Surprise and Patriarchy

The latest readings from The Curious Feminist took a very interesting stance on surprise.  Enloe characterizes surprise as an undervalued feminist attribute, suggesting that many feminists would be better off if they were able to accept more surprise in their lifestyle.  Rather than accepting that something that surprises you in an attempt to hold onto your “bedrock of status” and “hard-earned credibility,” Enloe suggests that we should step back and be surprised because there is a certain amount of benefit to accepting surprise (Enloe, p. 13).  Going along with the theme from her introduction, the idea of stepping back and asking yourself why something surprised you can be crucial to reforming your argument.  Rather than trying to fit the new knowledge into the evidence or argument that you already had formulated, thinking about how the new knowledge can shift or alter what you previously thought can do a lot more good and cause a lot of growth, learning, and change.

Much of Enloe’s commentary on patriarchies mirrored what Johnson had to say in the article we read earlier this semester.  The focus on patriarchy existing all around us, regardless of voluntary acknowledgement, stands out the most to me, especially since it’s something I’d never really focused on prior to this class.  As the class winds down, I think what we’ve learned about patriarchies will be the one thing that I will remember the most, especially when trying to be curious about events around me like Enloe suggests.  Both of my newsflashes have had elements of patriarchy incorporated into the explanations of the issue, which has really shown me how much of an influence it has everywhere.  As I’ve noted in my newsflashes, spreading awareness about the fact that our society is a patriarchy will make a big difference, as more people learn to see its influences.

Feminism

The readings for today had me start thinking about what feminism is like today. I thought of a campaign that I heard about a few years back that tried to put a face to feminism. Well, in some ways it tried to take back the image of feminism. This YouTube video is a part of the larger feminism campaign that exists to try to change the image of feminism from the hairy, angry, man-hating, white woman. Feminists do not have to be women, although they frequently are.  

            When I first came to Colgate, I had two friends who lived together. One identified herself as a feminist and the other as an anti-feminist. I had not heard of anyone calling themselves an anti-feminist before, let alone a woman. I still find it a little weird. I have not asked recently, but I am pretty sure this friend still considers herself an anti-feminist. I would say that this is still pretty rare, but what isn’t rare is the hesitation to identify with feminism. Many people do not know some of the core aspects of feminism and just associate it with negative stereotype. I think about how the women’s movement has become the butt of jokes. I will admit that I have fallen into this. However, I think that things are slowly changing. I have faith that more women (and men) will look at the disparities between men and women and will want to stand up for equality. I could be wrong, but I think the recent laws passed and the way that the media and politicians are discussing women will be a catalyst to increasing participation. 

News Flash: Barriers to Female Advancement

While many like to claim that the days of sexism in the workplace are over and that men and women have equal opportunities when it comes to employment and compensation, the fact remains that there are still many barriers preventing women from rising through the ranks at the same pace as most men.  Recently, Vikram Malhotra, the chairman of the Americas at McKinsey & Co., spoke at the Women in the Economy conference, revealing the results of a new study that his company did to discover what the largest barriers are for women seeking promotions in today’s workforce.  While not entirely surprising, the combination of the results paints a picture of a particularly tough environment for many women when it comes to advancement.  Years after the end of the stereotypical feminist movement, structural barriers and traditional assumptions regarding women’s roles in the workplace are still preventing women from advancing at the same rate as their male peers.

In summarizing the report on “Unlocking the Full Potential of Women in the US Economy,” Malhotra listed four main reasons that the vast majority of the qualified women in the workforce are not reaching senior positions in the corporate world [6].  First, he points to structural obstacles, such as a lack of access to informal networks to make important connections outside the office and limited options for female role models to look up to and follow.  Secondly, the study found women are concerned with lifestyle issues connected with work, such as the need to go on long business trips or work hours that are potentially damaging to life in the home and spending time with their families.  Thirdly, there are many embedded institutional mindsets that are potentially damaging to many women’s careers.  For example, men are often “promoted on potential,” while women tend to be “evaluated for promotions primarily on performance,” a crucial difference that can make a large difference in the number of women that advance relative to men.  Finally, the study suggests that women’s own mindsets play a significant role and that women’s “desire to move to the next level dissipates faster than men’s desire.”  If women are promoted at the rate they should be, then this may not be as large of a difference-maker, but since it has already been established that women advance more slowly in corporate settings on average, its effect is even more important [6] [1].

The report also has some interesting statistics about women’s impact on the US economy and practices for the future.  McKinsey found that women went from “holding 37% of all jobs to nearly 48%” between 1970 and 2009, which is an increase of almost 38 million women [1].  Without them in the workforce, the economy would be roughly 25% smaller, a very significant level [1].  As the country does its best to continue expanding our economy and moving out of the latest recession, the impact of women in the workforce becomes increasingly important.  Such large effects from women cannot be ignored.  However, the number of women in the workforce is still lower than it should be, especially at higher levels of responsibility within the corporate world.

Over the years, different companies and groups have tried many different approaches to help fix the gender inequality within the workplace.  While not popular across the board, one suggestion that has received a lot of attention recently is the implementation of female quotas at higher levels of management, and particularly on corporate boards.  Viviane Reding, the Justice Commissioner of the European Union has come out and adamantly supports the addition of such quotas across the EU [3].  While not in a position to mandate the quotas throughout the EU, Reding last year asked for companies to voluntarily support her quotas.  The recommended levels that she suggests are for members on European corporate boards to be 30% female by 2015, and 40% by 2020 [3].  The United States has fallen behind several countries in Europe on the topic of mandating female members on corporate boards or in management positions, but other countries have had more success.  For example, Norway mandated that boards must have 40% female directors in 2006, and the program has met with success.  Polls even suggest that “the Norwegian public has accepted the need for quotas,” which points to the possibility that similar quotas could work well in other countries, too [3].  However, most are still against the idea of quotas since it can be interpreted as promoting women to management positions simply because they are women, rather then them earning the position themselves.  Most would prefer for women to have a role in management positions and on corporate boards, without the mandatory quotas, yet the numbers suggest that these ideals will not happen for a long time without the implementation of quotas.  Statistics suggest that growth is much slower than anticipated, with only a 1.5% increase in women holding leadership positions at Fortune 500 companies since 2006 [3].  Without the addition of quotas, it seems as though it will be many years before women are anywhere near the 40% membership level in leadership positions and on corporate boards.

