Main Post for 11/30/10

Cynthia Enloe’s chapter, “All the Men are the Militias, All the Women are Victims” explores the roles of masculinity and femininity in Nationalist Wars, she also seeks to explain what drives certain men to perform horrific war crimes. She starts off by bringing up Borislav Herak, a seemingly normal Serbian man who later on went on to commit mass rape and murder. Enloe seems confused on how a man like that decided to kill and rape these women. He was never violent and he “fell” into the company of Serbian militiamen, he did not seek them out, he joined because they offered him food and shelter. Cynthia Enloe asks the question, “How had such an apparently unpoliticized individual come to take risks in the name of Serbian nationalism (Enloe 101)?” The answer to this question is a complex one but it starts off with the fact that he was a man and grew up in a time that demanded masculinity from its male population. Another point Enloe brings up is how little has been written about women and their experiences of ethnicity and nationalism. Cynthia Enloe gives three assumptions for why women are mentioned in investigations of politicized ethnicity or of nationalist movements: one is that men had the ideas and actions that lead to processes and women are just spectators. Another is that men and women have roughly the same experience and since men are easier to research, they chose men. And lastly uneven task distribution between and men and women had little impact on individuals’ sense of belonging or on the strategies selected for collective mobilization. These assumptions are really faulty and don’t really understand how ethnic and nationalist processes actually operate. They are based on trivial decisions, because decisions involve power and that’s what constructs nationalism. Cynthia Enloe then says that he being a militia fighter or a male can’t explain Borislav Herak’s actions of nationalism. After he joined the militia is when he decided that his Serb nationality justified military action, not before. When he first joined he was taught that it was the Muslims fault for why he was oppressed, and why he had no success in life. He was socialized to think that military action was necessary if want to call yourself a Serb man. This is also done with women, but in a different way, instead of telling the to fight, they glorified women by calling them the mother’s of soldiers, and elevating their status because of this fact. Masculinity was becoming linked with performing as a soldier. This is seen in a lot of places, like South Africa where the Zulu men were taught that their manhood was rooted in their performance as a warrior. Cynthia Enloe then goes on to describe work done by Christopher Browning and his research on Nazi officers. He had a similar dilemma as Enloe because he wanted to know what would make an ordinary German man with a family kill defenseless Jews. He found that most of the officers before the war were not actively involved in politics and they were actually not deeply embedded with the anti-Semitic feeling. What the superior officers did was try to lower the psychological stress involved with killing someone. Things like, “Dignity as fathers, reassurance as boyfriends, pride as sons, comradeship as fictive brothers-in arms, satisfaction as masculinized heterosexuals,” were said to lesson the blow of killing someone. Enloe then gives an excerpt of a conversation with Borislav Herak and a reporter. He fully confessed to murder and rape and said he only did it because he was ordered to, and that he felt regret for it. To me he said like a weak man that did what he was told instead of standing up and doing what his right. Sometimes it’s hard to do the right the things, but if more people stood up for what it is right then maybe this whole incident wouldn’t of happened. I understand he was scared for his life, but what about the lives of the innocent women he was killing and raping. He was put in a difficult situation and it’s horrible that anyone is put into situations like that, but he seems like a follower to me with no backbone.

“The Spoils of War,” is another chapter in Cynthia Enloe’s book “A Curious Feminist.” It describes how U.S. soldiers in Japan are allowed to hire prostitutes. This was in response to how three soldiers raped a twelve-year-old girl. Many think that the prostitution is ok because it’s prostitution not rape. This is ridiculous, if prostitution is illegal in the U.S. then why is it okay to do it in Japan, totally disgraceful and really puts a bad name on the soldiers in Japan.

Steven Lee Myers wrote two articles in the New York Times about women in the military. The first, “A peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.’s” is about sexual harassment and sexual assault faced by women in the military. With the introduction of a lot more women entering the war in Iraq, new problems that the military hasn’t real seen are coming up. Mainly sexual Assault and harassment which can be the result of the strains of combat, close quarters in remote locations, tension and even boredom. The military has a zero tolerance when it comes to sexual abuse, but the fact is that most women don’t report it because women are afraid they won’t be believed or it might jeopardize their rank in the military. Another thing is that women feel that their problem of being abused is so small compared to the actual war going. Sgt. Tracey R. Phillips actually came forward and told of the harassment that happened to her. She ended up being discharged. With this as an example of what happens to sexual harassment victims in the war, no wonder only 10 percent of abuse is reported. Myers explains that even though abuse is still around, the respect for women in uniform is more common then it used to be and that this a result of the change of culture that happened to the military when women entered. The number of complaints though of abuse is on the rise, but this may be do to the fact that more women are coming forward and are not afraid of what will happen to them. This abuse is an even bigger problem if the soldiers are in a combat zone because your suppose to have your fellow soldiers back, but how can you do that if that person has harassed you. This is dangerous because this not only puts people in danger, but also buts the mission at hand in danger of failing. The military is now offering rape kits so that evidence can be collected, they have also set up nurses who can examine a woman, and a person they can talk to after the incident happens. However some of the military’s efforts are being undermined by commanders who are in charged and afraid of reporting the attack because they fear it’s a bad reflection on them. They need to realize that, that is not the case and it’s even worse if they don’t say something. The main problem is that when attacked in the army, you can’t even get away from the person because each place is so small, its like a “fishbowl”, you can’t escape the person. Hopefully people in the army see how especially dangerous this is and how degrading it is.

In Myer’s second, lighter article, “Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In,” he looks into the lives of men and women in the army. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the first wars where women have worked for prolong periods of time. With this introduction of women, comes the introduction of sex. On the military base a lot of the men and women have sex and with the availability of contraceptives it makes the sex a lot safer. Pregnancy is pretty rare so there is really no problem with that, only three women were sent home in ten months in one of the bases. He explains how sexual abuse is still a problem but not any more of problem of how it is in regular society. The fact now is that some women have high ranking jobs and it’s a direct result of their actions not their genetic make-up. Col. Burt K Thompson, commander at Warhorse, said “I’ve relieved males form command, I’ve never relieved a female commander in two and half years as commander (Myers 5).” This shows how actions speak louder then words, women proved themselves component when it comes to war while maintaining their femininity through out war. The women in war today are confident and intelligent and know what they are doing; they have to be in order to protect this country.

