The four articles for class this Monday were all kind of depressing in nature, but also very interesting to read about. The first article, “Fraternities and Rape on Campus”, was especially interesting given the Greek life at our school. I find the pledging process and terminology in Greek life ridiculous beyond belief. The fact that they only recruit certain people due to masculine qualities and their upmost importance of “loyalty, secrecy, and protection” almost disgusts me. With the case of the gang rape at a Florida University, to whom are they being loyal? What about human life, the law, or just plain kindness? I feel like so much importance is put on such trivial matters in fraternities, and the culture of the fraternity really needs to change in order to address important issues such as violence against women, and the hierarchy between men and women. This reminds me of the patriarchy article read earlier this semester, about how we need to look at the entire system as a whole, not just the individuals involved. While it would be nice to persecute individual members based on individual actions, I think that the entire system needs to be made over, and to question the system and the ideas behind what made those boys act the way they did. I also was upset reading about the gender hierarchy that existed between the “Little Sisters” and “Big Brothers” in the fraternity system she examined. I was disgusted by the role that these women play, catering to men. I was also sick reading about how males who are in relationships can have sex with their girlfriends, but at open parties their girlfriends aren’t allowed, and they are free to have sex with other women. I don’t believe in cheating and I don’t think that women should stand for it. I feel that these “women servers” are being used just for sex and to attract good “brothers”. I feel that the entire system needs to be changed, and the gender hierarchy abolished.
I enjoyed reading the second article, “Men Changing Men” because I believe that more projects such as this need to be mandatory for certain men. I liked the fact that some men have come to the conclusion that it isn’t ok to batter women, to call them property, and to take their emotions out on them. I think more men need to think this way and try to make a difference in their behavior, as well as other men. I think so much of men’s behavior is behavior of a pack. Similar to the fraternity article, most crimes happen because of men testing other men. Gang rapes happen to prove their masculinity or prove a point; instead men should focus on themselves. I think we talk the most about women being insecure with themselves, but I think a lot of male violence occurs because of the same reasons; men are insecure about the way other men view them, so they prove their masculinity or toughness through violence or rape.
Morgan’s article in Listen Up was almost hard to read. I was very saddened to read it, and mad about the way that her rapes were handled. Her parents and friends reactions to her rape were ridiculous; no supporting parents would ignore an action like that or punish their daughter for it. I think that is absurd. I was also sad that nothing more came out of any of her confessions. While she did the right thing by coming to her parents, the police, and the hospital about her rapes, which many women don’t do, I was shocked that nothing was ever followed up on. The police never made an effort to try and convict any of her rapists, and no one was there to support her or give her counseling after the attack.
The final article for Monday was nice to read, because it was about empowerment of women. I agree with her that women should be trained in self defense, as it works as a surprise attack on their attackers. Most men don’t believe that women are trained or will even try and fight back. I admire her for training herself, and it makes me want to be trained, especially if I ever live alone. I want to be able to defend myself in case of an attack, and protect myself.
Overall, the articles for Monday were sad but also interesting to read as they gave good insight into male organizations, and advocated for women to protect themselves, and be able to defend themselves from an attacker. I think that men and male organizations have a long way to go before there can ever be an equal status between men and women, however.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Class 11_24
Today’s articles reminded me a lot of our current economic situation and the fight over globalization. With the recent controversy over WalMart and their use of globalization, this article is especially interesting since it discusses the actual workers that are claimed to have produced WalMarts’ products. I found it especially interesting in Enloe’s article about how the industry relied on third world women’s beliefs that they had to accept their role in society. If these women realized their potential and “reimagined their lives as daughters, as wives, as workers, as citizens” (Enloe, pg. 459), the entire industry would collapse. I was also disgusted at the treatment of these women and their countries by the big sneaker corporations. As Enloe describes, Nike, and other companies, did not place their factories in third world countries to help the countries, but instead to exploit the cheap labor and gain profits. I also found it interesting how at the end of the article, she discusses the role of countries playing women off of each other and setting up competition. This was one of the first issues we discussed in the class; the fact that women can’t help each other, and instead compete against each other and wish the worst on others. I think that for our country and the world to grow and women to gain equal rights as citizens and workers (and erase the wage gap between men and women), women need to stand together, not against each other.
Grace Chang’s article was also extremely interesting, especially about the LCP with the Filipino women. The beginning of the article was interesting as well about the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs). I found it interesting that because of the SAPs, women have experienced increases in poverty and decreases in nutrition, health, and work conditions, yet no one seems to care as long as indebted countries can take out loans that are approved by financial institutions. I find that time after time, issues surrounding women are always intricately laced with economic issues between first and third world countries and businessmen. It was also interesting to read about the entire program and it’s severity. It seems as if this article also embodies the figure of a bird cage, since women are trapped for two years by sometimes abusive employers, and they are stick with the strict immigration policies by the US and Canada. On top of this all, the Filipino government makes extraordinary salaries by just processing these migrant workers. Women are also excluded from welfare benefits and workers rights because they are not citizens. This article perfectly exemplifies the conditions these women are put through all to support their families. This all seems even more absurd when reading about the nursing shortage in Canada, yet the laws remain unchanged because the government insists on exploiting these highly skilled and educated women, and giving them extremely low wages and subjecting them to abuse for enough years until they can obtain citizenship.