As noted by McKinsey, general mindsets concerning women are the root of many of these issues.  Perhaps the most permeating of these preconceptions about women is the idea that women are not fit to work the hours men do, either because they have other priorities or even that their hormones and personal issues will be in the way.

In The Mommy Tax, Crittenden looks to see what the potential losses are for a woman who is in the workforce and chooses to leave to spend more time raising a family and having a child.  Looking at her own personal experience as a writer for the New York Times, Crittenden estimates that in salary alone, she lost between $600,000 and $700,000 [2].  If she were to count stock options, bonuses, or other income, it is very likely that she lost over a million dollars, which represents an enormous loss.  For many women, this is a necessary and worthwhile loss in order to spend time with their families, but some women would rather have the option to leave the workforce temporarily to have a child and return soon after.  In many cases, however, this becomes an impossible task since many jobs will not rehire a woman who has been gone, even if it’s a relatively short time.  The company’s reasons vary greatly, from something as simple as having found a replacement to the fact that she likely will have placed her family higher in her priorities, leaving less time to devote to work, especially if she has a need to work overtime.  Regardless of the reason, it places women in a deep hole that is extremely difficult to overcome.  Some women choose to work in part time jobs after having children, recognizing the fact that they have less time to devote to their jobs.  However, this contributes to the wage differences between men and women, and can still be attributed to the fact that women are penalized for having children in the workplace [2].  Moving forwards, our country needs to come up with ways to help combat this structural issue in our corporate system.

In Hormonal Hurricanes, Fausto-Sterling focuses on the male preconception that women are not able to do the same work as their male counterparts due to their hormones.  Although many of these stereotypes have been broken, there are certainly remnants within our society.  For example, scientists used to believe that menstruation “rendered women ‘more or less sick and unfit for hard work’” [4].  Today, I’d like to think that most people recognize that such a statement is blatantly false, yet the snide jokes still exist whenever men are trying to explain a woman’s behavior, attributing it to menstruation and other hormonal issues.  Some of these assumptions about women and their work ethic can make a large difference when it comes to promotions and receiving recognition for their efforts in the workplace. 

Crittenden’s and Fausto-Sterling’s works explain two reasons that men are often willing to promote men over women, but it is also important to remember the simple truth that we live in a patriarchal system.  Although we have become accustomed to it because we are all raised in it, a patriarchy gives men the upper hand in most situations, which also applies in the case of achievement in the workplace.  The values and ideals that we usually associate with men, such as “toughness…and domination,” are rewarded, while those associated with women, like “tenderness and vulnerability” are punished [5].  In a work environment that so obviously rewards those things commonly associated with men, it can be very difficult for some women to succeed.  It should not be the case that women need to act like men to advance in their careers, but that is the current state in many corporate jobs.  Only by showing aggression and a lack of emotion can women succeed and make serious headway towards management positions [5].  Without sufficient female role models in companies, this task can seem even harder for many women.  Conquering our patriarchy is a very difficult process that will take many years, yet simply raising awareness at this level will help dramatically.

In our current system, it is unfortunately very difficult for women to attain the same levels of advancement in a corporate setting.  McKinsey’s recent report helps to outline some of the main issues still affecting our workplace environment, and allows us to know what needs to be fixed moving forwards.  Solutions to inequality in the workplace have been suggested by a whole host of people, through many different methods.  Some countries have implemented quotas to raise the levels of women in management positions across the country, while others simply point at the issue and draw attention to it.  At the same time, authors are fully aware of the problems underneath the issue of gender inequality, and have suggested some solutions to topics like misinformation concerning female hormones and the difficulties facing women trying to raise children in the workforce.  Coupled with raising awareness about the issues that come with living in a patriarchy, these solutions should certainly go a long way towards fixing gender inequality when it comes to promotions and achievements in the workplace.

Works Cited

[1] Barsh, Joanna and Yee, Lareina. Unlocking the Full Potential of Women in the US Economy. McKinsey and Company, 2012. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJExecutiveSummary.pdf.

[2] Crittenden, Ann.  The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001.

[3] Eggers, Kelly. "The Case for Female Quotas." FINS Finance. 27 Apr. 2012. http://www.fins.com/Finance/Articles/SBB0001424052702303459004577364724282490602/The-Case-for-Female-Quotas.

[4] Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Myths of Gender. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1987.

[5] Johnson, Allan G., The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2005.

[6] Murray, Alan. “Where are all the senior-level women?” WSJ.com. 4 Apr. 2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013604576246774042116558.html.

News Flash: The Fear of the Transgendered Community: Evidence from the Miss Universe Pageant

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20581831,00.html
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20585301,00.html

Jenna Talackova, originally born Walter, always had a the “internal conviction that” she should have been born with a  female’s body rather than a male’s, and expressed that conviction behaviorally [1]. At the age of 14 she started going through hormone treatment and by 23, she underwent sex-reassignment surgery, had her Adam’s apple surgically removed, and received breast implants.  She transformed into a “leggy model” who has competed successfully in transgendered and more traditional and exclusive bigendered pageants since her operations. She was selected recently to compete in Miss Universe Canada, a pageant owned by Donald Trump and operating under the Miss Universe franchise guidelines. Given that there are “rules about a contestant’s gender at birth,” [2] and that Talackova falsely claimed to be born female, she was ousted from the competition. Her rejection from the Miss Universe pageant represents our ignorance about the differences between sex and gender, our solely bigendered focus, and our fear of those who do not identify with their “natural” state at birth.

