All of these articles look at health care and feminism’s role in the health care. In Turner’s article she makes the point that “one should never compromise when trying to make a difference” (108). I think this statement is very interesting. In one way it makes the point that when changing something for the better you should not settle, but on the other hand I think that compromise is often the best way to actually accomplish something. I guess it would depend on the situation. The question that I have is: it better to compromise and have something change a little, or not to compromise and not change at all? I think there can be different arguments for both. The health care system in America is suppose to be changing, but as Turner points out the poor are not represented in the health care system now, so will anything change for them?
Mendez and Kaminsky write about their personal experiences as members of the medical side in the health care debate. Both are medical personnel, but make different points. Mendez writes about the need for bilingual doctors, and her personal experiences with it. Kaminsky writes about how nursing is considered a feminine job, but explains how that should not down play how important of a job it is. I think this relates to the debate on being a housewife. A woman should not be seen as less depending on her job, but in today’s society she is. Housewife and nurse are both feminine jobs, and both are looked down on. The connection between the two is that a typical woman’s job is worth less than a typical man’s job. Mendez’s point is that it is not only men who look down on nurses, but feminists as well and this should change.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Follow Up: Mendez, Turner and Kaminsky
These three essays are concerned with the topic of women’s health. Mendez explains the health inequalities that she is fighting to eliminate. I found an important aspect of her argument to be the idea that we should be training health care providers to be more culturally sensitive as a means to decrease racial and ethnic gaps in our medical services. I do think this is an important focus and that the stories that Mendez explains of undocumented individuals without access to services are upsetting. The idea that people may not speak English and thus are unable to communicate with health professionals is very concerning and needs to be addressed.
Turner’s experience in public health also emphasizes the importance of accessibility and equity of healthcare for all people who desire it. I definitely agree with her stress of collaboration. A collaborative effort that stresses learning and listening to each other to seems very important in creating change. Only through cohesiveness and listening to other perspectives can we learn not to judge people or stereotype.
Finally, Kaminsky’s essay on nursing shows that even though it may traditionally be viewed as women’s work it should be valued because it is important as a women’s profession. It has been affected by feminism, which is evident through uniform changes, expectation differences and the changes in numbers of male nurses and female doctors. Personally, I believe that these gender role changes especially demonstrate a changing mentality in health care. It has become much more socially acceptable for men to become nurses and for women to become doctors.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Follow Up: Arcana
I found Arcana’s article “Abortion Is a Motherhood Issue” to be very interesting. She first explains that conception should be considered the start of a child. Thus, it follows that any decisions made concerning this entity fall into the realm of motherhood issues. If a mother decides to abort or keep the baby it is nonetheless a motherhood decision. This is clearly making a life decision for that child, and I believe it stresses how important that decision is. Therefore the mother must take full responsibility for her choice.
This way of looking at abortion does stress the importance of the mother’s decision. I think that it ultimately gives the complete choice to the mother. I would be interested to see what Arcana believes is the father’s role. If we consider the decision to be a parenthood decision she would likely include the biological father, however her emphasis on a motherhood issue seems to exclude him completely. I do agree that it is ultimately the mother’s decision, as the child is in her body. However, I am interested in what exactly Arcana believes the father’s responsibility is an abortion decision. Or does he simply have no decision? As I stated before I do personally believe that the choice is the women’s yet I also question how Arcana would respond to someone saying that abortion is a parenthood decision because this is the child of both the mother and the father.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Follow Up: Anonymous and Arcana
I thought that Arcana made some really great points for why abortion should be a legal procedure. I think that it's a common misperception that some women use abortion as a method of birth control because they're not careful. It's clearly already an expensive and painful procedure, so I just don't think it makes sense. It also implies that women don't think about the weight of the choice they're making. It puts women down to imply that they don't understand what they're doing when they abort a fetus. Arcana's point about how we refer to the fetus too, was interesting. Molly noted this as well, but when we want the pregnancy we call it a baby and if we don't we call it a "cell mass" or something equally impersonal. I thought her concluding message was very powerful. As women, we need to accept the decisions we make and although we may not be proud of them, it's important to acknowledge them and our feelings about the decisions we made. If a child would not flourish at the time, it is not fair to force it into the world.
