'I was hurting so deeply. So I became a fighter. What was I doing with my life here, anyway?'". At first I found it honorable she joined the army because of what happened to her mother. But as I read on I became more worried about this girl's choice. Her reasoning was that she was enraged by her mothers rape, and didn't really have anything else happening in her life. Like many of the writers in Leading The Way, personal reasons drove Wesseh to become active in fighting for women's rights and what she believed in. However, joining the army ended up seeming like the wrong choice for her.

The blurb continued on to say that there were a lot of instances of rape in the army and that Wesseh even had a man "looking after her" that referred to himself as her "boyfriend". This immediately raised my eyebrows. If this man is trying to protect her why wouldn't he choose a nickname that represented a more protective relationship than "boyfriend" (such as father or brother) and did not have any sexual connection. Wesseh tried to create change, but I fear by joining the army she just created a larger opportunity for her to get raped, like her mother. More and more reports of sexual abuse by men are appearing in these forces. It is a vicious cycle. Wesseh's mother gets raped, so she joins the army to help fight back; but by doing so creates an opportunity for her to get raped, re-living the pain and emotional trauma her mother must have went through. I am saddened to think that this is occurring. The government needs to take a more influential role in preventing these rapes and also should encourage citizens to fight against them as well. There should be a safe haven for girls and women who have been sexually abused and a safer way to fight this reoccurring tragedy.

Leading Post: Greenstone, Attenello, Pruce

"Learning the Meaning of One" by Jessica Greenstone
An incident in Greenstone's childhood has lead her to dedicate her life to be a social justice educator and an activist. When Greenstone was in elementary school, she encountered a moment with her friends at lunch where her friend made a stereotypical comment about Jews people. As a Jew person herself, Greenstone was offend by both the comment and the reason her friend used to say the comment did not apply to her; this is what Greenstone learned to be called "re-fencing," making her an exception from the stereotype thus clearly creating a divide between "them" and "us." Looking back at the situation Greenstone acknowledge that she did not handle it correctly; instead of challenging and correcting the view her friend had, she made it worse by fighting fire with fire (replying with mean comments).

In addition to this event, the Jewish history (the Holocaust) led Greenstone to see education as a vital battleground to make sure history does not repeat itself. School is a place where students spend most of their time and a great place to promote good social justice principles and address various "isms." As I am taking an education course this semester, I am constantly reminded about the potential big role schools can have in fostering tolerance, acceptance, and respect for those who are different from what we are used to. However, we see a trend of how sex education, sexuality, and religion are pushed out of education because they are not socially accepted ideas or these topics infringes upon certain group of people's rights. Schools continue to breed and perpetuate intolerance and the same structural bias people have. As Greenstone points out that we all have biases "because we have been deeply affected on an unconscious level by societal messages and values" (80) she see education as a place where we can realize the the connection between our differences. 

Greenstone goes to further provide examples of sexist and gender stereotypes she have encountered in her life and job. With these examples it signifies the much need for society to be an active participants of changing the world and promoting a society conducive to all. To promote a greater understanding for difference so that we do not hold so much biases, stereotypes, and misconceptions about people because of their religion, race, gender, sexuality, age, etc.

"Navigating Identity Politics in Activism" by Allison Attenello
Dissatisfied with the lack of representation of women leaders in her course readings, Attenello went to discover these historical women with leadership position on her own with the help of a professor. Once she discovered these works of literature that demonstrated the power and abilities of women, she was proud to embraced her inner feminism. While Attenello understands that difference groups of people can be connected through similar experience, she is also aware of the role that race, socioeconomic status, social and cultural backgrounds are strongly influential in a person's choice of action and strongly correlated to power. Her fond interest and awareness of using these elements as the lens to see the relation between identity and power has resulted in a narrow perspective. While working as an vice president in an activist group for Mexicans tackling issues they sought to be most urgent, Unidad de New Brunswick, Attenello was confronted with how her racial, economic, social and cultural identities did not coincide with the faces of the group. She felt that because she was a white middle class highly educated women, her status did not fix well with the agenda of this group. After a while, with this reasoning alone with the reason that the agenda of the group was not what she intentionally wanted to focus on (violence against women), Attenello decided to resign from her position. From this experience, she discovered her that while although it is important to participate in organizations that does not represent your own community, at the same time being a part of such organization can also defeat the purpose of the agenda. Overall, Attenello sees her role in making social changes.

While I see Attenello's concern, I am not sure if I agree with her concern about being a part of a group that does not represent your community. I think if you are in it for a cause that your support than regardless of all the factors, Attenello is aware of, should not be factors that hinder her passion to help out just because she is different (racially, education wise, socially) from the group. I guess it should be more about the goals rather than the people of these goals.       

"Blurring the Lines that Divide" by Shira Pruce
Pruce discusses her realization of the power that leadership holds. Through her many experiences-- traveling, college, and activism--she also discovered the bias that she has; and through working with different people she has bias on (i.e. Palestinian women and the Christian women), Pruce learned how to control these bias and learn from it, which furthering adding to her personal development and guiding her to her passions.
           

Caroline Potoclicchio's Resonding Post

Greenstone’s “Learning the Meaning of One” really struck me because I am currently trying to major in psychology, and she touches upon a lot of psychological terms. Her experience as a little girl in middle school was a typical conversation that could occur on any day. One of her friends said, “All Jews are snippy and obnoxious.” Greenstone happened to be Jewish and she got upset and took her anger out on the girl instead of trying to influence a change in her beliefs. However, after studying the psychology of prejudice in college, she understands the difference of in-group and out-group. Being apart of an in group allows you to connect over some similar value or belief while considering all of the people in your group different from one and other. When an in group is looking among people of an out-group, that are not apart of their identity, they will associate those people as all being the same person, just as Greenstones friend did about Jewish people. It is also common within sororities and fraternities. The girls of their own sorority view each other as a diverse group of young ladies but when looking at another sorority that may be a rival they view them all the same, rich, bitches, weird etc. Greenstone goes on to talk about her experiences trying to prevent genocide, and her position at ADL in New Jersey (Anti Defamation League). 

In Attenello’s “Navigating Identity Politics in Activism, she talks about how New Brunswick New Jersey’s population is primarily made up of the Rutgers student population (40,000) and the Latino community of immigrants and illegal immigrants. After posing this fact, she goes into the rape cases that were occurring in New Brunswick. She found that the excerpts about the rape cases primarily focused on the Rutgers women’s students and initiatives were taken to prevent students from being raped, whereas little focus was applied to the Latino women. Lupe “spearheaded” a march for the Mexican community to protest the “marginalization of Latina rape victims.” She discussed how Mexican women are vulnerable when walking home late or early in the morning because they don’t have a safe alternative when it comes to travelling. I thought this point was very interesting and sad at the same time. It is upsetting to me that just because a Latina woman can’t afford to travel, and puts in the effort to walk to work every day, she has the most vulnerability to get raped. I think that in order to prevent rape that is high among certain cities, they should provide a hotline taxi service of volunteers who are willing to pick people up. 

