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.

Staring and the Cultural Contradictions of Reality

Staring. Simple curiosity or a social taboo? Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, a scholar, examines the politics of staring and how society regulates looking.  Within her novel, Staring: How we look, Rosemarie Garland-Thomson discusses the cultural contradictions of staring. First, staring exposes the “paradox at the heart of the civil inattention that staring violates” (Garland-Thomson 2009, p. 74).  In the dominant American culture, staring functions as a tool which ‘others’ people based on their ‘abnormal’ appearance. People are marginalized based on their disabilities (mental and physical), cultural beliefs (polygamy), and social relationships. Staring establishes what is normal as staring exposes what is seen as different. People are able to blend in and have visual anonymity based on their outward appearance. This function contradicts “claims to the value of the unique individual as a model for citizenship” (Garland-Thomson 2009, p. 74). Staring exposes the unattainable need to fit with the other people, while being an autonomous individual. According to Garland-Thomson (2009), staring “validates our individuality, calls out our differences from other” (75). When people are similar, staring does not occur. Somehow people are expected to be in the middle of being an individual within a culture that values sameness.

Before reading her piece, I had not thought of the contradictions and politics involved in staring. Culturally, we are told that everyone is an individual and to embrace the parts that make us and others ‘unique.’ But if we are all individuals, why do we stare at people whose images and actions do not reflect our own? Garland-Thomson’s piece begins to expose the contradictions of our individualistic culture. We embrace societal expectations of beauty and appearances by buying trendy clothing and staring at people who challenge societal norms.  But, the concept of sameness cannot happen without a marginalizing effect.  People are excluded and judged based on their physical appearances. We turn “othered” people like little people and conjoined twins into spectacles because their physical differences cannot be easily hidden from the normative gaze. By putting physical abnormalities on display through staring, another paradox of staring arises where people “should always see a spectacle but never be a spectacle” (Garland-Thomson 2009, p. 76).  This paradox relates to the cultural desires of sameness as people who are different are seen as oddities and freaks.  By exposing the paradoxes staring, Garland-Thomson exposes acceptable norms about who fits into the characteristics of ‘sameness’ and who is ‘othered’ and marginalized.

            As I read through the paradoxes exposed by staring, my mind kept turning to reality television shows like The Little Couple.  The Little Couple follows the lives of married couple, Bill and Jen, who both have dwarfism. The show has been running for six seasons following the couple in their home and work lives. On the TLC website, viewers can explore the couple’s interactive Journey of Love which recaps when the couple met to the present. In the recent seasons, The Little Couple has documented Jen and Bill’s attempts to have a child and eventually adopting two children, Will and Zoey. This show makes me question why was this couple chosen. Why not a single person with dwarfism? Why not a person with dwarfism who is a disability activist? What makes Jen and Bill the ideal story for people with dwarfism?

A Family Picture 

To answer some of these questions, I will rely on Garland Thomson’s cultural contradictions that staring exposes. According to Garland-Thomson (2009), “pubic life demands that citizens stare at the new and changing worlds we live in, while at the same time staring at one another risks intrusions far too familiar for everyone’s comfort” (76). Reality television allows for and promotes anxiety free staring. Does The Little Couple create a space for staring without a price? The Little Couple relies on Jen and Bill’s dwarfism in order to draw people in to watch the show.  TLC commodifies audience’s curiosity about a marginalized group. Audiences are given a “free pass” to stare and gawk at Jen and Bill who do not fit into the societal norms of average and accepted height. Jen and Bill’s dwarfism validates what Garland-Thomson (2009) describes as the “claims that value individuals as a model for citizenship” (74). Since Jen and Bill have dwarfism, the couple is unique but is too far from idyllic sameness. The staring involved in reality television exposes the cultural contradiction where marginalized people are turned into spectacles.  The Little Couple gives the normative viewpoint an anonymous place to gawk, but the show is complex because the representation for little people can be positive.

Before I end, I do not want to wholly discredit the positive attributes of The Little Couple. Although the show promotes staring, The Little Couple has positive qualities because it gives representation to people who have dwarfism and are normally reduced by their height.  By Jen and Bill moving through the typical milestones of life, The Little Couple relates to the sameness necessary for individuals to fit within society.  Although the show makes mention of the couple’s size and the hardships that come with having dwarfism, The Little Couple shows how people with dwarfism are more than their physical disability and gives the couple some agency.

To end, here is Jen, Bill and Will going to the beach:

Sources:

Garland-Thomson, R. (2009). Staring: How we look. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyEekIV-3wo

http://cdn.popdust.com//wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Little-Couple-Daughter-Zoey-Photos-Video-India-Cancer-Battle-FE.jpg

 http://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/little-couple/games-and-more/little-couple-great-journey-timeline.htm

Is a Picture Really Worth a Thousand Words?

