Too many choices

Bloggers Block

I got a feeling (or this mystique ain't my mystique).

After World War II, American Middle Class women were supposed to be the happiest people on the planet. Why then were so many women experiencing depression, neurosis and a growing sense of unfulfilled potential? The phrase the "problem with no name" was coined by Betty Friedan in the wake of an unspoken epidemic sweeping through the suburban homes in the 1950's and 1960's. Friedan wrote the book that would finally offer a title to this problem in 1963; "The Feminine Mystique."

In the 1950's women had everything they could dream of and little stress to boot. Willingly removed from the public sphere they finally had time to bake their own bread, sew clothing for themselves and their children and get dinner on the table promptly at 5:15pm. The only fight for the modern day women was to find and keep a husband and be responsible for the happiness of him and her five children. Women were thrilled about the new way to wax their floors and microwave dinner. With no unfeminine concerns like the economy and politics, women everywhere were joyously filling in the census blank with the occupation of "housewife."

Freudian theories cannot be entirely blamed for the creation of the feminine mystique but it can be said that the ideas put forth by Freud significantly contributed to its conception. For instance "Penis Envy", was a concept used as an explanation of what was wrong with American women. Men and Women were different and women strove to compensate for her lacking phallus. More to blame was the overwhelming acceptance of Freudian psychology as ideology for the decades following World War II. This allowed the masses to perpetuate the school of thought found in Frued's theories. Legitimizing the mindset that women couldn't possibly want more than to satisfy the needs of her husband and children led to a movement reshaping the way several generations of women were raised. Women were taught that their main goal in life was fulfilling the wants and needs of her superior. A daughter is ruled by her father first and her husband second. The repressive arrangement led to women being herded back into the home and into Victorian era prejudice.

If this were the 50's and 60's, women my age would have long since become wives and mothers. I have peers that are married and a lot of 26 year old women I know are already or in the process of becoming Mothers. I've heard some say that the Feminist movement has put women in a more undesirable place now than when they had fewer choices. The idea that women are supposed to be able to do it all seems like a mixed bag when considering Friedan's time versus the present. Sure, women should be able to have a career and a family and juggle everything perfectly while maintaining a sense of fulfillment. However, women are human beings. Women are not exempt from the basic human desires and feelings of selfishness and occasional lethargy. Feminism is about choice. Though that simplifies it significantly it doesn't change the fact that for most of history women have been told what their roles are and what they need to do to find fulfillment. Betty Friedan's book comes right out and says that women cannot be faulted for seeking happiness and fulfillment outside the private sphere. Women are not inferior to men, they are different and equal. Humans need to learn and thrive and be challenged in order to function successfully and women are not an exception.

Stephanie Coontz revisits Friedan’s work in her new book "A Strange Stirring." Published in the beginning of this year, Coontz argues that the same problems facing women in 1963 are still very relevant today. Coontz also examines the obvious gap in The Feminine Mystique which is of course, the omission of women of color and the working class. Coontz does praise the condemnation of the Freudian psychiatric methods that suggested women need not search for meaning beyond that of their roles of mothers and wives. Stay tuned for a more in depth review of Coontz's book after I acquire it here and read the text in its entirety.

So many new posts.

Coming really soon.

I promise.

Urban Outfitters

In the catalog most recently sent out from Urban Outfitters there is a page picturing a bedspread and a collage of posters and magazines on the wall above the headboard.

Two things jumped out at me immediately; one was a cover from PlayBoy Magazine and the other was a large pin up of a naked women with smaller pictures covering her nipples.

I am not saying that Urban Outfitters pretends to be anything other than a clothing magazine targeted at young hipsters who want to wear "urban" outfits. However, I remain disgusted at the blatant disregard of responsibly taken by this company when it comes to questionable products and advertisements.

In the past UO has been criticized for creating sexist, racists and classist T-shirts as well as carrying the controversial board game "Ghettopoly." One shouldn't be surprised that UO has moved on to posting PlayBoy on the walls of the "bedrooms" in its catalogs so why was I?

Well, I don't think it was surprise I felt per say, it was more like mild shock and then disgusts and then an intense feeling of curiosity. Half naked skinny girls adorn the colored and black and white pages of a typical UO catalog, I knew that. I also know that the T-shirts in question said "Eat less" and "Fathers, it's up to you to protect your daughter's virginity!" Let's not forget the T-shirt with the words scrawled in golden glitter "Poverty Sucks." In 2008, the company had a gay friendly T-shirt that had " I Support Same Sex Marriages" on it and that shirt was pulled off the shelf in 2008. Many critics had harsh words for UO after that though UO stated that it was pulled because it "wasn't selling."

Is it hip to be offensive? I don't know. I can't in good conscience spend money on anything from Urban Outfitters and I can't figure out what the appeal is for others to buy these items either. The former President and founder of UO claimed that he "very, very, very rarely" had regrets or second thoughts about potentially offensive products and he also openly donated thousands of dollars to anti-gay politicians. The current President of UO is openly gay but that doesn't stop the company from using hot button slogans as T-shirt designs for the young and sexy to sport.