Pruce’s article is actually very similar to Greenstone’s. She talks about her identity as a Jew and the responsibility she felt to prevent genocide, like Hitler’s Holocaust, from happening again. She wanted to “grow up and change the world.” I think that all three of these articles connect well with each other because they all provide insight on each woman’s identity and what they wanted to change among their community and the world. They were active people with goals in reach and they all were able to achieve them.  All three of them majored in women’s studies.

One Jewish Stereotype

While reading Jessica Greenstone's article titled "Learning the Meaning of One: Reflections on Social Justice Education" I found myself thinking about my own experiences with stereotypes about Jewish people. I was very interested to hear how she had become involved in social justice, however it was sad that negative stories lead her to where she is today. Her opening story about Lisa insulting Jewish people and stereotyping them reminded me of an incident in my own life.

The town I grew up in, Newton, is predominately a Jewish neighborhood. When I was younger I never really noticed this until highschool when one of my friends referred to my neighborhood as "jewton". I was immediately taken back by this. He used the term so causally like it was the real name of the town. Ever since that day I have noticed more and more people using the term as a joke, though I do not think it is funny.

Another incident Greenstone's article made me think of was during a friends birthday. A few girlfriends and I were all pitching in to buy our friend a present for her birthday. However, one of my friends Sarah only gave 10 dollars, where as everyone else gave 25. When I told my friend Alice that Sarah had not given as much as everyone else, she replied "well obviously she's a jew" in the most nonchalant way like it was the most obvious answer ever. I scolded Alice for saying this. Sarah was jewish, but that did not mean she didn't give enough money because she was jewish. Later I talked to Sarah about the birthday gift and asked why she had only given 10 dollars. She told me that it was because she had gotten into trouble with her parents and they wouldn't give her any money, and all she had was 10 dollars. Alice had been wrong. Sarah had given all the money she had, and was not under any circumstances being "cheap". I was ashamed of Alice, I felt like she had wronged her friend.

It is a common stereotype to call a Jewish person "cheap". I think that people are too casual about this stereotype. People seemed to be focused on scolding stereotypes against different races, where as religious stereotypes often are overpassed or deemed not as important. It is unfair to ignore the stereotypes Jewish people face. I know the next time I hear someone say "jewton" or refer to someone being cheap because they are Jewish, I am going to speak out against it. I think it is unfair and that in order to create change, people must start on a small scale by trying to change the way their friends or relatives think of Jewish people.

News Flash: Behind the Veil of France's New Law

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robyn-carolyn-price/banning-the-burqa-behind-_b_849937.html 

Religions, religious values and practices, and the roles religion have in society are fairly controversial topics of discussion. Often times, many people support their religious values and practices as the right way of life, therefore neglecting and opposing any other religion different from theirs as wrong. To bring this conversation closer to home, although the Untied States has a large population of Christians, since the late 19^th century there have been many laws passed that promote the idea of separation between church and state­–especially in public education. In a nation that is very religious, these laws were among the first to differ from public opinion. The separation between church and state has removed religion from conversations to protect Americans’ First Amendment right to the freedom of religion along with the establishment clause and free exercise clause. However, while the American government takes a neutral stance towards religion, recently, many European governments have not made a distinction of such separation between church and state. For example, the French government has recently passed a law that bans Muslim women from wearing burqas or niqabs in public spheres. Intertwining religion and politics can be a dangerous move and an infringement on many people’s religious freedom. In this case—under the name of national security—the French government’s new law of banning burqas and niqabs not only infringes upon Muslims’ religious freedom, but it also forces Muslim women to assimilate to French mainstream society’s behaviors and further perpetuates stereotypes, stigmas, and misconceptions about the Muslim culture. 

For many religions, there are traditions and practices that accompany ones participation in the religion: clothing is one form of these traditions and practices. For Islam, many Muslim women voluntarily choose to wear a burqa, a garment fully covering the body, or a niqab, a veil covering the face besides the eyes, to avoid exposure in public spheres. However, in the recent years, many European countries like Germany, Turkey, and Italy, have had a growing attempt to ban these attires. On April 11, 2011, French President Nicholas Sarkozy passed a law that made it illegal for women, manly Muslim women, in France to wear burqas or niqabs in public spheres. This new law made France the first country to ban the Islamic attires. On AOL News, writer Robyn Price reports in her article “Banning the Burqa: Behind the Veil of France’s New Law” on the controversies that have arose from this new legislation. Price provides basic information that has been covered in other major media outlets such as the two women who have been fined for violating the law. However, Price also criticizes the way the media has covered this event; she argues that the media coverage is not doing the event justice because it is leaving many questions unanswered.

The flawed justifications used to reason the passage of the law banning burqas and niqabs in public spaces, specifically targeting women only, clearly illustrate a breach in Muslim women’s religious rights. Government officials have cited the need for prohibiting Islamic attires for national security purposes. However, Price questions this statement, stating that there is no correlation between crimes and people wearing burqas, niqabs, or anything covering their face. The lack of statistics supporting that these attires interfere and threaten France’s safety makes this reason illegitimate therefore clearly infringing upon Muslim women’s religious freedom as well as their right to participate in their religion as they interpret it. President Sarkozy also argues that the Islamic attires “is a sign of enslavement and debasement” (Price 2). As I read the comments AOL users posted on Price’s article, many users support the ban of burqas and niqabs because they see these attires as a form of oppression that Islamic men forces upon Islamic women; wearing these attires symbolizes Muslim women’s inferiority. Price states, “For them, the new law might feel more like a form of enslavement rather than the burqa that reflects their religious and personal sensibilities” (2). While these critics might hold some truth, I agree with Price’s point that making a law prohibiting Muslim from wearing their religious attires is as equally as appalling as these views AOL users have. What these French male politicians think to be a form of liberating Muslim women, is in actuality, still a form of oppression because MEN are still trying to control what Muslim women can wear; being forced to wear a burqa or a niqab is as bad as being forced to not have the choice to wear one as enacting on their religious freedom. 

Beyond the fact that this new French law infringes on Muslim women’s religious freedom, it also forces them to assimilate to French mainstream sociality behaviors and values. Banning Muslim women’s right to wear burqas and niqabs in public suggest that this act and the people who perform it are not welcomed in France—even though Muslims make up 10% of the French population— because this practice is not aligned with France’s mainstream societal values. As Arwa Ibrahim expressed her concern that she can never fully be viewed as an American regardless of how many documents that prove her American-ness, this new law also labels some Muslim women in France as not being welcome. The neocolonial approach to the situation, the imposition of French behaviors and values (specifically in terms of dress), comes across as the French government is dictating what is superior and best for French society. These Muslim women are being singled out and this French law only suggests that they must assimilate to the “right” culture. To put this into better perspective, Price questions why we are not skeptical of western fashion “such as baseball caps, dark black sunglasses, and even designer scarves that cover their neck, mouth, and nose in the chillier months” (Price 2). As an ethnocentric society, people often overlook other people’s culture and only regard theirs as the norm; those people are not tolerant of differences and want to force everyone to adapt to their ways. Furthermore, this paternalism in France is not helping Muslim women at all, instead it is stripping Muslim woman of their autonomy. 