Overall these three articles make globalization seem a much bigger issue than this country is leading us to believe. I wish that this country could get an honest government who would be frank with its citizens and not turn a blind eye to serious problems occurring with the women in this country. Instead of financing a war against terrorists, which was started on false pretenses, the government should care more about other issues that are often left unnoticed. I think women’s rights should be a problem that is paid more attention to, brought under public scrutiny, and ultimately dealt with by our government. Without their cooperation, unfortunately, nothing will most likely be done. We need to work with our government to spread the word and garner support for these issues, both in the US and Canada.
Grace Chang’s article was also extremely interesting, especially about the LCP with the Filipino women. The beginning of the article was interesting as well about the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs). I found it interesting that because of the SAPs, women have experienced increases in poverty and decreases in nutrition, health, and work conditions, yet no one seems to care as long as indebted countries can take out loans that are approved by financial institutions. I find that time after time, issues surrounding women are always intricately laced with economic issues between first and third world countries and businessmen. It was also interesting to read about the entire program and it’s severity. It seems as if this article also embodies the figure of a bird cage, since women are trapped for two years by sometimes abusive employers, and they are stick with the strict immigration policies by the US and Canada. On top of this all, the Filipino government makes extraordinary salaries by just processing these migrant workers. Women are also excluded from welfare benefits and workers rights because they are not citizens. This article perfectly exemplifies the conditions these women are put through all to support their families. This all seems even more absurd when reading about the nursing shortage in Canada, yet the laws remain unchanged because the government insists on exploiting these highly skilled and educated women, and giving them extremely low wages and subjecting them to abuse for enough years until they can obtain citizenship.
Overall these three articles make globalization seem a much bigger issue than this country is leading us to believe. I wish that this country could get an honest government who would be frank with its citizens and not turn a blind eye to serious problems occurring with the women in this country. Instead of financing a war against terrorists, which was started on false pretenses, the government should care more about other issues that are often left unnoticed. I think women’s rights should be a problem that is paid more attention to, brought under public scrutiny, and ultimately dealt with by our government. Without their cooperation, unfortunately, nothing will most likely be done. We need to work with our government to spread the word and garner support for these issues, both in the US and Canada.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Class 11_19
The two articles assigned for today refer back to our class discussion on Monday about Muslim women and the policy pursued after 9/11. I especially liked reading Susan Darraj’s article, “It’s Not an Oxymoron: The Search for an Arab Feminism” because it told her story of her search for feminism. I also liked how she identified her father and husband as feminists, although that might seem to be a contrary statement. The article related a lot to our class when discussing Betty Friedan and Western Feminism; a do think a lot of the time we don’t even think about feminism around the world. I admired her when she stood up to her class as well about house cleaning and the liberalization of white women getting to work outside the house. While I do think that this is liberalizing for some women, for others, they have never had the option, so I think feminism needs to be open to all types of women, from all different backgrounds and cultures.
The other article by Lila Abu-Lughod also relates to our class discussion on veils and the “saving” of Middle Eastern women. She makes the argument that these women who lived under the Taliban in Afghanistan weren’t oppressed because of the burqas they were required to wear. She says that even after the Taliban was removed women choose to wear them, and if not burqas, they still choose to wear heavy, modest, coverings (scarves, etc). I think the United States needs to be more open to other cultures and nationalities, and not just assume that these women are being oppressed. Even as I write this, I notice that the word burqa is not in the Microsoft Word dictionary. I think Western cultures need to be more educated on other cultures before they can even consider trying to “save” them or change their culture.
Relating to the other assignments this week, the Taliban was a government who ruled in Afghanistan from 1996-2001 until it was removed from power by NATO forces. Currently they still exist as an underground movement and fight in a guerilla war. The Taliban came into power because of political unrest among the warlords present in the country. It is also recorded that originally the Taliban received aid from the US in the form of weapons and funds. Under the Taliban many activities were banned including movies, television, dancing, hanging pictures in homes, kite flying, and beard trimming. Men were required to have long beards, short hair on their head, and wear head coverings. Women had even more restrictions including no employment or education, no interaction with men who weren’t family or their husband, and they had to wear burqas. If they were found cheating they were stoned to death. They were also lashed or beaten in public.
In general, while it may seem on the surface that these women were oppressed, research into other cultures needs to be done before coming into a country and changing their policy and their government. Relating to our reading from last class, we need to research more and not just slap labels on women in other cultures. In general our country needs to be more educated and welcome to other cultures, beliefs, and women.
