News Flash #2

Abortion and Feminism: New Legislation urges Restrictions on Abortion Policies

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20045953-503544.html

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court ruled on one of the most controversial court cases in US history. In this landmark decision of Roe v. Wade, the rights of women were greatly protected (in the eyes of some). This case ruled that women had the right to obtain an abortion under the guaranteed rights of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since the ruling, both women and men have actively fought in both support and opposition. Abortion issues are consistently a major topic in elections and debates nationwide. Now more than ever, it seems legislation regarding abortion restrictions or limitations are being presented. As this NewsFlash will argue, in an increasingly politicized nation, the rights for women to access abortions are being criticized and many attempts have recently been made to restrict a woman’s access to such procedures.

The Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade asserted that it was a woman’s right to obtain an abortion if she so chooses. This decision did not come without some restrictions. There are limitations to when a woman can obtain the procedure based on the trimester of pregnancy, and later the ability of the fetus to sustain life, as well as limitations on the types of medical procedures used to induce or perform the abortion.[i] These restrictions have appeased some who would otherwise be opposed to the legality, but it also has left the door ajar to the ability for further demands to limit the availability and practice of abortions. Currently, demands such as these are being formulated into pieces of legislation which are garnering much public attention.

Although the ruling of Roe v. Wade has been followed by over thirty years of time in which obtaining an abortion is considered a fundamental right, there has always been great opposition and activism to alter or reject the decision. Many pro-life supporters (who transcend nearly every cultural, political, religious, or social boundary) continue to assert that abortions are morally repugnant, a crime against mother and baby, and/or a plague on our nation’s society. What is of interesting note is that women in support of both the pro-life and the pro-choice movements are able to site women’s rights at the root of their causes.

For pro-lifers, prohibiting the use of abortions can be seen as a way for women to gain power. Many of them claim that a woman is at her most fulfilled in her role as a mother, and therefore, by allowing, or encouraging, women to abort, society is keeping women from fulfilling their natural desires. There are also other groups of feminists who are pro-life but do not assert the role of a woman is entirely domestic. These pro-life feminists site the words of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Betty Friedan, and others in their assertion that feminism is rooted in a strong anti-abortion tradition.[ii] Another pro-life website even went as far as to slander the work of Margaret Sanger by discussing her eugenic beliefs and going as far as to associate her with the Nazi Party.[iii]

Pro-Choice supporters also claim they are acting on behalf of women’s rights. For them, allowing a woman to choose whether to carry or abort a fetus is a personal choice. Giving her the agency to make this decision on behalf of herself and her body is seen as a huge step towards the advancement of women’s rights. This idea of agency and personal freedom is in accordance with the writings of most feminist intellectuals and activists. When their words and messages are twisted and manipulated by pro-life organizations it seems as though feminism has a completely different mission that the majority of its members actually share.

Clearly, the abortion issue is not something which often times takes the back-burner. As strong conservatives, radical Christians, and even some feminists continue to fight against the continued legality of abortions, throughout the nations, on both the state and federal levels, legislation is being introduced which would make huge steps towards limiting the availability, and even possibly the safety, of obtaining measures to abort a pregnancy.

Written on March 22, 2011 by Stephanie Condon and published by CBSNews, this article discusses the new attempts in South Dakota to further hinder women who try to obtain an abortion. Just over a week ago, the Governor of South Dakota signed into law a “controversial bill requiring women to receive counseling at a ‘pregnancy help center’ prior to having an abortion.”[iv] The law also asserts that a woman has to have a three day period following her counseling before she is eligible to obtain any procedure. This “waiting period” is nothing short of an excruciating period of emotions and fear which will be used as a scare tactic to encourage women to change their minds. Another issue that this waiting period causes is that women will have to travel great distances twice to obtain their aid. In South Dakota there is only one clinic which performs abortions meaning that women will have to travel a great deal. Clearly, making two trips will lessen the ability of a woman to seek services. Governor Duggard made the bold assertion that “[he] think[s] ‘everyone agrees with the goal of reducing abortion by encouraging consideration of all other alternatives.’” He also stated that he would hope that the women who are now forced to seek this counseling will end up reconsidering their initial plans to carry out an abortion.

Already there is a strong backlash against the governor and this law. The ACLU has immediately sought to rectify this law and, along with Planned Parenthood, is planning to change the law. As the director of South Dakota’s ACLU, Robert Doody stated that “this shameful law not only interferes with a woman’s private medical decision, but it also presents a danger to those who provide abortion care to women. Women need reliable medical care and advice, not government mandates that push a political agenda.”

CBS wasn’t the only news media to pick up on this ridiculously intrusive law. Another article from the New York Times highlights that the three day waiting period is not the only flaw with this law. It goes into greater detail describing the mandated counseling: “All women seeking abortions, including victims of rape and incest, will be forced first to attend a counseling session at one of the state’s crisis pregnancy centers. These are unregulated facilities run by private groups with the aim of discouraging abortions, typically by displaying graphic photos or with ideological or religious messages or medical misinformation about psychological or physical risks.”[v]

This new counseling and waiting period law is not the only recent example of continued government intervention regarding women’s rights and abortion. Earlier, in class we discussed a bill, which is currently tabled, would cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion services. This Act, which also uses the offensive terminology of “forcible rape” is not the only other example of how the governments are becoming increasingly involved.[vi] This past week in Kansas, lawmakers approved a bill which “establishes licensing requirements for Kansas abortion clinics.”[vii] While this may initially seem to be a way to ensure safe and legal practices, when one looks closer at the bill it is evident that its true intentions are far from protecting women in their search for abortion services. Opponents of this law highlight its dangerous ability to allow the state to have the power to close clinics and make it harder for women to obtain legal aid. The article also points out that this is the third of a string of laws regarding abortions in the state. Clearly, Kansas legislature is working its hardest to institute policies which impede women from practicing their rights as granted by Roe v. Wade.

