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.

Responding Post

One out of four children live in poverty. How can America, land of endless opportunities, be a place with such statistics? Easy, America has many ideologies that are used to rationalized any situation. In the case of Gwendolyn Mink's article on welfare, she mentions the stereotypes society hold about poor women on welfare. There are two overarching types of people that comes to mind when people think welfare: 1) the single mother (usually a women of color with numerous children) and 2) the poor rural white women (the "hillbilly" image). Society's negative depiction of women on welfare as "reckless breeders who bear children to avoid work" is reinforced by the notion of the American Dream and meritocracy. In our nation, anyone can success if he/she work hard and have a positive mindset--the idea of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." These ideologies in addition to society's non-fondness of poor people have allowed society to justify why welfare isn't or shouldn't be provided. However, Mink's totally disagrees and believes that welfare is a fundamental right. Society has often ignored those that really need help and often times policies don't have the best interest of the ones suffering at heart (such as the Personal Responsibility Act).

As I read this article, I couldn't help but to think of the different views we have of American women and women in other countries, in relation to giving money. In America, we don't want to provide single mothers with welfare because women on welfare are seen as lazy and a burden to society and because of their laziness, they deserve to be in poor. On the other hand, in developing countries, if we were to give money we would give it to the woman rather the men. This is because, we believe that the woman would use the money more wisely (to feed the children, ect) whereas the man would probably waste it (to gambling, drinking, etc.). For example, I learned in my environmental studies class that microeconomics programs were starting up in developing countries and these programs give money to women to start business. I am struck by this contradiction. Women, whether in developed or developing countries, are all mother with their children's best interest at heart, so why is it that our society don't trust and want to give money to American women?

Like everyone else who was touched by Rosanna Eang's essay, I was too. However, I was probably touched in a different degree--I related to Eang's story because her story is common among immigrants who come to American. I also grew up in a similar situation. I had parents who worked their butts off so they could provide my sisters and I a better living standard, a better life, and a better future than theirs. My parents' lack of education, lack of ability to understand English (read, write, speak), and their long working hours, left my sisters and I to take care ourselves. My oldest sister probably bore the burden the most. I guess like Eang, growing up in these situations is what pushed and motivated my sisters and I to thrive. Yes, reading Eang's essay is powerful and inspiring, but we must think about all the other people who are also living her story. And to think about, how can we live in a country that allows for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. We kinds of stories are we telling ourselves to rationalized our actions?     

Caroline Potoclicchio's Resonding Post

 **Written by Caroline Potoclicchio**

I was also struck by Eang’s “Leading by Example”. This piece shows that you don’t need a man around in order to survive. Rosanna’s mother had to take care of her children while her husband went into hiding. She would hide in the mountainsides with her children and would use a machete to hunt for food to keep them alive. After many years in middle and lower school learning about hunters and gatherers, I know that hunting is usually considered a masculine job that the men would do, while the women would stay home to cook and sew.

Although we have learned that housework is a stereotypical feminine job, and how sometimes it is somewhat degrading, I feel as if Rosanna’s mother is some kind of super woman because in a way she has carried the family on her shoulder’s in all aspects. The fact that she does cooking and cleaning for seventeen people is pretty incredible.

Rosanna’s experience with the Cambodian man is pretty eye opening. She states that she is pretty ashamed that she allowed herself to touch his private parts, but why should she feel ashamed if she is only 3 or 4 years old? I also have respect for Rosanna because she is also a strong woman. She never had the time to be a little kid. Her eyes were opened to reality when she was 3 years old, and she was only 4 years old when she began working full time manual labor. Rosanna really did follow in the footsteps of her mother but in a different way. She grew up in some of the poorest cities, graduated from high school, and went on to college. She graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in public health. She really paved the way for future generations in her family, but if it wasn’t for her mom’s determination to keep the family together and alive, then she may have not had the passion to do so.

Rosanna's Story

Rosanna Eang's story "Leading by Example" impressed and awed me. I found her story both well written and fascinating. Her family had been through so much, yet they never stopped working and living. I was especially astonished when Rosanna described where her aunt lived when she used to play there as a four year old. Rosanna described drug dealers, hookers, homeless people, and junkies all living in the same building and was exposed to these harsh realities at a very young age. At first I was shocked that her mother would let her into a place like that, but then I realized if they cannot afford to live anywhere else, what was her mother supposed to do?