The other article by Lila Abu-Lughod also relates to our class discussion on veils and the “saving” of Middle Eastern women. She makes the argument that these women who lived under the Taliban in Afghanistan weren’t oppressed because of the burqas they were required to wear. She says that even after the Taliban was removed women choose to wear them, and if not burqas, they still choose to wear heavy, modest, coverings (scarves, etc). I think the United States needs to be more open to other cultures and nationalities, and not just assume that these women are being oppressed. Even as I write this, I notice that the word burqa is not in the Microsoft Word dictionary. I think Western cultures need to be more educated on other cultures before they can even consider trying to “save” them or change their culture.
Relating to the other assignments this week, the Taliban was a government who ruled in Afghanistan from 1996-2001 until it was removed from power by NATO forces. Currently they still exist as an underground movement and fight in a guerilla war. The Taliban came into power because of political unrest among the warlords present in the country. It is also recorded that originally the Taliban received aid from the US in the form of weapons and funds. Under the Taliban many activities were banned including movies, television, dancing, hanging pictures in homes, kite flying, and beard trimming. Men were required to have long beards, short hair on their head, and wear head coverings. Women had even more restrictions including no employment or education, no interaction with men who weren’t family or their husband, and they had to wear burqas. If they were found cheating they were stoned to death. They were also lashed or beaten in public.
In general, while it may seem on the surface that these women were oppressed, research into other cultures needs to be done before coming into a country and changing their policy and their government. Relating to our reading from last class, we need to research more and not just slap labels on women in other cultures. In general our country needs to be more educated and welcome to other cultures, beliefs, and women.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Class 11_17
Handra Mohanty’s article, “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses” describes how men have portrayed themselves as the all important, while women are the “other”. She goes on to describe how women are supposed to play the dependant model in the relationship, and this is obtained in many countries through genital cutting. Genital mutilation is seen as taking away a woman’s pleasure when engaging in sex, so her only purpose is to reproduce. As she explains, female genital mutilation occurs, “to assure female dependence and subservience by any and all means” (pg 66). With domestic violence, there is an undeniable alliance of men against women. She also explains how women are always grouped together because of their oppression and as victims of abuse.
Mohanty also goes into detail about women as universal dependents and the grouping of women based solely on their status as a victim. She describes that Vietnamese women and Black American women are linked together because they are victims, although they have almost nothing else in common. I think this is wrongly grouping because women shouldn’t be characterized and grouped based on being victims. Women as a whole shouldn’t be able to be grouped because they are victims. I think women need to escape the position of being dependent on men and avoid being recognized and put together because of their shared status of victims.
The other article, “Whose Security?”, by Charlotte Bunch, goes into detail about the national security measures taken after 9/11. She describes how the Bush administrations goals and actions actually served to hurt the women’s rights movement and take away their efforts towards human security. As she explains, 9/11 could have, and should have, generated efforts to bolster women’s human rights campaigns, whereas instead, the Bush administration took advantage of it to invade Islamic countries and take military action. I was also outraged to read about Mary Robinson and how she was stripped of her job because she stood up for women’s rights movements and pointed attention to human rights abuses. I think this sort of action is ridiculous and need to be made available for public scrutiny. I think if a story like this was made more public, something could have been done about it, and things like this could have been prevented in the future. I also found it horrible that the Bush administration used women’s rights as a tool to garner support for the war. He claimed abuses to women’s rights in the Islamic culture, which would boost women’s support of invading Islamic countries. I think this is awful to trick the American people into supporting a war in which they did nothing to aid women’s rights, and instead acted militarily and justify certain uses of torture.
I think that these military resources need to be used to address women’s rights both in this country and abroad. Bush did have a good idea on helping women’s rights efforts abroad, but I think the administration need to actually follow through and do something good for women. As Bunch explains, it is hard to determine what is best to do to help both the domestic and the global community, but we can all benefit from feminist activities around the world.
Mohanty also goes into detail about women as universal dependents and the grouping of women based solely on their status as a victim. She describes that Vietnamese women and Black American women are linked together because they are victims, although they have almost nothing else in common. I think this is wrongly grouping because women shouldn’t be characterized and grouped based on being victims. Women as a whole shouldn’t be able to be grouped because they are victims. I think women need to escape the position of being dependent on men and avoid being recognized and put together because of their shared status of victims.