I also found it particularly interesting to learn that many states have enacted “trigger laws” regarding abortion. This means that should Roe v. Wade ever be overturned, the act of obtaining an abortion automatically becomes illegal. Not all states have such policies, in fact, many have laws in place which will continue to support the legality of abortions should the Supreme Court ruling be rejected.[viii] To me, the presence of such laws is a clear indicator of the commitment of these states to upholding women’s rights. Although I did not do any in depth research, it is my hypothesis that the states which are pushing more intrusive governmental measures, such as those mentioned in this paper, are the states which have trigger laws in place. Clearly, these states are pushing for a complete reversal of the Roe ruling, however, they seem willing to settle with enacting every law possible to make it harder, yet still legal, for women to obtain abortion services.

In conclusion, even though women are currently guaranteed the right to obtain an abortion, the opposition is strong and becoming ever more politicized. Within the past two weeks, as this paper has highlighted, numerous pieces of state legislature has been proposed, or passed, which in essence, restrict the rights of women to obtain abortion services. States including South Dakota, Kansas, and Ohio [note: not mentioned in this paper the “heartbeat bill” which proposed that abortions should be made illegal once a fetal heartbeat can be identified], and even a nationwide federal bill have been issued to limit the access of abortion clinics, services, or aid. It seems the fight is growing ever stronger for women to defend their rights regarding their bodies. Hopefully, as more people become aware of the increasing number of governmental intrusions, a strong, unified, and persuasive voice will fight (and succeed!) on behalf of women.

---

[i] http://www.emedicinehealth.com/abortion/article_em.htm

[ii] http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/commonw.htm

[iii]http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_42.asp#But%20Margaret%20Sanger,%20its%20founder,%20opposed%20abortion

[iv] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20045953-503544.html

[v] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/opinion/31thu3.html

[vi] Class Notes, Simonson, February 11, 2011.

[vii] http://www.kansascity.com/2011/03/31/2767109/abortion-clinic-licensing-bill.html

[viii] http://www.georgetownlawjournal.org/issues/pdf/97-6/Berns.PDF

Newsflash #2: The Intersection of Same-Sex Experimentation, Class Divisions, and Freudian Theory

The news articles follow my essay because I had to include the full text article (instead of a link) from the New York Times. Starting Monday, the NY Times is limiting access to their articles.

For some, a commonly-held stereotype is that college is an environment in which women are likely to “try out” lesbian relationships. These interactions may only encompass a “phase” in a woman’s life and the experiences may or may not define the woman’s sexuality over her life course. However, a recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that women without a high school diploma were most likely to have engaged in a same-sex experience, followed by women with a high school diploma and some college, and college-educated women were least likely to have experimented with same-sex relationships. I would like to investigate how the commonly-held stereotype developed and how class issues factor into lesbianism, and I would like to argue that by characterizing lesbianism as an experimental stage of life for some women, Freudian theories of homosexuality as arrested development can be justified more easily.

I was initially intrigued by the notion that most colleges are “hives of same-sex experimentation” (Lewin 1), a concept I had not previously considered. The college years often represent the first extended period of separation from parents, which may lead some students to engage in activities that would not be considered acceptable at home. In particular, sex researchers and the media believe that in college, “women explore their sexuality, test boundaries, and, often, have their first-in some cases, only-lesbian relationship” (Lewin 1). Some also believe that lesbian experimentation arouses and excites men because women are deriving sexual pleasure from an act that doesn’t include men and are seen as playing “hard-to-get.” It is possible that this stereotype developed because it is more socially acceptable, and sometimes even popular, to be gay in contemporary society than it was thirty or forty years ago. In an article in New York Magazine titled “Bi For Now,” this phenomenon is described as being “like a junior year abroad to Gay World,” which highlights the excitement and transience often associated with same-sex experimentation.

After this study announced that women who did not complete high school are more likely to engage in lesbian relationships, class issues begin to play a role in explaining why this population is more likely to experiment sexually with other women. As the New York Times article explains, women who are less educated often live “in surroundings with few desirable and available male partners” (Lewin 2). Lesbians who receive media attention are often white educated women employed in professional and activist fields, who do not encompass the experience of all lesbian women, which includes multicultural, working class women.

The concept of “Lesbian Until Graduation” becomes problematic when many women engage in lesbian activities and then move on from this “phase” of their life to heterosexual pursuits. As we have discussed in class and in numerous Women’s Studies brown bag lunch discussions, sexuality exists on a spectrum, often with fluidity between sexualities and shifts across the life course. It is understandable that a person’s sexuality can change over time, but it seems troublesome that significant percentages of self-affirmed heterosexual women regard their lesbian experiences with detachment, as if engaging in same-sex relations was an immature, “out of body” experience. Some women “describe their lesbianism as a meaningful but finite phase of their lives” (Sohn 1). It could be read as a realization that heterosexuality is the right way to be and that homosexuality was simply a phase traveled through to ultimately reach the goal of heterosexuality.

Homosexuality as a phase of sexual development coincides with Freudian theories. For Freud, heterosexuality represented complete development, while homosexuality represented arrested development. Homosexual individuals seem to be fixated at an immature psychosexual phases, and psychoanalysis was the only method to relieve patients from their homosexual ways. More recent theorists acknowledge that homosexuality is not a condition that an individual should be cured of, or should pass through to be accepted into a heteronormative society. The reality that this study was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that disease is in some way associated with short-term lesbian relationships (the individuals are diseased or the individuals contribute to the spread of disease), though it is not explained what the association may be. As a advocate for LGBTQ individuals, it bothers me that the message of homosexuality as a phase or a disease still pervades our culture.