The term sex, referring strictly to biological processes that define an individual’s form, is often seen as the former side of the nature versus culture dichotomy. Gender, “necessarily excluding biology” [1], is seen as relating to socialization and perception of one’s self and one’s sexuality.  Variations in sexual organs and physical manifestations of one’s sexuality do not just affect one’s sex but also one’s gender. Fausto-Sterling describes human sexuality as similar to Russian nesting dolls, with multiple layers. She states that “an individual doll is hollow, [but] only the complete assembly makes sense” [1]. A slight alteration from the wooden dolls in humans, however, is that their shapes can change with time, but the change must occur at all levels so the layers continue to fit. The believed difference amongst individuals who have studied the topic is that gender is a social construction whereas sex is strictly scientific. However, as Fausto-Sterling’s quote above alludes, sex is just as much a social construction and evolves with social norms.

Sex and gender as terms and concepts are often incorrectly used interchangeably.  When using these terms however, they are most often used to describe the traditional decision made at birth of an individual's sex; as a society we do not condone sexual transformations or social influences that would create a difference between one’s sex and one’s gender. A doctor’s decision to alter an intersex child in order for them to socially conform means that the public generally refuses to allow one’s sex and gender to differ. If an intersex individual were allowed to maintain their mix of sexual organs, they would be given the opportunity to established a gender identity, and possibly, if circumstances allow, surgically alter their sex to align with their gender.  

Because of this ignorance surrounding sex and gender terms and definitions, the subtleties to which they refer, and the truth about the influence of social beliefs on both notions, transsexual and transgender are also confused. The confusion in this instance also comes from a fear of individuals who associate as transgendered or transexual. While transgendered represents a range of ambiguous gender and sex relationships, transexual, as a subset of this, describes individuals with gender and sex misalign and who take medical steps to align their “internal gender identity with their physical self” [3]. The Miss Universe pageant, like the medical community and public belief, only accepts one notion, and that is what is determined at birth, when defining who is allowed in their competitions. Any misalignment between one’s sex and gender is not taken into consideration, as femininity and masculinity are assumed to be integral parts of one’s sexual identity, and not one’s gender.  The irony of this situation is that the main focus of the pageants are exuding femininity, which is not necessarily based on one’s sex and more often stems from social influence. Talackova’s postoperative looks represent my perception of a highly feminine and seductive beauty, with thin, long legs, a sculpted body, beautiful golden locks, and high, delicate cheekbones. Femininity as a traditionally gendered characteristic, which is even defined by the World Health Organization as representing the gender category, is the most important part of pageants, but those who do not or in the past have not sexually aligned with this, are excluded. Determination of one’s sex is the deciding entry factor, when one’s expression of gender is what is praised [4].

The wariness of accepting an individual who does not fit into the model of sexual and gendered dualism explains the derision Talackova faced in middle and high school from immature adolescents.  It also unfortunately explains the ridicule and rejection she has faced from the adult community now that she is living and working in their circle. “The knowledge developed by the medical disciplines empowers doctors to maintain a mythology of the normal by changing the intersexual body to fit, as nearly as possible, into one or the other cubbyhole” referring to the male or female boxes on legal and official documents. Although the federal and legal systems go to great lengths to maintain two sexes, our bodies do not, and thus male and female, and their manifestations, masculinity and femininity, “stand on the extreme ends of a biological continuum” [2]. Without two genders, it is difficult for society to conceptualize the relationship between individuals, which is usually defined by gender differences and the associated characteristics. Accepting a continuum of genders and sexes, and thus a continuum of human interactions, is required, as the bisex system is not representative of true biological processes; the dual system of sex and gender in which we function must become more versatile.

While the opportunity to have medical intervention to align one’s sex and gender is empowering for transgendered individuals,  it also served to reinforce the two-gender system, and the medical and public belief that the “body, sex, and gender must conform,” [1] as Fausto-Sterling asserts.  An unfortunate result of this procedure which has the power to make a transgendered individual feel as if they can live comfortably within one’s own body. Talackova speaks of not being able to look at her penis when seeing herself in the mirror, and being ashamed of the growth on her body [5].   Her procedure was able to liberate her from this depression but it moved her to the extreme female and feminine side of the gender continuum spectrum.  Obviously, she did not move far enough for the pageant, and in actuality an individual moving their own identity and placement on that spectrum is unlikely to ever be accepted in such a traditional and non-accepting institution.

The rules of the pageant currently state that all contestants must be naturally born females. The emphasis is placed on the belief that a doctor’s determination at birth is the natural state. This places a god-like ability in the hands of the medical community because, perhaps unknowingly to the general public, the nature of biology is not always so clear cut. The medical community chooses to alter the natural biological equipment of some individuals in order to enforce the traditional gender division. Because these changes are reinforcing “nature,” unlike artificially transformations later in life to fit an alternative “natural” state, doctors in general are seen as moral and physical protectors; this is in contrast to the ostracization transgendered individuals face when confronted about their own decision to adjust their bodies.

Fausto-Sterling states that “humans are biological and thus in some sense natural beings and social and in some sense artificial--or, if you will, constructed entities” [1]. She also explains that in most scientific discussions, sex and nature are thought to be real and grounded in actual fact and reality, whereas gender and culture are seen as constructed and therefore less binding. The amount of power physicians have in affecting the lasting psychological, physiological, and social circumstances of an individual is not the proper balance and does not give weight to the individual or their ability to give consent; the use of their expertise which “enables them to ‘hear’ nature telling them the truth about what sex such patient ought to be” is grounded in social and not scientific beliefs.

Talackova wrote that she had been born a woman, which is illegal based on pageant rules because at birth she was sexually labelled as male. She, however, claims that from her first memories, she felt as if she should identify as a woman, and would feel complete if her sex also represented this gender association. The pageant and society, by claiming that certain decisions and labels are natural and others are artificial, seem to be using symbols that really do not invoke the meanings they desire. The issue behind the focus on a bigendered system, ignorance about sex and gender relationships, and the reliance on “nature” to enforce the current dichotomies and social norms, is that society is unwilling to, in the short term, transform their views of acceptable behavior. By appealing to what is natural to prevent acceptance of individuals who have undergone sex changes or associate with a range of gender identities, society can continue to ignore these individuals despite the modern rise in outward expression.

