Sperm and Egg: A Love Story

Allow yourself to mentally fast forward into the future. You are 30 years old and married, you and your partner have steady careers and money to spend. After much contemplation, you both agree that it is time to start having children. Two weeks later you are staring at a computer screen, laughing giddily with your partner as you both pick out characteristics for your “Designer Baby”. It is just perfect, a baby that is free of disease, physical imperfections, and looks just the way you always imagined a baby of yours would look. After all, you deserve it right?

                Although the science of legitimate designer babies still has a long ways to go, reading Outsourcing the Womb by France Winddance Twine has led me to believe that the impending phenomenon is not too far off in the future. The author’s discourse on the ever-growing reproductive marketplace inspired me to contemplate concepts such as surrogacy and reproductive material donation like never before. It is something that has never made its’ way to the forefront of my mind and yet I can’t say I wouldn't be tempted to cheat the reproduction system myself. I can confidently predict both advancement and turmoil when it comes to the future of the commodification of reproduction. The evidence is all there. The reproductive market place is booming, and where there is money to be made you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be strenuous efforts toward scientific advancements in the field. Not only can you buy eggs and sperm but Twine informs us that, “class, education, gender, and sexual orientation play a role in the valuation of eggs.” (Twine, 32) Individuals looking to buy can select genetic materials based on, “age, skin color, height, hair color, eye color, body shape, and perceived racial or ethnic origin.” (Twine, 33) Parents can also choose to screen embryos created via in vitro fertilization (IVF) for sex or diseases, a process known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. All that seems to be left is to figure out how to determine what genes are needed to create a super smart, beautiful, athletic baby. What I failed to realize, at least at first, is that skin color is a form of symbolic capital that has exchange value. Colorism and racism are undoubtedly at work in this new marketplace, yet solutions do not seem to be in sight. Designer babies are representative of a very stigmatized cultural mindset, yet allow couples to choose race. That seems like a pretty open-ended opportunity. 

Speaking of choice, today, women don’t even have to carry their own pregnancies. In fact they can outsource their pregnancies to other countries! Surrogacy, the love child of capitalism and utilitarianism, is on the fast track to becoming the next symptom of the American Dream. Little girls in impoverished nations around the World will look to their parents and say, “When I grow up I want to live in a big house in America and have nine children and not have to give birth to a single one.” A dramatic scene, but one that is supported by Twine’s case study on India and its involvement in the surrogacy market. Cheap, legal, and supervised: reproductive laborers in India are oppressed and highly useful in this growing market. Twine implores the reader to think about why surrogacy generates anxieties, controversy, and ambivalence, yet remains legal. The answer lies in the history of this country. From the very beginning the United States’ middle name has been commodification. Consider the demise of the Beaver thanks to the Fur Trade, the American Bison, water supply in the Midwest, the Timber industry, Mountain Top removal; these are just a handful of examples that associate themselves with a country that has always been focused on moving forward and making money. Conservation movements have been but ants under the heavy boot of America’s capitalist one track mind. The reproductive market is no different. In a world where women sell sex for money and people sell their organs, it is only logical that we have started to rent out our wombs. This has led to me to conclude that surrogacy and the “designer baby” craze are here to stay; and one has to admit it is undeniably a remarkable medical achievement.

The problem stems from the ethics. There are a lot of unanswered questions both morally and socially when dealing with the reproductive marketplace. This is highly understandable seeing that it just started to gain momentum in the last two decades. Twine efficiently calls our attention to class and racial controversies. Class and colorism matter in consumer choice, and the women who participate as surrogates tend to be ethnically diverse or lower class. As it is with any major market, there are those who benefit and those who are oppressed.

In addition, problems are arising that were never there before. There are cases of sperm donors fathering dozens of children and babies that are starting to grow up and demand to know who their biological parents are. There is even a new series on MTV all about this new generation of offspring: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/25/generation-cryo-mtv-s-new-show-about-sperm-donor-babies-finding-half-siblings.html

As time progresses, there is going to be a lot of tough decisions made about where to go next with this growing market. Should donor offspring have the right to information or should donors be allowed to forever remain obsolete in the child’s life? For a long time the problems that arise are going to have to be addressed case by case. Twine tells the reader about the controversy surrounding “Baby M”: biological child of a surrogate and William Stern who was simultaneously the adoptive father as well. When the surrogate refused to relinquish the baby for adoption, trials ensued. “Prior to this high-profile custody battle, few Americans were aware of this technology and it was relatively uncommon.” (Twine, 5) The “Baby M” Trial is just one in a series of controversies that are sure to continue to develop as the reproductive marketplace continues to expand.

