Mother vs Fetus

If you Google the word “personhood” the first page of links that pop up are all about the new personhood movement that states that a fetuses rights begins either at conception or immediately after. But if the fetus gains the legal rights to, as Bordo puts it, “be born healthy and sound and to be provided with a safe, healthy environment to promote this end” (87) then what happens to the mother? How is her personhood affected?

I want to ask a question that occurred to me when I was comparing the personhood movement for fetuses to a mother’s personhood. Personhood amendments to state constitutions have already been attempted in a few states including Mississippi and Colorado, and are up to bat in others like Kansas and Ohio. Lets say for the sake of argument that the amendment does get passed, what does this mean for mothers?

The focus of the debate is so centralized on the fetus that it doesn’t really occur to people to ask about what happens to the mother. As I see it, she has three options. She can 1. Keep the baby 2. Put it up for adoption 3. Get an abortion (either in another country where it’s legal or illegally here). By choosing option one or two her life changes dramatically. She is likely to be hindered in her pursuit of what she wants to accomplish with her life. Presumably there is a reason why she did not want to keep the child in the first place, and why carrying the child to term would affect her negatively in some way. If the mother chooses the third option it is costly and dangerous. Thousands of women died from back alley abortions before Roe v. Wade made them legal. And traveling out of the country, while physically safer, is an option that a lot of women simply can’t afford.

Going further than just the wishes of the mother, what happens if medical complications arise? I know that in Judaism, the health of the mother comes before the health of the baby and if you have to choose between saving the life of the child or the life of the mother, the mother is the one chosen. But what would the general guidelines be in terms of law and medicine if both the mother and the fetus had personhood? I briefly looked on the Personhood USA website to see if they addressed that situation, and they didn’t which doesn’t surprise me. Their mission statement “is to serve Jesus by being an Advocate for those who can not speak for themselves, the pre-born child”*. In watching some of their propaganda videos, there was a visual of a scale where one side said baby and the other side said mother, and it was set to show that they should have equal rights. I just want to know what they would propose to do when confronted with some of the examples that Bordo uses in her essay. If only one can be saved, who will it be- the mother or the fetus?

The rights of one person end when they infringe upon the rights of another person, but in order to make a snap medical decision involving two people who are inarguably tied together, boundaries have to be set. In my mind, the solution to this problem would be to come to some sort of compromise. The compromise that I am thinking of would be something along the fetus obtaining more legal personhood as it develops but is not fully a subject until it is actually born. At conception and a few days after, the fetus is comprised of just a few cells. Can that really be called a person? Yes the beginnings of one, but at that stage of development miscarriages can happen for a variety of natural reasons. As the fetus develops, its rights would grow, but never supersede the mothers. Fetuses obviously have rights today as we saw with examples of mothers being forced by the law and medicine to do undergo procedures without consent. A woman can always have another child if she so chooses to, and I don’t believe that we as a culture have the authority to take away her subjectivity in the name of her unborn child.

*http://www.personhoodusa.com/

Men in Figure Skating

In class we discussed women breaking into the world of male sports, so in my blog I want to talk mostly about males in a sport that is considered predominately female.

Now the majority of sports are not considered exclusively women’s by mainstream society, but one such is figure skating. As a competitive skater and a coach for the majority of my life, I have had a lot of exposure to males in the skating world. After the beginner levels, most boys either drop out or switch to classes geared more towards hockey. Figure skates are easier to learn on than hockey skates, and fairly frequently I get the father of a four year old boy who insists on putting him in hockey skates even though he can’t even stand up on the ice in them. Strong skating skills are necessary in order to be successful as a hockey player, and parents are hesitant trust my judgment because I’m a woman giving them hockey advice. For the most part they accept that I am more knowledgeable, however I did once have a particularly stubborn father who was convinced that I was giving him false information and insisted on talking to the (male) head of the hockey program who told him the exact same thing that I had. I don’t know why he was so reluctant to believe me or why he was so adamant about starting his child off in hockey skates, but maybe if there were more fluidity between gender and sports he wouldn’t have been so against anything to do with his son figure skating.