Short Response 11/29

All four readings for today focused on the topic of rape in terms of the military. Cynthia Enloe's two chapters revolve around militarized rape and why it occurs. Not surprisingly she chooses the Bosnian/ Serbian conflict as her backdrop to the discussion of mass rapes. One of the main reasons this occurs is due to the psychological and social construction of masculinity. In places such as Russia and other Eastern European countries, masculinity and a mans duty is ingrained into boys. If we trace back the historical roots of such countries we will discover that a young man's duty to his country is of great importance. Masculinity in these countries revolves around sacrificing yourself for the betterment of the nation state. Looking at World War II, we see that the Russian government chose to do this in the form of 'Ivan' a self sacrificing, strong man who was willing to die on the front lines for the Red Army. During this conflict, Russia literally went through two armies because their population allowed them to sustain such a loss. As discussed in Enloe's chapter, mass rape was rampant during WWII on both the German and Russian side. The victims were of course local women, who lived in the areas being conquered. The notion of masculinity combined with the psychological dynamics of being in a military allowed these men to think that rape was acceptable. Having read Christopher Browning's book, I would say that her assessment is quite accurate. The Nazi soldiers were given opportunities by their superiors to not participate in mass shootings of local villagers. However, almost all soldiers participated in fear that their manhood would be questioned or they would be ostracized from the group. Borislav Herik seems to have went through a similar feeling. The psychological pressure to join in on the gang rape was tremendous, although this does not for one second excuse his behavior. In participating in the rape, we see that Borislav is not a man. He raped the girl in fear of the consequences that awaited for him if he did not- mainly being sent to the front line.
   Mass rape is not only reserved for countries that we deem to be less civilized than the United States. Cases of mass rape were present in Vietnam. As I am writing this I tried to google cases of rape in Vietnam, however the search is turning up very few hits- to be expected? Through my studies in other classes though, I know that a famous mass rape case was investigated. The soldiers claimed that they were ordered to rape the local villagers and that they could not disobey a direct order. Sociologists have poured over this case and have come to a general consensus that the psychological effects of militarization and routinization played a large role in why the soldiers carried out this order.
   Turning to Myers article we see that rape is still a problem, even in 2011. Women GI's are now reporting rapes carried out by fellow soldiers. Many of the rapes occur by a soldier who lives in close quarters. The pain and frustration that ensues for these women seems to me to be almost unimaginable. Having to live and work with your attacker each day is horrible. Yet, many women are hesitant to report these rapes or attacks because they fear that they will not be taken seriously, or that they will not be believed or that their testimony will interfere with the mission and lower team morale. All these factors play a large part in whether women come forward. As shocking as American soldiers raping American soldiers is- it is quite astonishing that this isn't a larger issue.... or is it? The industrial military complex has an enormous role in the American societal structure. They wield a tremendous amount of power and generally can prevent such news from reaching the media. Additionally, who actually wants to hear about American soldiers raping one another? I have the privilege of attending Colgate University because I do not have to go overseas to defend our country. Thus, I try to block out the thousands of soldiers ( my age or my parent's age) who are dying overseas- simply because it's easier to do so. I do not mean to sound callous or insensitive when making such a statement, but in general I really think our society tends to categorize things, putting the least pleasant to the back. Furthermore, the soldiers committing the attacks are all someone's: brother, son, nephew, husband etc. Thus, many refuse to accept the serious nature of these crimes. Sympathy for these soldiers (rapists) starts to build when taking into account the fact that they are risking their lives for our countries. With sympathy comes excuses and denial. The common phrase "boys will be boys" gets thrown around. Well maybe it's time to really examine how detrimental that phrase can be,

Short Response 11/30

In the "Women at Arms" articles, New York Times authors chronicle the difficulties that face women as they serve in the Iraq War alongside men. Unlike wars in the past, the Iraq War highlights the strides women have made to gain respect as professionals, even in the traditionally male-dominated military. In "A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.'s," Stephen Lee Meyers reports on the prevalence of sexual abuse in the army and the problem it poses for the victims, usually women. He explains that most sexual abuse cases involve women who work closely with and oftentimes live in close quarters with their perpetrators. As a result, reporting the abuse can cause problems within the troop, which could lead to dangerous implications for the safety of other soldiers uninvolved. As the sexually abused Captain Margaret H. White recounts, she was worried that reporting her accusations of abuse could put her troop's mission in jeopardy. While the military boasts a "no tolerance" policy for sexual assault and harrassment, its track record in dealing with abuse cases does not seem to reflect the same philosophy. For instance, when Sgt. Tracey R. Phillips reported a private sexually assaulted her in Iraq, after a series of lawsuits, she was finally relieved of her duties while her perpetrator remained employed overseas. While women say they feel confident about their strength and ability to fit in with the predominantly male-populated military, many explain that reporting sexual harrassment and abuse is not worth the reprecusions. This reality is highlighted by the minute 10% of sexual assault cases reported each year and the large number of assault cases dismissed as being unfounded.

I cannot say that I am surprised by the findings of these articles, particularly "A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.'s." The military includes mostly men and in times of war, rape is a reality. Throughout history, wartime has brought with it multiple occasions of rape and sexual harrassment, probably a result of psychological conditions of dominance that lead to the exercise of such power over weaker individuals. Usually, this type of attack takes place among enemies; however, it seems it has now translated into an activity in which men (and rarely women) are exercising this dominance over the women, and sometimes men, who share their same living spaces, report to the same officer, and work towards the same goal. In order to combat this harsh reality, the military needs to live up to its "no tolerance" policy by setting precident that assures women (and men) that reporting cases of sexual assault will not lead to an honorable discharge, but instead will lead to justice.

short Response 11/23/10

“Supremacy Crimes” by Gloria Steinem was a very accurate article. I think all the points she made were right on target. The crimes she describes in this article are all performed by men that are white, middle-class, and heterosexual and are done for no economic or rational gain except for their belief that they are superior, so they can kill (Steinem 1). My dad, who is black, always jokes around with me and family when we see stuff like this on the news, he says, “Uh-Oh crazy rich white boy not getting enough attention from mommy and daddy so he’s gotta go on a killing rampage.” We all laugh, but it’s actually true, certain white males in this country are out of control. I don’t know why they think it’s all right to kill when life gets hard, if everyone did that we would have a very small population. My favorite line of the article was, “…the drug of superiority. It’s a drug pushed by a male-dominant culture that presents dominance as a natural right; a racist hierarchy that falsely elevates whiteness; a materialist society that equates superiority with possessions, and a homophobic one that empowers only on form of sexuality (1).” The problem with this is that this is obvious, it’s obvious that white heterosexuals males with a lot of possessions are preferred, but how do we change this standard. Because this is a type of problem that can’t be fixed overnight with a one step solution by a single person. It’s going to involve everyone committing to multi-step solution; I just don’t see this happening.

The letter to her students about how to stop rape by Claire Potter was very informative, I think that most people actually do know to do these things; it’s the actual doing that is hard. It’s easy to think you would go to the police or hospital if something like this happened to you, but being actually in this situation is a totally different story. The fact of the matter is that most girls think of this as a private matter and are scared of being blamed or not believed if they report it. The most important thing I think this article offers is it’s advice to women to not be ashamed and for men and women to talk to each other so they understand what is acceptable and what is not.

As a person who finds it difficult to speak in class, I actually enjoyed reading the different reasons that Cynthia Enloe offers for why people (women) don’t talk in class. She says that women don’t speak up sometimes because they feel that their comments won’t be taken as serious as the males in subjects like politics or world affairs. I think today that is not that true, at least for me. In most of my class girls are the ones that talk the most and the reason I don’t talk is because I’m scared of saying something stupid, wrong, or something that doesn’t make sense. It’s a very intimidating environment, Colgate has a lot of smart people and sometimes I feel stupid, but I’m learning to swallow that fear and just say what’s on my mind. Speaking publicly with a group is one of the most important things we experience in college and in life and hopefully women are starting to become taken more seriously.

Main post for 11/18/2010

Live Under Intimidation

As a girl I just realized that I grow up while always under the fear of something. A friend of mine cycled to another city which is hundreds of kilometers away. When he came back and told us his adventure, I was completely fascinated with his journey and wanted to join his another journey to Shanghai. However, I even did not bother to mention a word to my parents because I knew for sure that they would not approve it since they are always in fear of something. My parents never allow me to travel alone though they have taught me that girls can do anything. Whenever I want to stay late outside home, my parents would be unhappy and charge me of being ungirlish and ill-bred but I understand what are they actually in fear of. This fear keeps me away from acting freely. I always need to be home before it is too late, I should always wait for some friends to take a journey together, and I can hardly enjoy party because I need to be cautious with the environment around and I cannot continue to drink the beverage which has been away from me for some time. I also read that during the War against Japan, many women suicided or killed by their husbands or fathers in fear that they may be raped by Japanese soldiers. This is kind of fear that is so powerful that has effect on most women. As Susan Brownmiller states in her book :“(Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” (Susan Brownmiller).

While rape generates anxiety on women for centuries, I found it rather frustrated that it is largely downplayed in psychology and Freudian-oriented criminology. In Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller points out that since morality does not play in medical work, Freudian criminologists tend to define rapists also as victims but as victims psychological diseases. However, rapists do not necessarily be oppressed by their wives or extraordinary, they can also be in the mold of typical youthful offenders.