Lastly, this new law further exacerbates the stereotypes, stigmas, and misconceptions the media and society have already portrayed of Muslims and their culture. After the September 11^th Attacks, Muslims and those who look like Muslims faced difficulties in America as most people assumed that they were associated with or were terrorists. This stereotype and stigma was not only apparent in the United States but also in Europe, which is clearly visible in President Sarkozy’s reasoning for passing the new law banning burqas and niqabs in public. Using national security as a justification for the law further perpetuates the violent yet vulnerable image of Islamic people. According to Lila Abu-Lughod, she argues that we are putting to much emphasis on little things that do not address the greater issues women face. The Western focus on the veil and the obsession of needing to save Islamic women, neglects the greater context to why society is the way it is today, which the United States had part in. This law not only further portrays a negative image of Islamic culture and values, but it further glorifies the United States and Westernized nations as saviors when in actuality they are not.

In conclusion, the new French law banning burqas and niqabs in public undermines Islam’s legitimacy. It suggests that Islamic practices have no place in society, especially in a society that embodies westernized values. However, we should no longer be using the erroneous excuse of protecting the safety of the nation as a justification to suppress people of cultures that differ from western ideals. Therefore, instead of focusing on religious symbols like the veil, people should recognize the need for acceptance, tolerance, and respect for other culture and religious values. As Charlotte Bunch suggests the need to connect conversations about local and global laws, we must see the need to address this blatant attack on Muslim women and Islam. Although, this law seems to only affect Muslim women in France, we must learn to see that this is a women’s issue and a violation of their religious freedom as a human issue. Only when we do, so can we fully achieve equality for all without compromising any group’s cultural values.

News Flash- Transgender Inequality

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/transgender-yorkers-sue-birth-certificates-genital-surgery-requirement/story?id=13204628

A person is not always born into the "correct" body. Some people feel that they are men trapped in women’s' bodies and vice versa. People either undergo surgery for sex changes, or are classified as transgender. Transgender means that someone sees himself or she as the opposite sex and dresses and portrays herself as such even if they have opposite genitalia. Over the years people have become more accepting of transgender people and have learned to not be judgmental of these individuals’ beliefs. However, there is still discrimination against the transgender community even if it is not an outright attack.

ABC news reports about a man who was transgender and classifies himself as a woman. Paul Joseph Prinzivalli Jr, now a woman, has not undergone a sex change however, and still has male genitalia. Because of this reason, she cannot change her birth certificate to woman even though her social security and license classify her as a woman. The New York City Health Department says that she must have reassignment surgery on her genitals to be considered a woman in her birth certificate. The article quotes the chief of the New York City Health Department saying, "The health department must be satisfied that an applicant has completely and permanently transitioned to the acquired gender prior to the issuance of a new birth certificate." So, in order for a person like Prinzivalli to be considered a woman, something she already considers herself, she must have reassignment surgery.

Yet Prinzivalli not only has health conditions, which would make the surgery dangerous, but like many other transgender people she cannot afford to pay for the surgery. Tens of thousands of other transgender people, or as the article says “80 percent of women and 95 percent of men” cannot afford to get the surgery. Wealth is becoming a serious factor in establishing a transgender person’s sexuality. However, this factor of wealth is connected to the issue with identifications Prinzivalli faces.

New York is faced with a complex issue. Transgender people are denied some aspect of their identity because they lack complete identification that distinguishes them as only one sex; but at the same time should a person with male genitalia be considered a female?

The transgender community is faced with a dis-service and type of discrimination with this issue of identification. In Prinzivalli's case, not only is she not considered to be completely female, but she also is faced with difficulties of mis-matching identifications. Noah Lewis is quoted describing one issue, he says, "When transgender people are forced to present an ID that does not match, they are laughed at and turned away at the DMV or applying for a job". This problem with matching identifications also feeds the poverty that many transgender people find themselves in. Because many do not have matching identifications it is much harder for them to find work and they are “less employable”. The decision to have reassignment surgery is a lifetime commitment that needs serious contemplation and may not be the best choice for everyone. Changing one’s sex requires years of hormonal medicines and therapy to even be ready for the surgery; it is not an easy decision. By requiring surgery in order to change your birth certificate, the state is making more obstacles for transgender people, that eventually leads to unequal rights. Just because a person does not feel they truly are the sex they were born into, it does not mean they should not receive valid identification like the rest of society. Sam Berkely touches on this discrimination and inequality when he says, “To have a document that says I am female and I am not completely legitimized by the city where I pay taxes, doesn't make any sense. It sets me up to be a second class citizen and for discrimination." The state is basically placing transgender people in a lower class they cannot rise out of.

However, the state does face a difficult, complex issue when it comes to transgender identification. Everyone deserves equal rights and a fair chance at opportunities, so could mixing the sexes possibly be unfair? What if a college student has male genitalia but classifies himself as a woman; should he be allowed to play on a women’s sports team? If he is not on any hormonal medicine, wouldn’t that give him an unfair advantage over the other girls. However if this is the case, transgender people should not be prohibited from activities like sports because they are different from others. So what should people do about this?

I have not found an answer or possible solution to this problem. Society cannot change over night and I believe it will take serious innovative thinkers to fix this gender issue. I think that once people stop focusing so much on what is perceived to be a “normal” male or female, they will start to accept transgender people more. Everyone is different, sexual expression should not inhibit a person from leading the kind of life they want to. This article really opened my eyes up to transgender discrimination on a higher, federal level.

Responding Post: Safety, Saving, or Not

Although Ibrahim's essay "Living While Muslim" specifically targets Muslim American women, she touches upon topic that are relevant to many people whole struggles with identities, especailly those born in one country but raised and live in another. As an Chinese citizen living in America, I can empathize with Ibrahim's situation of always feeling like and outsider although we live in American and--to some extend--consider ourselves to be American; but no matter how long we lived in America, or what documents we have to prove our "American-ness," we usually are viewed as what our physical appearances show. After 9/11, Arabs, South-Asians, and Muslim Americans all were viewed as terrorists and face difficulty when traveling as they are commonly the ones needed to be searched--some see it as random selection while other view it as racial profiling. Under the name of protecting the safety of the nation, these "random" searches are justified and miss the main elements of the problem; like we have discussed in class about how supremacy crimes lack the conversations about the roles race, gender, and sexuality have in crimes committed by white heterosexual men, this discrimination against these groups of people in airports also disregard these factors. Therefore to what extend, does protecting the safety of the nation goes to far as to racial profiling and discriminating those whose does not fit into the the characteristics of being American? Ibrahim calls for this issues to be prevalent to not only Arabs, South-Asians, and Muslim Americans, but it also affects all travels and global citizens.                           