One figure skater that was always surrounded by a huge controversy concerning his sexual orientation until he came out in his autobiography this past January is Johnny Weir, also known as Johnny Queer. Known for his flamboyant costumes and artistic performances, Weir’s sexuality was constantly questioned by the skating world. Even though he does define himself as gay, what right do we, as viewers have to put him there? Every single male figure skater has their sexuality questioned at one time or another, but not usually so regularly and on such a national level. Even in commentary, Johnny Weir is constantly referred to as flamboyant, fun, controversial, and dramatic- never as an athlete. His achievements are overshadowed by perceptions of his sexuality through his performances. This youtube clip, while geared towards humor, undoubtedly shows exceptional instances where Wier’s sexuality is targeted more than other male figure skaters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqCJ75A0J54 .

Figure skating is a sport that needs male skaters, not just for individual competition but for pairs and dance partners as well. In fact, men become very sought after as partners because of the vast difference between the number of female and male skaters. Because it is a sport where men and women compete separately but equally, and often together, it is perfectly acceptable for both men and women to be coaches even if the vast majority are still women. I think that because it is more acknowledged as a coed sport, both sexes are able to coach without as much question to their sexuality as in predominately male sports. Every male figure skater I know has gotten their sexuality questioned at one point or another, but I don’t believe that the idea that male athletes in “women’s” sports are all gay is as widely accepted as women being gay in “men’s” sports is. However, there are still overwhelming assumptions about men in figure skating that stop a lot of little boys in their tracks.

You don't have any legs? Me either!

I spent the last school year in Israel, a country that is constantly forced into war to protect itself; almost every single person over the age of 18 is a veteran. Most people in Israeli society are perfectly functional human beings, however it’s not so unrealistic to see someone disabled by war.

The picture is one that I took while hanging out at a falafel stand with one of my friends. I usually catch myself when I’m staring at people, but this one was definitely an exception. The men were just cruising along when they saw each other and struck up a conversation, talked for a few minutes, and then continued on their way. Now I have no idea whether they knew each other or not, but I imagine that their conversation went something along the lines of…

“You don’t have any legs? Me either!” “No way, what happened to you?”

At the time, my friend and I were definitely kind of shocked. Seeing a man without legs is certainly out of the ordinary, and encountering two disabled people in one day was a little disconcerting. Since I had my camera with me we did a pretend to take a picture of someone and actually take a picture of the thing behind them.

Staring is a natural response, and humans have the tendency to move away from nature, thinking that our newer approaches are better. This can be seen in a number of situations, but when it comes to staring it makes us less able to understand each other. Garland Thomas talks about anthropologist Robert Murphy and how his experience from both ends of the spectrum shape his views about staring at people with disabilities. “People refuse to look at Murphy, he concludes, partly because they know that they are not supposed to stare at him and have no easy way to relate to him” (83). Relatability is a big problem. It’s difficult to put yourself into someone else’s shoes in general, but especially in a situation that you have never experienced like being disabled. People don’t know how to react without either patronizing or ignoring the person all together.

In the quote, Murphy also mentions people refusing to look at him because they know they’re not supposed to stare. But if we felt comfortable with staring at people wouldn’t we ultimately be able to better relate to them? And since we need to be taught not to stare, does that mean that when we are young staring doesn’t make us uncomfortable? And since staring is a quest for mutual understanding, then maybe if we were never told as children not to stare we would be able to understand each other more and on a deeper level.

Looking back on that day, I don’t think that I reacted the right way. There is nothing wrong with staring, but taking a furtive picture of two disabled men fits more into the category of rude than of curiosity. Staring is a perfectly normal and natural reaction, but maybe next time I will just said hello.

Eyes in The Bluest Eye

When I look at people, one of the first things I tend to notice is eye color. I like eyes, I think they’re pretty, and I totally understand Morrison’s slight obsession with them in the novel. Eyes are not like hair or skin, which come in a variety of colors and textures- they have more depth. People have been fascinated with eyes for centuries because it’s widely believed that the eyes hold some sort of truth.

Eyes are very important to viewing the world, how we see determines how we interpret everything around us. This becomes especially prevalent in The Bluest Eye because beauty is portrayed in such a visible way. In the novel, there is no inner beauty, only what people see you as, and they make judgments from there. The character of Geraldine didn’t even bother to hear what Pecola had to say or even ask her what happened to the cat. She took one look at Pecola and all she saw was her dirt, poverty, and self-accepted ugliness. She looked at her and saw everything that she tried so hard to distance herself from. Pecola’s very presence in her house was undermining everything she had worked so hard for. And why? Because of the color of her skin, the color of her eyes, because she was too black and too impoverished.