And women of color suffer even more from violence against women. As stated in Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw that minority women, for example immigrant women, tend not to report the violence against them and hide their sufferings for the honor of family. And the helping system rarely reach these women.

I want to live in a society in which women are free of fear and in which I dare to play cards with men in party.

Short Response 11/18

In Emilie Morgan's story "Don't Call me a Survivor", she details her experience with being raped multiple times. I was astonished by the shocking process she went through and the brutal attacks that she endured. Although Morgan was a victim, she was treated as if she was to blame for these attacks. Furthermore, the treatment that she endured only seemed to worsen her experience. For instance, she was molested by an employee at the treatment center she checked into after one of her rapes. I was most shocked by the recounts of her gang rape which she said lasted for approximately six hours. I guess I prefer to believe that such things are rare occurances and would never happen in my "sphere." However, when thinking about the Campus Climate Survey, I am reminded that the rate of sexual assault is actually quite high on our very own campus. Yet, it is something that is taboo, thus people don't discuss it and might not report it. When victims of rape feel the need to silence themselves, their attackers become empowered and feel safe. I think the objectification of women as sex objects really leads to such attacks. If men only see women as sex objects than why wouldn't they be there for the taking. Our society puts men in power and casts women as being inferior. We are not as smart, capable or important as they are, thus they can make the rules as well as break them. More discussion and understanding of rape and what constitutes rape would certainly help this phenomenon. However, a true change in our societal thought is the most important step in eliminating this violence against women.

Short Response 11/18

In "Don't Call Me A Survivor," Emilie Morgan talks about her experiences being raped and the guilt she was made to feel as a result. She explains that in nearly every case when she reported the rape, those in whom she confided seemed to blame her for the violence, as though she invited the perpetrators to assault her. They seemed to be saying that it was her fault that she was raped and that she could have avoided the heartwrenching consequences of such attacks. To make matters worse, her treatment even seemed to function to violate her even more than she had already been. She was made to wear see-through hospital clothes and was closely watched as she showered. Morgan's experiences, unfortunately, are the same as many other women who are raped today. In countless cases, women are afraid to report their perpetrators because they feel the assaults were not rape, but their own mistakes that led them to feel violated. Further, after women report rape, they must undergo painful treatment in which doctors probe and prick their already-attacked bodies to obtain samples to verify and record the assaults. These evalutations are often more painful than the rapes themselves, making the women feel vulnerable and alone. What's worse, many women keep their rape as secrets so that they are not outcasted, as Morgan was, and targeted as sluts or tramps. Rape is sexual violence. It is an assault. It is an attack. So why are women blamed for the pain they endure? I believe that in order for this mentality to change in our society today, rape victims ought to be given greater respect and care and sexual offenders ought to be punished more harshly. After all, doesn't healing from rape take a little bit longer than a few years behind bars?

Short Response 11/11/10

Atul Gawande’s How childbirth went industrial reveals me with deep knowledge of labor about its biological process and possible risks, and history of obstetrics in which midwives and doctors developed various ways to deal with the risks that may emerge during labor. However, while Atul trying to approve the advantages of hospital-birth, especially C-section, with “the package of obstetric interventions”, I found the individual example of delivery that he used to connect context fails to support his point and even endangers his points. From the beginning the reader were provided that Elizabeth Rourke is an internist who “had seen fifty births and had delivered four babies herself”. We were also showed that at first Elizabeth Rourke wanted an “natural” and she even did not want an epidural. Did Elizabeth Rourke refuse to use an epidural because as an internist she knew how harmful that can be to her baby? If epidural were really “found to produce babies with better (Apgar) scores”, why did Rourke refuse it? But, at last, because Rourke’s cervix was not dilated big enough to let her child out, she had not only taken an epidural but also undergone C-section. But she regretted for a week because she did not perform an natural delivery. Why? If C-section were really as convenient and harmless as Atul said, why did Rourke refused it even when she had undergone 31 hours of extremely painful contractions. Is epidural and C-section really good to both infants and mothers? I think Rourke’s experience actually threatens the ground of this paper. I also agree with Henci Goer that Atul actually used that individual delivery experience to suggest women to choose cesarean surgery from the very beginning otherwise they need to undergo difficult labors first and then take cesarean surgery.

Short Response 11/11/10

            “The Score” by Atul Gawande and “How Childbirth Went Industrial: A Deconstruction” by Henci Goer gave me some conflicting information about the child birthing process.  “The Score” explains how that the process has become industrialized through the use of doctors and hospitals instead of at home with a midwife.  However unlike the other article, Atul Gawande has a problem with this because it’s taking away one of the only natural processes we have left.  C-sections are being performed even with out trying to do a natural one.  Gawande says, “We are losing our connection to yet another natural process of life (Gawande 10).”  This is the main problem Atul Gawande has with births in hospitals.  Henci Goer has a different take on births in hospitals; she believes that births in hospitals are not safer than births done at home.  The stats she gives are unbelievable: “The perinatal death rate for high-risk births in homes or small unit (15.5/1000) was slightly lower than that for low-risk births in the hospital (17.9/1000)…which suggests that hospital labor managements actually intensified risks (Goer 3).”  Her whole argument is that hospital birth doesn’t increase safety for the mom and baby.  I was kind of confused by both these articles because the 1^st article made it seem like hospital births were safe while the second article makes it seem like house births are a lot safer.  I can’t see house births being safer than being in hospital, but I understand it being less stressful and having the midwife would help calm you also.  But if something went wrong, I don’t understand how they fixed it, but if you think about it, ancient people didn’t have all the medicine we have and they managed to populate the earth.  Most women want a natural birth, but they want a safe birth most of all.

Short Response 11/11

Although I am a 20 year old educated college student, reading Atul Gawande's article was just a little too graphic for me. Yes, I should be able to handle reading about child birth, but for some reason the topic was extremely un-appealing. Her discussion begins with her personal story of birth. She then goes on to discuss the technical and biological aspects of childbirth. The transformation in pelvis and cervix are quite significant during pregnancy. The pelvis bones stretch and loosen to assist the body when it's time for the baby  to emerge. The cervix also relaxes and softens to allow the baby to make its way out of the uterus. Birthing technology and techniques have been hit or miss. However, the most common technique is the Cesarian section which is commonly used to help assist a mother during the birthing process. Henci Goer discusses the fact that childbirth at home is safer than giving birth in a hospital. Midwives are said to help the child survive the dangerous first year, than a child born in a hospital. Goer believes that doctors meddle and actually increase the risk of childbirth. Personally, I was very surprised by these statistics and have never read about this phenomenon before. I would like to learn more about why giving birth at home is significantly safer than at a hospital. I would also like to know how concrete and valid her statistics are. I feel that it is easier for house- childbirth to have a safer rate because they are performed a lot less frequently than hospital births. With more children being born in hospitals there is more chance of failures / deaths.

Long Post 11/11

In the New Yorker article “The Score,” author Atul Gawande writes about the history of child birth and obstetrics, and how a once natural phenomenon, confined to the home, became an industry, involving doctors who have standardized the practice of delivering babies. First, Gawande explains the complex process of human childbirth. Unlike other mammals, which are born mature enough to walk and reach for food, humans are born prematurely, needing great care and nourishment. The process of childbirth is the same for most women, beginning with the uterus changing in shape to a funnel, with each contraction of the body pushing the child’s head further down the funnel. The cervix softens and relaxes, widening the whole through which the baby will be pushed. The contractions soon put enough pressure to break the amniotic sac, releasing its fluid, and active labor begins with contractions occurring closer and closer to each other. The contractions soon grow stronger and push the baby out of the mother’s cervix. Gawande is quick to remind us, however, that things can go wrong in childbirth, threatening both the child and mother's lives. Risks for the mother include hemorrhage, torn placenta causing torrential bleeding, ruptured uterus, and infection. A large risk for both the child and the mother is “obstruction of labor” in which the mother has trouble or is unable to get the baby out. This could be due to a number of reasons, like the woman’s pelvis is too small, the baby arrives at the birth canal sideways, the butt comes out first getting the child’s legs stuck up on the chest, the child gets stuck because the head comes out first titled the wrong way, or the shoulders get stuck behind the mother’s pelvic bones. In these situations, risks are high, as the umbilical cord, the child’s only source of blood and oxygen will become trapped and compressed, causing asphyxiation in the worst circumstances.

