Choosy Moms Choose Selective Abortion

Wow, that was crass. But this is something that I feel pretty strongly about, as it relates to women's reproductive choice. Garland-Thompson's Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory touched on the subject of selective abortion, citing a source that seen it as "a coercive form of genocide against the disabled." That's a pretty bold statement. As I am not in the strictest sense disabled, I am probably fairly biased in my belief that selective abortion is an okay thing. Of course, like all grey issues, there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed--selective abortion of females in India is actually not okay. The problem with line-drawing, however, is how the lines get decided and who decides them.

When dealing with severe mental disabilities, you have to consider that not only will the child in question be affected, but you, your family and Uncle Sam will as well. Even though it can be argued that you can't prenatally determine quality of life, you CAN determine your own social and economic standing to assess your ability to properly care for a special needs child. In no way am I suggesting that mentally or physically disabled people can't live fulfilling lives; I'm just pointing to important and apparently overlooked facts to consider when bringing another human being into the world.

Arguments against selective abortion describe it as eugenics. Which, honestly, I don't see as that bad of a thing. With all the medical technology available nowadays, natural selection has been placed on the back burner of society. Just to clarify that I'm not that big of an asshole, what I have in mind right now are artificial methods of preserving life. Talkin' Terri Schaivo here. Social Security was not meant to provide for people living into their eighties and nineties, and the burden of providing for their care is going to cripple the system (I'm talking to you, baby boomers). I think there's a definate connection between anti-choicers and anti-let-suffering-old-people-diers in that the life and death cycle become unnatural. The Catholic Church is all "from conception to natural death!!1!" but with modern technology, death isn't natural anymore. Unless you get run over or something. With so much technology to prolong life, there's less of an emphasis on death as an inevitability. I mean, yes there is, but not as an immediate kind of thing, and the likelihood of women dying in childbirth nowadays is much less than way back when.

So I've kind of been all over the place, but what I'm trying to articulate here is that the cultural anxiety of controlling and regulating death is what people are making a fuss about, because it's taking the control out of the hands of society and into individuals' hands. And since individuals inevitably have different ideologies and values, there's a lot more grey as opposed to your cut-and-dry 'abortion is bad because it kills babies and gives you breast cancer' arguments.

beauty in ambiguity

[For the record, I didn't capitalize the title of this blog for a reason--genderfork.com]

I'm just going to put this out there right now--I'm an ignorant asshole. No really. I hardcore judge myself for it, too. When I see a person whose gender is not clearly definable, my mind inevitably wanders where I try to keep it from most...I wonder if they're a boy or girl.

Ass. Hole.

I guess what I'm trying to convey here is that despite all my women's studies training and my own personal values of basic human (excepting right-wing evangelicals) rights, the topic of transgenderism is uncomfortable for me. I want so badly to understand them and to make them feel comfortable, but the very fact that I'm categorizing them as a 'them' separate from myself is so anti-women's studies it makes my head spin. I want them to know that I support them, but I don't want to just support them for the sake of supporting them because I don't really know them. Them them them them them. I'm grouping them as thems rather than as the individuals that they really are. I can't even imagine the struggles they face--although I perform a feminine gender, I have the mouth of a sailor and other various traits culturally constructed as masculine, and I've gotten shit for it. If I get policed for violating my gender, I can't even fathom what they face daily. I don't want to be "that girl" that has to ask them a series of what I would feel are really personal questions about their gender identity if I don't know them. That would be like calling them out on their gender variance, and I'm not cool with doing that. And there I go with grouping them into a collective again--I feel like I'm being narrow-minded despite my desperate attempts not to be.

I just want to know more. And I feel like I'd be imposing if I just walked up to someone and was like "well hello, I'm awkwardly forward in conversations and I'd really love to know which third-person pronouns you prefer." So then, the academic nerd in me is like, "oh! I'll read books on them with personal narratives and the like!" And while I feel that knowledge and research is good, I feel like I'm being clinical (and very much patriarchal) in the way that I feel like they're so different from me that I have to check out a book to understand them. They're not fucking calculus. They're people.

I'm just really, really confused about this and I don't want to be an ignorant asshole anymore.