Abu-Lughod's "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others" and Bunch's article "Whose Security" both provide reasons to further support Ibrahim's argument that this issues is prevalent to all and they also give suggestions to what can be done to globally to remedy this problem. Both authors criticizes America's obsession of using the idea that we are saving Muslim women to justify our actions overseas. However, in actually this reason hides the real agenda behind America's intervention in the Middle East. By saying that America is saving Muslim women it suggest that these women need and want to be saved, it undermines the Muslim culture, and imposes American values as the right one. On another note, both authors provide solutions to correct such notion. While Abu-Lughod suggest that people should be more tolerant, acceptable, and more respectful of other cultures, Bunch suggest that local politics should also incorporate global politics to expand such equal protection under the law to all. I agree with both authors suggestions. I think if a super power nation like the United States takes the initiative to understand and recognize that women rights is also a human right and that we can no longer use the idea of cultural relativism to justify that these issues does not pertain to us, then we can progress a step forward to realizing how everyone in the world is connected and we cannot just fix one nation and leave another to perish in poverty, inequality, discrimination, poor education, hungry, etc. While these suggestion are great solution, it is a bit too idealistic to be achieve. In a world obsessed with power, wealth, and superiority, no nation will see the need to help out another. We live in a world that upholds the tragedy of the commons: the individual interests outweigh the common goods.                            

Response

My sister works in DC and is practically obsessed with foreign policy, so naturally I have gotten an earful at various dinners. At first I was bored by her constant discussion of the topic, but as I matured I became more attentive and listened more, even voicing my opinion sometimes. While I was reading Charlotte Bunch's article I was reminded of all these conversations and arguments my family would get into over the dinner table. However as I was thinking about these conversations I realized that we never talked about feminists impact on foreign policy. I was a bit ashamed when I came to this realization since I am a woman and feel that I should be aware of women's impact on governmental decisions and policies.

Reading through the article I found myself focusing on Muslim women's struggles. I cannot imagine living in a community where women were not given many of the rights that men took for granted. I kept thinking about our Colgate community and how if I were born a Muslim woman I would most likely not be taking this course right now. Though it was not the point of her article, Bunch's writing really made me think of all the luxuries and opportunities I have on a daily basis.

Caroline Potoclicchio's Main Post

“ A Peril in War Zones” was a very interesting article to read because it talked about the stigma that comes with war, and also how a lot of sexual assaults and rape cases miss the radar. The article focused on Captain Margaret White who was deployed to Iraq. She had begun a relationship during training with a warrant officer and had ended things when she got to Iraq. After trying to end things with him, He would leave notes at her door, force her to have sex, and asked her to marry him even though he was already married. She said she felt safer outside of the wire then she did in the shower. She also said she would stop drinking water before 7 so she wouldn’t have to go to the bathroom by herself late at night. The military and Pentagon has changed the way they handle sexual abuse. They define sexual harassment and abuse to broadly include actions such as stalking and groping. It is thought that the strains of combat, tension, close quarters in remote locations, and boredom can trigger conditions for abuse. Women fail to report abuse in fear that they will lose their positions in the military and be sent home. They also are afraid that their comrades will react hard harshly, towards them.

In the chapter “All men are in Militias, and All Women are Victims,” Enloe talks about a man named Borislav Herak who had been oppressed. He did not know much about the politics of his country, and cared more about flipping through pornographic magazines, but once war hit Sarajevo, his home place, he fled to the mountains and was taken in by a militia who was “pursuing ethnic Serbian territorial control. ”The rest of the chapter talks about why militias resort to raping and abusing women during their combat. An interview with Borislave Herak reveals why he committed 16 cases of sexual abuse towards women. He says that he was commanded to rape women, because it was supposed to allow them to gain morale and confidence on the battlefield. The control they had with the women was supposed to transfer to the battlefield. However, Borislav states that he felt somewhat guilty, and it didn’t help with his morale, it was when he ate and drank with the men that he felt most bonded with them.

In Chapter 8, “Spoils of War,” Enloe talks about how a 12- year old girl of Okinawa was raped by three U.S Marines. She talks about the widespread belief that soldiers have uncontrollable drives that they need to satisfy. U.S base commanders have worked with local and national officials to provide “safe and commercialized sex,” however there are arguments that come with this too, including the fact that many view prostitution and rape to be connected with each other. However, I do not know what side to take because part of me feels like these issues are not exactly the same. Prostitution is women who are trying to make money by having sex with men. Women are consenting to sex for money, which is a whole different level then rape. Rape is when women do not consent and are unwilling to have sex. However I am open to hearing other peoples ideas about this issue.

I think that all 3 articles had a significant impact on my awareness of women in war zones and the militia, and the themes of sexual abuse were all relevant within all 3 articles.

Resonding Post

Written  by Caroline Potoclicchio

After reading Steinem’s “Supremacy Crimes” and Chapter 5 in Enloe’s “The Curious Feminist Reader” I seemed a bit unsettled with the material. Steinem’s piece felt like it was a persuasion essay. Although I thought her argument that middle class white men are power hungry and are looking to seek power through crime, such as murder, I felt as if she didn’t provide enough evidence. I wish that she had found out more information concerning the kids who killed so many others at Columbine High School. Maybe she could have done research by talking to a school psychologist. She tries to provide another analysis of the argument by presenting the question what if it was women who were the power hungry seekers and killing off others? She continues asking questions and never really gives her point of view or offers an idea to support her argument. I understand how she is standing up for women in the sense that they are being raped and murdered by white middle class men, but I wish she had gone into more detail about how she feels the society would act if it was just the opposite, because I do not understand her article otherwise.

I felt kind of lost reading Enloe’s chapter 5, but I did get some of the main points out of it. She introduces the chapter by talking about being a teacher, and the issue of how to get students to talk in class.  This topic of being silenced leads into how women are silenced and the history behind it. Enloe talks about how women who worked in factories in the Asia-Pacific in the 90’s had to silence themselves from reporting any sexual harassment. They rather be considered “respectable” and deal with the harassment then tell anyone. Just from hearing others stories, I know that this still goes on today. Women in the United States still accept harassment, and brush it off.  Just from being apart of the Colgate community, I have talked to girls who don’t want to lose friends or power by reporting an unconsented sexual encounter. This type of sexual experience usually involves alcohol, where if they hadn’t been drinking, they would have been able to say no. In this generation, young women are pressured all over the country to seek popularity and maintain their respectable status, and to be a respectable women involves being silenced in such circumstances, especially if the people who are hurting you are supposed friends or acquaintances. I enjoyed Enloe’s chapter and thought it was more enriching than Steinem’s article.