The other article, “Whose Security?”, by Charlotte Bunch, goes into detail about the national security measures taken after 9/11. She describes how the Bush administrations goals and actions actually served to hurt the women’s rights movement and take away their efforts towards human security. As she explains, 9/11 could have, and should have, generated efforts to bolster women’s human rights campaigns, whereas instead, the Bush administration took advantage of it to invade Islamic countries and take military action. I was also outraged to read about Mary Robinson and how she was stripped of her job because she stood up for women’s rights movements and pointed attention to human rights abuses. I think this sort of action is ridiculous and need to be made available for public scrutiny. I think if a story like this was made more public, something could have been done about it, and things like this could have been prevented in the future. I also found it horrible that the Bush administration used women’s rights as a tool to garner support for the war. He claimed abuses to women’s rights in the Islamic culture, which would boost women’s support of invading Islamic countries. I think this is awful to trick the American people into supporting a war in which they did nothing to aid women’s rights, and instead acted militarily and justify certain uses of torture.
I think that these military resources need to be used to address women’s rights both in this country and abroad. Bush did have a good idea on helping women’s rights efforts abroad, but I think the administration need to actually follow through and do something good for women. As Bunch explains, it is hard to determine what is best to do to help both the domestic and the global community, but we can all benefit from feminist activities around the world.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Class 11_12
Maria Cristina Rangel’s article, “Knowledge is Power” discusses her experience as a college student with children, and her experience with welfare. She details her constant fear meeting with the welfare representative and fearing that her benefits will be taken away. She says that if her benefits are taken away, her education is taken away, and her education is everything. This article is significant because of the welfare reforms that happened in 1996. Many single mothers are living across the country, all trying to live off of welfare, or even trying to just get on it. As Rangel writes about, she gets barely enough benefits to live. She expresses her frustration at the system and the reforms that took place. This is a complicated issue which women in our government helped to pass. It is a crazy law that a woman cannot pursue higher education and receive welfare at the same time. I also find it a little weird that this law was passed because the government felt that women on welfare were “gimme girls” who were taking advantage of the government. I do not know how the government could think that, when extremely poor women need welfare so badly.
The other article, “The Lady and the Tramp(II): Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice”, by Gwendolyn Mink is about her role in her most recent job, Women’s Committee of 100. Initially she struggled with her job because she felt like she was becoming like the women she criticized in her book. She talks about the war against poor women and discusses that poor women are, “the only people in America forced by law to work outside the home. They are the only people in America whose decisions to bear children are punished by government” (pg. 497). This is such a critical statement because the government and legislative authorities do not consider mothers as working people. They don’t compensate women for their work inside the home, but instead force them to work outside the home and shirk their responsibilities as mothers. She also brings up a good point that women aren’t awarded for their jobs as mothers, but CEO’s of companies who make outstanding salaries are praised extensively. The main point that stood out to me is that these working mothers are, “forced either by law or by economic circumstance to choose wages over children” (pg. 497). This is a crucial point, but one that I never would have thought of on my own. I never viewed it as a choice, wages or children, because my mom was able to stay home with me, as were other mothers. However, in many families across the country, women do have to make that choice, and since the natural choice for women is children, women end up in poverty and need to aid of welfare. This is a serious problem in our country, because of the welfare reform programs passed in 1996.
The other article, “The Lady and the Tramp(II): Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice”, by Gwendolyn Mink is about her role in her most recent job, Women’s Committee of 100. Initially she struggled with her job because she felt like she was becoming like the women she criticized in her book. She talks about the war against poor women and discusses that poor women are, “the only people in America forced by law to work outside the home. They are the only people in America whose decisions to bear children are punished by government” (pg. 497). This is such a critical statement because the government and legislative authorities do not consider mothers as working people. They don’t compensate women for their work inside the home, but instead force them to work outside the home and shirk their responsibilities as mothers. She also brings up a good point that women aren’t awarded for their jobs as mothers, but CEO’s of companies who make outstanding salaries are praised extensively. The main point that stood out to me is that these working mothers are, “forced either by law or by economic circumstance to choose wages over children” (pg. 497). This is a crucial point, but one that I never would have thought of on my own. I never viewed it as a choice, wages or children, because my mom was able to stay home with me, as were other mothers. However, in many families across the country, women do have to make that choice, and since the natural choice for women is children, women end up in poverty and need to aid of welfare. This is a serious problem in our country, because of the welfare reform programs passed in 1996.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Newsflash: Fighting to Outlaw Abortion
Article URL: Three State Ballot Initiatives Push Choice to Edge
Arcana, Judith. “Abortion is a Motherhood Issue.”
Frye, Marilyn. "Oppression." Feminist Frontiers. By Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier and Leila J. Rupp. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences & World Languages, 2007. 7-9.
Smith, Andrea. "Beyond Pro-Choice and Pro-Life: Women of Color and Reproductive Justice." Feminist Frontiers. By Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier and Leila J. Rupp. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences & World Languages, 2007. 389-400.