Rosanna's mother is a truly inspirational force. The amount she worked and sacrificed for her family was breathtaking. Working up to 3 jobs and going to school, while still taking care of her family seems impossible, yet Rosanna's mother did this. To me, she displayed a true force of feminine power and determination that would stop at nothing. It was very interesting however to hear that even though Rosanna's mother was an advocate for proactive, independent women; she still believed in traditions like arranged marriage. I am curious to know what the class or other women would define Rosanna's mothers feminism as. She has a incredibly modern side that contradicts her cultural side, which almost at times seems to contradict her feminism.

Lastly, I found myself feeling very bad for Rosanna because of the amount she had to work as a child. I could almost imagine her standing next to her mother in the factory line barely even reaching the conveyor belt as it went by. I felt bad for Rosanna because I felt like her childhood had been wiped away due to poverty and work. She had to face many obstacles as a child, ruining her naivete. However, because of Rosanna's hardships, one can see how Rosanna rose above the suffering and grew stronger because of it. I admire Rosanna and her perseverance.

Responding Post: Most Valuable Work Goes Unrecognized

Our country prides on its progressiveness, yet again America is far behind many European countries that have better educational systems, health care programs, and greater support systems for predominately female occupations. Reading Ann Critenden, Megan Pinand, Pat Mainardi, and Barbara Enhrenreich's articles, we confront the ideas that we have heard over and over again. While Ehrenreich's article "Maid to Order" express society's under recognition of household duties, like cooking and cleaning (also including motherhood), Critenden, Pinand, and Mainardi all provide reasons why domestic duties holds little value in our society. Even though domestic duties is one of the most vital societal functions, society--both men and women--have deemed it invaluable. Mainardi's "The Politics of Housework" illustrates all the reasons/excuses men have used to justify household chores as strictly a woman's obligation and responsibility--in this sense household duties is bunked down a level of importance and prestige. Critenden and Pinand both state the disadvantages women receive when becoming a mother; the continuous struggle between family and career provides little to no incentive for women to value motherhood or household chores, well at least not in a capitalistic society that thrives through competition. America, our society, have yet to give women and men any incentive or reason to value domestic work.   

The idea that because of the feminist movement women's equality have been achieved and society can move on now is a phrase we hear very often, but we know that this statement is not to the slightest degree true. While the women's movement run on the platform of equality for all women, it has come to my notice that some women do not benefit from the women's movement and are unfortunately left out of this liberation of women. Throughout our readings we have seen how black women, poor women, and lesbian/bisexual women's rights were ignored, and now from this week's readings, we see how mothers and household workers are left out from benefiting--yet again some women are left behind. The opening scenario of Ehrenreich's article depict the household women are on her knees cleaning the floor. Such image, to me, represent the relationship and hierarchy within a the job world--usually men are in the highly respected jobs and women are baring the unwanted, less paid, and less respected jobs. What is extremely interesting about this article is how the household duties have been continuously debunked in its value as it goes through three stages: gender, class, race. First, women are the ones responsible for household duties. Then, the upper and middle class women are sparred from doing these chores as maid services, cleaners, and etc arise. Lastly, women of color then ends up barring the burnt of the stick, as they pick up the work upper and middle white class women does not want to do. How can the women's movement continue to leave different subgroups of women out from benefiting? Easy, its called agenda and privileged.  

To talk further about the notion of privilege in relation to jobs, I want to mention some of the jobs society don't values as much. We already know the mother and household jobs, but what about janitors, people who prepare our foods (especially fast food restaurants), waiter/waitress, general workers in college facilities, etc. To bring this point closer to home, lets think about the relationship Colgate students have with the workers (such as people who work at our dinning halls, dormitory custodians, gym equipment mentor etc.) While there are indeed people who have a respect Colgate workers, I bet we can all think of people who don't. These are the people who have the mentality that they can justify their actions because "that's the _____ (worker's job) and that's what he/she is suppose to do." It is privilege to hold oneself higher than another person. It is also privilege to judge which jobs are worth values and which jobs are not. Likewise, the motherhood image and household chores are also functioned under privilege for those who place the values onto these unrecognized jobs and society's privileged to justify who does these jobs.        

Main Post 3/28

In Crittenden's "The Mommy Tax", they talk about the underlying issue of being a mother and the income that you receive. In the beginning of the article, it talks about a ceremony celebrating the equality of men and women in the workplace because women's income had reached 98 cents to a man's dollar. However, this difference only included women from the ages of 27-33 who were childless. After pointing this out, Crittenden then goes on to explain her own experience of having to stop writing for the New York Times in order to carry out her duties as a mother. Her annual income went from 50,000 to 15,000, forcing her to lose between 600,000 and 700,000 dollars no including the loss of her pension. She also talked about how the French have the lowest mommy tax, and how the Bible even makes a reference to women being inferior to men when God instructs Moses to tell the Israelities that women, for purpose of tithing, are worth 30 shekels, while men are worth fifty.