For Pecola, blue eyes are the ultimate symbol of whiteness and therefore of beauty. She sees them everywhere like on the Shirley Temple cup and the Mary Jane candy, and they only reaffirm her thoughts. Maureen is only half way between Pecola and Mary Jane because she has green eyes instead of the coveted blue. They show that she is stuck in the middle- not quite black, not quite white, and not quite brown eyed, but not quite blue eyed either. Maureen is able to flit between blacks and whites as she wishes because of the lightness of her skin and the color of her eyes. Skimming through the segment with Maureen, I saw that Morrison mentions her eyes about five times. For a character with such a small part in the scheme of the book a lot of emphasis is placed on her ability to move between social classes because of her looks, especially her eyes.

I think that Morrison decided to focus on eyes because they’re captivating, and they also can’t be changed without modern technology like colored contacts. Hair can be dyed or dreaded, cut long or short. It can be made to be an expression of who you want to portray yourself as to the world. Skin while very much unchangeable besides tanning, is not a new concept. It’s not hard to find literature on how difference of skin color affected young people growing up in times of racism. Eyes on the other hand are not usually the first thing that comes to mind when discussing differences of race. They are powerful. They are where a lie betrays itself, where you look when talking to people and trying to make a connection, and the first barrier for how you see the world. Seeing is believing, and Pecola only needed to see her new blue eyes to believe that they really truly exist and that she is beautiful.

Candy is Dandy

Every child has a favorite type of candy. Mine was and still is Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups. I would look for them on Halloween at every house I visited, and hope desperately that it was not my friend’s favorite so that we could trade afterwards. Pecola Breedlove’s favorite candy is Mary Janes, but not because she loves the way it tastes.

In Autumn, the Breedlove’s are referred to as ugly people (38). They live in a storefront because they think that they don’t deserve better than to be stared at by people passing by as a sort of cautionary tale. However, the Breedlove’s are not inherently ugly people, they just assume it because they have never been told any differently. Each member of the Breedlove family has a different way of dealing with this assumed ugliness and going about their everyday lives- Mrs. Breedlove picks fights with her husband, Cholly drinks, Sammy runs away constantly, and Pecola dreams of being transformed into a beautiful blue eyed girl.

Pecola doesn’t just like Mary Janes because of the sweetness; she is obsessed with the ideal beauty of the character of Mary Jane. Pecola’s world has no place for a young black girl and it rejects her at every turn, even more so because of the ugliness that she takes upon herself to wear. Her eyes haunt her, and no matter how hard she tries she just can’t get them to disappear, even in her fantasies. She thinks that if they were a beautiful color then people would notice her, think of her as Pecola with the pretty eyes. In her mind, her life would be sweet like the candy if she had blue eyes because her parents would not fight and do such terrible things to each other in front of her. To Pecola, blue eyes are the epitome of beauty. She prays for them every night before bed, and chooses her candy accordingly. “To eat the candy is somehow to eat the eyes, eat Mary Jane. Love Mary Jane. Be Mary Jane.” (50). By the phrase, you are what you eat, if she eats Mary Jane then maybe by some miracle she will be allowed become her. And to become Mary Jane is to be beautiful and to be accepted by her family and society.

The theme of blue eyes is obviously important throughout the book judging by the title, and it’s easy to see that Pecola is obsessed and seduced by them. She drinks outrageous amounts of milk so that she can stare at the picture of Shirley Temple on the cup, and chooses her candy carefully while praying to become the girl on the wrapper. But eye color is not something that can be changed by wishing, and Pecola’s idea of beauty can’t be achieved no matter how many Mary Jane candies she eats.

Sneetches and Citizenship

In Fat Shame, Amy Farrell talks about citizenship as more social than constitutional. It’s all about belonging and contributing in the eyes of society, and the biggest problem is looking the part.

The differences between fat and thin in society reminds me of a Dr. Seuss story about star-belly sneetches. There were two types of sneetches on the beach, plain-belly and star-belly sneetches. The absence of a star meant that those sneetches were discriminated against and excluded from events run by the superior star-bellies. One day someone came along with a machine that could put a star on the sneetches bellies, so all the plain-belly sneetches signed up right away. Immediately following, the star-belly sneetches got their stars removed in order to keep their high-class status. The cycle continued until nobody could tell the difference between the star-belly sneetches and the plain-belly ones. Eventually they just decided that it didn’t matter who had stars and who didn’t, they were all equally awesome.