In today’s world, when the word “abortion” is mentioned, an automatic divide forms: pro-choice or pro-life. However, thanks to the women’s rights movement, and guaranteed (at least temporarily) under the decision of Roe v. Wade, women today have the option to have an abortion when they become pregnant. This has not always been the case, and it might not always stay the case. Recent state laws are infringing on a woman’s right to choose for herself whether to support abortion or not. Specifically, in the upcoming weeks, three states will have to vote on recent legislation which severely hampers the pro-choice movement. South Dakota’s “Measure 11”, California’s “Proposition 4”, and Colorado’s “Amendment 48” all point to the fact that women’s rights are being put to the test across the entire country, and that Roe v Wade is in jeopardy, and might become extinct with the next Presidential election.
The first legislation, South Dakota’s “Measure 11” is the newest push to ban all abortions in the state. Last year, this same legislation was rejected because it didn’t include any clauses; this year “Measure 11” has included exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, or if the woman’s health of life is in danger. According to a Mason-Dixon poll, 44% of voters were found in favor of the legislation, 44% against it, and 12% undecided, with a margin of error of 3.5% (Ginty, pg 2). However, voters have no answers as to what qualifies as health exceptions. According to many voters and state residents, they are afraid to test the waters. This is the same on the doctors’ side; they have to choose whether to break the law, or to commit a crime. If this law passes, and they perform and abortion, they could be stuck with felony charges and up to 10 years in jail (Ginty, pg 2). The one Planned Parenthood clinic in all of South Dakota, led by director Celine Richards, believes that if this legislation passes, it will be all to easy to overturn Roe v Wade (Ginty, pg 2-3). This Planned Parenthood is also the only clinic that performs abortions in the state, and it also caters to women in neighboring states. If this legislation passes, many women will have to travel further and pay more to have an abortion.
The second legislation, California’s “Proposition 4”, is only slightly weaker than South Dakota’s proposal, intending for women under the age of 18 to be legally required to notify their parents if they choose to have an abortion. The women must also then wait 48 hours between the time of notification and choosing to have the procedure. This legislation does not include exceptions for if the girl was impregnated due to incest or if her family is abusive. However, it does provide that a woman can tell an older family member, such as a grandparent. Nonetheless, the parents are still bound to find out, because if a woman does choose to tell someone but her parents, the parents must be investigated on charges of being abusive. As soon as the investigation began, they would be notified of what they are being charged with. In a recent poll, 44% supported it, 52% were opposed, and 4% were undecided, with a margin of error of 3% (Ginty, pg 3). Many people opposed to this law fear that it will only frighten pregnant teens and spur on a wave of unconventional, and sometimes unsafe, abortions. Similar to South Dakota’s problem, many teens from neighboring states come to California to have an abortion in order to avoid their own parental notification laws. These women as well will then have to travel even further, or turn to riskier procedures to abort their fetus.
The third, and last, legislation is Colorado’s “Amendment 48” which would state that fetus’ have human rights as of the day of their conception. This means that if women are undernourished, or naturally abort their child, they can be accused of murder. Even more harmful to women’s rights is the inclusion of the ban on in-vitro fertilization, the IUD, emergency contraception, and regular birth control, because, according to the state, these could all serve to dislodge a fetus from the wall of the uterus, thus causing an abortion. The state also plans on cancelling all its stem cell research. In this poll, 48% of voters are opposed, 30% are for it, and 22% are undecided, with a margin of error of 4%. In this legislation, there is also no clause for women pregnant due to rape, incest, or if the mother’s health or life are at risk. If this legislation is passed, it will take away most of women’s rights, and is capable of even charging them of murder if they experience a miscarriage.
All three of these possible legislations places Roe v. Wade severely in jeopardy and, as many believe, are only precursors to Roe v. Wade being overturned. According to Ginty, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and laws on abortion are back in the hands of the states, 21 states will completely ban abortion, and another 9 will make attempts to narrow its terms (Ginty, pg 1). The effects of these legislations, if passed, would have catastrophic effects on our country. First of all, as proved in class when discussing the history of abortion, just because abortion might be illegal, does not mean that abortions will not occur. In fact, according to the statistics given in class, in 1890, when abortion was illegal, around 2 million abortions were performed. Nowadays, even though abortion is legal, only 1.5 million abortions are performed each year. Given these statistics, if abortion was made illegal, the number of abortions would not fall, but they would most likely rise. With all this new legislation, the safety of these abortions would also become worse, and women would be subjected to much more risk. For example, as discussed in class, women must be admitted to a hospital to have an abortion during the second trimester, since anesthesia is used. However, if abortions were legal (and because hospitals are so tightly regulated), women would not be able to be admitted to a hospital to have an abortion, and instead would be subject to going back to her home, in which case the risks to her health multiply.