Leading Post: Supremacy and Silence

Gloria Steinem's "Supremacy Crimes" argues the supremacy white, middle-class, heterosexual men have. As McIntosh has stated that white people have the privilege to not need to always defend or to prove their race, gender, sexuality, Steinem also agrees how these factors are not accounted for or talked about when thinking about crimes committed by white, middle-class, heterosexual men. These factors are often not put into discussion therefore contributing to the enforcement of "drug of superiority" that these men are constantly fed. Unlike these men with supremacy, people of color and women are always held accountable for their race, gender, or sexuality (as Douglas has also shined light about in her book). Steinem questions this dynamic by providing hypothetical situations where race, gender, and sexuality are attached to these supremacy crimes and rhetorically asking would that make a difference. She is obviously implying that it would make a difference. In these hypothetical situations, Steinem --I think-- wants to convey the message for people to recognize this supremacy that white, middle-class, heterosexual men have, and in doing so we can see how the "patriarchal code of honor and shame" generates our current hierarchy and what is deemed as acceptable gender/racial behaviors.

On a similar note, Enloe's chapter titled "Whom Do You Take Seriously," also discuss how the "drug of superiority" among men has stifle and silenced women, especially Asian-Pacific women. Enloe provides several examples of how women face abuse, violence, and sexual harassment but are unable to speak up about it. Through several rhetoric and ideologies, such as trivialization, respectability, Pacific Rim, and marriageability, women are sold the iamge that they are not allow to speak up and even if they do, no one will listen. The rational that women's experiencing abuse and violence are not political issues that needs to be publicly addressed cages women to silence. Additional the, the notion that speaking up will lead to "dishonoring of the nation" and will harm women in terms of not performing daughterly loyalty, discredit their marriageability, etc. further bird cages women to be docile, submissive, and must endure such inequalities. However Enloe suggest that women needs to consider a different approach that's "genuine, nonpatriarchal democratization" in order to redirect their movements for their voices to be taken more seriously in the public sphere.             

Power Hungry Men?

While reading Steinem's article "Supremacy Crimes" I was a bit shocked by the things I read. While I found that Steinem's article was extremely interesting and held some truth to it; I also thought that his writing was a bit aggressive and quick to jump to conclusions.

I thought the idea about men being pushed to commit crimes due to their addiction to power and superiority was truly interesting. It seems that men would go as far as murder to feel that power over another person, or in many cases, woman. It was disturbing and upsetting that men would go to such lengths, but it did seem likely that some men would commit these crimes due to power addiction.

What I did find a bit frustrating was that the article did not seem to include any other possibilities for the mens' dangerous, murderous actions. At the end of the article, there is no antithesis or suggestions of possible alternative reasons, but a strong declaration stating white men are driven by their thirst for power. Steinem writes, "that males are superior to females, that they must find a place in male hierarchy, and that the ability to dominate someone is so important that even a mere insult can justify lethal revenge". I am not trying to advocate for these murderers reasons for killing, but I do think that Steinem has an aggressive, accusing almost animalistic tone. I feel that no matter what racial group is in charge there will be violence against others. It is important to look at reasons for violence and try and stop the pattern, but I think that Steinem's tone is a bit too accusing and not as scholarly as I expected.

Responding Post

This week's readings the authors Brownmiller and Crenshaw through analyzing rape vitcims and women of color who have been abuse/rape both suggest that these issues should be taken into a greater content-- whether political or intersectionality--rather than on an individual level. They both see these issues to not only having to do with females but in a larger connection to social structures such masculinity, race/gender, and patriarchy. Brownmiller analyzed how the threat of rape has functioned to support/affirm males' masculinity and dominance by keeping women in fear. Crenshaw examined the   violence towards women of color in three categories: structural, political, and implication intersectionality; she also illustrated the interaction between race, gender, and socioeconomic class with violence against women of color (explaining the multiple burdens women of color have to uphold because of their race, gender, and class) . 

From this week's readings, I was especailly interested in Brownmiller's piece because it reminded me of a documentary I seen during my sophomore year in high school. I do not remember the name of the documentary but it was about several men who have been wrongly convicted for crimes that they did not do and how DNA testing has helped prove their innocence, although they have already severed many years in jail.

This clip above that was part of 60 minutes was one of the cases the documentary focus on. This segment of 60 minutes challenges the reliability of eyewitness evidence oppose to more tangible evidence. The story covers the journey of a black man who was falsely accused and convicted for allegedly raping a white women who identified him as her raper. Brownmiller acknowledge how the threat of rape and other ways have skewed the power towards men; however, it is interesting to see how in a rape case, the women can also have the power, especially since the a raped victim's words are more powerful than the guys sincere denial of the crime.

The two rationals that float around the air "women are trained to be rape victims...girls get raped. Not boys" and "women want to be raped" act together as a justification and normalizes why females get raped (more often then males). Society teaches the threat of rape and males (and some females) internalize the idea that the female is asking for it. The argument that the woman is asking for it blows my mind. What kind of society do we live in to think that there are people asking to be raped? If someone asks to be raped, then is it still called raped?

Caroline Potoclicchio's Post

Written by Caroline Potoclicchio

After attending a benefit for the Vera House in Syracuse, the theme of sexual violence against women has been prominent over the past couple weeks. During this benefit I learned about the white ribbon campaign, which is a campaign for not only women to be aware of sexual abuse, but also men to get other men thinking about how they can help decrease this abuse. The Vera House is a shelter for women who have been domestically and sexually abused. This house provides medication, therapy, food, and clothes for victims of sexual abuse.  One of the speakers commented saying "Men have the tools right in front of them to stop rape." Brownmiller touches upon this point in a different way saying that men have discovered that their "genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear". She also states that "a world without rapists would be a world in which women moved freely without fear of men." Another interesting point that she makes is that Little Red Riding Hood is "a parable of rape." According to Brownmiller, the wolves are the frightening men who are looking to prey on the women if they don't stay on path. "If you are lucky, a good, friendly male may be able to save you from a certain disaster." She also states that the once it has been established that all women want to be ravished, "it is bolstered by the claim that 'No woman can be raped against their will." Just from being a student at Colgate, I understand this point that she is making. There is a connotation that women may give men gestures but the truth is that men sometimes will read too much into polite or friendly gestures. There is also a claim that women can just say "No." However they can't say no if they are roofied or are unconscious from alcohol consumption. I think that the white ribbon campaign is completely accurate with trying to make men more aware about stopping sexual abuse. Women grow up knowing that this is a reoccuring pattern among their gender and now it is time for men to take a stand.

Caroline Potolicchio’s Main Post

Written By Caroline Potolicchio 

Mendez’s piece is about leadership and how you should always strive to meet a certain goal. Her grandmother raised her after her mom was murdered in a carjacking and her grandmother was truly a role model to her always helping others. When Mendez went to the states she found herself being a leader at the age of 12. She volunteered for the Spirit Immigrant Resource Center, and also found herself teaching English, being a translator, and an organizer.. She went out of her way to lead the way and show other immigrants that they could create a future for themselves. She also lobbied and helped raise awareness about the Development, Relief, and Education for Aliens Minor Act, and the American Dream Act. “Both of these pieces of federal legislation allow undocumented high school students the opportunity to obtain permanent residency, attend institutions of higher education at in-state tuition rates, and give them a path toward leadership.” After reading this piece, it is evident that Mendez had a everlasting impact on leadership with immigrants.