 Within the novel, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Women on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity, Julia Serano contends that trans women are highly marginalized and ridiculed. This marginalization happens in normative society through oppositional sexism, the belief in the rigid exclusive categories of male and female. Surprisingly, trans women’s voices are excluded from some gender equality movements. Serano focuses on trans women’s exclusion from feminists groups based on traditional sexism, the belief that masculinity is superior to femininity. Because these pseudofeminists “preach feminism with one hand while practicing traditional sexism with the other,” Serano argues that trans women and other allies must create a form of feminism that empowers femininity instead of ostracizing those who do not meet the “standard of women” (18).  

Before reading this piece, I did not realize how trans people’s, in particular trans women’s, voices are being left out of certain feminist groups. This notion is unsettling because the feminist movements’ mission is to create equality among men and women. Yet, the group actually enacts exclusionary tactics towards a set of people facing similar forms of oppression. What makes this idea even more puzzling is the parallelism between the tactics used in mainstream media and feminist groups against trans people. To me, this doesn’t make sense. How can a group that advocates for gender equality mirror the same oppressive system they are fighting against? Both mainstream media sources and feminist groups tend to situate trans activists voices outside of normative society and the gender equality agenda. What does this mean for gender equality? The limited concern for trans issues could mean that true gender equality cannot be achieved based on the current mission that makes trans women the outsider.

In regards to the marginalizing tactics of mainstream media and feminist organizations, Serano calls for the forging of a trans inclusive feminist organization. This organization would focus on abolishing not only the exclusive categories that separate men from women (oppositional sexism) but the idea that masculinity is dominant to femininity (traditional sexism)  (17).  Serano calls for an organization that reclaims the value of femininity, breaks the constraints of the binary, and provides a movement that is inclusive of trans women’s voices. Wouldn’t that type of organization be groundbreaking? This type of feminist organization would be a huge step towards true gender equality. Well, the cohesion needed for Serano’s organization has not been achieved yet. Personally, I believe it is due to the long history of stigmatization and marginalization of trans women as seen within Serano's piece.

Despite the fact that a trans inclusive feminist group has not been established, Serano’s piece made me wonder if there has been any pushback from groups using media sources that challenge trans women stigmatizations of “hyperfeminization, hypersexualization, and objectification of [trans women’s] bodies” (Serano 16). And what did I find after a google search on trans women? Surprisingly, a 2012 ad campaign in the District of Columbia that shows ordinary transgender people in a positive light.

Washington D.C. ad campaign

In response to the discrimination of transgender people, Mayor Vincent C. Grey and the DC Office of Human Rights have launched a campaign that attempts to show trans people in a positive light.  Using 5 different ads, the campaign show trans men, trans women, and gender-non-conforming individuals who live in the District. Each ad features a photo of the individual. These photos are positive depictions of the trans community as the individuals are not “reduced to their body parts” or associated with “derogatory feminine character traits.” (Serano 15-16). The images are relatable and realistic faces of people who happen to identify as a different gender than assigned at birth. This approach humanizes the often stigmatizing label of being an outsider. Additionally, the images are coupled with a quote about the individual’s favorite places in D.C., and the tagline  “…and I’m a part of D.C.” (Hannah).   The lines about the District are an attempt to show that the trans community is one in the same as other members of the D.C. community.

A good way to sum up the meaning and motivations of the campaign is through a quote from Mayor Gray:

“This District is committed to ensuring that all people are protected from discrimination, and that includes discrimination against the transgender and gender-non-conforming communities. This landmark campaign from the Office of Human Rights is an important piece of a larger effort by my administration to ensure all residents have equal access to employment, housing and public services and accommodations regardless of gender identity or expression.” 

-Mayor Gray from GLAAD

The District has taken a groundbreaking step in challenging the stigmas on the trans community. It almost seems like this advertisement couldn't get any better, right? But wait, it can. The ad campaign actually attempts to moves beyond D.C. limits as the observers are encouraged to spread the word through social media by taking a photo of the ads and tweeting #TransRespect. By including the social media factor, the campaign attempts to spread #TransRespect to communities that may not be aware or able to raise awareness about trans people’s oppression and discrimination.

To bring the D.C. campaign back to the “Trans Women Manifesto,” the ad s have been a positive representation that gives a voice to an often voiceless group.   Although Serano suggests that“we are light years away from being able to say that most people believe that femininity is masculinity’s equal,” with positive ad campaigns, we are making steps towards a  more positive future for the trans community (18). These campaigns could be the first step in creating a more trans inclusive feminist movement that challenges the male-centered gender hierarchy.  What will we see next?