Nature and natural processes, however, are in no way static, and are constantly transforming and cycling in response to the many systems of which it is made. Artificial objects, on the other hand, are for the most part non-renewable, static, unchanging entities. To embrace what is “natural” means to embrace the changes one physically, psychologically, and socially faces and to alter one’s acceptance accordingly. Society and the Miss Universe Pageant instead do the opposite, while claiming to embrace one’s natural state. Talackova underwent many transformations and identified as a female at birth and felt as if her natural identity was opposed to the physical manifestations of her sex. To claim that she was naturally born female may not have represented the strict biological definition of sex, but certainly represented her role in society, interaction with other individuals, and identity. Her rejection from the pageant represents nothing more than fear of what is different, ignorance of gender and sex issues, and static viewpoints on one’s ability to change.

[1] Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Sexing the Body. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
[2] Dyball, Rennie. “Jenna Talackova Removed from Miss Universe Canada for Being Transgender.” People. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20581831,00.html
[3] Rankin, Beth. “Transexual vs. Transgender: Explaining the intricacies. Fusion Magazine (2004) . (http://fusion.kent.edu/archives/spring04/trans/trans.html).
[4] Gender, Women, and Health. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/
[5] Mascia, Kristen. “Jenna Talackova: I Was in the Wrong Body.” People. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20585301,00.html

Newsflash: Candidates Reinforce Patriarchy

The vast majority of Americans are aware that this year is an election year. In November, we will be ending the nearly 15-month process that is the presidential election. While the conventions are still a few months away, we can safely assume that the two candidates will be President Barack Obama for the Democrats and Mitt Romney for the Republicans. Even though we are a little over 6 months away from the election, the candidates are starting to compete against one another directly and are trying to claim how they will be the superior to their opposition. They will be discussing things like the economy for the next few months. One of the issues that has been discussed by both candidates lately is the “War on Women.” While this is definitely an issue that deserves further discussion, the candidates have to walk a fine line when they talk about women. They have to make sure that they are not treating women differently than men. In this way, it is not a good thing for candidates to give extra attention in order to prevent them from become a token special interest group.

            Some people do not think that there is a war on women. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has a funny yet thoughtful clip about whether there is a “War on Women.”¹ Predictably, there is disagreement depending on what side of the political spectrum one falls on. In his clip, the conservatives do not believe that there is a war on women, unless it is just against conservative women. The liberals see the recent laws enacted across the country, many by Republicans, as limiting women’s rights. Stewart’s show highlights some of the ridiculousness of the political divide and acts as a reminder that laws regardless of what political party they identify with will affect women.

            The Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert also adds humor to this crazy situation and other situation by his telling of the news on his fake news show. Colbert’s host character is a conservative. Therefore, his show’s take on the situation must first be considered under the understanding that he is playing a role. His expressed views are much less his own compared to Stewart’s, which have a greater probability of being his, or at least his writer’s, viewpoints. His hyperbolic style helps him to address issues that may be hard to hear from either political party. Like Stewart, Colbert’s show recently had part of an episode about the recent political relations involving women². This show did not discuss whether or not there is a war waging on women. Instead, it focused more on the political parties targeting women. As can be seen with the clip, both parties have been giving special attention to women in the last few months. When Colbert jokes about acknowledging that women exist, he is likely remarking about the way that both parties are only targeting women now that it will benefit them. By remarking that motherhood is hard work, they are attempting to win over female voters. The Colbert Report and The Daily Show put a comedic spin on the news and can pick up some of the subtleties that the regular news often either misses or glosses over.

            Polls, polls, polls. The next few months will be filled with polls trying to figure out how well Romney and Obama are doing in comparison to each other. There was a poll by the USA TODAY and Gallup that was released earlier this month. According to this poll, President Obama has a lead over Mitt Romney³. Susan Page wrote an article in USA TODAY that discussed the poll and helped understand how the candidates were doing in regards to certain populations. Romney is doing much better in the category of men age 50 or older, not surprising since they typically vote for Republicans. However, President Obama is doing much better in the category of women under 50. To compare men’s and women’s polling directly: “In the poll, Romney leads among all men by a single point, but the president leads among women by 18. That reflects a greater disparity between the views of men and women than the 12-point gender gap in the 2008 election.” ³ This is likely due the recent laws coming from state legislatures that have gained national attention. There have been many laws passed in the recent months that have directly targeted women. These include things like restricting abortions or increasing the amount of regulations involved in receiving one. Since the poll was conducted and released, the Wisconsin governor repealed the Equal Pay Enforcement Act in his state.⁴ This act repeals the law in Wisconsin that would allow anyone who was discriminated at their work to seek damages. There has not been a suit filed, but the law itself was enough to scare employers with the income disparity between men and women decreasing greatly.⁴ This law was not directly written for women, it was for anyone discriminated against, but it was largely targeted towards women.⁴ It is likely because of repeals like this and the abortion laws, which have been backed by Republicans, that Republican candidate Romney is lagging behind Democrat President Obama. It is very easy for women to project state-level politics to the national politician who would be representing their party.

            Whether or not these laws equate a war on women are easily debatable. What is less outwardly controversial is saying that Romney and President Obama are responding to these laws. As alluded in the Colbert Report clip, President Obama is trying to distance himself from those laws by stating that he sides with women and wants to protect their rights.² Romney is taking a different approach. He has been on the campaign trail attacking Obama’s policies. He has been saying that the president’s economic policies have failed women.⁵ Adam Sorensen writes about some of Romney’s recent campaign tactics. He says that Romney’s statistic of 92.3% of the jobs lost since Obama took office is correct, however this largely ignores that the recession started well before January 2009 and that the original fields targeted were dominated by men.⁵ The first industries that were affected when the economy started to slump were blue collar jobs that were largely dominated by men, such as construction and factory work. Sorensen points out that the reason why Romney is trying to say that Obama hasn’t helped women because, “Democrats have been aggressively making the case that the GOP is carrying out a nefarious “war on women,” seeking to deny them free contraception (Republicans support a broad “conscience clause” exemption to allow employers to opt out of providing coverage under a new mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services), abortions (Romney wants to withdraw federal funds for Planned Parenthood, which provides a range of women’s health services), and unfettered access to reproductive health (a number of Republican state legislatures have passed prerequirements for obtaining an abortion, such as receiving an ultrasound or hearing a description of the fetus).”⁵ Sorensen continues on to say that Romney is completely valid in criticizing Obama’s economic policies, but he shouldn’t do it by separating it out to gender. He would have a better argument if he did not use such a misleading statistic. It seems that if they were honest about it, Republicans would have a better argument.

