reproductive justice

Being a white middle class female I can’t understand what it would feel like to be denied the ability to give birth, be a mother and raise a child. It seems like a universal experience that most women have the ability to share. The truth is that in many countries and societies this natural right is denied to certain groups. Eugenics is the extreme form of limiting certain group’s ability to procreate. In happens in subtler terms in the United States. Compulsorily sterilization is not a public policy like has been in the past. Controlling who has the ability to reproduce and who doesn’t is just another way that WASP patriarchy enforces its power. Society wants to make more babies that fit into the cultural norms. Black women, illiterate women, Hispanic women, poor women, drug addict women, lesbian women. All of these women do not enjoy the privilege that white middle class heterosexual women have; even the natural ability to be a mother. The language that the welfare policy was written in reveals that our society’s problems lie within the moral fabric of this country. Morals start with families. Pushing for family values is a huge issue with the conservative right. TANF was written so that heterosexual monogamous marriages would be the norm and therefore the ones to receive help from the government. Through welfare black women, Hispanic women, illiterate women, single mothers have all been singled out. They are not viewed as legitimate mothers who will instill the moral convictions of the conservative right on their children. Therefore they have been denied the access to their motherhood and even dissuaded from having children. In terms of other reproductive rights these women are called killers for having an abortion. They are called irresponsible. They are sent to jail. This would never happen to white middle class women. The fact that homosexual parents are looked down upon; that welfare says children in single parent homes will have problems; that Hispanic women are stereotyped as having too many babies to take care of; these are all indicators that our society has a narrow view of what is ok in terms of morals; of who is a legitimate mother.

Choice

I feel like a lot of reputation that pro-choice activists get is from the pro-life activists. Since much of their energy is devoted to protesting abortion pro-choice folks automatically get labeled as the opposite, aka for abortion. Also the fact that abortion is such a controversial topic makes it good material for the media to blow-up. Birth control pills and midwives are not nearly as controversial. So the pro-choicers end up being only known for abortion making them seem scary to the rest of the world. A lot of the change needs to come from the media’s portrayal of the issues. If the media wouldn’t sensationalize abortion then maybe the world would realize that the definition of choice is not abortion. It is hard to change this of course. Grassroots media groups can do a lot to promote the issues of pro-choicers other than abortion. If equal access to health care, right to contraception, right to choose how to deliver your baby were issues that got more coverage I think the there would be more support for “choice”. Americans are unaware of what choice means. They think it means pro-abortion only. This needs to change to move ahead. Like we discussed in class equal access to birth control is less controversial and something that more people can agree on. These issues are a good way to introduce the idea of choice to Americans.
And on a lighter yet highly relevant note

Social Services in America

Our government agencies and social security services run on a bureaucratic timeline. It is like a Franz Kafka novel. Papers have to be processed, once you get to the head of the line you are told to go wait in another line and then you will be seeing your check in the mail in the next 3 to 8 weeks. This timeline does not work people who are trying to live on a two minimum wage jobs with four children. Obviously many people in impoverished situations cannot afford to wait. They therefore are dissuaded from participating in the social services the US government provides and resort to taking payday advances, taking out a credit to pay the bills, and finding other quick fixes that ultimately end up making them more in debt. Our capitalist system in the United States is not out to help the common good. It is designed to take advantage of those with less and support those with too much already. For some reason socialism has a bad name in our country. But things like public education, social security checks, Medicaid are all rooted in socialist ideas. I feel like a lot of our social services that promote health, education and food are pushed to the back in the government’s agenda. Therefore these services are not as well known or accessible to people who need them most. There are resources out there for people but they have to go to tremendous lengths to reach them. Our poor are getting poorer because of this system. Capitalist systems are taking from them while social services are just out of grasp leaving people and families in the middle with nothing.

Western Feminists

As a geography major I have learned to look at the world objectively and through the lens of cultural relativism. What is right in one society is not necessarily right in another. I feel that feminism is a luxury of the developed post-industrialized world. And even more specifically the educated elite of these westernized countries. The west loves to give aide to developing countries but sadly this aid never reaches the ones who need it and sometimes cause more harm than good. For instance the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund gives loans to countries but these loans are conditional. The conditions under which these loans are given are from a western perspective. They force countries to lift subsidies, devalue their money, and privatize businesses and other measures. These measures basically kick all the support out from underneath developing countries in order to force them to act like an industrialized capitalist nation. It is not economically feasible for them to privatize food programs, health care and education as well as take away subsidies from farmers and other producers of goods. They need these supports because their economy is not like ours. As westerners the IMF believes that capitalism is the cure for poverty so they force them to adapt to their beliefs in order to get the loans. It doesn’t work though; these countries are poorer than they were before.
Western feminists act in a similar way. Their beliefs and values are not the same as women in Ghana or India. In the U.S. we value equality and liberty. Women should be able to choose any profession, lifestyle, religion, sexual orientation, and gender, whatever. In the Middle East these are not even concerns because they value other things like dignity and brotherhood. How can we take what we think is right and make them believe when our beliefs stem from different values.
The role of feminists around the globe should be to promote the health and welfare of women from the point of view of those women. What aid can we give these women that would benefit them most? We could not even begin to say without talking to them first. We can’t give them aid on our terms and conditions; wanting them to believe that they should get jobs and educations and speak out against their husbands. We need to create dialogue before we even begin to prescribe them with aid.