The story of the sneetches relates directly to one of the reasons that thin started to become in style. Fat used to equate to wealth and status. It meant that you were well off and you could afford to eat rich, calorie-packed food and not work off extra weight you were able to put on. With the industrial revolution and the rise of the middle class, the nouveau riche was able to become fatter and more on level with the upper class. People from old money thought that the excess weight was because the social climbers were of a lower state of mind and inadequate breeding and therefore were unable to control themselves which is why they were gaining the extra pounds. With that comes the switch. Fat is no longer something to be strived for, but a sign of lower class and thin is the new normative. It’s like the difference between the sneetches, as soon as the sub-par ones are on the same level as the superior sneetches; the star-belly sneetches change the rules.

By the end of the story, the sneetches have changed their physical appearance so many times that they no longer remember who had a star to begin with. They finally realize that they’re wasting their time and money with the machine instead of just accepting each other, which they ultimately do. Dr. Seuss and Amy Farrell are arguing essentially the same thing. They’re preaching tolerance and acceptance no matter what your body looks like, having a star on your belly or being thin does not automatically make you a better person

Humanity has most definitely not reached the point where we as a people are ready to declare our equality with one another. We live in a Euro-centric world. Everything is based of the European standard of living. The thin white body is civilized, whereas a fat and dark one is considered primitive. Even the way that the rest of the world is commonly talked about it European. For example, first world countries are civilized, and third world countries are considered under developed. Second world countries are never talked about which makes the difference even more pronounced. It is our duty as a civilized people to help and contribute to the advancement of the uncivilized populations. It’s directly comparable to talk shows with celebrities like Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz. They preach health and have overweight people on the show to help them ‘better’ themselves. However, whether it be TV doctors or sneetches we need to take Farrell’s advice and get rid of the stigma placed on bodies for physical differences.

Fat- It's in our Genes

The stigma these days is that American’s are overweight. We eat too much, don’t exercise enough, don’t contribute to society, and are overindulgent. Even though we all know that stereotypes are wrong and usually inaccurate, the fat stigma is one that sticks. With hope to change that stigma, in comes FTO.

FTO is a gene that scientists have recently discovered that increases susceptibility to type 2 diabetes*. The way it works is by predisposing the person through effects on their body mass index. Two copies of the gene causes the person to be on average 3 kilograms heavier than “normal” and have an increased risk of being obese. The gene is not recessive, so even with one copy, weight and predisposition are increased. Now this predisposition does not mean that if you have the gene you will automatically be obese and get type 2 diabetes, but it does mean that your risk is higher than normal.

With the discovery of FTO it becomes clear that the fat stigma is not one that can be applied to everybody. Genes are not everything, and environment does play a huge part, but some people really do not have a choice. Whether it be because of FTO or a disease where the medicine a person has to take causes them to gain weight, not everyone deserves the blame that society puts on them. We refer to obesity as an epidemic, but the word epidemic with its highly negative connotation usually means something that is widespread and highly contagious. It doesn’t have to be a disease, it could be fear or something like it, but either way it is something highly undesirable that needs to be squashed as quickly as possible for the benefit of the greater good. American obesity doesn’t fit neatly into the epidemic box. It oozes out the sides in its urge to escape and is greeted by progressives who encourage acceptance. These progressives, like Amy Farrell, are trying to raise fat awareness and say that it’s okay to be fat and proud of it. It’s okay to accept your body for what it is, no matter what society says. Fat is not synonymous with unhealthy, gluttonous, greedy, lazy, or ugly. The lines are blurred and it is up to us to decide what the right thing is for our bodies.

Nobody can determine what genes you’re born with. Many people don’t know if they’re predisposed to certain diseases because up until a few decades ago family history was not important when making a medical diagnosis. If your grandmother is fat and your mom is fat then you’ll be fat too, right? Maybe, maybe not. Short of a costly genetic test there is no way to know what your genes look like, and even with one there is no assurance of how they will affect you. When it comes to fat there is no definitive answer, and we can’t jump to conclusions. Obesity is not an epidemic or caused solely by bad decisions. There are many of factors, including ones that are beyond control, and it’s our responsibility to start understanding and accepting people despite body size.