Along these lines, if a fetus had human rights, as proposed by the Colorado government, many more women would be criminalized and put in jail. According to the law, women who engage in sports and have a miscarriage, or who don’t take good care of their health and miscarriage, will be subject to court, and possibly jail. Similar to Alison Smith’s article, “Beyond Pro-Choice and Pro-Life”, this legislation would only serve to support this country’s prison system, and exacerbate racial roles in our society (Smith, pg 390). According to Smith, pro-life supporters view abortion as a criminal act. This is the same with Colorado’s proposed legislation. If more and more women are found to be criminals, more and more women will end up in jail. On top of this, many more white women will be able to “get away” with their miscarriages and/or abortions than black women will. This is supported by our discussion in class that when abortion was illegal, white women usually have more money and resources to be able to have a legal abortion. If this legislation passes, women will have to travel to a different state to have an abortion. This involves the money needed to travel, the money for the procedure and hospital stay, the means of transportation, and the ability to take time off from their job. Many women in poverty (many of which are black), do not have these vital resources and thus would not be able to have a legal abortion. They would either have to persuade a doctor to do the procedure illegally, or turn to methods used when abortion was illegal.
According to Ginty, if these laws are passed, this could lead to similar legislation in other states, and eventually the ban on all abortions, across the country. This is similar to Marilyn Frye’s article, “Oppression” and her model of a bird cage (Frye, pg 8). When looking at one single bar, for example one state opposed to abortion, you think that you can fly around it, by having an abortion in another state. However, with this legislation, more and more bars are being put up to prohibit a woman from choosing her future. Beginning with parental notification and mandatory waiting period laws, then moving to laws giving fetus’ human rights, and finally to state-wide bans on all abortions and no access to birth control, women’s freedom and liberties are slowly being stripped away. As Judith Arcana states, “Abortion is a motherhood issue” (Arcana, pg. 1). The choice of a mother to abort is her choice. As Arcana describes, from her experience working at an abortion clinic, not one woman took this decision lightly. They all weighed their decision. All the women there were also all different; they were all of different races, classes, religious beliefs, and moral convictions. At the end of the day, abortion should be the decision of the mother. The government, and men in particular (of which the government is mainly composed of), have no right to make legislation to take away our decisions. As Arcana describes, “Sometimes, though, the separation occurs because we have lost sight of the fact that abortion is not only about women getting pregnant, but also about babies growing inside women’s bodies. When that happens, we forget that abortion is, in the ordinary motherhood-type way, the concern of women who are taking responsibility for the lives of their children” (Arcana, pg 1). In this sense, women make the decision to abort or not, based on their ability to provide for that child. If a woman cannot provide or care for their child, then some women believe that it is in the child’s best interest to abort. In that sense, lawmakers can never be in the position to make that judgment call. Lawmakers can never go around deciding for women whether they have the resources to parent a child. Because of this, lawmakers should never be able to pass legislation that will outlaw abortion; by doing so, they are potentially allowing a child to be born in an environment in which their parents cannot provide for them.
Ultimately, these three new potential legislations severely limit women’s rights, and could potentially lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned. By passing this legislation, women will have their opinions and convictions taken away from them. They will not be able to make the right choices for themselves or their potential children. Lawmakers should never have a say in this, as in the end, abortion is a women’s issue. Women should have the right, always, to decide whether to parent their child, or to have an abortion.
Arcana, Judith. “Abortion is a Motherhood Issue.”
Frye, Marilyn. "Oppression." Feminist Frontiers. By Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier and Leila J. Rupp. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences & World Languages, 2007. 7-9.
Smith, Andrea. "Beyond Pro-Choice and Pro-Life: Women of Color and Reproductive Justice." Feminist Frontiers. By Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier and Leila J. Rupp. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences & World Languages, 2007. 389-400.
In today’s world, when the word “abortion” is mentioned, an automatic divide forms: pro-choice or pro-life. However, thanks to the women’s rights movement, and guaranteed (at least temporarily) under the decision of Roe v. Wade, women today have the option to have an abortion when they become pregnant. This has not always been the case, and it might not always stay the case. Recent state laws are infringing on a woman’s right to choose for herself whether to support abortion or not. Specifically, in the upcoming weeks, three states will have to vote on recent legislation which severely hampers the pro-choice movement. South Dakota’s “Measure 11”, California’s “Proposition 4”, and Colorado’s “Amendment 48” all point to the fact that women’s rights are being put to the test across the entire country, and that Roe v Wade is in jeopardy, and might become extinct with the next Presidential election.
The first legislation, South Dakota’s “Measure 11” is the newest push to ban all abortions in the state. Last year, this same legislation was rejected because it didn’t include any clauses; this year “Measure 11” has included exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, or if the woman’s health of life is in danger. According to a Mason-Dixon poll, 44% of voters were found in favor of the legislation, 44% against it, and 12% undecided, with a margin of error of 3.5% (Ginty, pg 2). However, voters have no answers as to what qualifies as health exceptions. According to many voters and state residents, they are afraid to test the waters. This is the same on the doctors’ side; they have to choose whether to break the law, or to commit a crime. If this law passes, and they perform and abortion, they could be stuck with felony charges and up to 10 years in jail (Ginty, pg 2). The one Planned Parenthood clinic in all of South Dakota, led by director Celine Richards, believes that if this legislation passes, it will be all to easy to overturn Roe v Wade (Ginty, pg 2-3). This Planned Parenthood is also the only clinic that performs abortions in the state, and it also caters to women in neighboring states. If this legislation passes, many women will have to travel further and pay more to have an abortion.