As this study reveals, sexism and heteronormativity are not dead. Privileged lesbian women are overemphasized in the media, as are privileged women more generally. Feminists and LGBTQ advocates need to work against recurring Freudian concepts that homosexuality is problematic and immature. It is clear that progress has been made since women are feeling more comfortable and accepted when they come out as lesbians, but lesbianism should not be considered as a frivolous pastime that can be cast away for more “psychologically-advanced” heterosexual ways.

Works Cited

Lewin, Tamar. “Study Undercuts View of College as a Place of Same-Sex Experimentation.” NY Times. 17 March 2011.

Sohn, Amy. “Bi For Now.” New York Magazine. 8 Feb. 2003.

Articles:

Bi for Now

Study Undercuts View of College as a Place of Same-Sex Experimentation

By TAMAR LEWIN

Published: March 17, 2011

The popular stereotype of college campuses as a hive of same-sex experimentation for young women may be all wrong.

To the surprise of many researchers and sex experts, the National Survey on Family Growth found that women with bachelor’s degrees were actually less likely to have had a same-sex experience than those who did not finish high school.

“It’s definitely a ‘huh’ situation, because it goes counter to popular perceptions,” said Kaaren Williamsen, director of Carleton College’s gender and sexuality center.

For years, sex researchers, campus women’s centers and the media have viewed college as a place where young women explore their sexuality, test boundaries, and, often, have their first — in some cases, only — lesbian relationship.

That phenomenon gave rise to the term LUG (lesbian until graduation). In 2003, a New York magazine article, “Bi for Now,” suggested that women’s involvement in their college’s gay scene exposed them to a different culture, like junior year abroad in Gay World.

But according to the new study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on 13,500 responses, almost 10 percent of women ages 22 to 44 with a bachelor’s degree said they had had a same-sex experience, compared with 15 percent of those with no high school diploma. Women with a high school diploma or some college, but no degree, fell in between.

Six percent of college-educated women reported oral sex with a same-sex partner, compared with 13 percent who did not complete high school.

Anjani Chandra was the lead author of the report, based on data from 2006 through 2008.

Although 13 percent of women over all reported same-sex sexual behavior only one percent identified themselves as gay, and another 4 percent as bisexual. To get accurate answers to intimate questions, the researchers asked those surveyed to enter their responses directly into a computer.

“It’s like a Rubik’s cube of sexuality, where you turn it a different way, and the factors don’t fit together,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “It may be that the commonly held wisdom was wrong, that people just liked to imagine women in college having sex together, or it may be that society has changed, and as more people come out publicly, in politics or on television, we are getting a clearer view of the breadth of sexuality.”

The findings are especially striking — and puzzling — since the previous round of the survey, in 2002, found no pattern of educational differences in women’s sexual behavior. Most of the change came from higher levels of same-sex behavior reported by the women without diplomas.

“I always thought the LUG phenomenon was overblown, in the context of it being erotically titillating for young men,” said Barbara Risman, an officer of the Council on Contemporary Families and a University of Illinois at Chicago sociology professor. She added that the new findings may reflect class dynamics, with high school dropouts living in surroundings with few desirable and available male partners.

Amber Hollibaugh, interim executive director of Queers for Economic Justice, a New York-based advocacy group, said the results of the federal survey underscored how poor, minority and working-class lesbians had been overshadowed by the mainstream cultural image of lesbians as white professionals.

“Working with a gay-rights group is now something you’d put on your résumé,” said Ms. Hollibaugh, who did not attend college. “Lesbians who aren’t college-educated professionals are pretty much invisible.”

Dan Savage, a gay sex columnist in Seattle, said the LUG phenomenon may be overrepresented in the national imagination because so many students sought attention for their sexual exploration: “A lot of them are out to prove something and want their effort to smash the patriarchy to be very visible,” he said.

Lisa Diamond, a professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, said that with gay relationships so much more common throughout society, college campuses may have lost their status as the “privileged site” for women’s exposure to different kinds of sexuality. “Maybe our stereotypes are just behind the times,” Ms. Diamond said, adding that while lesbian and gay couples raising children were still assumed to be sophisticated white professionals, as in the movie, “The Kids Are All Right,” the latest parenting data showed that “holy-moly, it’s less likely to be upper-middle-class same-sex couples than ethnic minorities and working-class couples.”

Most headlines about the report, released earlier this month, focused on a finding that young people were waiting longer to have sex. Almost 29 percent of the females and 27 percent of the males, age 15 to 24, had had no sexual contact, an increase from 22 percent for both sexes in the 2002 survey.

The gender gap on homosexuality remains substantial: Twice as many women as men reported same-sex behavior. Three percent of the women — and 5 percent of the least-educated women — said they were attracted equally to men and women, compared with one percent of the men.

“A lot of data shows that women’s sexuality is more hetero-flexible, more influenced by what they see around them,” Professor Diamond said.

In the past, she said, a women with a single homosexual relationship would have been labeled gay, and urged to accept that identity. But now there is a growing sense that a lesbian relationship need not define a woman.

“It’s becoming more acceptable, at least in some parts of society, to see your sexual identity as fluid,” said Joan Westreich, a Manhattan therapist. “I see women whose first loves were women, who then meet and fall in love with a guy, and for whom it seems to be relatively conflict-free.”

Woman vs. Woman

I was very interested, and somewhat shocked, when reading Gwendolyn Mink's article "The Lady and the Tramp." Since the early weeks of the semester, we talked about on a few occasions how women can be pitted against one another, and how women themselves can impede pro-female activism. This has always been something which is perturbing! Just as the womens movement was, for some time, a separate movement from the racial civil rights movement, it seems that factions among women have also shared a history of fighting against one another as opposed to working together as a strong united force.

When thinking about groups of people, socioeconomic statuses seem to be a major rift. This divide effects not only relations between different races, cultures, ethnicities, regions, etc., but it also effects relations amongst women. It is crucial to notice that not only men are putting down/subjugating women, in this case, poor women. Women, too, take part in this domination. For so many women to be opposed to welfare reform is in essence a fight which pits rich woman against poor woman. It is unfair and upsetting to realize that women can treat each other in such a detrimental way.