Gawande explains that in past centuries, midwives and doctors began to develop ways to save children from these dangerous situations. This process of development, she explains, marked the beginning of obstetrics, which today is a highly standardized specialization in medicine. The earliest tools developed to save mothers in these dire circumstances were hooks, clamps and other pointed instruments. The number one priority was to save the mother, which sometimes allowed the doctors to kill the child in risky situations. Several other maneuvers evolved, which sought to save both lives. One such maneuver involved the invention of the forceps, an instrument shaped like salad tongs, which were used to clasp the baby’s head between the two metal blades and yank the child out. And by the early twentieth century the forceps along with many other inventions like blood transfusions, drugs that induced labor and Caesarian section were commonplace in hospitals to solve problems associated with childbirth. In addition, with all these medical advances, midwives began to disappear and childbirth moved primarily into hospitals, involving specialized physicians performing delivery.

However, Gawande points out, the switch from midwives to doctors delivering babies did not prove to be any less risky. In fact, she cites a study published in 1933 by the New York Academy of Medicine, which showed there were 2,041 maternal deaths from childbirth, with at least two-thirds of these cases having been preventable. Further, there had been no improvement in the death rates for mothers in the preceding two decades and newborn fatality rates actually increased. While doctors developed instruments to avoid problems in childbirth, they seemed to not be using them in the most effective ways. To combat these failures, higher standards and tougher training was established in the field of medicine, demanding better results. Further, Doctor Virginia Apgar created a score to assess the health of a newborn child. Since most of the problems still persisting were due to the lack of care newborn children received at birth, Apgar implemented a system to numerically grade a child’s health. An infant got two points if it was pink all over, two for crying, two for taking good, vigorous breaths, two for moving all four limbs, and two if its heart rate was over a hundred. The system proved to drive doctors to demand better results for newborns and as a result, created higher standards of care.

Gawande warns, however, that this system also created demands on doctors to deliver successfully in every case. As a result, maneuvers that in the past worked, like the use of forceps, were eliminated, since the craft was difficult to teach the thousands of training obstetricians in medical school and residency. Further, the Caesarian section, a much easier maneuver to teach students, with clear steps and standard results, became the common trend, even in circumstances when it was not necessary. The question, Gawande poses, is: is medicine a craft or an industry? If it is a craft, she says, we should focus on teaching obstetricians artisanal skills like using forceps. If it is an industry, however, we should focus on teaching doctors the most reliable methods of delivering a child. Could the thousands of obstetricians receiving training truly grasp every complex artisanal method to deliver a baby, or is it more realistic to teach one maneuver, the Caesarian section, a reliable procedure?

Throughout the article, Gawande interrupts the history of obstetrics with the story of Elizabeth Rourke, who is enduring a very long 40-hour child labor. While Rourke just wants to give natural child birth sans drugs or C-section, her difficult situation leaves her no choice. Hours pass as the pain worsens and she does not seem to be dilating any further. Despite her effort to give birth naturally, the pain becomes so bad that she demands an epidural and later agrees to C-section. While later Rourke was upset that she gave up her hopes of delivering a child without the help of medicine or forced labor, she later realized that her living, breathing and thriving daughter put all her regrets behind her. In the end, while medicine has become an industry, it seems that providing people with a safe, effective way to deliver a child, despite medicine or techniques that many be required to do so, is most important. 

In “How Childbirth Went Industrial: A Reconstruction,” Henci Goer responds to Gawande’s article, pointing out the authors contradictions, showing that new obstetric techniques do not necessarily provide better outcomes. Goer says she takes from the article the central points that “Women can have an easy, safe cesarean surgery or they can undergo difficult, dangerous labors and then have cesarean surgery” and “Modern obstetric management is the key to healthy babies and mothers.” She hopes to deconstruct this argument and first poses the question: “Has ‘fly by the seat of your pants’ obstetric management improved outcomes?” Citing many examples, Goer shows that in many cases obstetric packages offered in hospitals has not decreased infant mortality rate, but has instead increased fatality. She even shows statistics supporting this as recent as the 1990s. Goer also says that maternal fatality only decreased when doctors made training improvements, replacing their “meddling” with skill. She goes as far as pointing out that women are better off gaining care from a midwife than a doctor, since every procedure carries with it equal risks.

Goer also points out that the facts do not support Gawande’s argument that C-sections save lives. Citing multiple studies, she explains that in most cases, there are lower mortality rates associated with vaginal birth than with C-section. She says studies showing otherwise only take into account planned C-sections, in which the woman’s life is not at risk. In cases where the mother’s life is at risk, scarring, infant mortality, and bowel obstruction are common results of C-section procedures. She further cites common risks associated with C-section and not associated with vaginal birth, which can harm the both the mother and infant and lead to future reproductive problems. Standardizing medical care, for Goer, allows doctors to intervene with surgical deliveries, even when they are unnecessary, subjecting the mother and child to many risks. Some of the reasons for unnecessary C-section? Excess pain, convenience, and certainty of delivery.

In addition, Goer calls Rourke “foolish.” Goer argues that while we can’t know that Rourke's C-section could have been avoided, there are several factors accounting for why she finally underwent the procedure. The primary reason, Goer explains, is that her obstetrician did not provide full supportive care. She did not have a doula, which would have provided her with ways of coping with pain, shifting the baby’s body inside her and opening up possibilities to breast feed post delivery. Rourke also had unnecessary anxiety as a result of her doctor’s “anything can happen at any moment” philosophy, which could have negatively affected her ability to push the child out. Moreover, Rourke’s pregnancy was treated as abnormal and the mother was offered drugs to speed up her delivery, even though she was experiencing very normal contractions. These negative messages could certainly have had negative effects on Rourke’s labor. Further, each drug and procedure introduced into the labor caused other problems that required more drugs and treatment. These things, Goer suggests, could have been avoided by treating the birth as normal and having a positive attitude for both the doctor’s and the mother’s sake.

While I think Goer makes a strong argument that attitude has a strong role in delivering children, I think that she ignores the blatant facts: infant and maternal mortality has decreased by introducing obstetrics and standardized care for childbirth. As Gawande notes, if our number one priority is to deliver as many health babies as possible while protecting the mothers’ lives, the introduction of drugs and surgical procedures should be seen as necessary. We cannot rely on risky maneuvers that not every doctor can grasp, but we can certainly change our attitudes towards long or painful labors, eliminating the number of unnecessary surgical deliveries, which can end in risk.

Gawande, Atul. "The Score." The New Yorker, 9 October 2006.
Goer, Henci. "How Childbirth Went Industrial: A Deconstruction." Web Exclusive, 27 November 2006.