Twine digs deep into the implications of race and class and their connection to the reproductive global market. Perhaps another vehicle for oppression and tension, it also provides a window of opportunity. No one knows the future of our society, but I believe it lies with the creation of the super baby. As time goes on society is bound to become more aware of the controversy that surrounds this new field of discovery and hopefully appropriate action will be taken. I implore those who read this to integrate surrogacy and the reproductive marketplace into conversation, for it is only with discourse that one can raise awareness and create change. Perhaps society can create opportunity and equality in places where there is room for controversy. 

Surrogacy in the Holy Land

Assisted Reproductive Technologies, or ART for short, as well as surrogacy has been banned or limited according to certain restrictions in a number of nations. In particular, states in America do not have uniform policies nationwide regarding the usage of ART as well as surrogacy.  However, over in the Middle-Eastern country of Israel, fertilization technologies to help those seeking to birth children in this non-traditional manner is actually state funded and allows for single mothers, lesbian couples, and heterosexual couples to birth children by way of surrogacy. Even though it is hypothetically  “possible” for anyone in the states seeking children to find surrogates, whether it be their home state or another state that allows it, there are issues with who has access to these technologies. Therefore, it is important to look at different intersections of race, class, and sexuality, within the states only allows those who are of the most privileged status access to reproductive technologies. France Winddance Twine in Outsourcing the Womb says that "class inequalities, the legacies of racial slavery,and gender segregation in the labor market structure the global surrogacy industry" (19). While it seems as though that state-funded institutions that offer access to them for all U.S. citizens could potentially alleviate these problems, Israel, a country that actually does offer state funding falls short in providing everyone with equal access to ART. Like the U.S. there are implications based upon people within religious, racial, and sexual minorities according to accessibility of ART.

Because surrogacy is not legal in all American states, only those who are more wealthy can seek out ART services.Twine, describes the class inequalities that dictates these procedures. Those who can purchase reproductive services do so at an expense to those women who usually provide their reproductive services for those who can't conceive. Twine explains that becoming a surrogate for women who are apart of lower-middle class statuses is an "alternative option to working jobs that provide comparable wages, especially for women who are mothers of young children, the wives of active military duty or who have neither the time nor economic resources to return to school to obtain an advanced degree or professional training" (19). Issues of class inequality are pushed to the forefront of issues concerning surrogacy within American culture. This class inequality that is brought to light through reproductive services isn't something that pops up in Israeli culture.

Currently, in Israel, the male, gay couples are not permitted access to IVF services. Here is the official law passed in 1996 regarded surrogacy in Israel. According to France Windance  Twine , “while lesbians or unmarried heterosexual women can form families with the support of the Israeli government, these services are  not available to gay men, who must purchase procreative material and services outside of Israel” (26). It is not discussed by Twine but perhaps the reason that underlies this is that Judaism is a matrilineal religion. Jewish children are determined by the background of the mother. If only the father is Jewish, then the child technically not Jewish according to strict Jewish law. This is described in a Global Post article from 2010, "religious leaders say that the birth mother must be single and Jewish to ensure the baby is Jewish. Same goes for the egg donor" (Evan Pondel).But, because the majority of Israeli citizens are secular, why must this be a matter of concern which must be regulated by the government? 

Because homosexual men in Israel must go overseas in order to hire a surrogate, there have been some sticky situations. One popular destination is the country of Thailand. Recently, this past January, 65 babies brought into this world through surrogacy for Israeli parents were stuck in Thailand. This happened because according to Thai law, the surrogate mother is the baby's actual mother. This makes it so that getting issued a passport for the baby to get to Israel can be seen as abduction. An article from an Israeli news source, Haaretz, explains that "the existing legislation grants citizenship to any child born to a Thai mother and gives her custody, creating ambiguity". Perhaps these issues could be avoided if gay men in Israeli were allowed access to surrogacy services provided by the Israeli government. A bill was proposed in March which would allow gay couples to access to surrogacy within Israel. After scouring the internet for the last half hour, I have not been able to find any updates on whether or not this amendment has passed.