A Society Without Feminism

All throughout my copy of The Handmaid's Tale, there are marginal marks like "What the fuck," "Are you serious?!" and "Asshole right-wing religious rhetoric." Actually, when I say marks, what I mean is I literally scribbled in the margins about how fucked up the Gilead society was. I think what really frightened me (as well as pissed me off) was that it could really happen.

And, more importantly, I could let this happen.

I'm not suggesting that if given the opportunity, I would don a long red dress and a hat with unflattering white wings and prostitute myself for an impotent son of a bitch patriarch. I'm saying that when it comes down to it, my self-preservationist instinct would (more likely than not) lead me to be a complicit participant in this society. And that bothers the hell out of me.

A particular passage relevant to my interests is in the aply named Salvaging (chapter 41): "By telling you anything at all I'm at least believing in you, I believe you're there, I believe you into being. Because I'm telling you this story I will your existence. I tell, therefore you are."

There's a lot going on in this relatively small passage. Not only does Atwood rhetorically draw you into the story and make you an active participant, but she makes it your duty to prevent this kind of world--she makes you accountable. The "I tell, therefore you are" is more likely than not an allusion to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am," but again Atwood shapes and creates her own meaning with it. Rather than think, which has been associated throughout history as masculine, she choses tell--the reclamation of women's stories and validation of their experiences is integral to feminism. The final you are in opposition to I am once again draws you into the story; our existance is affected by Offred's experience in that it forces us to look at how we are oppressed in our own lives, and makes us accountable to both ourselves and human kind in general so as to not let something like Gilead happen again.

But the thing is, Gilead has happened in one form or another. And women as well as men have let things like this happen. Decent people who were too afraid of the consequences of rebellion. Fear is a powerful tool, and under the regime of our highly-esteemed former president Bush, reproductive rights have slowly been chipped away, phones of people who don't fit the description of WASP have been (illegally) tapped, and thousands of American soliders have died (or been emotioally scarred) for the almighty fucking dollar.

And we let it happen.

I'm not saying that it's any individual's fault, or that there hasn't been feminist (and non-feminist) resistance to these injustices, but the fact that a son of a bitch like George Junior could get away with things like this is inexcusable.

I guess what really made me blog about this is that sometimes I feel like I'm not a good enough feminist because I'm not out on the front lines marching in equality parades (or what have you). Instead, I sit and blog about how pissed I am. Sure, going to school is a pretty legit way to forward and enhance my feminist consciousness...but am I being too academic at the expense of political activism that's going to actually invoke change?

Oh, and here's a really irrelevant picture of me being Rosie the Riveter:

An Unhappy Vagina Happy Fact

Two days ago, I participated in The Vagina Monologues. As in, I was a vagina happy fact. Although I had like, three lines, this was pretty much a big deal for me as I am bug shit terrified of all things related to being the center of attention. But I was okay. I mean, sure, I was nervous and all, but all in all I think I did fairly well. I was a happy Vagina Happy Fact.

The next day rolled around, and I was still a happy Vagina Happy Fact. I got complimented by a couple fans, which made me feel fantastic as I half-expected to have a panic attack on stage and die. I was all 'tra-la'la' in my little Vagina Happy Fact world, pleased to know that Young Feminists' first big event had been a success. All was well in the world. Then, per usual, my happy feminist world was confronted with patriarchy. See, I was going to wear my VM t-shirt today. I was thrilled to wear it. But then I remembered that I had work. (I should preface the following by saying that I love my job and the people I work for--it's the socialized gender norms and [un]conscious sexism that they've internalized.)

The first thought that popped into my head when I thought of work was that vaginas are inappropriate in the work place. And then I was like, why the fuck is that? Why is me supporting a play that supports victims of domestic violence inappropriate? Really, it's not. What's inappropriate are vaginas. Did you know Family Video carries a movie featuring Jenna Jameson as a zombie stripper, but it refuses to carry a piece of legitimate art like the Monologues? Apparently, vaginas are not family-friendly. How's that for irony.

Vaginas have been perjorated. Vaaaaaaagggggiiiiiiinaaaaaa. It's not an attractive word by any means, but why is it such a taboo to say it? I'll admit that I feel awkward saying it. Vagina. I don't like saying it in class. Vagina. Mostly it gets called 'female genitals.' I've personally never heard of the penis being called a 'male genital.' 'Cause it's okay to say penis. Penis penis penis penis. But not vagina.