Short Response 11/08/10

Although I completely support the idea that women have our rights to completely take control of our reproduction choice, I was enraged when reading And So I Chose by Allison Crews. In And So I Chose, Allison describes her experience of choosing to give birth to her child when she was in high school. Actually, at first, she scheduled three abortion appointments but cancelled each of them. Finally she decided not to abort her pregnancy for reasons like no transportation and money. I can understand that she was a child when she made that choice, but it seems she had no regret at all when she wrote this work. Choosing and actually undergoing to give birth to a child is a big and serious issue. Preplanned pregnancy is far healthier to both the baby and the mother. A well balanced diet, regular exercises, and frequent examinations can help insure both mental and physical health of babies. When my step-mother decided to bear a child, both my parents had prepared for a long time and conducted a lot of actions; my step-mother started taking pteroyl-glutamic acid three months before pregnancy and my father stopped drinking and smoking at the same time. So my little brother is very healthy and smart now. But I do not mean that women should abort unprepared pregnancy; I think women should be really cautious and bear responsibility for their children once the pregnancy is detected and they have decided to bear the children. However, in Allison’s case, she did not make her decision at once but procrastinated until almost the last minute. And during her pregnancy, she remained depressed because the people around her hardly gave her any support. I doubt she cautiously bore her child. It seems she did not take her pregnancy seriously other than on pro-choice or pro-life issues. Her work enraged me because I think she cares more about the respect she received other than the health of her child. She even decided to give birth in her home herself because she felt kind of repressed by the doctors and feminist community members. While describing the doctor’s response when hearing her decision about giving birth at home, she describes the doctor as a sexist who thought “delivering babies is a man’s job”, though I do not agree with the doctor either, I think she purposely neglected the health issue to address the feminism issue. However, giving birth at home can be extremely dangerous especially for young girls like her. How could she be sure that she could handle it? Is her feeling really above the health of her child even though that she/he would be adopted by others? As Judith Arcana states in Abortion Is a Motherhood Issue, “being pregnant meant having a baby growing inside our bodies”. Being pregnant also means have responsibility to the well-being of a new life. Being careless towards pregnancy can cause lifelong harm on the children being born. I myself am a victim of careless pregnancy. My mother was kind of careless when she bore me, she did not prepare for the pregnancy as my stepmother did and she even refused to eat healthily because she had no appetite. It turned out that I was very susceptible to diseases when I was young and I had to suffer from hearing loss which can never be restored again probably because of an infection during her pregnancy.

Main Post for 11/09/10

Abortion is one of the most controversial topics of the day, one that has two distinct sides that have very strong views. The readings for Tuesday all deal with this topic. Listen up had two stories about two different women and their experience with being pregnant and the option of abortion. The first article, “Abortion, Vacuum Cleaners and the Power Within” by Inga Muscio deals with a women and her aversion to the abortion process. She compares it to a vacuum cleaner. She also describes the emotional effects of the machine and how she cried and vomited, and how she had a gapping hole in her for two weeks after. This didn’t happen once, but twice, she had to do the whole things over again. After these experiences she decided to study medicine and healing processes and what she found was that healing tarts with in, which is contrary to mainstream society because we look for most things outside from the body. “We look outside for just about everything: love, entertainment, well-being, self-worth, and health (Muscio 115).” She also sees that people don’t look to themselves for answers or truths, but look for experts in whatever area your studying. When she got pregnant for the third time she did not go to the abortion clinic. Instead she hired a masseuse and drank herbal abortifacients and emmenagogues. Through this her baby died. She believes that if abortion were in our own power then abortion clinics would be completely unnecessary. While I understand how the stigma that comes with going to an abortion clinic would disappear if people did this, I also think this way is really unreliable. How safe are the things that this women doing, and how effective? You hear about homemade remedies to have an abortion, but some of them don’t work and some are also very dangerous.

The second article, “And So I Chose” by Allison Crews, dealt with a young women and her choice to keep her baby. Growing up she was taught to be pro-life, but after seeing a young girl go into a clinic and see the pain on her face, she decided not to be. She put together a website to empower feminist teen mothers. When she was a sophomore in high school she got pregnant and decided to go through with the pregnancy. People told her that she was an irresponsible teenager and a hopeless breeder. People told her that she could not be a good mother and the only option was adoption. She was not able to make any choices for herself because people said she was to young to make these important decisions. But when she went through labor and her son was born, she felt reborn and decided to keep the baby. “Through giving birth, I loudly and publicly proclaimed my freedom of choice (Crews 148).” Allison Crews believes that pro-choice is our right to choose whatever reproductive option we want. I really like Crews thoughts because whatever choice you make it affects your life, not any one else’s. It’s your life and you should live it whatever way you want to. Who are other people to judge you on what you do, they should worry about their own lives.

“Abortion Is a Motherhood Issue” by Judith Arcana brought up a good point about the link between abortion and motherhood. She says that they are often separated for convenience but also purposely. She also says that maternity starts at conception. “When the pregnancy is deliberate, or accepted, we say baby. When the pregnancy is an accident, or reject, we say fetus or embryo… (Arcana 225).” This is a good point, because people do this to help protect the mother’s feelings. Judith Arcana worked an Abortion Counseling Service and saw the effect that abortion had on these women and that they did not make this decision light. “Every woman who has an abortion know what it means, and lives in the meaning the best way she can. Abortion is a matter of life and death… (226).” Obviously most women don’t go into abortion clinics not knowing what they are doing. They are accepting responsibility of whatever choice they make knowing its best for them and their babies.

“Feminism in our Time” contained an article on the Roe v. Wade case. It describes how Sarah Weddington, Linda Coffee, and Norma McCorvey came together to fight the Supreme Court to legalize abortion. The high court voted 7 to 2 state laws that restricted a woman’s right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy (Feminism in our Time 400). Abortion used to only be allowed to get if the mother’s life was in danger, but that changed after it was found to be unconstitutional to not allow a women to get an abortions. The article describes that the abortion law was a product of Victorian social life that discourages illicit sexual conduct. This might be partly true but most people don’t have unsafe sex because they can “fix” it with an abortion. Another reason the article says abortions were made illegal was because back in the day they were really dangerous and that a lot of women died because of it. The last reason they say that the abortion law was enacted because it was State’s job to protect the fetus, because it is a human life once conception happens. The law was overturned based on the idea of personal privacy and liberty and this should include a woman’s choice to get an abortion. Abortion is a tricky topic with a lot of different opinions.

Short Response 11/8

Although I found all the readings interesting, I specifically want to address one of the readings in Listen Up.  Inga Muscio discusses her personal experience with abortions, which she is seriously opposed to. She begins by relating abortion tools to vacuum cleaners, which I found quite disturbing. Her description of her first abortion was absolutely terrifying. Not only was it physically painful, but it seemed to be emotionally damaging. Despite this trauma, Inga actually got pregnant two more times, which I found to be quite incredulous. Her second abortion was more familiar because she knew what to expect. Finally, for her third abortion, she decided to use herbal remedies and specialty massages to abort her child. Muscio wants a more informal discussion of our bodies and personal health to help us better understand what is going on internally. She calls for the destruction of abortion clinics and instead promotes organic abortions, stating " Abortion would be a personal, intimate thing among friends." This quote seriously disturbed me for several reasons. First, I do not think it is normal for a woman to have three abortions. I think many people can relate to getting caught up in the moment, but aborting three children because of reckless behavior is not only irresponsible but hypocritical. For her to be so opposed to abortion clinics after she used and benefited from their services twice is ridiculous to me. Secondly, her support of organic abortions seems very risky. I wonder if she took into account the fact that she had two abortions in the past, which probably had a significant effect on the success of her organic abortion. Thirdly, she feels that if organic abortions were explored than the debate over abortion would disappear. This belief is totally overlooking what lays at the heart of the abortion discussion, which focuses more on the morality of the issue than the technical methods used. Finally, her belief that "Abortion would be a personal, intimate thing among friends" just sounds so odd to me. No matter what your views on abortion are it should never be taken lightly, which is how this statement sounds. Her whole article truly put a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe I am missing her argument, but I entirely disagree with most of what she wrote.