Not only are gay men discriminated against by their lack of rights regarding surrogacy, but everyone in Israel is affected by the current laws. Race discrimination plays another huge part of these issues. Law in Israeli do  not permit non-Jews to marry Jews legally. Besides the mixing of religions, the law also does not permit the intermingling of races. Therefore, if you are an Arab living in Israel, you could only obtain a surrogate or invitro- fertilization through a fellow Arab. It's really interesting to compare this scenario to what happens in the United States. Even though the United States does not have national laws preventing races from mixing by way of surrogacy, discrimination of people of color is still pertinent.  One such discriminatory situation in the U.S. described in Outsourcing the Womb described a Black Woman who was seeking fertility services but was told by the White doctor that "informed her that he didn't have any Black sperm donors so he couldn't offer her any sperm or IVF treatments" (35).  Although this does not have to do with surrogacy directly, there was a recent incident in which the Israeli government admitted to sterilizing Ethiopian immigrants.

The racist sterilization of Ethiopian immigrants raises questions for me. In fact, in attempting to write this blog post, I have only discovered that thinking about surrogacy policies raised more questions to me then the answers I received.  If Israel uses their state funds to provide for fertilization treatments and surrogate mothers, then what are it's birth control policies? Israel is pronatalist, meaning that human reproduction is widely encouraged. Since this is the case, how easy is it for women who want birth control access it? When trying to answer this question, I only discovered multiple articles about women Ethiopian immigrants being sterilized. Issues of race surrounding reproductive rights are both central to American and Israeli practices. What's fascinating to me is that birth control, which plenty of women in America do have access to, is the antithesis of a pronatalist policy. America doesn't fund surrogacy which raises questions of class inequalities within our capitalistic marketplace. But then, when thinking about Israeli policies, class inequalities come into question when thinking about homosexual men who have to go abroad  in order to support their dreams of raising a family, and only those who have the money can partake in this. Also, discrimination of sexual orientation is also exposed by the study of surrogacy in Israel and America.

I want to make it clear that I am not condemning either Israel and America for their policies. Instead, I just wanted to utilize this blog in order to help myself understand the complex issues of delving into the policies and thoughts that surround ART.

I am hoping that I will be able to answer my questions surrounding women's access to birth control this summer when I intern in the city of Tel Aviv for two months.This information is not available in mainstream news sources, so hopefully I will be able to engage in conversations with Israeli's who face issues surrounding surrogacy and other reproductive services. I shall keep you all updated during my travels.

The Debasement of Pregnant Women's Bodily Integrity

Most people perceive issues of women’s rights as a problem of the past.  The modern woman is perceived to have all her human rights intact.  After all, women can now vote, work outside of the home, and own property just as men can.  Despite making a bit less than men, women today seem to have it pretty good.  I think almost everyone would agree that women have been empowered throughout the years of progression of the women’s rights movement.   What many people neglect to consider is the undeniable disempowerment a woman experiences when she becomes pregnant.

Being pregnant can be an amazing experience.  Some women wait their whole lives for it and describe it as the happiest time in their lives. As soon as a woman learns she is pregnant, many mothers report a feeling of immediate attachment and love for the fetus. Unfortunately, as soon as the woman announces that she is pregnant she becomes secondary in our society’s eyes.  The main concern shifts toward the growing fetus inside her and keeping it safe, even if that means debasing the mother’s bodily integrity in order to do so.

From the time that women announce they are pregnant they lose their subjectivity.  The fetus becomes empowered and the mother in result is disempowered.  I would argue that this disempowerment happens on both a legal level as well as a cultural level.  Pregnant women are not only surveillanced by almost everyone they come into contact with but they may also be at risk of losing their rights to their body legally as well.