It is also unfortunate that this is the case because when all women are united the possibilities for advancement could seem endless!! But by continuously having varying, and sometimes contradictory, factions among the members of female society, it seems that achieving such widespread goals is an unlikely fantasy.

I think (and hope!) that if more women look at this problem like Mink and Eang then women can realize how their refusal to help women of a lower socioeconomic status can be disasterous to the entire female movement! I think we will have to continuously strive to obtain this social change, but i also have faith that if we do, the result of a united women's force will be able to garner much respect and be able to achieve great things!

Thought these new MTV sex ads were interesting...

"Sex is No Accident"

Tangible Change for Poverty-Stricken Women and Mothers

Gwendolyn Mink’s article titled “The Lady and the Tramp (II): Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice” addresses many of the same issues brought up in “The Mommy Tax” and “Maid to Order,” but offers tangible solutions to adequately provide for single mothers who cannot choose to stay home and raise their children and must work full-time to provide for their family. She writes about the difference in goals between privileged women and poor women: privileged women fought to enter the workforce, poor women are usually in the workforce by necessity and cannot choose to stay home and raise their children.

Because many prominent feminists are privileged and society privileges income-producing labor, their concerns are heard, while the working women have less opportunity to advocate for their own choice to stay home with children without sacrificing their ability to provide for their families. Mink argues that a necessary step to achieving women’s equality is providing income support for single parent caregivers so that they are not “forced either by law or by economic circumstance to choose wages over children” (58). She points out that it would be easy to assign a monetary value to housework/caregiving (many are already paid for these services) and then single parents (who are mainly women) could choose without penalty between working in the home and working for wages.

The chapter titled “Leading by Example” by Rosanna Eang provides a first-hand account of life in poverty and other ways that feminist efforts can benefit the lives of those affected by poverty. Eang writes about expected Cambodian gender roles for women, including early marriage and caregiving duties. Women in Cambodia often do not have many choices regarding the course of their own lives. Even when her family moved to America, life was difficult because of language barriers, racism, and hate crimes. She explains that she worked in the blueberry fields and numerous factories as a child illegally and was sexually abused by a Cambodian man that visited her aunt’s house. The author’s open honesty about these circumstances as they happened in her life and her statement that she is “not yet healed of it” (60) brings the reader close into her personal experiences and, with this closeness, develops readers’ trust in her feelings and words.

Eang addresses a common issue resulting from the women’s rights movement: some confusion regarding what feminism is and who can define themselves as feminists. She characterizes her mother as a feminist (who probably didn’t know she was or wouldn’t call herself a feminist) and finds “a feminist in every woman across all racial and cultural boundaries” (64). As soon as she begins to study women’s studies and feminism in college, she identifies with feminism and wants to involve herself in helping communities of disadvantaged women and children. Through internships and program development, Eang was able to effect change in her community. She started a reading program in the pediatric office of the health center, which serves individuals affected by poverty. From her own experiences in poverty, she is able to give back to children and women in similar situations and produce change.

Eang also writes about the difficulties of coming from a country with traditional beliefs about the role of women in society and living and working in America, which has more progressive views about gender roles. Her mother seems to live between both worlds and Eang is working to shift her own life toward more open definitions of what she as a woman can accomplish in the world.

Poverty in the past and Femisinism in the Future

I really enjoyed reading Rosanna Eang's passage "Leading By Example". Eang is a Cambodian female whose family immigrated to America as a result of multiple wars occurring in her family's home country. Eang's family grew up in extreme poverty where at times her and her underage sister were in some respects forced to work illegally in farms and live in tight living conditions. She responds to her unconventional American upbringing and how her past has shaped her future.

One line that really stuck out to me was Eang's sister's statement: "If you are a woman and you believe in your rights as a woman, then you are a feminist!" This quote was in the context of previous discussions Eang had had with her sister subsequent to her arrival at college. I think this is a great quote to bring up in class that we can relate back to when we first started the semester. Many students said they were not a feminist, me included. But I think as this course progresses, and we learn and conjure up in our own minds what it means to be a feminist, we realize that what we thought was feminism and what in reality is feminism were two very different things. I would have to agree with Eang's sister and say that what she said is true in my mind. However, I would alter it to say that a feminist can be a man or a woman.

Lastly, I would just like to note that after reading the passage I was very proud and respectful of Eang for her positive outcome in life. She suffered many struggles growing up, but in the end came out on top as a bright college-educated student with morals and respect for others. Having immigrated to the USA and overcome poverty, I would say Eang truly prospered from the inspiration of the 'American Dream'.

Crittenden and Mainardi Responses

I wanted to begin my post with saying that I didn't really appreciate the "mommy tax" chapter from Crittenden. While i found it interesting that women would site that certain (i.e. young women without children) made 98 cents to a man's dollar, i was offended when she claimed that men were unencumbered by family preoccupation at work. While they may not have the sole responsibility of raising a family, i think it is presumptive and unfair to assert that only women are left to think about family while in the workplace. Although i am sure that this could be true to some extent, i think making such a wide-sweeping generalization is dangerous and may only propel the misconception that a man shouldn't have a major role in raising and caring for a family. By making claims such as this i think it only goes to further solidify the gender roles that men belong only in the workplace while women (although they now can moonlight in a job outside the home) are mainly responsible for domestic responsibilities.

I also just didnt generally like her notion of a "mommy tax!" I understand that by leaving one's job to raise a child you are leaving a salary, but i dont think it is fair to make the claim that it can be considered losing those wages or the price of being a mother. However, i was very interested in her claims that working mothers make so much less than their non-mother and male counterparts! I think it is an interesting fact of life to begin to question, and something that i think should be changed.