After reading Ehrenreich's "Maid to Order" It was striking to find how household work in the fifties compares to household work now. Household work in the fifties was acceptable and was the equivalent or equalizer of the male work place. All women were workers with the rare exception of wealthy women who hired other women to do their work. However, now there is the connotation that house maids are associated with lower levels of education and a degrading connotation now that more people have more prestigious jobs in offices.

In "Stories from the Sidelines", Pinand talks about the balance between work and family. After taking a women's studies course in college, she applies to the Women's Leadership Scholars Program and was accepted. She observed two of her bosses and got different opinions and views on how to balance family and work. She referred to her 2nd boss as a "super mom" because she was passionate about both her work and family and was in tune with both worlds. She concludes that its not just up to the individual person and the context of their lives on whether or not they can balance both worlds, but rather it revolves around "workplace policies, federal policies, family structure, stereotypes about gender roles, and the attitudes of coworkers and management".

In Mainardi's "The Politics of Housework", he translates different scenarios as excuses of why men wouldn't want to do housework. The translation that stood out to me the most and that I can relate to the most is the one where the translation talks about how men are not good at washing dishes or cooking or laundry and they are better at the carpentry jobs. I find that whenever my Mom asks for my Dad to keep the house clean while she is away, he isn't really sure how she does the laundry day in and day out, and he likes to yard work chores rather then laundry or cleaning. However, I do have to give him credit that he is always the one who does the dishes! I thought that this reading was interesting because there was a contrast of what I could picture as reality, but another side where I could never imagine a man saying this to his wife. I think that all 4 of these articles touched upon the workplace for women and this article added a twist on it since it was written by a man.

Love It or Hate It

The article that I found the most interesting and eye opening was Barbara Ehrenreich's article "Maid to Order". I found her reflections on maids and the outlook on housework extremely fascinating. Ehrenreich's discussion of the two varying views women had of housework made the biggest impact on me.

Ehrenreich writes how others believed that housework was supposed to be the "great equalizer of women", and how it was a "economically productive and significant workplace, an extension of the actual factory, since housework served to 'reproduce the labor power' of others, particularly men". This notion that housework was a beneficial, equalizing "job" was based out of the notion that women were leveling themselves with the men. It also reminded me of the typical 50's housewife image. The women who dresses up in high heels and pretty dresses to do housework and loves every minute of it. This

image could not explain it better.

Women were constantly portrayed as loving housework. Women took pride in keeping a clean home and caring for their husbands.

This happy 50's housewife contrasts with the opposite view on housework. Ehrenreich discussed a more "feminist" approach to housework and the affects it had for women's power. Instead of housework loving women, Ehrenreich reports on other women's views of housework some that included- "housework defined a relationship between human beings" and the theory that if it is constantly a woman cleaning up after a man "you have a formula for reproducing male domination from one generation to the next. Hence the feminist perception of housework as one more way by which men exploit women". Or a more crude image depicting the same view-

It seemed that the feminists directly contradicted the previous "housework loving" women. What interested me about this difference of opinions was that it had changed over time and so I became interested in what the society I lived in thought about housework. I grew up with my mother staying at home to raise me and my sisters while my dad worked during the day. However, once I got older and my mother started participating in more charity work, she hired someone to help out cleaning around the house. I never thought that a "maid's" work was less sophisticated or demeaning than for example my mom's job helping out at a school. But sadly, I did feel that maybe she had become a maid because she wasn't offered a better education or because of the language barrier she couldn't find a higher paying job. As embarrassed as I am to say that, I think that it tells a lot about our society today. Instead of looking at housework as a wonderful exciting thing, or a way for men to "exploit" women; I think that because there are so many women working in high ranking jobs, and many famous women with successful careers, it gives off the image that women can succeed just as far as men. So over time I gradually developed the idea that any woman could be just as successful as a man. Because I developed this idea, I think I was more inclined to believe that it wasn't that maids could not reach the higher paying careers, but instead that they were not given equal opportunity to.

Overall, Ehrenreich's article made me notice what my own society thought about housework and the affect it has on me and my own view of housework.