Susan Bordo, author of Unbearable Weight Feminism, Western Culture, and The Body, examines many instances of legal double standards concerning the bodily integrity of pregnant women, cases where women are treated as fetal incubators rather than living, breathing people.  Bordo offers several examples of cases that strip women of their sense of self in order to benefit the fetus (Bordo).  For example doctors kept a brain dead women alive, against her husbands wishes, in order for the fetus she was carrying to continue to develop until it could live separately from the mother.  In this case the mother was mistreated and denied her wishes concerning life support because of the fetus growing inside her.  Essentially the fetus was determined to be more important than the mother’s basic human rights.  Another extremely eye opening case is Angela Carder’s case from 1987. When Carder was twenty-six weeks pregnant doctors discovered her cancer, which was thought to be in remission, had recurred and metastasized to her lungs.  The doctors at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. did not agree with Carder’s wishes to undergo chemo and radiation, putting her own life ahead of the life of her unborn baby’s.  The hospital did not treat her cancer and pushed for her to have an immediate C-section (before she died).  Even though it was against Angela and her husband’s wishes and would likely end Angela’s life, the immediate C-section was authorized.  The baby died shortly after the surgery and Angela died two days later. 

Although it is hard to hear such an upsetting story it is also extremely important to open people’s eyes to the injustices pregnant women face in western culture.  Some may disregard these cases as extreme and rare but the reality is, pregnant women rarely enjoy the same rights they did prior to their pregnancy.  Even without forced C-sections or legal matters, pregnant women are surveillanced everyday by everyone around them.  Mothers have to meet a strict set of cultural expectations while they are pregnant or they will be seen as bad mothers.

Mothers are immediately looked down upon if they engage in any activity that could put the health of the fetus in jeopardy.  Our society essentially expects a woman to make herself the second priority for the rest of her life after she gets pregnant.  A pregnant woman is constantly questioned whether her actions are safe for the baby. Everything a woman does when she is pregnant is brought into question.  If she is exercising, is she exercising too much?  If she is dieting, is she denying the baby proper nutrition?  These basic private entities of a person’s life become public when you are pregnant. In our society a bump under your shirt gives all onlookers an invitation to judge you based on your caffeine intake or whether or not you drink a glass of wine with dinner.  In one particular case, Jane Hampson, a 37 year old pregnant woman, was actually refused a small glass of red wine because the bartender "didn't want it on his conscience".  Not to mention, all personal space and touching barriers are erased when a curious passerby sees a belly bump. 

Fetal rights have exploded into a national obsession.  What makes this problematic is not that the fetus is being treated like a person with rights, but rather that the fetus is stealing the rights of the mother.  Although some believe that the fetus is a living being at the point of conception, it is still living off of another human’s body.  Therefore any rights that may be given to the fetus must not be at the expense of the mother’s bodily integrity.  We would never force a refusing son to donate bone marrow to save his dying mother even if he was the only direct match.  So a mother should never be forced into a C-section to save the life of her struggling unborn son.  By empowering the fetus and providing it with human rights, our culture has stripped pregnant women of their basic human rights and bodily integrity.

Works Cited

Bordo, Susan. "Are Mothers Persons." Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. Berkeley: U of California, 1993. N. pag. Print.

Hormones and Chemicals in Food Production

Hormones and Chemicals in Food Production: Additives to our Energy Source and Their Effects

Chemical Composition of Bisphenol A

http://www.viewzone.com/plastic-BPA.png

Chemicals that are used as fertilizers, used to prolong food shelf life, and used to package our food have been around for awhile. The first chemical fertilizer was created in "1908 by German chemist Fritz Haber" which now the creation of such fertilizers is now called "the Haber Process". (Cornell, 2010) Since then the production of fertilizer has grown immensely and has become a corporate industry. This is present to our friends to the north where, "nine companies make and market almost all of the insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides used in Canada". (Qualman, 2001) However, it is not just the fertilizer that is corporately owned but also the seed production industries with, "Four companies (DuPont/Pioneer, Monsanto, NMovartis, and Dow) control 69% of the North American seed corn market and 47% of the soybean seed market" as of 2001. (Qualman, 2001) With such a powerful grip on the market, the production of their products can be done without massive regulations because their money can buy their way through the hoops and ladders of politics and ethics.