*http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5826/889.short

The Gender of Clothing

For the last couple of years, one of my favorite places to shop has been my dad’s closet. He never gets rid of anything, and he has the cutest stuff that I can easily apply to my own sense of style. Really though, his old motorcycle jacket is by far my favorite article of clothing. Maybe it’s just me, but I tend to find myself shopping in the men’s section almost as much as in the women’s or juniors departments. Obviously men’s clothing doesn’t include some things I love like skirts and dresses, but I sometimes find the quality of their cardigans and accessories surprising.

Lillian made a point in class today that really stuck with me. In terms of a gender hierarchy, it’s okay to dress above your gender, but not okay to dress down from it. So with society being patriarchal and men being at the top of the food chain, it is deemed okay that I sometimes wear men’s clothing- if anybody notices. However, the converse is not accepted by society. For example, if I saw a person who was visibly a man except for the fact that he was wearing heels, my first response would not be “nice pumps.” It would be more along the lines of, “what the heck is he doing?”

Men and women get the clothes they wear analyzed in different ways. For men, clothing isn’t really noticed unless it’s specifically feminine or especially eccentric. You don’t usually walk through a crowded hallway and hear males commenting on their friend’s clothes. For women, style is noticed much more. You can tell a lot about her, from fashion sense to income based on clothing. Women tend to have greater clothing freedom in the respect that we have more power to send whatever message we want with our clothing and generally not have our sexuality questioned unfairly by society. For example, about a year ago I got into the habit of wearing a watch everyday. My watch is not nearly as loud as many of the watches made for women these days- instead of being hot pink, it’s very neutral toned, and everyone loves it. I get more compliments on it then on any other accessory I have ever worn in my life. However, even though I consistently wear a man’s watch, no one doubts that I am a heterosexual female. If the opposite were to happen and a man wore a watch that was obviously feminine, chances are he would be ridiculed and/or questioned about his sexuality.

That is not to say that a woman who shops exclusively in the men’s department wont get questioning looks and assumptions made about her. However women do have more freedom to pair a man’s sweater with women’s pants and still look appropriately feminine in societies judgmental eyes. But does occasionally wearing men’s clothing or accessories mean I should identify myself as transgender? Or that a male who wears skinny jeans from Forever 21 should? When do our clothing choices define our gender, and how does our own self-definition fit into that?

Feminism in Fashion

When I wake up in the mornings, nobody tells me what to wear. Nobody tells me I have to shower or bush my teeth, or whether or not I should eat breakfast, but I it do anyways. But what if I didn’t? What if I just rolled out of bed, morning breath and all, and went about my day. Maybe it would be gross or unhygienic and I would have gingivitis as a result. Maybe all that would happen would be that others would give me “that look”.

By “that look” I’m referring to that questioning look of distain that seems to be saying, “Really? What were you thinking this morning,” that people get when they’re not perfectly adhering to the standards set for us by society. Now I’ll be the first to admit I have been the giver of that look before, but not assimilating to expectations is like coloring outside of the lines- as much as you want to do it and sometimes do by accident, it just looks better if you don’t. The age when I started worrying about what I wore was around elementary school when some of the other girls would giggle at my outfit if I wore my pink and orange striped tights with a blue patterned dress. How did they know whether or not it was going to be the next big thing? Either way, I quickly learned which kinds of outfits were acceptable, and which would land me on the swings, alone, for the majority of recess.

What we think about our bodies, not only how we dress them, is largely based on the visual stimuli that bombard us every day from getting up to going to bed. We have become desensitized to the images of half-naked women that jump out at us every time we flip the page of a Cosmo. When I see an ad with a stylish woman walking down the street smiling while men are whistling at her, I’m going to assume that’s what’s supposed to happen. Advertisements like that one however, only reinforce the idea that men act and women appear, and the mindset that women are sexualized and it is mans role to act upon that sexuality. For example, when a woman is in a state of undress or even fully clothed and she is taking a passive role in an advertisement where she is the focal point, it makes her into an object. At some point you might as well replace the model with a mannequin because it reaches the same conclusion without the cost of the model’s salary.

Society controls us and the media and society go hand in hand. They tell us what information is pertinent to know, how we should behave, act, dress, what kind of a person we should be, and everything in between. Whether it be trying out a new trend or objectifying women, the free patriarchal culture that we as Americans have aimed to build over the decades is now what limits and defines us. We are its creators and enforcers, and we do so with an iron fist exiling anyone who dares cross the boundary lines.