The second legislation, California’s “Proposition 4”, is only slightly weaker than South Dakota’s proposal, intending for women under the age of 18 to be legally required to notify their parents if they choose to have an abortion. The women must also then wait 48 hours between the time of notification and choosing to have the procedure. This legislation does not include exceptions for if the girl was impregnated due to incest or if her family is abusive. However, it does provide that a woman can tell an older family member, such as a grandparent. Nonetheless, the parents are still bound to find out, because if a woman does choose to tell someone but her parents, the parents must be investigated on charges of being abusive. As soon as the investigation began, they would be notified of what they are being charged with. In a recent poll, 44% supported it, 52% were opposed, and 4% were undecided, with a margin of error of 3% (Ginty, pg 3). Many people opposed to this law fear that it will only frighten pregnant teens and spur on a wave of unconventional, and sometimes unsafe, abortions. Similar to South Dakota’s problem, many teens from neighboring states come to California to have an abortion in order to avoid their own parental notification laws. These women as well will then have to travel even further, or turn to riskier procedures to abort their fetus.
The third, and last, legislation is Colorado’s “Amendment 48” which would state that fetus’ have human rights as of the day of their conception. This means that if women are undernourished, or naturally abort their child, they can be accused of murder. Even more harmful to women’s rights is the inclusion of the ban on in-vitro fertilization, the IUD, emergency contraception, and regular birth control, because, according to the state, these could all serve to dislodge a fetus from the wall of the uterus, thus causing an abortion. The state also plans on cancelling all its stem cell research. In this poll, 48% of voters are opposed, 30% are for it, and 22% are undecided, with a margin of error of 4%. In this legislation, there is also no clause for women pregnant due to rape, incest, or if the mother’s health or life are at risk. If this legislation is passed, it will take away most of women’s rights, and is capable of even charging them of murder if they experience a miscarriage.
All three of these possible legislations places Roe v. Wade severely in jeopardy and, as many believe, are only precursors to Roe v. Wade being overturned. According to Ginty, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and laws on abortion are back in the hands of the states, 21 states will completely ban abortion, and another 9 will make attempts to narrow its terms (Ginty, pg 1). The effects of these legislations, if passed, would have catastrophic effects on our country. First of all, as proved in class when discussing the history of abortion, just because abortion might be illegal, does not mean that abortions will not occur. In fact, according to the statistics given in class, in 1890, when abortion was illegal, around 2 million abortions were performed. Nowadays, even though abortion is legal, only 1.5 million abortions are performed each year. Given these statistics, if abortion was made illegal, the number of abortions would not fall, but they would most likely rise. With all this new legislation, the safety of these abortions would also become worse, and women would be subjected to much more risk. For example, as discussed in class, women must be admitted to a hospital to have an abortion during the second trimester, since anesthesia is used. However, if abortions were legal (and because hospitals are so tightly regulated), women would not be able to be admitted to a hospital to have an abortion, and instead would be subject to going back to her home, in which case the risks to her health multiply.
Along these lines, if a fetus had human rights, as proposed by the Colorado government, many more women would be criminalized and put in jail. According to the law, women who engage in sports and have a miscarriage, or who don’t take good care of their health and miscarriage, will be subject to court, and possibly jail. Similar to Alison Smith’s article, “Beyond Pro-Choice and Pro-Life”, this legislation would only serve to support this country’s prison system, and exacerbate racial roles in our society (Smith, pg 390). According to Smith, pro-life supporters view abortion as a criminal act. This is the same with Colorado’s proposed legislation. If more and more women are found to be criminals, more and more women will end up in jail. On top of this, many more white women will be able to “get away” with their miscarriages and/or abortions than black women will. This is supported by our discussion in class that when abortion was illegal, white women usually have more money and resources to be able to have a legal abortion. If this legislation passes, women will have to travel to a different state to have an abortion. This involves the money needed to travel, the money for the procedure and hospital stay, the means of transportation, and the ability to take time off from their job. Many women in poverty (many of which are black), do not have these vital resources and thus would not be able to have a legal abortion. They would either have to persuade a doctor to do the procedure illegally, or turn to methods used when abortion was illegal.