I think it was really incredibly brave of the German women to stand up for themselves in that way. In a time when abortion is so shameful and private as Arcana was saying, it takes a lot to come out and say that it is something you've experienced and a personal decision you made. I think that magazine article seems like it would have been really powerful. Having 450 women with their pictures, proudly, or at least unashamedly claiming they have had abortions shows that it is something that people really do take part in and utilize. I also thought Molly's point was really interesting. It is a practice that for a very long time was not legal, but that doesn't mean people weren't having it done. Her connection to prostitution was a really good example of that. I think the slogan for people who are pro-choice is really accurate. We need to keep it safe, legal and accessible so that women don't have to go to outstanding lengths to procure an unsafe procedure that could put the mother at risk as well.
Summary: “Abortion Is a Motherhood Issue”, Roe v. Wade, and “How It All Began:I Have had an Abortion”
Judith Arcana “Abortion…”
This article made the point that abortion is about motherhood and what having an abortion means for mothers. Arcana argues that abortion is a subcategory of motherhood. Motherhood is very complex subject, more so than I had thought about before. Reproducing is a huge responsibility. Arcana writes that we lose sight of the fact that having abortion is just not about the woman being pregnant, but about the baby growing inside her. She says that an abortion, sometimes, is actually the responsible thing to do for the baby.
One point that Arcana made really struck me. She writes, “When the pregnancy is deliberate, or accepted, we say baby. When the pregnancy is an accident, or rejected, we say fetus or embryo, a mass of cells and tissue.” (225). I believe that Arcana is completely right. Pro-Life argues for the baby to live, Pro-Choice argues that it should be the woman’s choice whether the fetus is terminated or not.
Motherhood is an incredible responsibility. Abortion may be the most responsible thing for a woman to do for that baby. Interestingly, Arcana compares choosing to have an abortion with choosing what school to send their child. Perhaps it is not the same level of importance, but her point is that abortion is just another choice that a mother makes for her child. No woman makes the choice to have an abortion easily.
Roe v. Wade
This is the Supreme Court decision that overturned a Texas abortion law. It made abortion legal in the United States. This decision said that a woman, with her doctor, could choose to have an abortion in the earlier months of her pregnancy without restriction, and with restrictions late on in the pregnancy, based on the right to privacy. All state laws limiting women’s access to abortions during the first trimester were invalidated by this decision.
The name Roe was actually an alias for Norman McCorvey who said that the abortion law in Texas violated her constitutional rights (and all women’s rights). The case went through all the courts in Texas, before making its way to the United States Supreme Court. The case was decided primarily on the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment says that there are certain rights that the government cannot control. This amendment is very ambiguous, and therefore hard to enforce or to say where it should be applied.
Despite that this decision was made in 1973 it is still contested in 2011. There is a national debate on the subject of abortions: when they should be allowed, who gets to make the decision, who pays for it, and how far into the pregnancy can the fetus be aborted.
Anonymous: “How it all…”
This article is written by a German woman arguing for the right to have an abortion. She talks about how abortions have always occurred. Something being illegal does not mean that it does not happen. (This is really similar to prostitution-it has never been legal in the U.S. and yet it has never not occurred.) It is sad to think how women had and have “back alley” abortions. They are very dangerous, and many women died. Despite the dangers, many women still had (have) the abortions. The consequences of a pregnancy were (are) worst than the risks they took to abort the fetus.
For these German women, the right to have an abortion was a very important moment for the women’s movement. It brought women together, and united them in a way that they had never been before. The author writes how she never knew how many other women had abortions, until they came together and fought for their rights.
This article made the point that abortion is about motherhood and what having an abortion means for mothers. Arcana argues that abortion is a subcategory of motherhood. Motherhood is very complex subject, more so than I had thought about before. Reproducing is a huge responsibility. Arcana writes that we lose sight of the fact that having abortion is just not about the woman being pregnant, but about the baby growing inside her. She says that an abortion, sometimes, is actually the responsible thing to do for the baby.
One point that Arcana made really struck me. She writes, “When the pregnancy is deliberate, or accepted, we say baby. When the pregnancy is an accident, or rejected, we say fetus or embryo, a mass of cells and tissue.” (225). I believe that Arcana is completely right. Pro-Life argues for the baby to live, Pro-Choice argues that it should be the woman’s choice whether the fetus is terminated or not.