I did REALLY enjoy the Pat Mainardi passage though! I thought it was funny and thought-provoking. I especially appreciated when she brought up how women seemed to be conditioned by the women on TV to be preoccupied with shiny floors and pristine homes, whereas men had no such conditioning! I also enjoyed how she joked about how men seemed repulsed by the idea of doing such housework! I thought she combined a powerful and serious message in an jocular tone perfectly! She was a breath of fresh air regarding a topic that is very important to discuss and make changes! It makes me wonder that if housework was for wages, as Marirossa Dalla Costa urges, if men would then be willing to lend a hand, or if it would remain as unsavory women's work ... !

The Mommy Tax: The economic gap you don't learn about in school

This weeks readings are all about the ways in which females who experience motherhood or even the stereotypes of females in the household are hindered and to an extent silenced in life. The articles in The Essential Feminist Reader and Leading The Way are personal accounts about how simply being female has affected the lives of Pat Mainardi and Megan Pinand, respectively.

Mainardi dissects what she calls "the politics of housework". She says that we have all been brainwashed from previous generations and therefore have assumed roles as caretakers of the household, while men assume no responsibility. Mainardi discusses how quick and crafty men can be to get out of doing the slightest amount of regular "chores" and does a good job of comically translating typical excuses they may use. What I found kind of funny was that some of these excuses she mentions were ones that my brother and I used growing up to get out of household chores ourselves. I'm not sure what this means, but I thought it was interesting to bring up. What hits closest to home is the line, "I don't mind sharing the work, but you'll have to show me how to do it." I'd call this the 'playing dumb' trick. Also it was convenient because for that time you were shown, you actually got out of doing the work yourself.

Next account follows Pinand, a relatively young female who is entering the real world out of college. She recounts that upon graduating, she believed she would have it all...no sweat. When she actually gets into the working world, she realizes her dream of having a successful career with a corner office and a perfect family with two and half kids is not going to come as easily as she had thought. When analyzing the lives of her colleagues she realizes that there one or the other is bound to suffer. Her conclusion to whether women can or cannot "efficiently manage their work lives and their family lives simultaneously" is stimulating. Put plainly, Pinard argues that there is no perfect answer, it is not black and white. In fact, it depends a lot on specific circumstances which in some way gives me hope.

On a side note, I have tried to find in print or on youtube a video of Alexis Bellino, a character from the show Real Housewives of Orange County, recounting her views on marriage because they would be priceless for this post. They go against everything we have learned and she becomes the clear definition of why the feminist movement is still in tact. In short, Bellino frequently makes comments on the show about her marriage and how according to the Bible, it is a woman's role to stay in the house while the man goes out and provides for the family. She thinks it is a woman's job to have dinner on the table ready for when her husband returns and to take full responsibility for keeping the house clean. One last thing to point out is that she has three young kids and her husband has never changed a diaper, as she claims that "is not his job". If you are curious you should watch the most recent episode that aired last night, but I'm sure any episode with Bellino on it would give you a good sense of her construed idea of feminism.

Geraldine Ferraro

Geraldine Ferraro (1935-2011) video
This video (click on the link above for the ~18 min. long video) from the NY Times discusses the intersection of politics, education, feminism, motherhood, and law school in the life of Geraldine Ferraro. She was the first woman to run on a presidential ticket, as the Democratic nominee for vice president with presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984 (against Ronald Reagan). As an assistant district attorney, Ferraro worked with rape, child abuse, and domestic violence victims in the Special Victims Bureau. Her life ties in well with the discussions we have had in Women's Studies about struggles regarding leaving the home to enter the workforce and the importance of education for women (higher education particularly) and the opportunities it brings.
I knew about Geraldine Ferraro before her death this weekend (she was born in my hometown), but I found this video to be very interesting and closely related to our coursework.

Misdirected Efforts: The Home in the Capitalist Economy and the Family Wage Gap

A point emphasized by both “The Mommy Tax” and “Maid to Order” was that some women’s rights efforts have been and are directed toward recognizing the value of labor within the home and working to address wage discrepancies for women. These articles argue that these efforts might be misdirected because, currently, the value of labor is recognized in homes with hired maids and the wage discrepancy seems to be greater for mothers particularly (and, in some circumstances, fathers as well) than for women in general.

In Barbara Ehrenreich's "Maid to Order" article, she points out that "the home, or at least the affluent home, is finally becoming what radical feminists in the Seventies only imagined it was-a true 'workplace' for women and a tiny, though increasingly visible, part of the capitalist economy" (62). I find it fascinating that housework only seems to have tangible monetary value when it is outsourced and completed by individuals external to the home. Is it possible to tangibly value labor completed within the home by members of the family (as many feminists are fighting for)?

As a child and young adult, I had cleaning and yard maintenance responsibilities without reward; it was an expectation that as a member of the family, I needed to contribute my time and energy to maintaining the home/yard. The line in Ehrenreich’s piece that states “ ‘I [the woman] take care of the inside, he takes care of the outside’ ” (62) resonates with the responsibilities my parents had as far as house/yard maintenance, but my brother and I were expected to contribute in both spheres. I am unsure if this represents my parents’ progressive attitudes toward the spheres men and women are expected to occupy, but I am grateful for the understanding and knowledge I have from my experiences and see the skills I learned as potentially tangibly valuable in the future (I can independently operate push and riding lawn mowers and power tools, I built a shed and a rabbit hutch with minimal assistance, I completed numerous cleaning tasks indoors, etc.). These skills are only monetarily valuable to individuals who would hire me, who would exist outside of the home.

The family wage gap also resonated with my own family experiences. My mother was employed full-time until she had two children, and has only found sporadic part-time employment since then. My father has been employed full-time since he left school and has not had to take any significant amount of time off as a result of his status as a parent. I have had professors and teachers who experienced discrimination because of pregnancy and parenthood. As we discussed a couple weeks ago in class, some places of work have systems in place to assist with childcare (my high school had a nursery for children of students and some staff), but most employers make employees choose between starting a family and continuing to advance in their career.