According to Ginty, if these laws are passed, this could lead to similar legislation in other states, and eventually the ban on all abortions, across the country. This is similar to Marilyn Frye’s article, “Oppression” and her model of a bird cage (Frye, pg 8). When looking at one single bar, for example one state opposed to abortion, you think that you can fly around it, by having an abortion in another state. However, with this legislation, more and more bars are being put up to prohibit a woman from choosing her future. Beginning with parental notification and mandatory waiting period laws, then moving to laws giving fetus’ human rights, and finally to state-wide bans on all abortions and no access to birth control, women’s freedom and liberties are slowly being stripped away. As Judith Arcana states, “Abortion is a motherhood issue” (Arcana, pg. 1). The choice of a mother to abort is her choice. As Arcana describes, from her experience working at an abortion clinic, not one woman took this decision lightly. They all weighed their decision. All the women there were also all different; they were all of different races, classes, religious beliefs, and moral convictions. At the end of the day, abortion should be the decision of the mother. The government, and men in particular (of which the government is mainly composed of), have no right to make legislation to take away our decisions. As Arcana describes, “Sometimes, though, the separation occurs because we have lost sight of the fact that abortion is not only about women getting pregnant, but also about babies growing inside women’s bodies. When that happens, we forget that abortion is, in the ordinary motherhood-type way, the concern of women who are taking responsibility for the lives of their children” (Arcana, pg 1). In this sense, women make the decision to abort or not, based on their ability to provide for that child. If a woman cannot provide or care for their child, then some women believe that it is in the child’s best interest to abort. In that sense, lawmakers can never be in the position to make that judgment call. Lawmakers can never go around deciding for women whether they have the resources to parent a child. Because of this, lawmakers should never be able to pass legislation that will outlaw abortion; by doing so, they are potentially allowing a child to be born in an environment in which their parents cannot provide for them.
Ultimately, these three new potential legislations severely limit women’s rights, and could potentially lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned. By passing this legislation, women will have their opinions and convictions taken away from them. They will not be able to make the right choices for themselves or their potential children. Lawmakers should never have a say in this, as in the end, abortion is a women’s issue. Women should have the right, always, to decide whether to parent their child, or to have an abortion.
Class 11_5
When looking up Connecticut’s laws on same-sex marriages, I was surprised to find that a bill was just passed this month allowing same-sex marriages to occur. I learned that we were the second state after Vermont to allow civil unions, and as the verdict of Kerrigan and Mock v Connecticut Department of Public Health, as of November 12, 2008, same-sex marriages will be legal. Connecticut is the only the third state to legalize same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that civil unions are discriminatory and that the law must yield to more contemporary versions of marriage, including same-sex couples. While I have always been aware that Connecticut was a pretty liberal state, I had no idea that a same-sex marriage law was even being debated, and I was surprised to find out that it passed. However, many opponents are working towards passing a law to ban all same-sex marriages. I am in complete support of legalizing same-sex marriages due to the vast amount of federal and state benefits given only to heterosexual married couples.
While I am aware of some of the benefits, others are less obvious, as seen from reading the same-sex marriage FAQ’s. I don’t understand how people can be against allowing same-sex partners hospital visitation rights, family protection (especially if the couple has children), tax cuts, or anything else. I was surprised how states can actually believe that civil unions grant the same rights as marriage, and how they can call it separate but equal. This, to me, is the same case as when blacks were given civil rights and the government referred to them as separate but equal. It is clear that they are not the same things, so why call them the same? While I understand that some civil unions and same-sex marriages are not recognized in other states, those people should still be granted the rights that those couples are given in those states. Just because those people don’t live in the states that they are married in, they should still be given the benefits.
As we mentioned in class, the government and the economy would benefit from allowing same-sex marriages. The wedding industry would experience immense increases in income, and Bush would realize his goal in increasing marriage rates. As Nancy Naples discusses in her article, “Queer Parenting in the New Millennium”, the Bush administration has allocated massive amounts of money towards promoting “traditional marriage”. Instead of this, the government should encourage marriage of any kind, and make it fair and accessible for same-sex couples to marry. It is not fair to give benefits to people only if they are a married heterosexual couple.
While I am aware of some of the benefits, others are less obvious, as seen from reading the same-sex marriage FAQ’s. I don’t understand how people can be against allowing same-sex partners hospital visitation rights, family protection (especially if the couple has children), tax cuts, or anything else. I was surprised how states can actually believe that civil unions grant the same rights as marriage, and how they can call it separate but equal. This, to me, is the same case as when blacks were given civil rights and the government referred to them as separate but equal. It is clear that they are not the same things, so why call them the same? While I understand that some civil unions and same-sex marriages are not recognized in other states, those people should still be granted the rights that those couples are given in those states. Just because those people don’t live in the states that they are married in, they should still be given the benefits.
As we mentioned in class, the government and the economy would benefit from allowing same-sex marriages. The wedding industry would experience immense increases in income, and Bush would realize his goal in increasing marriage rates. As Nancy Naples discusses in her article, “Queer Parenting in the New Millennium”, the Bush administration has allocated massive amounts of money towards promoting “traditional marriage”. Instead of this, the government should encourage marriage of any kind, and make it fair and accessible for same-sex couples to marry. It is not fair to give benefits to people only if they are a married heterosexual couple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)