Motherhood is an incredible responsibility. Abortion may be the most responsible thing for a woman to do for that baby. Interestingly, Arcana compares choosing to have an abortion with choosing what school to send their child. Perhaps it is not the same level of importance, but her point is that abortion is just another choice that a mother makes for her child. No woman makes the choice to have an abortion easily.
Roe v. Wade
This is the Supreme Court decision that overturned a Texas abortion law. It made abortion legal in the United States. This decision said that a woman, with her doctor, could choose to have an abortion in the earlier months of her pregnancy without restriction, and with restrictions late on in the pregnancy, based on the right to privacy. All state laws limiting women’s access to abortions during the first trimester were invalidated by this decision.
The name Roe was actually an alias for Norman McCorvey who said that the abortion law in Texas violated her constitutional rights (and all women’s rights). The case went through all the courts in Texas, before making its way to the United States Supreme Court. The case was decided primarily on the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment says that there are certain rights that the government cannot control. This amendment is very ambiguous, and therefore hard to enforce or to say where it should be applied.
Despite that this decision was made in 1973 it is still contested in 2011. There is a national debate on the subject of abortions: when they should be allowed, who gets to make the decision, who pays for it, and how far into the pregnancy can the fetus be aborted.
Anonymous: “How it all…”
This article is written by a German woman arguing for the right to have an abortion. She talks about how abortions have always occurred. Something being illegal does not mean that it does not happen. (This is really similar to prostitution-it has never been legal in the U.S. and yet it has never not occurred.) It is sad to think how women had and have “back alley” abortions. They are very dangerous, and many women died. Despite the dangers, many women still had (have) the abortions. The consequences of a pregnancy were (are) worst than the risks they took to abort the fetus.
For these German women, the right to have an abortion was a very important moment for the women’s movement. It brought women together, and united them in a way that they had never been before. The author writes how she never knew how many other women had abortions, until they came together and fought for their rights.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
News Flash: “Libyan Woman Struggles to Tell Media of Her Rape”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/world/middleeast/27tripoli.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=rape%20qaddafi&st=cse
In war, rape is often used a tactic to control, scare and threaten. There are many accounts of men being raped by other men in war, but the use of rape against the female population in war is more often and widely spread. Throughout history there are many documented accounts of mass rapes of women by soldiers, mercenaries and civilian men. The rape of Nanking, the genocide in Rwanda, and the Bosnian War are just a few of the most famous examples for rape being used as a war tactic. Today, this disgusting strategy for domination continues. On Saturday March 26, 2011 a Libyan woman struggled to tell her horrific story of rape to western reporters. She managed to get into the Rixos Hotel in Libya, where many reporters are staying, but was later dragged out by Colonel Qaddafi’s security forces.
The Libyan woman’s name is Eman al-Obeidy. There is little known about her, other than the few things that she managed to tell reporters. She told reporters, she was raped by fifteen different men and that, “I was tied up, and they defecated and urinated on me” (Kirkpatrick 1). She said that she was a native of the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Qaddafi militia held her for two days before she managed to escape. Obeidy was tortured by these men, and says that she is not the only one. She yelled that her friends were still being held. It is terrifying to imagine what horrors these men are inflicting on those Obeidy left behind.
Obeidy went to the Rixos hotel specifically looking for news reporters because she believes, “there is no media coverage outside” (Kirkpatrick 1). This could be an example of the Libyan government trying to control the press. This is another tactic often used in war. In war torn areas journalists are often at risk of violence, or are not allowed to go to certain places. Governments do want their despicable practices to be exposed to the world. Charles Clover of The Financial Times tried to help Obeidy when security forces were trying to her to leave. He was treated roughly, and later told to leave—the Libyan government claimed that his reports were inaccurate. It can be assumed, however; that the inaccuracy was not in his reports; rather they lay in how the Libyan government treats their civilians.
Obeidy struggled with security forces for almost an hour. This clip shows part of her struggle: http://bcove.me/l67y7ho0. According to The New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick, Libyan forces treated her better than they would have if reporters had not been present. If a woman being forcibly dragged away is considered an example of less force, one wonders what goes on where journalists are not allowed to go. Both Libyan security forces and restaurant staff tried to apprehend Obeidy. In the video, one waitress throws a coat over her head, while another waiter tries to push the press back. Weapons were reportedly brandished about—a knife and a revolver were brought out when trying to control Obeidy. No one was seriously injured, but one wonders if that would be the case if not for the western reporters? Would anyone even know her story?