Electrolux

Kelly Ripa is no stranger to the media world. Since the late 1980s, Ripa has been all over television. Whether it was her teen role on the Soap Opera All My Children, a co-host with Regis Philbin on Live With Regin and Kelly, or as her role as a spokeswoman, she seems to pervade almost every form of media representation. She can be viewed as a strong, empowered woman who has reached the pinnacle of business and entertainment success. Married with three children, Ripa continues to actively balance her work and family schedules, a task with which many women continuously struggle. Being in her position, Kelly Ripa is in a great position to speak powerfully on behalf of women and advocate for their rights. Unfortunately, as a spokeswoman for the Electrolux Group, Ripa promulgates certain stereotypes and acts in an enlightened sexist manner which, instead of promoting the role of women, further subjugates them to a subordinate, domestic role.

The ad in question is for the Electrolux Group, a company for which Ripa is the most popular representative’s face. This Swedish company is one of the largest manufacturers of home goods and appliances. This particular television commercial features the Electrolux “Washer and perfect Steam Dryer.” Kelly Ripa walks into a perfectly clean laundry room which has pristine hard wood floors and bright white cabinetry. The voice over asserts now that Ripa has her new washer/dryer, she can “juggle more things in her day!” Continuing to walk through her house, she is suddenly able to perform impossible tasks with incredible ease. She tosses her daughter’s shirt which magically goes to a hanger in a closet, perfectly folds and stacks dozens of shirts in seconds, is able to feed the dog with a dance-like maneuver, all because the washer and dryer is ready in just 36 minutes (a feat presumably as impossible as Ripa’s tasks around the house)! The commercial ends with Ripa claiming that with the extra time she can juggle more tasks and be “even more amazing.”

According to Douglas, standard misogyny and sexism is no longer the only form of poor media representations of women. The standard sexist media is now supplemented by enlightened sexism which states women have achieved the goals of feminism and thus there is not a need for the movement anymore (Douglas, 5). With this new, often times subliminal, form of sexism, retrograde images of women are re-entering the mass media scene (Douglas, 9). This retrograde image is in accordance to the ideal wife and mother that Ripa portrays in this commercial. Again, the audience is being shown that the most valued woman is one who takes care of the house and family. Along these lines, every woman should be able to do all the impossible tasks Ripa performs, all-the-while smiling and being personally fulfilled!

Sexism in America is a cultural phenomenon which we, often times as consumers, promulgate. Both men and women are involved in this phenomenon. In the case of the Electrolux ad, much of the sexism is promoted by women. As Douglas illustrates in her chapter The New Girliness, the fact that women are giving these messages validates the sexist themes and makes them resonate even more with viewers. It is Ripa herself, a seemingly empowered, modern woman, who is spreading the image of the traditional domestic woman gaining fulfillment solely through housework. It is almost ironic that Electrolux chose such a successful business woman to portray the classic housewife in their advertisements. Ripa, who gained most of her fame and fortune from acting and being a keen businesswoman, ignores that entire part of her life in these commercials. She completely disregards the notion that women can gain empowerment outside of the home. On an even more disturbing note, the fact that Ripa, who works long and hard hours outside of the home, is then expected to come home and do all this work in addition to, sets an absurd and unrealistic standard for the women of the world who are trying to balance both a career and a home.

Ideology of womanhood is a 19^th century concept which affirms that women and men are inherently equal but they are very different. This ideology can be used to promote the idea that women and men belong to, and function in, very different spheres (Class Notes, Jan. 27). Men belong in the public realm whereas women exercise power within the private and/or domestic sphere. The major problem with this ideology is that it traps women in the home and only values their work in the particular domestic area. This, although it stems from the 19^th century, seems to be very applicable to this commercial. I think Ripa would be very opposed to anything which outwardly says that women are less valuable than men, but based off of her performance in this ad, it can only be assumed that she might agree with the idea that the work of the house falls solely onto the shoulders of a woman. Of course, disseminating this representation can have serious consequences, especially to a young or impressionable audience. Overall, I think this ad highlights that part of the role of a woman, wife and mother is that she is to perform all the household chores. This adds pressure to the modern woman and insists that they conform to a traditional image of gender roles which they may or may not feel comfortable filling.

The commercial is also disconcerting, as I think Douglas would agree, in the sense that Ripa does not perform one chore that benefits herself. Instead, she is taking care of the rest of her family’s duties. Her daughters are not responsible for folding or hanging their own laundry, and her husband is not expected to take is own crisp, dry shirt out from the dryer. By having a woman perform all these tasks, the advertisement is effectively asserting that these are the duties of the wife alone. Even if a woman has her own chores to worry about, now she must also perform nearly every task in the house. A shocking statistic is that even if a woman is working in a workplace, in addition, she still does 80% of the household work (Class Notes, Feb 8). This is means that women are being bound to the traditional roles within the house despite the fact that they are also working other jobs. It is unsettling to think that men, and some women, are so uncomfortable with the idea of men doing the typical household chores, many of which are represented in the Electrolux ads.

On a final Kelly Ripa side-note, she also falls into another area of dangerous female media representation. As Douglas points out, me pressure for women to look a certain way is stronger now more than ever. As young girls and women watch television and look at print advertisements which features bodies past the point of perfection, they are being shown unrealistic and unhealthy representations of the ideal female form. Ripa has fallen into this category in numerous ways. Apart from this commercial, numerous magazine and online celebrity sites have targeted her for her body. While some commend her for being strong and “ripped,” others make harsh comments about her “disgusting” or masculine muscles. It seems that even for a beautiful, successful, healthy women who is a part of the media still cant escape its scrutiny. On a more applicable note to the advertisement, the image of Ripa in the commercial is one that is damaging to women. While she could be portrayed as the skilled business woman that she is, she instead taps into her more ditzy blonde persona. She bops around the house, sometimes almost skipping, which makes her seem totally carefree and only concerned his issues such as laundry or entertaining her dinner guests. This persona totally disregards a huge portion of Ripa’s personality and in effect contributes to the false notion that housework is the only concern of women and if they are lucky enough to be in the public eye, it is because of their ability to perform their household duties exceptionally well (and smiling all throughout).