One of the chemicals that passes these boundaries is Bisphenol A, or BPA, which has been in commercial use since 1957 "commonly (as) plastic food and beverage containers and in the coating of food cans". (Dunham, 2008) BPA is not a friendly chemical to the sexual production, with multiple reports finding effects to male reproductive system. According to a study done in China, men who worked in BPA producing facilities, "had quadruple the risk of erectile dysfunction, and seven times more risk of ejaculation difficulty". (Dunham, 2008) Beyond the functional reasons, developmental reasons also occur. Some of these were found by Hiroshi Iida and his study team in 2003 when they tested BPA's effects on Sertoli Cells, which main purpose is to nourish developing sperm cells. They concluded "exposure to BPA revealed morphological changes, such as membrane blebs, cell rounding, cytoskeletal collapse, and chromatin condensation or fragmentation" (Iida et. al, 2003). This essentially means that during the growth of the sperm cell that the cell would be weaker than normal, abnormal in shape, and the chromosome of the sperm would not develop correctly. Also, "problems with the Steroli cells can lead to cryptorchidism, in which the testicles fail to descend". (Langston, 2010) These effects however have are not specific to males. Studies are expanding to female reproductive systems as well with the FDA releasing a statement pronouncing concern for "the potential effects of BPA in the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants, and young children". (Dunham, 2008) While all these studies are not all focused on fetal development, the effects are now being acknowledged in the early stages of child development. On top of that, a study done on mice found that female mice injected with small doses of BPA "made adult female mice more timid and unwilling to explore, a typically masculine behavior for mice. In addition to masculinizing female mouse behavior, the chemical also changed female mouse brain structure, reducing the size of a part of the brain that is usually larger in females". (Langston, 2010) As far as I have found these results have not been significant in humans, but the possibility is still frightening.

Recently, however, many companies like Nalgene have been producing products like my water bottle that are BPA free. Even with this being said Steven Silverman general manager of Nalgene in a statement said, "Based on all available scientific evidence, we continue to believe that Nalgene products containing BPA are safe for their intended use. However, our customers indicated they preferred BPA- free alternatives, and we acted in response to those concerns". (Austen, 2008) With this being said Nalgene still creates products that contain BPA, they are just bought less frequently than the BPA free options. Regardless, many companies are starting to produce products that are BPA free. These companies include Brita, SC Johnson, and in some but not all Rubbermaid products. Having these options available is becoming a trend in United States society, which is a positive turn away from chemical additives used in food production and distribution. Online stores such as Ebay and Amazon have jumped on the BPA free train as well with products becoming available on their sites. In fact Amazon has a section that is specifically dedicated to BPA free water bottles, baby bottles, and sippy cups. (Payne, 2008) These forward movements, however small, are the start the United States needs to create awareness about the issues that can occur from the types of chemicals used in our food industry. With acknowledgments about BPA being present in the news other chemicals like DES which falls under the same category of BPA of endocrine disruptor. With these two chemicals under fire citizens of the United States want to know they are safe consuming the food they purchase and not have to worry about any sexual defects that might occur in the parents, in the fetus during pregnancy, or even in a child during early development. As Langston from Toxic Bodies details, "A healthy Pregnancy does not exist in static, disconnected space; rather, it is a complex set of systems, forged by connections between the mother and developing fetus, between genes and hormones, between past generations and future generations". (Langston, 2008) Such a statement reveals the delicacy of pregnancy and from now into the future should be understood as such. With such a delicate process, knowledge of these chemicals should be continued to be a focus for environmental, biological, and social change.

Do Not Touch the Bump

In her book, Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body, Susan Bordo examines the relationship between women’s bodies and pregnancy. According to Bordo (2003), the dominant Western culture relies on “the ideology of woman-as-fetal-incubator” which makes “greater encroachments into pregnant women’s lives” (81). This ideology relies on women losing subjectivity in order to give agency to the fetus. The needs of the fetus outweigh the needs of the soon-to-be mother in the public's viewpoint. These unbalanced needs can have grave affects for women’s bodily integrity.  Bordo includes the potential intrusions based on Margaret Atwood’s novel, The Handmaid’s Tale in order to articulate potential problems. These intrusions include “court orders prohibiting pregnant women from using alcohol, cigarettes, or other possibly harmful substances, forbidding them from continuing to work because of the presence of fetal toxins in the workplace..” and more. (as cited in Bordo 2003, p. 81). The regulation of women’s pregnancy places the development of the fetus over the women’s standard of life.  This idea of “the protection of fetal rights has burgeoned into a national obsession” (Bordo 2003, p. 81). Bordo gives evidence to support a cultural demand for fetal protection over the women’s bodily integrity. One example is a waiter who describes a pregnant woman as selfish and reckless because the woman tried to have one drink while with child (Bordo 2003, p.82). Within Bordo’s text, pregnant women become an object of public surveillance in order to protect the unborn child.