Eventually, Obeidy was forced into a white car and driven away. According to Musa Ibrahim, a Libyan government spokesman, “she appeared to be drunk and mentally ill” (Kirkpatrick 2). It is clear that the Libyan government is trying to discredit Obeidy’s account of the horrors inflicted on her by their militia. Discrediting rape victims is another common tactic used against women and men. While this case occurred in Libya during a time of war, discrediting rape victims is tried throughout the world. In the United States, rape victims are often accused of lying. Many a defendant has stated, “She wanted it.” One would hope that the rape victims would be believed before the rape defendants, but sadly this is not always the case. Who knows what explanations Obeidy’s rapists told themselves? Rape is never justified.
The fate of Obeidy is not known. Khalid Kaim, the deputy foreign minister, said that she would be “treated in accordance with the law” (Kirkpatrick 2). If the government controls the militiamen who raped and tortured Obeidy, it does not reflect well on what she is going through at the hands of the government now.
Eman al-Obeidy is one of many rape victims. She suffered at the hands of her government, the same government sworn to protect her rights. Rape is used in war to intimidate. Obeidy says that she has no fear now; she only wants her story told so that other can know what is occurring in Libya. Her cry for help is not for herself; it is for the innocent living in Libya in this time of fear. The brutality of the Libyan government is a reminder of the cruelty that humans will inflict on other humans in order to stay in power. Obeidy’s bravery is not wasted, however, her story of terror appeared all over the news. Hopefully, this abuse will not be treated lightly, and she will not join the ranks of the millions of women raped and then forgotten in war.
Resources:
Kirkpatrick, David D. “Libyan Woman Stuggles to Tell Media of Her Rape.” The New York Times. 26 March 2011.
“Embed Player” Channel 4 News. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid69900095001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_VhJQ6tgdykx3j23oh1YN- 2U&bctid=857700396001.
In war, rape is often used a tactic to control, scare and threaten. There are many accounts of men being raped by other men in war, but the use of rape against the female population in war is more often and widely spread. Throughout history there are many documented accounts of mass rapes of women by soldiers, mercenaries and civilian men. The rape of Nanking, the genocide in Rwanda, and the Bosnian War are just a few of the most famous examples for rape being used as a war tactic. Today, this disgusting strategy for domination continues. On Saturday March 26, 2011 a Libyan woman struggled to tell her horrific story of rape to western reporters. She managed to get into the Rixos Hotel in Libya, where many reporters are staying, but was later dragged out by Colonel Qaddafi’s security forces.
The Libyan woman’s name is Eman al-Obeidy. There is little known about her, other than the few things that she managed to tell reporters. She told reporters, she was raped by fifteen different men and that, “I was tied up, and they defecated and urinated on me” (Kirkpatrick 1). She said that she was a native of the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Qaddafi militia held her for two days before she managed to escape. Obeidy was tortured by these men, and says that she is not the only one. She yelled that her friends were still being held. It is terrifying to imagine what horrors these men are inflicting on those Obeidy left behind.
Obeidy went to the Rixos hotel specifically looking for news reporters because she believes, “there is no media coverage outside” (Kirkpatrick 1). This could be an example of the Libyan government trying to control the press. This is another tactic often used in war. In war torn areas journalists are often at risk of violence, or are not allowed to go to certain places. Governments do want their despicable practices to be exposed to the world. Charles Clover of The Financial Times tried to help Obeidy when security forces were trying to her to leave. He was treated roughly, and later told to leave—the Libyan government claimed that his reports were inaccurate. It can be assumed, however; that the inaccuracy was not in his reports; rather they lay in how the Libyan government treats their civilians.
Obeidy struggled with security forces for almost an hour. This clip shows part of her struggle: http://bcove.me/l67y7ho0. According to The New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick, Libyan forces treated her better than they would have if reporters had not been present. If a woman being forcibly dragged away is considered an example of less force, one wonders what goes on where journalists are not allowed to go. Both Libyan security forces and restaurant staff tried to apprehend Obeidy. In the video, one waitress throws a coat over her head, while another waiter tries to push the press back. Weapons were reportedly brandished about—a knife and a revolver were brought out when trying to control Obeidy. No one was seriously injured, but one wonders if that would be the case if not for the western reporters? Would anyone even know her story?