Here are the links to explore:

http://www.glaad.org/blog/dc-launches-groundbreaking-transrespect-campaign

Sources:

Hannah, Darly. "DC Launches Groundbreaking #TransRespect Campaign." GLAAD. N.p., 12  Sept. 2012. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.

Serano, Julia. Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of    Femininity. Berkley: Seal, 2007. Print.

Intersex…..A Third Gender? Or a Missing Voice?

Personally, I did not realize how common genital anomalies are, one in every 2,000 births, before reading the novel, Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex (Reis, 164).  In the final pages of chapter 5, Reis explains how intersex activists are challenging “so-called normalizing” genital surgery with the hope to “improve the medical and social attitudes toward people with intersex, focusing on ending the optimum gender of rearing model” (151).  This model is established in the 1950’s where doctors would perform genital surgery on babies to correct their abnormal genitalia based on whichever sex would be easier to create.  Because the surgery is done at a young age, the parents are given the responsibility to tell the child about the surgery.  Due to the parents' anxiety, the child can be unaware of their intersex only to find out late in life (Reis 146).  Because these surgeries leave people without a voice, I think this new visibility of intersex activists is good after many years of concealment, but I want to see how well their voices are being heard in the recent legal recognition of a third gender in Germany.

First, here is some background on Germany’s new law. As of 2013, Germany has become the first European county to legally recognize an ‘indeterminate’ gender joining New Zealand, India, Nepal and others in having a third gender.  This new law means that parents who have babies who are born with ambiguous genitalia or a mixture of chromosomes do not have to choice between the binary system of male or female.  The change of the law is a response to numerous cases that talked about the negative consequences to surgery. In addition to birth certificates, the interior ministry has stated that  gender neutral individuals who apply for German passports will have the option between M, male, F, female, and X, intersex.

Something to keep in mind about the new third gender is that it is acting within an already defined political structure within Germany and globally. This raises some questions. With the new legal variations, how will gender neutral individuals be recognized by other countries who do not distinguish a third gender as in the United States?  If a person from Germany moves to the United States and identifies as 'indeterminate gender', will the person be force to choose between legally being a man or a woman? In addition to failing to address the international problems of 'indeterminate' gender, the German government has, yet, to address the concerns of marriage and civil partnerships.  How will this third gender fit into political institutions such as marriage?

Although I do not have the answer to these questions, the establishment of the third gender could be a sign of the German government listening to the demands of people who are intersex, right?  Well, not exactly.  According to Reis, intersex activists are interested in “appropriate patient-centered medical care, support group for parents, and transparency and disclosure by physicians” (152).   The law does not address any of these concerns.  The third gender creates a new category to place a person who does not conform to the binary system of male and female which, in fact, limits the fluidity of sex.  According to a BBC article, the new law is meant to remove the pressure “to make quick decisions on sex assignment surgery for newborns” from the parents (“Germany”).  Although the law may relieve the pressure on parents, the third gender still places responsibility in the hands of the parents which parallels the responsibilities of parents in the 1950’s.

Another question is what are the responses from intersex activists about Germany’s third gender? Well, a major concern for intersex activist is that the German law does not go far enough in regards to newborn genital surgery. According to Zwischengeschlecht.org, a human rights activist group for survivors of Intersex Genital Mutilation, the group establishes three facts regarding the failure of the new law.

1.       The first fact is that the law creates a ‘not’ option where children are placed in the new category by failing to meet the standards of male or female. Similar to this idea, some parents do not want to see their child as a third gender, “something in between male and female” (Reis 155). This parental resistance can still lead to newborn genital surgery.   

2.       The second fact is that intersex activists have criticized and opposed the law claiming that groups have,actually, “spoken out against such demands” (“Zwishengeschlecht”).

3.        The third fact is that doctors can still receive licenses to practice genital surgeries which are “often simply cosmetic” (Reis 151).

 These examples show that despite people of intersex having “a voice that is largely absent from early historical records,” the larger political forces have failed to hear their real demands to end intersex genital mutilations. As explained by Reis, the voices of people with intersex have often been limited throughout history as seen with the use of newborn genital surgery.

Overall, the third gender law has strengths and weaknesses as highlighted by Silvan Agius of IGLA-Europe who states, "While on the one hand it has provided a lot of visibility about intersex issues... it does not address the surgeries and the medicalisation of intersex people and that's not good - that has to change.” Although the third gender increases the visibility of intersex, what does this visibility mean?  The demands of intersex activists have not, yet been met. In fact, the third gender was not something the group wanted, yet it is now a law.

I want to leave you with a final question to think about. Does this third gender, actually, create a new way to exclude and limit the voice of intersex activists?

For more information click here:

http://stop.genitalmutilation.org/public/GOSH_ISHID_0074.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24767225

Reis, Elizabeth. Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press: 2009. Print.