            Indeed, Sorensen is on to something. The candidates should not be targeting women. While it is very important that they acknowledge that women should have rights that are not impeded upon, it is more important that they do not treat women like a special interest group. By treating women like they are something different from men and that they need to be catered to politically, the candidates are just reinforcing patriarchy. As Allan Johnson discusses, the nature of patriarchy is that men and women are inherently different.⁶ In this model, men are there to protect women. They have rights, but men give those rights to them and then the rights are also protected by men.⁶ Women are never given true equality when their position in society is always considered in relationship to men. By targeting their campaigns to women, the candidates are automatically giving women a separate value to women compared to men. This is just falling back into the system of patriarchy. If the candidates want to truly improve women’s rights and to place them in equal positions to men, then they will not be targeting women. They won’t put their wives on stage to say that women are “special”, because tactics like this only reinforce patriarchy.    

Works Cited

1. Stewart, Jon. "Battle for the War on Women." Accessed 29 April, 2012. http://www.hulu.com/watch/351127/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-battle-for-the-war-on-women. 

2. Colbert, Stephen. "A Beautiful War for Women." Accessed 29 April, 2012. http://www.hulu.com/watch/351130/the-colbert-report-a-beautiful-war-for-women

3.Page, Susan. "Swing States Poll: A shift by women puts Obama in lead." USA TODAY, April 2, 2012. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-04-01/swing-states-poll/53930684/1

4.Goldberg, Michelle. "Wisconsin’s Repeal of Equal Pay Rights Adds to Battles for Women." The Daily Beast, April 7, 2012. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/07/wisconsin-s-repeal-of-equal-pay-rights-adds-to-battles-for-women.html

5. Sorensen, Adam. "Why Romney Shouldn’t Bother Fighting in the ‘Women Wars'." Time, April 12, 2012. http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/12/why-romney-shouldnt-bother-fighting-in-the-women-wars/

6. Johnson, Allan. Patriarchy. pg 39. 

McCormack v. Wade: A Post-Roe Case in a Pre-Roe Era (Newsflash)

 McCormack v. Wade: A Post-Roe Case in a Pre-Roe Era

The pro-life pro-choice debate has been a source of much discontent among the American public as the 2012 election nears.  As more states take a conservative stance on when life begins, a woman’s right to have an abortion is quickly dwindling, in spite of Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 which made abortions legal. What is lacking in the midst of this debate, however, are the stories of real women who are being put at risk in what is shaping up to look like a pre-Roe v. Wade era.  In Nancy Hass’ Daily Beast article, “The Next Roe v. Wade?: Jennie McCormack’s Abortion Battle,” Jennie Linn McCormack’s decision to self-induce an abortion has turned into quite the legal battle in Idaho and has challenged the ideals of both pro-life and pro-choice supporters.  Should a woman be able to have a self-induced abortion?  When is the fetus viable and when can it feel pain?  Should the abortion pill be prescribed to women from doctors or even made as easy to order online?  Questions like these have arisen in response to McCormack’s case, but the most concerning question should really be about the danger that women are being put in when the choice to have an abortion is not an option.  Throughout history, women have always had abortions, illegally and legally, and there is no doubt that women will continue to do so regardless of the legality.  It should therefore be in the interest of the state to protect women like McCormack, rather than putting them in harms way by putting restrictions on abortions, particularly for women with poor socio-economic backgrounds.  Furthermore, McCormack’s case points out that society must become more accepting of women who choose to have an abortion.  The negative stereotypes and stigmas attached abortion isolate and marginalize women from society more so than they already are in our patriarchal society.[1]  

In 2010, McCormack, a small town single mom of three from Idaho, found out that she was pregnant with another child.  Due to her financial situation, McCormack knew that she could not raise another child properly and subject her children to life even worse off than they already are in doing so.  McCormack was already a single mom surviving off of two hundred and fifty dollars of monthly child support with no car or computer.  The father of the child had just been arrested for robbing a bank and her Mormon family was already unsupportive of her lifestyle.  With all of these unfortunate circumstances in mind, McCormack decided that she had to abort her fetus with the less expensive two hundred dollar RU-486 abortion pill.  McCormack called her sister in Mississippi and explained how she needed her to order the pill off of the Internet because she could not pay for a real abortion and she did not have the means to travel the distance to a clinic.  After receiving and taking the pill, McCormack thought her nightmare would be over; however, what McCormack did not realize is how far along she actually was.  It is recommended that RU-486 be taken within the first nine weeks of pregnancy.  McCormack did not know exactly how far along she was, but she did not expect to be nine weeks or even twenty, which became evident when the fetus was aborted.  McCormack was shocked at how big the aborted fetus was and panicked.  Not knowing what to do with the fetus, McCormack wrapped it up in bags, put it on her porch, and called a friend.  Next thing McCormack knew, police arrived on her doorstep after being tipped off by the friend’s sister and McCormack was brought into the station for questioning.  Shortly after McCormack’s arrest, her case was brought to court for charges she was not aware she could even be prosecuted for.[2] 

“Although RU-486 is legal and the fetus was not yet “viable” (that is, old enough to live outside the uterus), Idaho has a 1972 law—never before enforced—making it a crime punishable by five years in prison for a woman to induce her own abortion.”[3]  This law is under the premise of the fetal pain law, which allows women to have an abortion no later than nineteen weeks to avoid pain to the fetus.  Despite of the fact that it has been proven through research that a fetus is not aware of pain until around the thirtieth week, this law almost put McCormack behind bars for five years for inducing her own abortion with RU-486 and there is still a chance that McCormack will face future prosecution because her case was only dropped “without prejudice”.  McCormack’s lawyer, Rick Hearn, has since set out to challenge the fetal pain law and has gained a great deal of recognition for his efforts.  This past September, McCormack, as advised by Hearn, became the first woman to sue the federal court for the unconstitutionality of the law and the right for women to take abortion-inducing medication. U.S. Judge B. Lynn Winmill, however, responded to this lawsuit by ruling that it wasn’t worthy of class-action status.  This was definitely a setback for McCormack and Hearn, but they are still pursuing the case to this day.[4]