Because of the shift in subjectivity, Bordo’s piece raises several questions.  How do women react to the self and public surveillance of their pregnant bodies? Do women see a difference in agency once they become pregnant? Why is there a culture of legal and everyday monitoring? Does the surveillance end once the woman has the child?  Are pregnant women’s bodies being turned into public property? Although I cannot answer all of these questions, I am going to look further into the last question.

Throughout Bordo’s text, I see a transition where women’s pregnant bodies are being objects for public monitoring in order to protect the developing fetus.  For me, I believe this transition changes people’s everyday attitude towards pregnant women making the fetus a communal object. A common example of the communal fetus can be seen when random strangers touch and rub a pregnant women’s stomach as if entitled to it. Whether it is in the supermarket or at an amusement park, strangers come up to pregnant women in order to gawk and touch the baby bump. For non-pregnant bodies, the act of touching women’s stomachs would be characterized as rude, intruding, and a social taboo. The difference between pregnant and non-pregnant bodies reveals how the pregnant body becomes collective property for the public to regulate, judge, and touch.

Pregnant women must navigate their loss of subjectivity and agency. According to Bordo (2003), the women will “suffer considerable personal inconvenience, pain, risk, and curtailment of their freedom to do what their doctors advise is in the best interests for their fetus” (83). Although this quote is about doctors’ advice, the idea of pregnant women suffering for their  fetus is seen in the cultural realm. In regards to the bump touch, some strangers do not ask before rubbing the women's stomachs, while other people including relatives talk to the fetus as if the mother is not even there. This leads me to question is what can be done to stop or avoid this intrusion.

  Well, my mind first turns to the Do Not Touch pregnancy shirts that women wear to remind the public that they cannot invade their private space. The shirts restore some agency to the soon-to-be-mother because the shirts remind others that the baby bump is not a communal object for everyone to touch. Some shirts go so far as to answer commonly asked questions like what is the sex of the baby.  

Women even have question and answer forums regarding the best way to avoid the baby bump touching. In one blog, Mindy Lockard, an etiquette consultant,  answers a concerned pregnant woman’s question about how to tell people to back off from touching the bump.  The etiquette consultant responds by telling the woman to stay firm in her response against the touch, but if the people still touch her stomach, Lockard  warns the woman to be polite. Mindy Lockard’s final comment puzzles me as she says, “Don’t be rude or snarky. Some pregnant women decide to say sarcastic and nasty remarks. That’s very ungracious and can put both of you in an uncomfortable situation.”

Why does the pregnant woman have to worry about being ungracious? Is she suppose to be gracious about the public's concern for her fetus? Why does the pregnant woman have to worry about placing the other person in an uncomfortable situation as she is already uncomfortable herself? I believe the comment reinforces the idea of the communal fetus.  According to Bordo (2003), pregnant women who engage in harmful activities “that have even the slightest risk are behaving “selfishly” and that others are only acting responsibly in pointing it out to them” (82). By being rude and snarky, the pregnant woman runs the risk of offending the community who is only acting out of care. This ideas relates to Bordo’s point of others having a responsibility to care for the welfare of the unborn child.The pregnant woman is expected to take bump touch as a sign of public care and support.

I want to leave you all with this final video. The video talks about a possible law in Pennsylvania that classifies an unasked bump touch as harassment. What do you think this means in relationship to pregnant women’s bodies? Is this in concern for the women or the unborn child?

Source:

VIDEO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE1AT1Eo4-A 

BLOG:

http://pregnant.thebump.com/pregnancy/third-trimester/qa/how-to-get-people-to-stop-touching-my-belly.aspx     

SHIRT: http://www.cafepress.com/+its_a_girl_amp_dont_touch_my_belly_maternity_t,1204608480

BOOK:

Bordo, S. (2003). Unbearable weight: Feminism, western culture, and the body. Berkley:  University of California Press.