A few of my family members came up to see the show to support me, which was really fantastic of them. My mother almost called my grandmother to invite her, but she said (and I quote): I just couldn't say 'vagina' in front of your grandmother. And honestly, my grandmother would have probably had a heart attack and would come back to haunt me for having the audacity to say 'clitoris' on stage. As this was my first and probably last public performance, I want to tell people about it and I want to be proud that I was a part of it. And I am. Only...I can't say vagina. It offends people.

Vaginas>women>feminine>negative.

It is not okay to have a vagina and to be proud.

Territorial Pissings

In Gender Trouble, Judith Butler breaks down the dualistic sex structure by stating that "a culturally specific epistemic a priori establishes the naturalness of 'sex.'" She conceptualizes the body as a social construct--a cultural artifact on which the values of society (or the individual) are expressed.

Given all my thoughts on LeVande's talk, this is somewhat disconcerting.

I had the misfortune of having Beyonce's Single Ladies stuck in my head all day. And the thing is, I had no idea what the hell she was saying besides "If you like it, than you should have put a ring on it" (which incidentally sounds like "Iffyoulikethenyashuddaputtariingownit," just saying). I decided to Youtube the video last night after SAMS, a lip-syncing contest in which the song appeared not once, but three times (one by the dance team, and twice by fraternities--'cause it's funny when boys act like girls). And I was pretty much appalled:

'Cause if you liked it then
You shoulda put a ring on it
If you liked it then
You shoulda put a ring on it
Don't be mad once you see that he want it
If you liked it then
You shoulda put a ring on it

I got gloss on my lips, a man on my hips
Hold me tighter than my Dereon jeans
Acting up, drink in my cup
I could care less what you think
I need no permission, did I mention
Don't pay him any attention
'Cause you had your turn
But now you gonna learn
What it really feels like to miss me

Hokay. So. The you being addressed here is both subject and male, while the it, the object, is female. And if the subject likes the object, then he should probably mark the object as his own lest another subject encroach upon his territory.

Among many things, what is particularly disturbing when considering this song through the lense of Judith Butler's Gender Trouble is the body as a cultural artifact. If the single ladies of this song are indeed cultural artifacts, what's that saying about our culture if cultural artifacts are meant to be owned? Does this once again connect to the fucking prehistoric association of men with culture and women with nature? Are women's bodies meant to be controlled and regulated by patriarchal social, political and governmental forces that have economic interests in keeping women in subjugated positions?!

Although it's hard for me to choose what's most alarming about this song, I'd have to say it'd be how Beyonce portrays this as empowering. She don't need no permission and could care less what you think...but you really, really have should have put a ring on it several times over because now it has the self-satisfaction of knowing that you're in psychological distress over the loss of patriarchal power over it.

Losing My Faith in Humanity One Lap Dance at a Time

This blog began as a rant on why I hate Tila Tequila, but shifted after I joined the Facebook group "Boycott N.E.R.D." I actually hesitated joining at first, because I thought they were probably harmless, and there was no need to make a big feminist fuss about it. Well, upon further investigation, I discovered I was wrong:

You got somethin boys can't deny [here's a hint] / It's like apple pie / Cut ya open and you're just WIDE / You ain't tired / You are the cause of riots who could say no to you? / Wait till they get a load of you /A hundred dollar bills look (at you, at you) / A hundred dollar bills look (at you, at you) / A hundred dollar bills look (at you, at you) / A hundred dollar bills look (at you, at you).

Where to begin. Well, for starters, boys can't deny that those of the feminine gender (I'm hesitant to say 'women' because that connotes personhood) have something they need--because all boys are straight and categorizing them as 'boys' indicates a kind of exploratory sexuality, connoting a variety of experience (and/or partners). Much like apple pie, females are delicious baked goods that are soley for the purpose of consumption (specifically MALE consumption in this instance). And don't forget the intersection of violence and sexuality! 'Cut ya open' implies a forceful opening that is more likely than not, as consentual sex (to my knowledge) does not involve sharp pointed objects (and no, a penis does not count as sharp). Wide has a disturbing connotation to women "wanting it"-- after all, if they're wide open (by sharp pointed intruments or otherwise), they're clearly asking you to sexually violate and degraded them. If she ain't tired, that must mean she's either fucking you like a porn star or she's struggling against you--and although these often get conflated, I think it's contextually safe to suggest it's the latter. Women being the cause of riots makes me think of the devastating effect wars have on women--their bodies are violated as a sign of triumphant victory. What could be better for conquering nations than to spread their victorious seed to the defeated peoples? Wait 'til they get a load of you--'they' being a collective of predatory males and you being a non-being. The final chorus of "hundred dollar bills" is especially disturbing in the video, because it shows women's faces being covered with, well, hundred dollar bills. I wonder what they had to do to get it?