News Flash #2: Four attractive faces out of 67 hundreds million of people?

http://springerlink.com/content/e175751w73028088/fulltext.pdf


Recently, a Korean plastic surgeon attempts to put an end to the controversy of beauty standards by trying to create the most attractive faces of different races. In his letter published online on the latest issue of The Official Journal of the ISAPS, Seung Chul Rhee, a plastic surgeon at Ilsan Paik Hospital, shows the results of his study “Attractive Composite Faces of Different Races”. In this study, Seung Chul Rhee created four ideal female faces of four races: African, Caucasian, Chinese, and Japanese, by using computerized morphing systems to mix and match the facial features of some the biggest stars of these four races. The African attractive composite face was created by using 13 African female models including Agbani Darego, Beveryl Peele, Brandi Quinones, Faustina Agolley, Kate Tachie-Menson, Lerato Moloi, Pearl Amoah, Rihanna, Soraya Khalil, Waris Dirie, Yamin Warsame, Yvette Nsiah, and Zoe Saldana. The 16 Caucasian female stars whose facial features contributed to the attractive caucasian composite face were Aishwarya Rai, Alexis Bledel, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Olsen, Blake Lively, Brooklyn Decker, Ciara Harris, Elisabetha Canalis, Eva Longoria, Hayden Panetierre, Hillary Duff, Jessica Alba, Mandy Moore, Marissa Miller, Megan Fox, and Scarlet Johansson. The Chinese ideal face generated from the facial features of 20 entertainers including Li Gong, Bingbing Li, Bingbing Fan, Vivian Hsu, Jingles Xu, Dee Hsu, Wei Tang, Yifei Liu, Jacqueline Li, Chiling Lin, Qinqin Jiang, Maggie Cheung, Cecilia Cheung, Yuqi Zhang, Zilin Zhang, Feifei Sun, Huang Sheng Yi, Xun Zhou, Gillian Chung, and Ziyi Zhang. And for the Japanese look, Seul Chul Rhee used the facial features of the following 14 Japanese stars’ faces: Masami Nagasawa, Nanako Matsusima, An Watanabe, Riyo Mori, Erika Sawajiri, Juri Ueno, Miho Yoshioka, Namie Amuro, Norika Fujiwara, Nozomi Sasaki, Yuu Aoi, Ryoko Hirosue, Kyoko Fukada, and Mina Hayashi. Seung Chul Rhee expresses that “the average face is not an attractive face and that the most attractive face is the average of attractive faces”(1). He also expected his research to be used to “understand the aesthetic preference of different races”(1). Despite the rather tepid results Seung Chul Rhee received, I found this study rather threatening. And although Seung Chul Rhee created four ideal faces of different faces, these four faces are actually atypical within these four races and this study actually suggests a rather single standard of beauty which denies beauty of other shapes.

These four attractive faces shown in this study are quite unrealistic. The attractive composite face of Japanese is “relatively long” and has “slightly slanted eyes, sharp chin, and chubby cheeks”(1). The Chinese ideal face is slim and thin with a “relatively narrow cheek” and “lantern jaw”(1). The attractive face of Caucasian is some what masculine which “has a narrow palpebral height, angulated and squareshaped mandible, protruding cheek, and fuller lips compared with the average Caucasian face”(1).And the African female ideal face “has a narrower nose, smaller and more acute eyes, smaller upper lip, and slender chin compared with the ordinary African face”(1). However, all these faces are relatively atypical within their corresponding races. Most African women are fascinated for their fuller lips and broader noses, however in this study, the attractive composite African face “has a narrower nose” and “smaller upper lip”. Although, I have been the United States for no more than three months, I am quite aware with the fact the eyes of most African Americans are rather large; but the eyes of this ideal African face not merely become “smaller and more acute” but also reduced to the same size as these of the Caucasian, Chinese and Japanese. It is elementarily knowledgable that Asians are yellow race. But on this article, quite strangely, the two Asian faces appear even lighter than the Caucasian face. And the African face also appears lighter than ordinary African women.

The doubtable authenticity of these entertainers’ faces that be used to create these four attractive composite faces also accounts for the unreality of this study. Despite the possibility that these entertainers may have undergone plastic surgery, other means such as makeup and light effect must have made these entertainers look better whenever they are under shot. In this society with highly advanced beauty industry, it has become public that people can easily make extreme makeover with the help of makeup and skilled cosmeticians; apply a shade darker than the skin on both sides of the nose can make it look smaller, curl eyelashes make eyes look bigger and put a bit of light eyeshadow right at the inside ridge of eyes, where the upper lid meets the bottom lid, near the tear duct brightens eyes and makes them look whiter. So these entertainers appear on the media can look completely different after removing makeup. Because Seung Chul Rhee used the photos of these entertainers appear on the media in which the faces of these entertainers are deceiving, his study is actually based on unreal beauty. Additionally, it is unwise to use the faces of entertainers to compose attractive faces because most these entertainers are popular not for their appearances but for their profession on acting, singing, and modeling.

This study also denies that beauty comes in all shape. Though the plastic surgeon states that “attractive faces differ considerably according to race”(1). It is not hard to tell that these four faces are actually alike despite their color; all four in oval shape with eyebrows, eyes, and lips on the same line. But in fact there are approximately 9 different shapes of faces, including oblong, oval, round, rectangular, square, triangular, diamond, inverted triangle, and heart. And it is impossible to tell which shape is better and more attractive than others since it is easy to find existing attractive faces that come in all these shapes. And there are approximate 14 hundreds million Chinese people and half of them are female, but this Korean surgeon only used 20 faces of them and tries to find the most attractive Chinese face.

Most importantly, this study neglects the most attractive parts human race -- diversity. Life always provide us with surprise and seeing people of different features can be enjoyable. Even, as a woman, it is really interesting for me to see beautiful women come in different features. Eyes do not necessarily need to be big with double-fold eyelids, Chinese eyes with single-fold eyelids and outer corners going up can also be very attractive. Baby faces can be as charming as those thin faces. But this study unwisely tries to suggest the standards of attractiveness. If this world, which has 67 hundreds million people exist in it, has only four attractive faces, can these faces still be attractive?

This study also endangers the independent aesthetic judgment. Although in American society this study has only received few attention, it does have some effect on Chinese society, at least on Chinese internet society according to the many reviews I found on Chinese websites and I actually first noticed this news on a SNS website because people keep forwarding this. On that SNS website, people are talking about how to judge the attractiveness of women by this study. This reminds me a similar study which uses so-called new golden proportion of women’s faces to determine the level of attractiveness of women. Because of that study, many plastic surgeons suggested many female entertainers whose faces fit that golden ratio perfectly. Although these entertainers were said to be standard beautiful women and they are really beautiful, but they are far from the most attractive and a lot of entertainers whose faces do not fit into that scientific finding appear more attractive. But this kind of studies is really threatening as many people, who tend to believe scientific research rather than individual judgement, will use them to judge who is more ‘attractive’ and ignore, and even deny the beauty of these people who falls out of the ‘rules’. If things goes like this, people will gradually lose our abilities on judging.

As Seung Chul Rhee is a plastic surgeon comes from a country which has and is well-known for highly advanced plastic surgery industry, it is easy to tell the real purpose lying behind his study -- to brainwash people and to prosper plastic surgery industry. By providing people with the images of the “attractive” faces of different races, this study persuades women to deny the facial features that they possess but different from the facial features that are presented on this study, and men to disprove the appearance of their partners and women around them. Therefore, women will try to adjust their appearances to the facial features approved by plastic surgeons. This kind of scientific suggest can really impose effects on public just like the makeover shows can prompt people to take plastic surgery, as Susan J. Douglas presents in Enlightened Sexism; “a 2007 study by the ASPS asserted that four out of five cosmetic surgery patients reported that they had been “directly influenced to have a procedure by the plastic surgery reality television shows they watch” ” (Douglas, 225).