In conclusion, Electrolux targets a very specific consumer in its advertising campaigns for its home appliances. In this case, selling its washer and dryers, along with spokeswoman Kelly Ripa, Electrolux harkens back to the traditional household roles of a 1950s housewife. This commercial, in addition to a few others of a similar nature, feature the happy, beautiful, put-together, energetic, bubbly housewife and mother taking care of husband, children and home. The ad clearly asserts that women are in charge of the domestic sphere and are responsible for performing all the household chores which are required to keep a clean home and happy family. It also makes the claim that even a working woman (an area of Ripa’s life which should be lauded and admired, but is instead ignored) are still responsible to do the household work in addition to the rest of their career responsibilities. As Susan Douglas would say, the retrograde image and enlightened sexist themes of this advertisement is detrimental and dangerous. Hopefully, women will soon be released from the shackles which constrain them to maintain an entire household alone while husband and kids look on.

Born This Way

Lady Gaga Born This Way Video

           Lady Gaga is a relatively new breakout artist who has captured the world’s attention with her out-of-the-box fashion ensembles and chart topping music singles.  It is no surprise then that when her newest single ‘Born This Way’ was released early this year, it reached the No. 1 spot on Billboard’s Hot 100 within the first week as well as the No. 1 spot iTunes. I believe Gaga’s single has been so well received because it is relevant, it is on the cutting edge, with respect to sound and melody, and it has inspiring lyrics which relay an uplifting positive message. Through the words of her song, Gaga tries to create an inclusive atmosphere where everyone might feel as though they belong. Gaga demonstrates this point in an interview with Barbara Walters: “I want to free [my fans] of their fears and make them feel they can create their own place in the world.” Overall, ‘Born This Way’ does an exceptional job of embracing differences in sexuality and race as well as promoting societal change.

While on her rise to fame, Gaga made it no secret to her fans (which she calls her “little monsters”) how important the gay community was to her. Prior to ‘Born This Way’, she had no songs which explicitly stated her open acceptance, but nevertheless situated herself as a gay icon with a loyal fan base of thousands of LGBT followers who idolized her because of her eccentric personality. When the new single dropped, gay (and straight) fans went crazy for what the singer claimed would be the “new gay anthem”, knocking aside the popular Gloria Gaynor single ‘I Will Survive’.

It is interesting to note that ‘Born This Way’ and other gay anthems which resonate effectively with the gay community encompass three main elements: a talented diva and the themes of unashamed sexuality and making no apologies for who you are. Evidently, Lady Gaga is the definition of super diva. Unashamed sexuality can be seen within the line “A different lover is not a sin. Believe capital H-I-M.” Here, Gaga is expressing that if you love someone society claims is not normal, God does not think it is wrong. Arguably the most important line is that which expresses the theme of making no apologies: “I’m beautiful in my way/ cause God makes no mistakes/ I’m on the right track baby/ I was born this way.” The singer means to say that no one has control over their birth, and because God makes no mistakes, you must celebrate the person you are (and thus not apologize for it). These lines attracted a large gay following because Gaga is arguing that sexuality is a result of nature, not nurture, and thus homosexuals were simply born the way they were. The overarching idea of acceptance is also an important feature of the song and the reason it is meaningful to so many LGBT members who might be suffering from a lack of it in their everyday lives.

Not only does Lady Gaga’s hit single ‘Born This Way’ approach the subject of sexual orientation, but it addresses race as well: “No matter black, white or beige/ chola or orient-made/ I’m on the right track baby/ I was born to be brave.” Next to sexuality, race is a leading discriminatory factor so it was a bold choice for Gaga to bring it up in her song. Gaga’s choice of words is controversial because these lines are seen as politically incorrect statements to include in song that perpetuates acceptance. For example, “chola” was originally an ethnic slur for people of Hispanic descent and who might fall into the stereotype of a gangster. Also, the term “orient” is used to describe anything from the Eastern part of the world which one could argue is dehumanizing. Although these are not the most politically correct terms, I believe Gaga had good intentions when she chose to include them in ‘Born This Way’. I think her point was that it doesn’t matter what we call ourselves or what others label us as, we are all born the way we are and a label doesn’t change that. This uplifting encouragement is just another reason why this song will be remembered as an historical anthem of approval.

One theme that we have explored throughout discussions in class is the idea that in order to create effective change, it must start at the “top”. Lady Gaga is an excellent example of how the acceptance rate of different sexual and racial backgrounds, which in the past has been notoriously low, can grow as a result of chart-topping song sung by a global icon. That is, Gaga, a leader in the music industry, released a single that has infiltrated millions around the world promoting the need for change in the form of acceptance. Another way in which she has promoted acceptance, specifically of sexuality, is through her recent disaffiliation with Target. Gaga had an arrangement with the department chain to promote her latest album. Recently, however, Target has sponsored campaigns of political action groups which contribute funding to an anti-gay runner. When Lady Gaga heard about this, she immediately severed any ties she had with the store to make the statement that she would not work with any company who did not support gay initiatives.

I think the song has an underlying message which will be successful in creating a positive outlook of individuals who do not fit in society’s mold of normal such as homosexuals and minority races. The idea to be proud of who you are because God made you that way is a powerful statement that will echo through all of Gaga’s listeners. Gaga also made one last resounding declaration of her views on positive acceptance when her marketing team came up with the clever connection between her name and the song title and the acronym “LGBT”. That is, Lady Gaga Born This way.