In Turner’s piece, she talks about growing up in Columbia Maryland, the only girl in a competitive athletic family. Before even reading the rest of the article, I was suddenly drawn by this quick fact about Courtney. First off, I am from the southeast, residing in Bethesda Maryland, with both of my parents, and 4 brothers, also being the only girl. She talks about how hard work and persistence are the keys to success, and without them you will fail. She states that for herself, failure is never an option. She gained an understanding of her identity as a black by learning from her past family members. I found it interesting that Turner talks about how she grew up “thinking male”. She refused to do household chores if her brothers didn’t have to do it. Growing up in an athletic family, and being an athlete myself, I know exactly where she is coming from. I grew up as a tom- boy with my four brothers, and always wanted to be equally treated with the rest of them. I found it very intriguing that her parents were not into her being a feminist when they are so keen on studying the black community and their oppression. 

            Kaminksy talks about how she pursued her path of nursing. She states how nursing is a traditionally been seen as women’s work. Her dad asked her why she would choose such a path  if she is an “intelligent young Generation Y woman with possibilities open to her. Her internship in South Africa really was influential in her choosing her career path in nursing.  She talks about the hospital setting and the gender differences. She says that the interaction between physicians and nurses has changed over the years, and she finds that most physicians are respectful of the nursing role. They see the nurse as “an essential final link in the chain of care for the patient and is usually treated as such.

            All 3 of these articles have women who talk about how their experiences and leaders present in their life have led them to the career paths they have chosen.

Nursing- Strictly Female?

In the articles in "Leading the Way", I found similarities between the different authors. Each author was influenced and inspired by either a family member or close friend, whose actions helped each author bring them to where they are today. Carol Mendez talks about her grandmother's struggles and how her determination inspired and encouraged her to become a social activist. All the authors also were driven by life experiences to pursue their line of work. Mendez discusses how after seeing the disparities in health benefits, she became interested in and wanted to help the unequal public health conditions. Turner discusses how her father and mothers life experiences and upbringing greatly shaped her interests and drove her to become active in the field of public health. Kaminsky also discusses how her college education and studies of history and women's studies gave her a unique perspective on nursing and helped further her interests in nursing. All of these articles are examples of strong women whose dedication, perseverance, and life's experiences have led them to where they are today.

However, what struck me the most was in Kaminsky's article. She discusses how nursing is becoming more and more popular, even with men. She also says how nursing is typically seen as a woman's occupation. This statement immediately reminded me of the movie "Meet the Parents". In this popular comedy, Ben Stiller plays a male nurse who is visiting his girlfriends parents and intends to ask for her hand in marriage. Robert Di Nero plays the girlfriends father as the typical over protective, masculine dad. In one scene, when Stiller's girlfriends family asks him what he does and he replies that he is a nurse, the entire family bursts into laughter. They all consider it to be a funny joke and then ask him what his "real" job is, too which Stiller embarrassingly admits he is in fact a nurse. Though this is a small part of the film, it focuses on societies mental image of who a nurse should be, a woman. It also shows how even though in the film Stiller is quite successful at being a nurse, it is still embarrassing for him to tell others. Later on in the film when he is talking to his girlfriends old boyfriend, who De Niro happens to be very fond of, Stiller says he is in "health care" instead of his exact profession- nursing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rTLZujmHXY Though this film is not based around male stereotypes and professions, the addition of Stiller's character being a male nurse states something about societies perspective of nurses. Stillers profession reaffirms his underdog character and also shows typical reactions to someone who may face this issue in their daily lives. I think it reflects poorly on our society that male nurses are not more accepted, and is an obvious example that sexism is still prevalent in modern day.

Caroline Potolicchio's Post

Written by Caroline Potolicchio

 

After reading Jia's post, and the reading's, a lot of new and existing information has opened my eyes. I liked the use of Jia's pictures that she posted because I never knew that race and gender were an issue when it came to abortion. I completely agree with Judith Arcana when she states that "Abortion is a Motherhood Issue."  Women should have the right to decide about an abortion because they have a right to their body, and it is not anyone else's responsibility. If someone else were to force a decision about women on whether or not they are allowed to or have to bear a child, then one can argue that women are being objectified because someone else is taking control of what their bodies are about to undergo. In conclusion I agree with Arcana's argument that women have the right to control their own bodies. 

My personal opinion about an abortion is that the woman can make an executive decision without consulting the father if they are not married.I come from a conservative family, which leads me to have two views on abortion. I think that the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case was very accurate when breaking up abortions into a trimester. The Supreme Court concluded that women have the right to abortion as long as prenatal life and the mother's health is under protection. However, I also think that once you have been bonded to a man in the form of marriage, and you have a child during marriage, the man has the right to have an input on whether or not to keep the baby because they are together as one and both had an impact on the creation of the baby. 

 

Overall I enjoyed the readings, especially Arcana's, but my view of abortion has not been altered in any way after reading them.

Leading Post: Abortion and Motherhood

In the piece "How It All Began: I Have Had an Abortion," the anonymous author describes the women's liberation movement in Europe (France and German) where women's called for the "decriminalization of abortion." Through 343 French women's decision to publicly announce in a newspaper that they have had an abortion, these courageous women's action, have inspired many other women in German and in North America to join the fight. Although this movement did encounter women who were afraid and did not think the movement will be beneficial, the ultimate goal hoped to achieve abortion right for all women and the through public awareness, it hoped to remove the taboo associated with abortion--hoping to make abortion more acceptable and less down down upon in society. The methods of sparking change: "...to break the law in their own country or travel aboard" (368).

Judith Arcana's "Abortion Is a Motherhood Issue" further support an pro-choice agenda. At first I was confused whether Arcana supported pro-life or pro-choice. However, after reading it another time, her vivid imagery of her body and her personal experiences further strengthen her argument--or her credibility. In the beginning, she use language that indicated the right to one', specifically a woman's, body. Sentences such as "Motherhood has left its mark on my cervix, just as it has on the rest of me" and the different stages of her cervix (youthful, cauliflower, etc.) implies the argument that most pro-choice supporters state: a woman should have control and the right to do what she wants with her body. Another argument, I found compelling is that when talking about abortion it should also be in conversation with motherhood issues (such as contraception, miscarriage, adoption, sterilization, and reproductive biotechnology); this argument further strengthen the pro-choice agenda. Through her experience of having children, an abortion, preforming abortion, and sterilization, Arcana develops her credibility that suggest that women should acknowledge, pride, and take responsibility of their choice (especially to abort) rather than to feel ashamed or guilty because the anti-abortion movement have created such atmosphere for those who abort.