Incubator vs. Woman

There have been many movements in history to improve women’s rights. Most of them have succeeded. For example, women can now vote because of a social movement. But one aspect of women’s lives is still very unjust and a social movement has not yet been made to solve it. Women are under reproductive control and have very little discretion over how they choose to act while pregnant. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant, she is under extreme scrutiny by the public. Every single choice the pregnant woman makes is judged by people around her. Whether the woman wants to drink alcohol, smoke, use medication, or give birth naturally, becomes a decision that has to be approved by society. 

Susan Bordo, in her piece “Unbearable Weight,” she discusses how women loose their subjectivity as soon as they are pregnant. In this post, I am discussing the injustice of women being publicly scrutinized for the choices they make while pregnant.

Bordo talks about how women are seen as an “incubator” (pg. 79). As a result of this stigma, women are temporarily viewed as less important than the fetus they are carrying. While mother is pregnant, the fetus is more important than she is. This causes many problems for the mother in medical situations. For example, if a women is in critical condition and on life support while pregnant, the health of the baby is far more important and valued compared to the mother’s. Lawrence Nelson says, that “compelling pregnant women to undergo medical treatment sets an unsavory precedent for further invasions of a women’s privacy and bodily integrity,” (Bordo, pg. 81). Women are subjected to suffering through life-support and other painful and stressful medical procedures if they are pregnant. This is only because the women looses her subjectivity when they are pregnant and the baby gains it. The fact that the women looses her voice and her choice of how to treat her own body is extremely unjust. 

It is also unjust that women have to be under constant surveillance by the public while pregnant. Margaret Atwood says, in her piece Handmaid’s Tale “The prospect of courts literally managing the lives of pregnant women and extensively intruding into their daily activities is frightening and antithetical to the fundamental role that freedom of actions plays in our society,” (Bordo pg. 81). Because women have lost their subjectivity, they have also lost their right to make choices for themselves. For example, in Wyoming in 1990, a woman was “charged by the police with the crime of drinking while pregnant and was prosecuted for felony child abuse,” (Bordo pg. 82). Because of legal actions like this, and many others, shaming pregnant women has become a national obsession. Our society is obsessive about what pregnant women are doing with their bodies because people fear what the negative repercussions are for the fetus. People have become so concerned with the environment of the fetus that they are willing to subject the pregnant mother to extreme scrutiny. Bordo explains that everything in relation to the fetus, whether it be the father smoking or the mother driving a car, can directly effect the fetus. One mother, who believed it was safe to drink one glass a day talks about her personal experience being judged by the public: “I’ve always made it a point to read everything i could find about alcohol in pregnancy. I felt guilty enough as it was for ordering the drink…They tried to make me feel like I was a child abuser,” (Bordo pg. 83). This personal account proves that people are more concerned about how pregnant women act, not about the actual effect that the women’s behaviors will have on the fetus. For example, Bordo says when discussion the personal account I mentioned earlier, “Most poignant about this quote is the woman’s internal sense of transgression, which I interpret as an indication, not of her recognition of the actual threat of one drink to her fetus’ health, but of the extraordinary levels of vigilance now expected of and taken upon themselves by pregnant women,” (Bordo pg. 83). 

Proving that society is obsessed with monitoring and surveilling what women do while pregnant, are multiple ads and organizations function for the sole purpose of educating the public of the dangers of drinking while pregnant. This advertisement for example, has no scientific evidence that the babies were harmed, but it is created to shame women who drink while pregnant and to make the general public concerned for babies who's mothers consume alcohol.  

     The website www.nofas.org is created to do just that. Their mission statement reads, “NOFAS seeks to create a global community free of alcohol-exposed pregnancies and a society supportive of individuals already living with FASD. NOFAS effectively increases public awareness and mobilizes grassroots action in diverse communities and represents the interests of persons with FASD and their caregivers as the liaison to researchers and policymakers. By ensuring that FASD is broadly recognized as a developmental disability, NOFAS strives to reduce the stigma and improve the quality of life for affected individuals and families,” (NOFAS, 2014). Their slogan, which is on almost every publication they release reads, “Alcohol and Pregnancy. No safe amount. No safe time. No safe alcohol. Period,” (NOFAS, 2014). It is organizations like NOFAS, (National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) that feeds the national obsession of scrutinizing pregnant women. The ads they distribute and the information they share to the public feeds the injustice of women losing their subjectivity. Now when we see pregnant women in public we question their diligence in following the said “rules” that society has implemented on pregnant women. 