Other controversial UO T-shirts? "Everybody loves a Jewish Girl" surrounded by dollar signs and a T-shirt that featured a Palestinian child holding an AK-47 over the word "Victimized".

I feel hipper already.

Men and My Uterus

Some days I really am at a loss.

Men will never become pregnant. That is something I believe the majority of people can agree on regardless of political affiliation.

I'm not saying that Men don't get to have an opinion on Abortion; I am saying that there opinion shouldn't hold much merit. Obviously if the man provided the sperm that creates the fetus their opinion matters a bit more. Ultimately, men will never experience pregnancy and therefore cannot make the claim that they know anything about terminating a pregnancy.

Yes, that is where I am going with this. Men make policies, Men sign laws, and Men make judgments about what's best for Women when they have no business doing so.

I am particularly struck by the war on women that has come to the forefront of state and national lawmakers. Mike Pence, John Boehner and Rick Perry are some of the more prevalent anti-women figures proposing bills and signing laws that take away not just abortion services but reproductive health services in general. Do these men have daughters? Wives? Friends that are women?

In Kanas, Rep. Pete DeGraaf suggested that women purchase insurance to pay for the cost of an abortion just in case they get raped and may need one.

Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Republican who supports abortion rights, questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.

DeGraff said: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"

Bollier asked, "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?"

DeGraaf drew audible groans from other House members when he responded, "I have a spare tire on my car."

"I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for."

This is disgusting; this is sad and dehumanizes women. How can you even respond to the comment about having a spare tire? I mean what? Are you honestly comparing a tiny part of an automobile to an unplanned pregnancy potentially from an assault and rape? What kind of person thinks like that? What kind of State, Country or Government can say that you should get a rape insurance plan?


In other news the state of Texas passed legislation that requires a sonogram for women seeking an abortion. Should the women decline to view the sonogram the image can be described to her.

Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who had tried to pass the bill in previous sessions stated that God was finally ready for its passage. It's also nice to know that women can count on the separation of church and state. State Rep. Patrick also said, “Standing for life is not a partisan issue. It’s a God issue.”

Great. I feel better already.

Talking to my Dad (or Slut Parade Walk FAQ's)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Guttmacher Institute

The Guttmacher Institute focuses on providing factual evidence and sound research on sexual and reproductive health issues. They focus on the abortion debate being placed in the proper context of closely related issues like unintended pregnancy, contraceptive use and sex education.

The Institute has just released an educational video describing the facts behind who has abortions in the US.

Take a look

Planned Parenthood-Enemy Number 1

The other title for this entry was "It's okay, you won't miss your reproductive health choices til they're gone."

I tried to write about something other than Planned Parenthood this past week. It's not impossible, there are hundreds of issues on women and plenty to pick apart and analyze. Usually the harder part of deciding what to write about has more to do with whether I can offer any interesting commentary or added insight.

Everyday I read about men making claims and assumptions about what women want and want they can legally decide about their own bodies. I see lawmakers bending and stretching in any direction to blame abortion provider Planned Parenthood for anything from budget woes to the end of days.

On the congress floor several senators suggested that Planned Parenthood is in it for the money.

Back in February you may remember this statement by Michelle Bachmann, “They’re focused on becoming big business,” Bachmann said. “Sarah Stoesz, who heads the Planned Parenthood operation in my state of Minnesota, said she recently opened three express centers in wealthy Minnesota suburbs and shopping centers and malls and places where women are doing their grocery shopping, picking up Starbucks, living their daily lives and stopping off for an abortion.”

First of all, you don't "stop off" for an abortion. Second of all, Planned Parenthood express centers do not provide abortions; they offer reproductive health services, counseling and testing. Lastly, suggesting that PP is taking federal funding, using it to provide abortions and then somehow making money is an asinine theory. The Hyde amendment has become anachronistic because giving money to PP at all, even when an amendment exists banning those funds be used for abortion unless the sky is yellow that day isn't important because it is only "techincally true."
But apparently it doesn't matter if abortions are performed or not at PP, what really matters is that women's health, reproductive or otherwise is just not important and the GOP just doesn't care about women.

I hate the federal funding argument. It's ridiculous that we have no choice but to provide funding for weapons and military campaigns (plus all the things that we don't know about) but conservative and and republicans cry foul when their tax dollars go towards women's health services.

I have made my own opinions known, as far as I am concerned the Church is separate from the State (No ones God gives out tax dollars) and without legal and safe abortions their may as well be a legal clause for killing women if they dare decide what they want to do to their own bodies.

You don't get to have it both ways. Either abortions are free, legal and safe performed by legitimate doctors or women are not afforded their right to live.
If you are fervently against women and you want to eradicate abortions, you should be working on providing health care, education and social well being for all of these babies YOU are taking responsibility for.

John Stewart said it best on Feb.22:

"It's like the Republicans in Congress are saying, you can't prevent an unwanted child, you can't get care if you do get pregnant and we won't give you any help feeding the kid after it's born; but for those two-minutes when that babies skull is crowning, it's the most precious thing on earth."