Eventually, Obeidy was forced into a white car and driven away. According to Musa Ibrahim, a Libyan government spokesman, “she appeared to be drunk and mentally ill” (Kirkpatrick 2). It is clear that the Libyan government is trying to discredit Obeidy’s account of the horrors inflicted on her by their militia. Discrediting rape victims is another common tactic used against women and men. While this case occurred in Libya during a time of war, discrediting rape victims is tried throughout the world. In the United States, rape victims are often accused of lying. Many a defendant has stated, “She wanted it.” One would hope that the rape victims would be believed before the rape defendants, but sadly this is not always the case. Who knows what explanations Obeidy’s rapists told themselves? Rape is never justified.
The fate of Obeidy is not known. Khalid Kaim, the deputy foreign minister, said that she would be “treated in accordance with the law” (Kirkpatrick 2). If the government controls the militiamen who raped and tortured Obeidy, it does not reflect well on what she is going through at the hands of the government now.
Eman al-Obeidy is one of many rape victims. She suffered at the hands of her government, the same government sworn to protect her rights. Rape is used in war to intimidate. Obeidy says that she has no fear now; she only wants her story told so that other can know what is occurring in Libya. Her cry for help is not for herself; it is for the innocent living in Libya in this time of fear. The brutality of the Libyan government is a reminder of the cruelty that humans will inflict on other humans in order to stay in power. Obeidy’s bravery is not wasted, however, her story of terror appeared all over the news. Hopefully, this abuse will not be treated lightly, and she will not join the ranks of the millions of women raped and then forgotten in war.
Resources:
Kirkpatrick, David D. “Libyan Woman Stuggles to Tell Media of Her Rape.” The New York Times. 26 March 2011.
“Embed Player” Channel 4 News. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid69900095001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_VhJQ6tgdykx3j23oh1YN- 2U&bctid=857700396001.
Follow Up: Eang and Mink
I was really interested in Mink's standpoint on the Personal Responsibility Act. She notes the fact that poor, single mothers are thrown into an entirely separate law system. They are the only people who the government can punish for having children, who the government can expect intimate details about relationships from, and who are forced by law to allow biological fathers into their families. This seems incredibly unfair to me, as a woman. I can't imagine having these aspects of my life controlled by the government and would deem it an incredible intrusion on my privacy, not to mention my rights as a human being. These mothers are deprived of equal citizenship because they aren't paid for their labor. They have to make the choice between wages, and their work as a mother. Mink claims that these women are owed welfare for doing the job they do. However, this is where I get a little bit stuck. Single mothers everywhere are forced to make tough decisions to raise their families. Even women with husbands are sometimes forced to work in order to provide for their families. I'm not quite sure what makes this particular caste of women different. Although I think it would be great for the government to be able to hand out money to single mothers, I'm not sure that this is realistic. One other thing to point out was the "typical" woman on welfare. People see this woman as black, lazy, promiscuous and matriarchal. This is similar to the articles we have read about black women either being hyper-sexualized or turned into motherly, nurturing figures. I'm sure plenty of women on welfare are white, but it's just interesting that the stereotype is of a black woman.
Eang and her whole family of women seem like exceptional people. The things I thought were most notable in this article were the way Eang's mother was forced to work to support her family and the chasm between old and new Cambodian cultures. First, the way Eang's mother was forced to work reminded me of "The Mommy Tax." In the article, they discuss the fact that it's even harder to be a mother if you're working a blue collar job, which is exactly what Eang's mother was doing. Blue collar jobs require mandatory overtime, are physically draining, and often require training sessions that cannot be missed. When Eang talks about not seeing her mother for almost a week at times, it is clear to see what a price her mother was paying for just $4.50 per hour. The other thing that caught my interest was the cultural clash between the old and new Cambodian attitudes. Eang and the women of her family are modern in their views that women should be strong and opinionated. Traditional Cambodian women are expected to be meek and quiet. I wonder if this has to do with the Cambodian genocide and that women decided they couldn't keep quiet anymore. However, it paralleled my News Flash about Indian cultures very well and therefore caught my eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)