The optimist in me was hoping that this would be the only song in which women were not considered to be people. That, however, was shattered upon discovering Lapdance:

Chicks nick-name me pilot / They get high off my dick / I take 'em to my home, they call it the cock pit / Time for take off, their panties they drop quick / Now that's first class fuckin, and that' some fly shit.

Chicks. As baby chickens made no appearance within the music video, this term was decidedly imposed upon those of the feminine gender. Honestly, I don't even need to do an analysis of this--the words speak for their mysogynist selves. What really disappointed me about this song, though, is when you first go through the lyrics, it sounds like it's politically charged:

It's this society / That makes a nigga wanna kill / I'm just straight ill Ridin' my motorcycle down the streets / While politicians is soundin' like strippers to me / They keep sayin' but I don't wanna hear it...

I wasn't really sure about the strippers part, but I figured it could be something along the lines of them selling themselves out for money. That made a lot of sense to me. However, upon viewing the first, say, ten seconds of the music video, I was sadly mistaken. I don't know that I've ever seen more booty/boob/crotch shots than I have in the first seventeen seconds of that video.

I'd like to end with two lyrics that I find to be particularly intriguing:

Oooh baby you want me? / Well you can get this lap dance here for free.

"Oh, wait, you're sexually attracted to my gyrations and booty shorts? Well, let me just tell you that because I have been socialized to devalue myself by patriarchal media, I will gyrate myself towards and onto you for no charge. See, normally it would cost you, because the only value I hold in society is tied to my sexuality, but because you're oppressed as a black man and because you are a societal rebel you can have this for free."

I am astounded that they are bringing this musical group to campus.

Location, Location, Location

I find a lot of what we've been reading over the past couple weeks to be a bit overwhelming, as it is difficult for me to grapple with the isms and posts of different schools of feminist theory. So I think that when feminist authors give me their social location, it helps me conceptualize WHY they've invested themselves in a certain facet of feminist theory. I suppose it makes it a little more concrete (and interesting!) when they specifically relate their life to the theory they're arguing for, and it helps me to evaluate where my own thought and experience falls based on my social location. bell hooks' article does just this, and her explanation legitimizes her personal experience as a kind of feminist theory:

"Growing up in a black, working-class, father-dominated household, I experienced coercive adult male authority as more immediately threatening, as more likely to cause immediate pain, than racist oppression or class exploitation. It was equally clear that experiencing exploitation and oppression in the home made one feel all the more powerless when encounter dominating forces outside the home."

bell hooks is absolutely fucking cool. Not only is she investing the reader in her article by giving her social location, she's also deconstructing the patriarchal belief that theory is only legitimate within broader societal contexts. She is owning her own experience as feminist theory. So. Cool.

One (of the many) things I like best about feminism is that it helps me understand how power dynamics in my family have shaped the person I am today. My mother had me when she was nineteen, and my father was mid-thirtysomething. He was an alcoholic, and because of his gender, economic status, and age, he was a domineering force over my mother. I suppose I can't fault him overmuch on the way he was, as it is a long-standing male Stanko tradition to be domineering alcoholics who tend to emotionally damage the younger generations. This longstanding tradition was influenced by poverty, world wars, and ethnic oppressions that have influenced the power dynamics of my family for more generations than I can count.

So, rather than be pissed off at the way I am because of longstanding mental illness tradition of my family, feminist theory has allowed me to understand and come to terms with the person I'm becoming. It is a vehicle in which I have kind of reclaimed some elements of my past, let go of others, and it's something I hope to share with other feminists (and non-feminists, if they're willing to listen) in the hopes of changing the patterns of anger and abuse I see all too often in my family and in other families.