It is unfair and unjust. We have no right to judge what pregnant are doing and it is even more unjust that women are losing their subjectivity at the moment of conception. Women are still human beings. They deserve to keep the right to make decisions for the wellbeing of their bodies-and the bodies of the babies they carry. The public, both the general public and the medical community, should no longer see the pregnant woman as an incubator but rather a mother, a woman, and a human being with rights. 

Athletic or Sexy - Can Professional Women Athletes Be Both?

All professional athletes are experienced in endurance, strengthening, and mobility, yet there is a different attitude when discussing gender.  When it comes to athletic bodies, perceptions of strength and ability changes when considering the representations that society provides for us.  There is this need to maintain the ideals of women as feminine and males as masculine in the athletic world so that gender norms are not disrupted, which can be seen through photography and advertisement campaign comparisons. 

Ad campaigns play into sexuality by introducing athletic women into a sphere that is not even sport related that shows more of their bodies rather than their skills in their career.  The space that women athletes are presented in sexually would be Sports Illustrated, ESPN website, and many others. The media represents women athletes in a sexual way compared to men, especially when considering the covers of Sports Illustrated. Although women are more likely to be represented as an object, men are portrayed in that way as well.

The cover above shows Brett Favre in his uniform, which easily indicates his career in football, whereas on the right, Elle Macpherson is posing for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition. When Google searching images of Sports Illustrated, most of the images are from the swimsuit editions rather than action shots of men and women in their sports, that is if the women are professional athletes.  When it comes down to women athletes presented on Sports Illustrated covers, many times the woman is wearing little clothes and it is not intuitive of what sport the woman has made a career of.  For example, Anna Kournikova posed on Sports Illustrated and the picture had nothing to do with the fact that she is an amazing tennis athlete. Instead, she is staring directly at the camera with a pout while hugging a pillow while lying on her stomach.  Where is the tennis racket?  What about action shots of her swinging full force at the ball to show she can beat her opponent? Although athletic men have been represented in a sexual lens, it is much less than athletic women (Heywood and Dworkin, 2003).  Not only are there less male sexualization, but athletic men do not pose in vulnerable positions.  Most times, men are flexing, positioned in powerful ways and they are allowed to take up space.  As you can see below, Kournikova is in curling into herself, not taking up a lot of space.

Comportment is known as the way or manner in which one conducts oneself, which ties into athleticism and gender/sexuality.  Leslie Heywood and Shari L. Dworkin jump into what motivates women athletes to pose for magazines in a sexual way in Built to Win (2003), chapter “Bodies, Babes, and the WNBA.” Heywood and Dworkin discuss male femininity and female masculinity and the implications that these terms have in regards to the gender binary system that is still in place. Heteronormativity in society is then threatened if gender was put on continuum, rather than polarized as female/femininity and male/masculinity.  If a woman has masculine characteristics, she may be considered as queer by societal “norms.”  So if athletic female bodies are seen as heroic and self-determined, these bodies can be read as being lesbian.  This can be explained as well for men – male femininity is not accepted, not only in society but especially in sports. 

In order to maintain the gender binary and to be represented as a feminine but athletic woman, perhaps athletic women are more apt to sexualize and soften their look in order to be seen in a particular way.  According to Heywood and Dworkin (2003), women who pose “pornographically” feel as though they have that right to their body and that they choose how they want their bodies to be represented.  Although it is their body and they should have that right to choose how they want to be represented, by posing in “pornographic” realms creates exploitation.  Athletic women are strong and self-determined, but they are not immune to exploitation and seen as an object. 

Unfortunately, this is one way an athletic woman can get recognition, not just by her achievements as a professional athlete, but by being beautiful and sexy.  This may draw more people to follow, although intentions might not be specific towards the athlete’s career but rather their body and what that represents (sexually or as an object).  Media has provided that being “hot” and (hetero) sexual is extremely valuable before athletic achievement.  This keeps the consumer culture thriving and allows the gender binary to polarize. 

Heywood, L. and Dworkin, S. (2003). “Bodies, babes, and the WNBA.” Sports and Culture Series, 5. 76-99.