Midterm Media Culture Project: Empowering Your Confidence-The Empowerment of Jones New York, Not Women, through Embedded Feminism

Heels click and boots thud against the stone floor. People rush to the trains, buses, and subways in Grand Central Terminal, a microcosm of travel, sophistication, and urban life, while twenty-five women wearing structured black suits, black leather gloves, and black heels, and carrying black briefcases and purses stand completely still in the middle of the Main Concourse. The women stare forward with focused gazes and blank facial expressions as the cameras click and record. The women do not smile. Accent pieces break up the monochromatic palette: some women sport a prominent piece of gold jewelry and others wear a white blouse underneath their suit. Their faces are young and fresh. Makeup is minimal and natural and no women appears to be a day over thirty-five. The low camera angle accentuates the women’s tall stature and thin frames. These women are dressed for success in corporate America, and Jones New York is ready to celebrate the success of women in the workforce and the role of Jones New York in the success of working women.

Corporate interests often influence how women are portrayed in the media and affect messages conveyed about female opportunities in the public sphere. The Jones Group, Inc., an American apparel company for women and men that produces clothing, shoes, and accessories and operates Jones New York retail stores, launched a campaign titled “Empower Your Confidence” through website links, print advertisements in magazines, and television commercials, which celebrates women’s emergence into the work world and the role that Jones New York has played in female empowerment. By closely analyzing the print advertisement and television commercial, I argue that this campaign exemplifies embedded feminism by presenting a narrow conception of success that does not accurately express the experience of most women in the work world, fails to limit the power of multiple systems controlling female opportunity by emphasizing women’s business attire and appearance and neglecting reform efforts and relevant concerns such as wage discrepancies between men and women, and presents a nebulous connection between Jones New York as a retail chain and the empowerment of women in the American workforce.

The motion and travel associated with Grand Central Terminal may allude to the advancement and progress that Jones New York suggests women have achieved, traveling from a disempowered status to a more empowered position today in the corporate world. However, the women stand completely still in the middle of the terminal, intensely focusing their eyes forward. Does this indicate their intense focus on goals of success in the corporate world? What do we make of their lack of movement? How do we interpret the lack of smiles or emotion on their faces? It is possible that success in the corporate world is constraining emotionally and physically. Maybe women don’t actually possess the mobility and empowerment suggested by Jones New York.

Embedded feminism exists at the forefront of media and displays strong and accomplished women. These women are treated as the norm and their visibility suggests that the goals of the feminists have been achieved and that women are no longer limited in their opportunities. The commercial urges women, “Don’t dress for the position you have, dress for the position you aspire to be at,” implying that simply by dressing in classy business wear, women can have a change to achieve a position in the corporate work world. The definition of success conveyed in this campaign consists of contributing monetarily through a career in the corporate world. It is not important for women to enjoy their work. Success and high earning can be achieved through corporate occupations, by wearing black, gold, and white, and by being an attractive, young, predominantly white woman. The world of leather, gold, and structured suiting equals the world of success.

The question of power and empowerment is in the forefront of this campaign. The reality is that a company, Jones New York, benefits and profits from these portrayals. The actual power lies with the company, not with women. The ad focuses on women’s appearance and emphasizes that power can be obtained through attire and image. However, it does not address the problems women encounter and the forces that pull power away from women, like poor working conditions and limited rights. The ad does not motivate anyone to take action to improve conditions and opportunities for women, nor does it empower women to change the condition of their status. Jones New York seems to agree with Douglas’s statement that “women are to be judged first and foremost by their appearance” (198) and the company wishes to influence how women dress and maintain power and control over some clothing choices women make.

The advertisement on a whole lacks diversity and therefore targets a specific audience, those who are actually included in the advertisement and those who can afford the products the ad is attempting to market. Out of the ten women in the print advertisement, seven appear to be white (five have blond hair), one appears to be black, and one appears to be Latina. The quote cited from the Shriver Report, “Women as half of all workers changes everything,” suggests that the advertisement targets all women workers, but the image only displays women in extremely formal business attire, devoid of color or discernible differences. Jones New York suit sets, which start at $250, target a specific group of women and exclude women who cannot afford significant clothing expenses.

The entire campaign and the attire of women in the business world is ironic because women are praised for being successful, but they don’t actually look much like women at all. In order to be successful, women wear clothes resembling men’s suit wear, as the world of success is made up of men so women should appear like men. Being successful is a compromise; women must enter a man’s world. Unlike many advertisements in fashion magazines, this advertisement does not display hyperfemininity. Instead, it suggests that, to exert power, women have to act like men and wear menswear-inspired garments, while preserving some indicators of femininity like emphasized gold jewelry.

I am unsure why this campaign was launched at all. What monumental event occurred for women in the past five, ten, or even fifteen years that would generate a campaign of this type? As Stacy Lastrina, Chief Marketing Officer at Jones Apparel Group, comments in the commercial, “This moment in time is ours. We’ve been empowering women for over thirty-eight years.” Why does Jones New York identify their thirty-eight-year commitment to women’s business apparel with women’s empowerment movements? What is significant about thirty-eight years? The campaign seems to celebrate the success of women in all levels of employment in the working world, supported by statistics in the television commercial that “over two-thirds of women are sole or co breadwinners in a family,” but the women represented in the campaign are only employed in the corporate world. It is clearly a clothing marketing scheme to increase the visibility of their line because there have been no significant or striking advancements in women’s empowerment in recent years that would spur a campaign of this type.

The campaign commercial claims that empowering your confidence is “the making of a movement.” A fourth-wave feminist movement? Or a general movement of economically and occupationally privileged women toward Jones New York retail stores? It seems unlikely that large-scale systemic change that positively affects women came out of the last thirty-eight years of Jones New York women’s business apparel or will result from this campaign.

Works Cited

Douglas, Susan. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s
Work is Done. New York: Times Books, 2010. Print.