McCormack’s case has also caused interesting controversy among pro-life and pro-choice supporters.  As of recent, there has been a shift in who is prosecuted in cases like McCormack’s.  While doctors used to be targeted for abortion, women have become the new victims and it seems that this has caused a rift between pro-life groups.  As, “Susan B. Anthony List. President Marjorie Dannenfelser calls the case: ‘Not acceptable. We do not think women should be criminalized. Criminal sanctions or any kind of sanctions are appropriate for abortionists, and not for women.’”[5]  If the pro-life movement did support McCormack, however, they would completely go against the abortion laws they have been battling over all this time.  From the pro-choice side, there has been a debate over who should be prosecuted as well.  Many pro-choice supporters take up issue with the fact that laws make it nearly impossible for doctors to provide abortions and now women too that subject both to legal repercussions.  For pro-choice supporters, all of this sounds far too familiar to the pre-Roe v. Wade era that put doctors and women in danger.  At the same time, pro-choice supporters are at a loss when they begin to think of the fetus on McCormack’s porch in the dead of winter.[6] 

Then there are the problems surrounding the accessibility of the pill on the Internet in the modern age and the inaccessibility of clinics, particularly for poor women like McCormack.  With both problems on the rise, it is not surprising that women are trying once again to take abortion into their hands. According to Hass, nearly thirty-five percent of American women will have abortions, while “almost 90 percent of countries in the US and 98 percent of rural counties have no abortion services.”  Consequently, over twenty percent of abortions are considered “medical” using the highly effective, FDA recommended pill for ending early pregnancies.[7]  Prior to the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, in which it became legal for “a woman may terminate pregnancy up to the point of ‘viability’, women who chose to have an abortion had to do it in, “fear, ignorance, shame, and danger.”[8]  The circumstances of performing an illegal abortion pre-Roe v. Wade were extremely risky for every party involved, from the woman to the doctor, and the fetus.  Women who could afford it sought out doctors performing illegal abortions in shady and potentially unsanitary offices, while other women attempted to perform their own abortions with instruments as medically unconventional and dangerous as a coat hanger.[9] There is a clear historical record of what life would be like if abortions were illegal again, yet many seem to forget that this era ever existed. Although the pill and the Internet were not around in pre-Roe v. Wade era, the dangers women are facing hold similar weight.  McCormack is the perfect example of what would happen if we suddenly turned the clock back to a pre-Roe v. Wade era.  Women are quick to turn to alternative options, such as the pill that put both McCormack and the fetus in danger.  This is particularly the case for women with poor socio-economic backgrounds who do not have access to any sort of medical support.  While McCormack has definitely challenged supporters of both pro-life and pro-choice, she has ultimately has demonstrated that women are at a dangerous crossroads right now as abortions become increasingly inaccessible medically and increasingly accessible through alternative options.

McCormack’s case might have been dropped legally, but she has faced an immense amount of humiliation and shame.  The day after the police arrested McCormack, the local paper published her mug shot in the paper.  This picture, in addition to the gossip that circulated around the case, has turned McCormack into a recluse in her hometown. As Guy Adams writes in The Independent:

“When Jennie Linn McCormack walks the streets of Pocatello, the town in southern Idaho where she was born, raised, and still lives, she attempts to disguise her face by covering it with a thick woolen scarf.  It doesn't really work. In the supermarket, people stop and point. At fast-food outlets, they hiss ‘it's her’! In the local church, that supposed bastion of forgiveness, fire-and-brimstone preachers devote entire sermons to accusing her of mortal sin.”[10]

McCormack cannot escape the negative stigmas and stereotypes that have isolated and marginalized her from society.  Although McCormack does not believe she did anything wrong, she is being treated like a full-scale criminal, unworthy of societal recognition.  When McCormack put in a request with the district attorney to bury her fetus, she received no response.  McCormack, like many other women in her shoes, is already treated like a minority in the face of patriarchy.  With more restrictions put on abortions, women who choose to get an abortion will be further marginalized and isolated as it becomes more frowned upon to get.  Regardless of a woman’s reasoning, humiliation and shame are now assumed to go hand in hand with abortions. As McCormack has stated, “I never wanted to be someone public, to make a point […] This isn’t a cause for me. I just didn’t know what to do. I did what I thought was right for my kids, that’s all.”[11]  Thus, in order to counteract the negative stereotypes and stigmas, there needs to be a more nuanced understanding of why women choose to get abortions and the emotional consequences women suffer from in the aftermath.  If these two understandings are taken into consideration, it may be possible avoid another pre-Roe V. Wade era. 

Works Cited

Adams, Guy. “How an Abortion Divided America.” The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/how-an-abortion-divided-america-6950320.html (accessed Aprul 29, 2012).

Cooney, Eleanor.  “The Way it Was.” Mother Jones. http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/way-it-was?page=1 (accessed April 24, 2012).

Hass, Nancy.  “The Next Roe v. Wade?: Jennie McCormack’s Abortion Battle.” The Daily Beast. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/12/11/the-next-roe-v-wade-jennie-mccormack-s-abortion-battle.html (accessed April 24, 2012).

Robinson, Jessica.  “Idaho Woman Arrested for Abortion is Uneasy Case for Both Sides.” NPR News. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=150312812 (accessed April 29, 2012).

“Doc-lawyer Uses Both Trades To Fight Abortion Laws.” CBS News. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57416917/doc-lawyer-uses-both-trades-to-fight-abortion-laws/ (accessed April 24, 2012).