On that note, as I read both of these articles, I thought about how abortion in a sense is privileged--abortion is racialized and classified.

This billboard appeared in Atlanta (2010)

This billboard appeared in New York City--SoHo (2011)

This billboard appeared in Chicago (2011)

These anti-abortion billboards all convey the message that abortion is most common among the African American community. The locations in which these billboards appeared also suggest that African American in urban cities are more inclined to having abortions. Even though if statistics does show that abortion is more common among urban cities African American, how effective are these anti-abortion billboards or are they simply racist? 

Thinking on an international level, I thought about how common abortion happens (reported and in secret) in developing countries like India and China. However, these abortions are more gendered based; selective abortion is extremely common in developing countries where baby boys are more valued that baby girls. From personal experience (being born as the third baby girl to my parents) I decided to do a research paper about this phenomenon when I was a senior in high school. The Chinese cultural values, economic needs, and the One-Child policy have greatly exacerbated selective abortion or to what is now known as gendercide. And the consequences of such practice is greatly skewing the ratio of boy to girls in China thus leading to marriage difficulties,  economic problems, and other issues. 

Read the article in The Economist to learn more about gendercide in China

Thinking both locally and internationally on the reasons why women have abortions, I am conflicted on to what extend should abortion be legal and as part of women's rights? Is there a greater problem that needs to be address in order to address the racalization and classification of abortion?  

As I was reading through Judith Arcana's article, I had mixed feelings. I found her writing a little difficult to follow and a bit choppy. She seemed to include personal experiences at random times during her article. As I was reading her article I found myself nodding along to some of her statements, and shaking my head at others. I did agree with her statement that abortion is a motherhood issue because I feel that people choose to have abortions because they know they cannot properly care for the baby and provide for it. Like Arcana says, "choosing to abort a child is a profoundly made life choice for that child", I think that making the decision of having an abortion is an extremely difficult and weighted choice because it calls into question the life of your baby, and your answer will determine the outcome. However, while I agreed with this statement, I found some of her other examples of "major life choices" to be a bit superficial compared to the choice of having an abortion. All of Arcana's examples, including things like boarding school, religion, and personal issues, were used as equivalent examples of having an abortion. Arcana writes, "choosing to abort a child is like choosing to send it to one school and not another, choosing whether or not to allow it to sleep in your bed". While I understand the point Arcana is making, that choosing to have an abortion greatly affects your baby, I found her other examples to be not as life changing or important as the choice of having an abortion or not. The life of your baby is called into question instead of the example of choosing between two schools, which will not have as much of a direct drastic affect on your baby's life.

Abortion is becoming more popular and more highly debated. Growing up in a liberal home, I have also been pro choice, however this does not mean I fail to see the argument of pro life. But I do believe that every woman should have the choice to decide whether or not they can care for a baby and if they are ready for it. I think it is more irresponsible to continue with a pregnancy while knowing that you cannot care for your baby, than it is to have an abortion. Choosing to have an abortion does not mean you never want to be a mother or have no connection to a fetus growing inside of you. To me, choosing to have an abortion is a difficult decision that should be based off of the mother and the baby and if the mother can adequately provide and love their newborn. The choice of abortion should not be decided off of political reasons, and will always be a scary decision any woman has to make.

News Flash: Motherhood—No Longer a Choice in South Dakota

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/us/23sdakota.html?_r=1&hp 

In the recent years there have been increasing trends of media propaganda that promotes pro-life rather than pro-choice in the controversial issue on abortion. MTV hit television show sequels such as 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom and movies like Juno, are leading examples where the media implicitly advocates for anti-abortion. Through the personal stories and struggles of various teenage mothers, society is sold the image that no matter what anyone’s situation is, it is never the right choice to abort a pregnancy; instead the moral and righteous thing to do is to carry the child to full term and to become a mother or in Juno’s case, turn to adoption options. With the media’s growing image of motherhood and anti-abortion messages, Congress is of no expectation as it also endorses legislations that promote pro-life. Just in this year, we have seen much legislation passed or that are on the table for passage on further restricting women’s abortion rights and making access to abortion harder and stricter. One prime example is the recent legislation passed in South Dakota, which requires women who are seeking an abortion a three-day waiting period and mandates them to go through consultation. This new South Dakota law not only subtly pushes an anti-abortion agenda, but it also interferes with women’s abortion rights and inclines them to accept traditional gender roles as mothers and caregivers. 

The controversy about to what extend should abortion be legal has been a long and on going debate in the United States. However, in 1973 the landmark decision in the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade has made abortion legal; the right to privacy under the 14^th Amendment has given women full autonomy over their pregnancy in the first trimester. Although the federal government has given women abortion rights since 1973, this decision has not stopped state government from implementing local laws that circumvent federal law and impede on women’s abortion rights. On March 22, 2011, New York Times journalist A. G. Sulzberger reports the news about the latest legislation South Dakota’s Governor Dennis Daugaard have signed. Unlike traditional federal requirements for abortions, this new law requires women in South Dakota who are seeking abortions a three-day — instead of one day — waiting period and consultation at a pregnancy help center, such as Alpha Center in Sioux Falls, had sweeping support in the state Legislature. Sulzberger’s article “Women Seeking Abortions in South Dakota to Get Anti-Abortion Advice,” criticizes the new law as a Republican mechanism that pushes for an anti-abortion agenda.

The rhetoric behind this legislation and the disconnect between the law and the actual execution of the law are extremely problematic. Indeed, this new legislation does subtly pushes for a pro-life mentality in South Dakota as the three-day window period allows for people in the pregnancy help center to sway women to reconsider their decision. Republicans and supporters for pro-life believe that this grace period of reevaluation will help women make the right choice that they will not regret and hopefully help reduce abortion rates. Also, the primary mission for mandating consultation is to “educate, counsel and otherwise assist women to help them maintain their relationship with their unborn children” (Sulzberger 2). This new requirement under the law wants to make sure that women are not being pressured to have an abortion. While on the surface level, this requirement seems innocuous and positive, however the rhetoric and the actual execution of the law does not match, instead the goal and the practice of the law are contradicting. Sulzberger mentions in the article how the clinic is extremely bias and already possesses a pro-life stance on abortion. As a result of these biases in addition to the non-medical professionals at the clinic providing advice, women receive distorted and manipulated information that will sway them to not have abortions. Ironically, while the new law was suppose to ensure that these women were not influence by any third party to have abortions, the clinic are coercing these women to not have abortions. As it clearly is depicted in the political cartoon above, this three-day wait period provides as a buffer to persuade women to carry their child to full term. 