That's great incentive to procreate, no birth control, no abortions and no services. It's so pro-life it could kill you.

(Not) Another Pregnant 17 year old

I have mixed feelings about Gaby Rodriguez, the 17 year old senior from Washington state who revealed that her "supposed" pregnancy was in fact a school project. Gaby came up with the idea to fake her pregnancy in order to study stereotypes, rumors and statistics. Rodriguez is a straight A student and came up with the idea herself in order to experience first hand the type of reaction and critique teen mothers are faced with.

The population of Rodriguez's town is about 75 percent Hispanic. The student body at Toppenish High School is 85 percent Hispanic. Her experiment is significant in the realities of this situation.

Nationally, teen pregnancy rates have been steadily declining for years. However, Latinas have the highest teen pregnancy and birth rate among any major racial or ethnic minority.

About 51 percent of Latina teens will become pregnant by age 20, compared with about 30 percent of teens overall, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

In her schools assembly last week she had students read out comments that she had carefully recorded during her 6 months of faux pregnancy. One such comment included “Her attitude is changing, and it might be because of the baby or she was always this annoying and I never realized it.” Woah, these comments weren't necessarily said to her face but if you can remember high school, you find out about what people say about you in all sorts of ways.

Rodriguez herself stated, "A lot of rumors were just that I was irresponsible. No college...it was bound to happen. I knew she would get pregnant. Doesn't she know she just ruined her life," she said.

I get that Rodriguez wanted to gauge reactions to the fact that even though she was a straight A student and seemingly well liked, the news of her pregnancy brought about the same remarks and stereotypes as if she were a C student who engaged in any number of reckless behaviors. I mean, I think that is the point. On one hand you realize that stereotyping exists (not surprising) and on the other, that teens who become pregnant have a lot of shit talked about them. Do I think that teen mother's should be shunned or shipped off? Of course not. I think we should focus on methods to prevent pregnancy, but that isn't 100% realistic nor do those methods work 100% of the time.

None of the stories I found said anything about how her boyfriend (the father I assume?) was treated or if he found the same type of gossip and rumors being spread about him. I feel like that is way more telling in terms of stereotyping then people treating a pregnant teenager poorly.

Society never wants to see a teenager pregnant. Girls were sent away to "special" schools to give birth in secret not all that long ago. Pregnancy isn't contagious but viewing teen mothers to be is distasteful. I absolutely cannot watch any of the shows on television about pregnant teenagers. Sure, we shouldn't sweep the issue under the rug but why should we draw entertainment value out of it? Obviously you can't be on a teen mom show without becoming a teen mom. Over and over in these televised situations you view the disillusioned young women do the best she can with pregnancy, clinging on to young relationships with the fathers only to find that once junior comes along, daddy wants to be out with his friends playing basketball like a normal teenager and you are now spending your afternoons figuring out how to use a breast pump.

I give Gaby Rodriguez an A for creativity and execution and I honestly think it is an interesting hoax. However, I don't see why pretending to be a teen mom and hearing awful things about the way people feel about you proves anything about stereotypes and it's obvious that teenage moms remains a taboo issue. Whether you're confused or laud Rodriguez for her project, I guess we are having a conversation about teen motherhood, right? I just don't quite see what it is that we're saying about it

Provocative 11 year old girl

The New York Times reported on a horrible story involving the rape of an 11 year old girl. While some may not see the underlying tone of victim blaming, the outrage of those who do continues on.

Here is one excerpt:

"Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands—known as the Quarters—said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said"

It gets worse. Not only do the quotes in the article insinuate that this child was in some way provoking being gang raped, some of the comments are down right disgusting:

The case has rocked this East Texas community to its core and left many residents in the working-class neighborhood where the attack took place with unanswered questions. Among them is, if the allegations are proved, how could their young men have been drawn into such an act?

Yes, how could these men be drawn into such an act?

The communities reaction to this violent crime was reported poorly if you give them the benefit of the doubt, but that is only a small part of the problem.

There seems to be no way in which the media can avoid perpetuating "victim blaming" in cases of sexual assault and rape. The larger question could even be so broad as to ask why are their "provocative" clothing that are made for 11 year old children? You see miniature versions of tiny t-shirts, mini skirts, frilly low cut dresses and even pre training bra bras. Obviously one thinks to question where this girls parents were but that also doesn't excuse the blaming game on the girl.


The New York Times printed a response to the outrage which you can find here.

Part of the article touches on how the piece was meant to be interpreted. The standards editor for The Times (who may or may not be my uncle), told the author of the piece that the story focused on the reaction of community residents and that there was no intent to blame the victim. He added, “I do think in retrospect we could have done more to provide more context to make that clear."

Obviously society still believes that a women raped must have done something in order to provoke the assault. That's one huge problem with the media; unless they make an extreme effort to provide balanced reporting on sexual abuse it will always come across as blaming the victim, and that is the most discouraging thought of all.