---

[1] Hass, Nancy.  “The Next Roe v. Wade?: Jennie McCormack’s Abortion Battle.” The Daily Beast. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/12/11/the-next-roe-v-wade-jennie-mccormack-s-abortion-battle.html (accessed April 24, 2012).

[2] Hass, “The Next Roe v. Wade?: Jennie McCormack’s Abortion Battle.”

[3] Hass, “The Next Roe v. Wade?: Jennie McCormack’s Abortion Battle.”

[4] “Doc-lawyer Uses Both Trades To Fight Abortion Laws.” CBS News. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57416917/doc-lawyer-uses-both-trades-to-fight-abortion-laws/ (accessed April 24, 2012).

[5] Robinson, Jessica.  “Idaho Woman Arrested for Abortion is Uneasy Case for Both Sides.” NPR News. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=150312812 (accessed April 29, 2012).

[6] Robinson, “Idaho Woman Arrested for Abortion is Uneasy Case for Both Sides.”

[7] Hass, “The Next Roe v. Wade?: Jennie McCormack’s Abortion Battle.”

[8] Cooney, Eleanor.  “The Way it Was.” Mother Jones. http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/way-it-was?page=1 (accessed April 24, 2012).

[9] Clooney, “The Way it Was.”

[10] Adams, Guy. “How an Abortion Divided America.” The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/how-an-abortion-divided-america-6950320.html (accessed Aprul 29, 2012).

[11] Hass, “The Next Roe v. Wade?: Jennie McCormack’s Abortion Battle.”

Sexual Assault and the Military

The NY Times articles we read for today really highlighted an issue that is rarely brought to light in the news, leaving space for more "serious" and less "unpatriotic" issues and events such as the successes and honorable deaths. People would be reluctant to "support our troops" if it were widely known that sexual assault is pervasive in the military and most times not punished. The requirements of discipline, focus, determination, and strength (which seems to always manifest itself in masculine strength) in the armed forces created a birdcage of restraint not just around women but around all individuals who strive to pursue understanding, fairness, and respect in their line of work.  While in theory, these aspects can live in concordance with other more traditional soldier-esque behavior, discontent with matters in the way armed forces are run is more often seen as blasphemous than ways to improve matters. For example, specific sexual assault cases brought to a disciplinary official in the New York Times articles resulted in the female victim being discharged from the army. Most victims stated that they did not report their assaults or rapes, fearing that "nothing would be done or that reporting an incident would negatively impact their careers” (A Peril In War Zones, Myers).  

Due to the drastic increase in female involvement in the military, and the extremely long amount of time it takes for populations to respond to and accept such changes, the extent to to which males are used to women being present in their confined, solitary spheres is limited.  As Val discussed in the case of the man previously released from jail raping the cashier for power-driven reasons, soldiers are forced to exude so much power and authority, a necessary step to minimizing opponent confidence, that in the inactive moments of deployment, the psychological triggers of power needs seem to override gender and bodily respect. White, middle-class males, being the most prone to sadistic killings and assaults, are locked in their own birdcage, created by society's demand of masculinity and honor (by that I mean demonstrating the highest levels of domination-focused manliness).  This birdcage prevents males from adopting, nurturing and understanding roles and behavior, traditionally seen as feminine; on the other hand females are systematically placed in a sexually subordinate role in the armed forces as physical strength is a barrier to protecting oneself and leaders do seem to regard complains as honest or note-worthy. 

4/23 Summary

The New York Times articles for today’s reading were about the increasing role of women in the military, specifically the in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the immediate time after the military started to go to the Middle East, there weren’t proper facilities set up for soldiers, let alone females. In the years that followed, they made sure to create the infrastructure to accommodate women on the front lines, including things like having separate living quarters and bathrooms. Some women expressed that they faced some issues with either American soldiers or Iraqi soldiers recognizing that they were the leaders in charge, but for the most part, they felt a part of the team. One commander stated that there is not a difference between male and female soldiers; he has had to relieve male commanders but had not relieved a female commander at the time of the interview. The second article talked about the difficulty women, and men, faced in the military in relation to sexual abuse. They believe that many incidences of sexual abuse are/were not reported. This is because many women felt that they would not be believed or that raising an investigation would be a distraction from the team’s mission or that they were also engaging in activities that could have gotten themselves into trouble. Nevertheless, the military increased efforts to help women who were the victims of sexual abuse. They are trying to help women report these incidences.

Enloe’s chapters talked about men in the military and how that relates to the sexual abuse of women. She highlights a case of a Serbian man, Borislav Herak, who was charge with multiple rapes. In this particular case, the man did not exhibit violence before he went into the militia, but he, and others, committed these crimes while during the wars in the early 1990’s. When Herak was interviewed about the rapes, he admitted that it was not his idea and it was something that he felt guilty about and that he did not want to commit these acts.  He only did it because he was given orders from superiors to do so. He did not want to disobey orders in fear that he would be seen as unmanly and concern for his own property back home. He thought that they would take away his house if he disobeyed orders. Enloe also describes other cases to help place this story in a wider context. In many cases when rapes occur, they do so in situations when men commit the crimes in order to prove their masculinity. Masculinity is tied into nationalism. The only way to be a good member of a nation is to be as masculine as possible. In these cases, it is to show dominance, i.e. by over powering women by raping them. 

Re: Myers

For another class, I watched a documentary called Rethink Afghanistan today.  The film was primarily about US involvement in the war in Afghanistan, but it spent a great deal of time emphasizing the violence carried out against women in war zones.  According to the film, women were supposed to be liberated in Afghanistan when the Taliban were defeated.  However, violence against women actually got much worse in the war torn country, primarily on account of US occupation.  With in increase in militarization, there has been a significant increase in the amount of sexual assault incidents, particularly in the US military.  The film, like the articles from the New York Times, points out the intrinsic link between the military and sexual assault.  One fact that really stood out to be in “A Peril in War Zones” was, “a woman in the military is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by an enemy fire in Iraq.” Yet, despite this obvious link, it is regarded as a military taboo and there is very little to done for the victims of sexual assault.  As “A Peril in War Zones” states, the majority of sexual assault allegations don’t result in prosecution.  With this being the case, in addition to the potentially high risks involved reporting, it becomes clear why a lot of women might not feel comfortable reporting.  While it is nice to hear that more women in the military are coming forward, it should also be noted that more women are in the military now.  In turn, this could make it seem as if a greater percentage is coming forward than in the past when really there is a larger pool of women. 