Gender Roles and Homosexuality

There is a certain amount of fear and mystery and unknown around the idea of a homosexual relationship. I feel like these type fears are what keep people from fully experiencing relationships, whether homosexual or not. It’s not just the fear of being with someone of the same sex physically but it is also the insecurities that surround people’s gender and sexual identities. Homophobia, I believe, is rooted in these insecurities. I feel like people who lead a homosexual lifestyle therefore are freed from these gender and sexual roles. There is not as much fear and insecurity because there are no standards or norms that must be maintained. They are free to chose and go back and forth. I know that people who are homosexual feel just as much insecurity if not more than straight people while they are still figuring out who they are, but I feel that is not the same insecurity that causes homophobia. Once you tell yourself that you no longer have to fit into a gender role and that you can dress and act the way you feel there is a great deal of freedom that comes with that as well as insecurity in not knowing exactly what you want to be. I feel like people, straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, whatever, would feel a lot more freedom in themselves and their relationships if they quit looking through a heterosexual lens. It is this lens that leads to misunderstanding around the subject of homosexuality. People’s expectations of gender and norms leads to relationships where there has to be definite feminine and masculine role. In a relationship where there are not black and white roles there is more freedom to switch back and forth.

everyone has sex! not just married people....

In country as affluent and “educated” as the United States, one would think that we would be ahead of other countries when it comes to teen pregnancy, infant mortality rates and sex education. The fact is that the United States’ infant mortality rate before age one ranks 44th in the world, that is 6.2 children out of a thousand will die before age one. Also teen pregnancy rates in the United States is a lot higher than other developed “western” nations; in 2002, according to the UN population fund, 51 other countries have lower teen pregnancy rates; ours sits at 53 live births per 1000 women ages 15 to 19. This does not include teens that were pregnant and had an abortion or miscarriage. Also in the United States only 71 percent of sexually active adults use a form of contraception. In most cases we are being outdone by a lot of countries, countries including China and India in some statistics taken. Granted China has a history of having strict population control, but in any case we still rank 52 in the world!
Why are we not even close to Japan or Switzerland or Canada? In my opinion I think it is strongly linked to our government’s funding of abstinence-only sex education, as well as our cultural ideas of sex being taboo. In 1996, attached to the Social Security Act, the government gave grants to states that promised to teach “abstinence until marriage” in schools. These programs are notorious for giving misinformation about contraception and excluding vital sexual information from sex education curriculum. This includes the “fact” that condoms aren’t as preventative as abstinence so don’t bother using them. Well nothing will ever be as effective as not having sex in preventing babies! But that doesn’t mean that some people might want to try it. So for those few kids who are going act on their raging hormones and fool around, they are less likely to use a condom since they have been taught that they don’t work. Why wear a condom when you will get pregnant either way? Makes sense. Besides if you teach kids about ways to keep from getting pregnant (that involve having sex) they are going to go out and have sex with all sorts of people.
Some of these programs promote ridiculous gender stereotypes. Guys are always horny and girls should say no to it. It irks me that these programs teach that it is the female’s responsibility to keep guys in line. Guys can’t help that they are horny all the time. So ladies make sure that you keep your skirts below the knee and cleavage lines up to your neck. Because if not you are giving these poor guys a hard time. And girls that are “asking for it” by dressing this way are sluts. This is the same line they use with rape. It is the women’s responsibility to keep rapists away. It is never the guy’s responsibility to quit thinking he is entitled to women’s bodies.
Also these programs are totally biased when it comes to sexual, gender and familial norms. It assumes we are all going to get married to a man that has the same feelings about waiting until marriage as you. In reality it excludes homosexuals leaving them feeling like they are social deviants. It also denies them really important information about how to prevent STDs and tells them they never will have a normal sex life. And what about people who don’t want to fall into the institution of marriage, I guess they will become celibate for life.
In order to lower our teen pregnancy rates we need to teach kids how to have sex in the real world. A world that recognizes sex as a normal, healthy activity. One that accepts diversity. One that realizes that there are some humans that don’t share the belief of waiting until marriage. And everyone, even married couples need to know about birth control and ways to prevent STDs.


check this out SIECUS's community action toolkit

On Relationships

I think I am blessed and cursed at the same time when I think about how my model for a romantic and monogamous relationship was solely shaped by my parents growing up. They have a fairy tale type relationship. They met at age 15 dated, went to the same college, tried to date other people briefly and then realized at 20 “who are we fooling let’s get married!” And they lived happily ever after and still cuddle on the couch when watching TV. I feel blessed to have been brought up in such a loving environment free of abuse, arguing, or divorce. Honestly, I thought that this is what would happen to me up until age 19 when I broke up with my high school boyfriend.
I had thought I was going to marry this person when I was 19.
Since then I wish I could say that I have radically transformed my vision of relationships, but always in the back of my mind is the thought “could I spend the rest of my life with this person?”
Men are more laid back about relationships, and think about them in the present; rarely venturing into those future thoughts. I always wonder if this sort of difference between women and men is a natural instinct or is from social conditioning based on gender roles.
Are women inherently born thinking about starting families and nurturing children? Or is it because we were given doll babies, easy-bake-ovens and Barbies to play with? Maybe a combination. I think women are pressured to think about monogamous life partners when choosing men to date. Whereas men aren’t raised playing with toys that make them to think about family life. Men I am sure think about possible “life-partners” when they date. Humans for the most part want to have someone to spend their lives with.
I have female friends though who are appalled by thought of marriage and do not like the idea of serious relationships. I know guys who can’t live without a girl friend and think about getting married. It goes both ways. So maybe it is how we were raised. Our views of relationships are shaped by our parents from a very early age. If you grow up with a single mom or divorced parents or two daddies, you are probably going use their relationships as a yard stick to measure yours. Either avoiding their style or imitating it. We are brought up in a very narrow world view for the most part and therefore have very few relationships to learn from, before you start learning for yourself.