Furthermore, not only is this new law pushing an anti-abortion agenda, but also the requirements are “unconstitutional obstacles for women seeking to have an abortion,” which thus hinders women’s abortion rights. Racial feminist Brownmiller and Beauvoir’s both state that women cannot achieve equality by working in the system, specially the legal system, because it is patriarchal and therefore does not have women’s right and best interests at heart. On that note, Browmiller and Beauvoir would agree that abortion legislation normally does not care about upholding and enhancing women’s abortion rights. Instead, government will want to impose legislations that represent their patriarchal view; in terms of abortion, the US would normally push laws that in sync with the Christian view that all fetuses have lives that cannot be taken away from their parents. Although throughout the years our government has changed a bit, but at the core of government is still the traditional patriarchal values it was founded upon. Therefore, our continual reliance on government to protect women’s abortion rights and rights in general will always be meet with opposition and we will always have laws such as South Dakota’s new law on abortion. While part of government wants to grant and protect women’s rights, the other part wants to implement laws that will circumvent the existing rights that women have and keep women inferior.     

Lastly, an implicit consequence — I believe — that comes from the South Dakota legislation is the increase inclination for women to accept their traditional gender role as mothers and caregivers. Not only does this legislation interfere with women’s autonomy over their pregnancy, but it also subtly stripes women of their choice to whether to become a mother or not. As we have been reading in class, how women are often in confliction between choosing a career or a family, this law further perpetuates and narrows that choice. Like Eang and Pinand’s mothers who had jobs and obligated to worked the second unpaid shift — household responsibilities — the new South Dakota law further suggests that women are suppose to be mothers and the primary caregivers. Society is still trying to birdcage women into traditional gender roles. As Marilyn Frye gives the analogy that chivalry, such as when men hold the doors for women, act as a form of women’s oppression, the South Dakota law is also a form of women’s oppression. Like the example Frye gives, the new abortion law suggest that women are incapable of making decisions that regard their bodies. Therefore a law that on the surface seems like it is doing women a favor, in actuality the law only strengthens the wires on the birdcage and traps and bonds women to traditional gender roles.

The increasing support and propaganda in the media on anti-abortion sells society the message that under no circumstance should women have abortions. As a patriarchal society, our politics closely embody this message the media is conveying as we see more and more legislations pushing for pro-life agendas. The continual acceptance of these abortion restrictions and requirements that make access to abortion harder will not ensure women’s equality. If we continue to fight within the legal system, little to no change will be brought about; instead our patriarchal government will continue to subtly take women’s rights away. We must work outside the legal system to ensure that the extend to which abortion should be legal becomes illegal. We must refuse to accept that our primarily roles in society are as mothers, housewives, and caregivers. We must act to achieve our equality.   

News Flash: A Dangerous Catch 22

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us/09assault.html?_r=1

There are many horror stories about sexual abuse, especially when it comes to child sexual abuse. However, very few of these stories hold the victim partially responsible for the horrific act, until now. The New York Times article (link above) about the gang rape in Cleveland, Texas, not only lacks focus on the victim, but also partially blames her for getting raped. It is an example of how sexism is still rampant in our society, even occurring against girls as old as 11.

In Cleveland a young 11 year old was reportedly gang raped by at least 18 men ranging from the ages of middle schoolers to 27 year olds. It was reported that the girl was raped after she accepted a ride from a 19 year old boy, who took her to a house. She was ordered to undress and threatened with physical abuse if she did not comply. She was raped in that house until a relative came home; when the men jumped out the back window, then took her to an abandoned trailer, where videos and pictures were taken of her being sexually assaulted. The videos were made “viral” and many saw them, leading to the mens’ arrest. Her school found out about this through a student telling the teacher of the video he had seen. Once her school found out they questioned the victim, only to find out she had in fact been raped, and turned the case over to the police. So far up to 18 men have been arrested for raping this young girl.

Now this is story is disturbing with just the facts alone. However, with the addition to the New York Times article describing the incident, the story becomes all the more enraging and awful. The article went so far as to suggest that this 11 year old girl “was asking for it” because of the way she dressed and looked. Residents say “she looked older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20’s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground”, implying that she acted older than her age too. Others placed blame on her mother for not taking better care of her daughter. Some were quoted saying, “‘Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?’”. Instead of showing a main concern for the victim, the article focuses on the men who committed the crime. The article clearly lacks emphasis on the girl. The entire article seems to be focused on how the men were driven to commit such a crime. And even includes comments from residents saying, “These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives” as if the men were the ones who went through tramatic sexual abuse. At the end, the article does not even say anything about the girl’s health, just that she has transferred to another district. What astonished me even further was that the article also went into full detail of the trailer’s contents and interior decorating. Why does the interior of the trailer deserve a full paragraph and the victim doesn’t?

This article outraged me. To think that an 11 year old girl was brutally raped by more than 18 men, and then partially blamed because of the way she dressed shows how twisted our society is becoming. No matter how scandalously dressed this young girl was, her clothing does not represent the desire to be sexually assaulted. Thousands of girls are dressing more and more provocatively each day, but do not desire to be sexually assaulted. Even girls as young as one or two are competing in beauty pageants and are wearing mass amounts of makeup. There are even television shows following these pageants, an example of which is “Toddlers and Tiaras” aired on TLC. These toddlers are dolled up to the point of looking like life-size dolls and are paraded around in front of hundreds in bikinis, fluffy dresses and other costumes. Yet, there are no accusations of these toddlers dressing to provocatively or seemingly “asking for it”. And these “toddlers in tiaras” are definitely dressing older than they are. For example this photo of a young girl looks like she is under 6 years old, but is wearing more makeup and hairspray than any 20 year old I have ever seen.

(http://ameliaalisoun.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/pre-teen-beauty-pageant.jpg) If she got raped would they blame her appearance too? Would this 5 or 6 year old be “asking for it”?

It is a slap in the face and lack of respect to sexual abuse victims all over the world. To think that someone who is a victim of a rape could be accused for “asking for it”. In another report, the victim’s mother is quoted defending her daughter. She states, “These guys knew she was in middle school…You could tell whenever you talked to her. She still loves stuffed teddy bears” (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/03/08/2011-03-08_police_arrest_16_in_gang_rape_of_11yearold_girl_in_cleveland_texas.html#ixzz1G8FJfEfb). No matter how the girl dressed, unless she physically provoked and pursued these men, I find it incredibly hard to believe that her rape was partially her fault.

This New York Times article shows how sexism still occurs in modern society. Not only is a man writing this article, he focuses the entire article on the men involved in the story. Once again, the male’s perspective and actions are more important than the woman’s, or in this case, the victim’s. It scares me to think that sexism is still so prevalent in society that it would appear in reports about an 11 year old rape victim. What will this mean for our society and for future rape victims? If this young girl, who could have possibly been dressed more maturely and provocatively than other 11 year olds, was being accused of provoking her rape; what would a club going 21 year old rape victim be accused of. Begging for it? Yes women do have to be aware and careful of what they wear and how they portray themselves, but how a woman is dressed is no excuse to rape her. This article shows how even today women’s fashion and dress can be twisted and pinned against them by men, when at the same time, society and media are pushing women to dress “sexier” and exploit their feminine side- a dangerous catch 22.