Captain White’s story portrays the difficulties facing women in the military when it comes to reporting.  Captain White was assaulted by a warrant officer multiple times, but did not come forward about what happened because she believed that she had to keep quiet and her head down in the military.  It wasn’t until another investigation arose that Captain White’s story surfaced and the warrant officer was charged with nineteen offenses. Captain White admits that she may not have handled the situation properly, but that there is a lot of emotional baggage for victims of assault in the military that keep them from reporting.  The military is supposed to provide security for our country’s men and women, but it seems that it cannot even do that within its own institution and that women are disproportionately victims of such security failures.   If the military cannot act as the role model is often made out to be, then what hope does that leave the “civilian world” with?  Societal change is often a product of a change within institutions, so the military has a responsibility to take a proactive stance when it comes to combating the perils sexual assault in war zones.  

Sexual Assault in the Military

I found both of the NYT articles to be very revealing and interesting.  While I’ve thought some about the ideas of women in the military, I’ve never spent much time considering all of the necessary changes that had to be made in order to fully incorporate women successfully.  I found many things in this article to be particularly standout, particularly the way women have been able to “preserve their femininity without making much of it” (Living and Fighting Alongside Men, NYT).  In many cases, the women outlined the basic idea that they just have been showing their toughness to fit in and not seem out of place.  By acting like they don’t need special treatment, it sounds as though most women have been very successful in their roles in the military, rising to high ranks and defying expectations.

However, the idea that there are sexual assault, rape, and other sexual crimes occurring within our military is awful.  While I suppose it makes sense on some level (after all, they are normal citizens and we have yet to rid our society of sexual assault), it is still a serious issue.  In many of the readings we’ve had lately, we’ve seen how much rape or sexual assault can affect a person psychologically, and there simply is no room for that within our armed forces.  In many cases, it is important to be able to shelve emotions and be able to carry out orders, and this becomes impossible when issues such as sexual assault and stalking are fairly commonplace within the military.  While I recognize that we have not been able to come up with a “cure” for sexual assault across the more general spectrum of the population, I would have hoped that the training and expectations that our country has placed on our military would have helped the situation.  Clearly, this is not true, considering some of the stories within the articles.  Female soldiers feel as though they cannot report the occurrences of sexual assault, due to expectations, consequences, or simply the fact that it disrupts the norm, and this needs to change in order to help minimize the number of occurrences of sexual assault within the military.  When peoples’ lives are on the line every day, there is no room for sexual assault or any other crimes within our own armed forces.  We should be able to trust our own soldiers when abroad in a foreign nation, in order to maximize efficiency and end the war as soon as possible.

Re: Steinem

If anyone has seen the Michael Haneke’s film, Funny Games, they would understand exactly what Gloria Steinem is talking about in “Supremacy Crimes”.  Funny Games takes place a the lake house of the Farber’s—a well off, white, loving family consisting of a mother, father, son, and dog.  One afternoon, the family is paid a visit by two young men who happen to be twins clad in the same white collared shirts and white gloves and who happen to be psychotic serial killers.  The family is forced to play the twins’ sadistic game of life, in which they are subjected to torture in their own house until they are all dead by 9:00AM the next morning.  The film really portrays Steinem’s notion of white supremacy crimes and its addiction.  When the film ends, the twins have not only exercised their patriarchal control over the family, but they have done so over a family with a background that is not that distant from their own.  Furthermore, because their crimes are committed on the secluded property of the lake house, it appears by the end that they are ready to move on to their next victim.  Ultimately, I think that Haneke is trying to suggest that our dominant white culture is inherently violent.  The structures within our society give way to some of these sick and twisted cases of supremacy crimes, even when we are least expecting it. 

A friend once told me that if a father has a daughter before a son, the father is more likely to be accepting of non-patriarchal attitudes.  I’m not sure how accurate this necessarily is, but it is interesting that Steinem says, “we must begin to raise our sons more like our daughters”.  Maybe part of the problem with violence in our society is that the blame is usually put on the individual rather than society at large.  While I think most would agree the twins in Funny Games have their own issues they need to work out, it might be helpful to think about the origins of white supremacy that is so embedded in their personas.  Perhaps if they were raised in a different way, they wouldn’t have grown up to be these psychotic sumprmacy junkies that they appear to be.  Another thing worth thinking about is whether or not media portrayals of these characters are self-fulfilling prophecies leading to their creation in reality.  

Response to Steinem and Radical Articles

I found both of the readings for class very interesting, especially because both suggest that the solutions to our problems (or at least the two problems mentioned in the articles) can be found right in front of us, if we simply choose to look properly.  In the news article from Wesleyan University, the author advocates that if students simply accept the facts about rape on campus and take a positive approach, it would be very possible to “stop rape and sexual assault on campus without any intervention by the university at all.”  The author goes on to outline ten points that would significantly reduce the number of sexual assaults on their campus.  Although I’d argue that one of them does not necessarily apply as much to our school, the others are all very pertinent and are things we should all be doing here, as well.  Most revolve around things we should be advising people to do or not do, and the results of those things would have large impacts.  For example, by not ever making jokes about sexual assault, the act of sexual assault never is desensitized like it would be if there were constant jokes.  As long as it remains a large issue, it will make it a lot harder for someone to rationalize their way into approving of actions that either cause or ignore sexual assault.  

From the second article, the main point surrounds the idea that many serial killers come from the same group of society, and that those people have the ideas that they do due to patriarchal and sexual norms present within our society.  I did not previously know the statistics surrounding serial killers, but if this article is right, it presents a serious case for the reasoning behind many of the murders and sexual assaults present in our society.  As it concludes, it seems likely that the majority of these things can only be fixed if we recognize “the extent to which the patriarchal code of honor and shame generates and obligates male violence.”