Beauty standards are really harmful because they have made more and more women become depressed with their own appearances and bodies. In her book Enlightened Sexism, Susan J. Douglas states that “young women today are more dissatisfied with their bodies than previous generations” (Douglas, 217) because we are exposed to thousands of makeover shows, advertisements with sexy women bodies, and radio shows having women denouncing their own bodies (Douglas).

Again, women are endangered by introducing to beauty standards. By creating what he called as ‘attractive faces of different races’, Seung Chul Rhee neglected the variety of beauty with unrealistic beauty, and made women to be more dissatisfied with their appearances.






Resources:
1. Seung Chul Rhee, Attractive Composite Faces of Different Races, http://springerlink.com/content/e175751w73028088/fulltext.pdf, 16 October 2010.
2. Susan J. Douglas, Enlightened Sexism: the seductive message that feminism’s work is done, 1st ed, Times Books.

Newsflash 11/5: A League of Their Own

            Yesterday, CNN reported in “First transgender athlete to play in NCAA basketball” that a Kye Allums, a junior at the University of Washington, will play on the Division I basketball team as a man this year. Allums, who stands at 5’11”, says he realized his true identity when his mom texted him one day, “Who do you think you are, young lady” (CNN Wire Staff). This “aha!” moment made Allums realize who he truly was. He explains how we grew up as a tomboy, but felt uncomfortable in the body he was born in, female with female parts. Struggling to find his identity, Allums attempted to be more feminine when he reached adolescence, mimicking teenage girls’ appearance and interests. However, Allums finally realized he should stop denying his true feelings: that he was in fact a man “trapped inside a woman’s body.” With courage, Allums decided to identify as a male and was met with support from his teammates, coaches, family and University administrators at Washington. I think Allums' case is unique, but I believe we will begin to see more cases just like his. Further, I think that although the NCAA has been accepting and understanding of transgender athletes, the organization needs to make further steps to clarify rules governing these students who identify as a sex that they were not biologically born to have.

            Allums’ situation is unique, but a growing phenomenon in the world of athletics today. According to NCAA rules and regulations, Allums will be allowed to continue playing on the women’s basketball team at Washington, even though he identifies as a male. This is because Allums has agreed to forego any testosterone therapy while he is a member of the team. Robert Chernak, senior vice provost at George Washington, said the university is fully accepting of Allums’ decision to live as a male student (CNN Wire Staff). “Kye has informed the university that he will not begin any medical or drug protocols while a student-athlete,” Chernak said. “Kye will continue to be a member of the women's basketball team” (CNN Wire Staff).

            Allums is also in a special situation, in that his coaches and teammates are fully supportive of his decision to become a male and to continue playing women’s athletics. Their acceptance of Allums as “big brother” of the team is indicative of a society that is beginning to embrace peoples’ differences and eliminate prejudice towards transgender people. Allums’ friends and family understand his struggle being “trapped” in a body that he feels he should not have and are fully accepting of his decision to identify as male.

            Anne Fausto-Sterling, author of Sexing the Body, would certainly have a lot to say about Allum’s situation as a transgender playing collegiate athletics. Fausto-Sterling reminds us that “the rules for living as a male or female are strict” (Fausto-Sterling 73). Pointing to history, Fausto-Sterling traces the distinctions between male and female from social constructs. She explains that it is not science, but our political and social ideologies that dictate what sex should be. She states, “labeling someone a man or a woman is a social decision... and only our beliefs about gender-not science-can define our sex” (3). Certainly, Allums felt that as a female, with female genitalia, that he ought to act a certain way, like other teenage girls he knew in school. However, his strong inclination towards masculinity was hidden for some time by the strong messages he received from social constructs that he ought to act and appear a certain way. I think that if these ideologies did not exist, as they did not in earlier time periods, Allums and others like him would not have to struggle with finding their true identity, fighting social norms and expectations.

            Further, although Allums is the only transgender athlete in the NCAA right now, his situation is a growing occurrence in collegiate athletics today. At a Women’s Studies brown bag this year, entitled “Coaching and Gender,” Assistant Director of Athletics-Compliance Coordinator Ann-Marie Guglieri spoke about the growing concern for NCAA officials to clarify rules and regulations surrounding transgender issues. Guglieri explained that the current rule is that a student athlete is eligible to play for the team that corresponds with his or her sex as listed on the student’s driver’s license. In addition, if a transgender changes his or her sex on the driver’s license and continues to play on an NCAA team, the team will be considered “mixed” and therefore will become ineligible to compete in the NCAA championship. This means that if Allums changes his sex to male on his driver’s license, Washington will only be eligible, as a mixed squad, to compete in the men’s championship and not the women’s. While the article does not list Allums’ identified sex on his driver’s license, in order to be eligible to compete for the NCAA title, he must remain female according to state classifications.

Further, athletes must comply with NCAA drug regulations in order to remain eligible. This means that a transgender athlete cannot take hormones that would give them an unfair advantage in competition. Since this is a growing phenomenon, Guglieri explains that the NCAA is continuing to expand and clarify regulations in order to accommodate athletes like Allums, who wish to identify as something other than their biological sex.

            I think Allums’ situation is very interesting and indicative of a society that is growing to accept people on the “sexual continuum,” as Fausto-Sterling writes. As a student athlete at Colgate, I have not had any teammates who have identified themselves as another sex, but two years ago one of my teammates came out to us, explaining that she is a lesbian. Like the Washington women’s basketball team, our team was more than accepting, assuring our teammate that we will continue to support and love her regardless of her sexuality. Athletic teams are truly like families and it is comforting to see the Washington team in full support of their brother, Kye Allums.

            However, I think that the NCAA should take rapid steps to clarify rules governing transgender and transsexual student athletic eligibility, as Allums’ story may give other student athletes who struggle with gender identity the courage to follow a similar path. Rendering a team ineligible to compete for a women’s national title simply because one’s sex on a driver’s license is male seems to be unfair, especially if the transgender athlete is not taking hormones that may give him an unfair advantage. If Allums, for instance, wants to truly change his sex in state records, he will let down his team, which may be in the running for an NCAA title. The only way they could win is by entering the men’s tournament, which would create a distinct physical disadvantage.

            Despite the NCAA’s unreasonable and often vague rules, I think the organization, as well as collegiate athletic programs as a whole, are doing a good job of acknowledging people who identify as a sex that differs from their biological makeup. By even employing rules to govern these people, it shows that the NCAA is doing its best to include all types of people. Furthermore, the support the organization as well as the University of Washington has given to Kye Allums shows that just because someone is different from the norm does not mean that they do not deserve respect for the hard work they put into being a student athlete.

CNN Wire Staff. “First transgender athlete to play in NCAA basketball.” CNN. 4 November, 2010. <http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/03/transgender.basketball.player/index.html?iref=allsearch>. 

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Sexing the Body. New York: Basic Books. 2000.

News Flash: Too Hot?

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2010/06/04/too-hot-in-the-workplace-it-can-cost-you-your-job.html

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/11/debrahlee-lorenzana-a-double-take-on-those-double-ds/            

         It is no secret that the United States was founded and currently exists on capitalistic principles. With capitalism comes the need to consume goods and products that we do not need, but simply desire. These products can range from: clothing, shoes, cell phones, cars and houses. Although the scale of these products differ (some being much more expensive than others) they all represent and symbolize our status in society. People are constantly being scrutinized and evaluated on the products that they “display” and many times this has a serious impact on their lives. In order to obtain these top shelf products that are so coveted by society, one needs money and lots of it. Some people inherit large sums of money, but most find an occupation that allows them to afford such prestigious social statuses. Unfortunately, women face many obstacles and discrimination when it comes to finding and/or excelling in the workforce. The media and large corporations spend billions of dollars to influence the general public’s train of thought. Specifically, they tell women to empower themselves via buying products that make them look sexy and attractive to men. We are told that being attractive is one of the main components to being successful. However, Jessica Bennett’s article Too Hot in the Workplace? It Can Cost You Your Job, disputes this claim by citing the current case of Debrahlee Lorenzana. Throughout my discussion I want to explore the ways in which women are made to live up to impossible standards and once we finally meet them, what the consequences are.

            The case surrounding Debrahlee Lorenzana is both complicated and intricate. Ms. Lorenzana is a single mother who was recently fired from Citibank for poor work performance. However, she is filing a suit against the corporate giant on the grounds of discrimination, “alleging that her bosses told her that ‘as a result of the shape of her figure, [her] clothes were purportedly too distracting’ for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear.”(1) Before her dismissal she was barred from wearing pencil skirts, three-inch heels, turtlenecks and fitted business suits. Although other women in her office wore similar clothing, her body was said to be “different” from the others and too distracting for the work place. The case is relevant to our class because it calls into question the role of appearance and beauty in the workplace. As Bennett points out, it has already been proven that prettier people have several advantages. She explains that resumes are viewed in a more favorable light when thought to belong to an attractive person. Similarly, attractive students usually receive more attention from their professors than other students in the class. Astonishingly, and to be frank quite ridiculously, attractive women are paid four percent more and men five percent more than their less attractive coworkers.

This statistic speaks a lot to the values of our society and therefore it is important to ask why this statistic is true. Our culture has grown to value looks and appearance above all. We are constantly flooded with images and ideals that we are supposed to aspire to become. Susan Douglas discusses the growing trend in advertising, where companies are now targeting younger generations of girls. The main message that is being sent is to value your looks in order to impress and attract men. Sadly, body image is quickly becoming one of the major issues for teenage girls. This should come as no surprise, when we examine the television shows and movies young girls are watching. Makeover shows are rampant and glamorize dangerous surgeries. Channels such as MTV promote hyper sexuality and feature bombshells with large breasts. So, if us women are supposed to aspire to be like these women we see in advertisements, why was Ms. Lorenzana punished for becoming what society wanted her to be?

Investment banking and Finance are extremely lucrative careers and thus it makes sense that both are very heavily male dominated fields. In 2008 women earned approximately seventy-seven cents of every man’s dollar. Therefore, it is really important for women to gain a stronger foothold in these large corporations, such as JP Morgan, Citibank and Goldman Sachs. Recently, these companies have come under scrutiny for sexist policies and “mommy tracking.” Mommy tracking occurs after a female employee becomes pregnant. Usually, companies will demote the employee upon her return and eventually terminate her for ‘poor performance.’ This phenomenon relates to Ann Critenden’s article The Mommy Tax. In the article she discusses Virginia Daley who worked for Aetna. Despite being at the company for ten years and numerous positive performance reviews, she was fired after getting pregnant and trying to arrange a more flexible schedule. This connects to Lorenzana because both instances feature a male dominated profession and work space, where a woman is penalized for fulfilling her “societal duties.” By this I mean women (Daley) are expected to have children instead of stay at work. Those who chose work over children are often seen as irresponsible and frigid. Additionally, women are also supposed to have amazing bodies (Lorenzana) in order to please men. Yet, both women were punished because they posed a threat to the boys club. If we look at the statistics, women in coveted professions still earn significantly less than their male counterparts. It’s as if men allow women to get a taste of being in the boys club, but then swiftly remind them who is in charge. As women we are facing a double-edged sword, in which we lose if we are too attractive or not attractive enough. Women who are too attractive are constantly having their competence and intelligence questioned. Thus it seems that there is very little women can do to combat this prejudice.

Aside from discrimination, women still face harassment in the workplace. Lorenzana accounts that in 2003 she was named sales rep of the month by Municipal Credit Union. This would seemingly be a prestigious award, in which any professional should be proud of. However, she goes on to say that she was called into the manager’s office to review a picture. On the computer screen was an image of his penis. Not only is this a disgusting display of chauvinism, but it also undermines all of her hard work and effort in relation to the company. Now, she must question whether she received the award because of merit or because the male manager wanted to have sexual relations with her. Harassment in the workplace has become much more covert than in previous times. Men can no longer slap women on the butts or call them ‘baby’. But, it is clear that harassment and discrimination is still prevalent.

As I mentioned in the beginning of my post, this story is not as clear-cut or black and white as it would appear to be. A subsequent article written by Helena Andrews titled Debrahlee Lorenzana: A double Take on Those Double D’s discusses the authors desire to support Debra, but gives reasons as to why she cannot. Andrews discusses the new type of covert sexual harassment that I previously described. Her support for Debra mainly extends to the fact that she drew attention to workplace sexual harassment. However, a recently discovered video featuring a 26- year old Debra has drastically altered the sympathy of the public and media. The video was originally made for a Discovery Health documentary titled “Plastic Surgery New York Style.” The documentary was made to highlight the outcomes of plastic surgery. Ms. Lorenzana had her first operation and received D-cup implants. Her rationale for a second operation to increase to DD-cups is, “I know men have the fantasy of having a Playboy playmate…That’s what I want to be, tits on a stick.”(2) To me this is proof of the strength of media and advertisements. They had succeeded in ingraining this beauty standard into Ms. Lorenzana’s mind. Although I do not agree with her statements, is it fair of us to penalize her for becoming everything that the media wanted her to be? It was her personal choice to get these operations and although her motives were questionable, we do not penalize men for getting hair implants to impress women. Yes, these operations are on very different spectrums, but they can still apply. Women are expected to be beautiful, or else they are outcast, yet when they are as beautiful as the stereotype they are punished. Thus, once again women must walk the societal tightrope of what they are expected to be and what society can handle them to be. 

1. Jessica Bennett. http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2010/06/04/too-hot-in-the-workplace-it-can-cost-you-your-job.html Nov. 4 2010. 

2. Helena Andrews. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/11/debrahlee-lorenzana-a-double-take-on-those-double-ds/. Nov. 4 2010.

Despite being totally covered up, Ms. Lorenzana was told not to wear turtle necks and pencil skirts. To me this outfit looks very acceptable, especially since she is not revealing anything.

Short Response 11/04/10

When reading Knowledge Is Power by Maria Cristina Rangel, to be honest, I really hated the way she talked about her life as a student of Smith College and a mother of two children, and how the welfare system let her done. At then, I thought that it is the basic human right to bear children but I also thought everyone should be responsible for the choices they make; poor single mothers do have their rights to give birth but they should consider their own abilities of providing their children with good environment to grow up. I thought Maria wanted to avoid making money by attending Smith College so that she can receive financial aids from both Smith College welfare system.

However, now I realized that what I thought is just the typical view that this society hold towards poor single mothers. We think single mothers are poor because they are lazy. That is why Lyndon Johnson “called for limits on payments to non-marital children and complained that their mothers “sit around and breed instead of going out to work” ”. Since the Second Wave, as many feminists required equal opportunities for women to work outside, the view that women can be independent by working hard is prevalent among the society. Therefore, poor single mothers are simply targeted for not working hard for their own lives and thus are not pitiable. However, ironically, while this society charges these poor single mother for not working hard, it does not truly provide women with equal opportunities and equal pay. And more importantly, while women seeking work outside home, they are still the main caregiver so that women are actually caught by both outside work and domestic work while being expected to perform well on both sides.
Providing poor single mothers and their children with better welfare is of crucial importance and France and Scandinavian have proved that better welfare can encourage women to be more productive.

However, I think the author is quite nominal in emphasizing that “(they) mobilized not to speak for poor mothers but with them”. Although she tries to distinguish them who worked against Personal Responsibility Act from these feminists of the Second Wave by declaring that she and other elite middle-class feminists did not work from a status far from the real situation of these poor single mothers, she does not provide any voice from these mothers in the whole reading. Those who required better welfare for poor single mothers are still those who did not need the welfare at all.