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. 

Female Athletes as a Marketing Ploy

Before reading “Build to Win,” by Julie Foudy, I thought that all of the progress to promote positive attitudes towards female athletes was positive and making great contributions to the feminist cause. But, after reading it, I was skeptical of all of the advertisements and and promotional magazine covers for female athletes. What I thought were positive gains in the publicity for female athletes, might just be a  marketing scheme for sporting goods companies. Could it be possible that companies like Nike, or magazines like Sports Illustrated are simply exploiting the female athlete to sell more running shoes and magazines? According to Julie Foudy, yes. She says that “the image of the female athlete {is a} marketing ploy that has some positive dimensions,” (Built To Win pg. 13).

     Because “the athletic body has become an ideal for both sexes,” (Built To Win pg. 81) it is easy to market products ranging from Gatorade to gym socks to all people, not just men. By making the female athlete popular and more accepted, companies have a larger market in which to sell their products. It is logical and economical, but demeaning to female athletes. It also puts female athletes in a difficult position. For example, in order to gain visibility and attention as an athlete, they are forced to increase their sex appeal. People will not want to watch them compete if they are not good looking while they perform. For example, Nicole Bobeck World Champion figure skater said in an interview with Metro Magazine, “I have shed my clothes in a bid to raise the profile of my sport and attract a sponsor.” This demonstrates the problem that female athletes cannot gain sponsors without sex appeal. So not only are female athletes exploited to sell products, they have to exploit themselves in order to be successful as an athlete. Another example of female athletes needing to use sex appeal to be successful is Maria Sharapova. She is the highest paid female athlete, but is only the 3rd best tennis player in the world. Why is she the highest paid female athlete if she isn’t the best tennis player? Because she poses sexually for sports magazines and sporting good companies like Nike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRoAGcbmz2k 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b6Wuq_-dLE

These YouTube videos show that female athletes are being exploited and that sex really does sell. shows that people are more concerned with how the athlete looks rather than how she preforms in her sport. Sex is selling the magazines and products, not appreciation for sport or athletic abilities. 
ESPN, Sports Illustrated and other sports magazines sexualize women to sell their magazines. Female athletes are posed in sexual positions, with minimal clothing in order to attract an audience, or both males and females. People are attracted to both the athleticism and sexiness of her body. Males fantasize about her, and females envy her. It’s a win-win for the companies. Because of this sexualization and exploitation, magazines are able to capitalize on female athletes. 
One magazine spread featured Anna Kournikova, posing sensually in a dress says: “She won’t win the French Open, but who cares? Anna Kournikova is living proof that even in this age of supposed enlightenment, a hot body can count as much as a good backhand.” Commenting on this spread, Hanno Edgar, CEO of International Sports-management,  said, “Not because she was a good tennis player, because she was really good looking.” This is an unfortunate depiction of how female athletes are exploited and not recognized for their true athletic ability. Athletes like Maria Sharapova and Anna Kournikova have to pose either nude or in highly sexualized poses in order to be publicized. Without posing this way, they will gain no recognition for their athletic ability. 
They are being used for capital gain in ways that men are never subjected too. Male athletes do not have to pose nude in order to be popular or national recognized; they are recognized for their athletic accomplishments-as they should be. So, unfortunately, I think that the movement to increase awareness of female athletes was made mostly as a way to make a profit. While Foudy says that the Nike advertisements were inspirational to some women and encouraged them to embrace being an athlete. But, that same year, Nike profits increased by billions because the market was expanded and opened up to women. I do not think that this was a coincidence. Once women were able to be accepted into the athletic culture, sales and advertisements for women’s athletic products boomed. Foudy says, “We were a demographic waiting to be tapped, and that tapping involved the creation of a new ideal image for women that relied on a clever mixture of liberal feminist and American individualist ideas,” (Built To Win pg. 3). This statement proves that the female athlete demographic could easily be tapped into and manipulated in order to capitalize off of it. Melisse R. Lafrance says, “Nike is seductive precisely because it allows up do disavow our material realities in favor of a cozier truth wherein structural relations of domination and subordination can be overcome by equipping oneself with a great looking pair of shoes,” (Built To Win pg. 3). Moreover, women can be convinced easily into buying a pair of shoes if the women in the advertisement was depicted in a toned, sexual way. Playing off of women’s insecurities is extremely profitable. Women want to embody those qualities, and they will buy a new pair of running shoes in order to do so. 

Equal Pay for Equal People

Today, in 2014, 94 years after women gained the right to vote, there is still much discrimination and inequality amongst genders. According to USA Today’s national study, women earn 7% less than men in the same jobs (Christine Dugas, USA TODAY, 2012).  If women are payed 7% less than men, what happens when you factor in transgender? Should a transgender man be payed more than a transgender woman? How does our current binary gender system effect transgender people in the workforce? Questions like these arose while reading Bornstein’s Gender Outlaw and her discussion male privilege. 

Before delving into transgender issues, I think it is important to discuss male privilege and how it affects our society on a daily basis. Kate Bornstein in her book, Gender Outlaw,  addresses the problem of male privilege. Bornstein says that there is no place for male privilege and she is right.  This link http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf will bring you to a list of 29 benefits of male privilege. It is a rude awakening to something that occurs every single day in our society, and most men are unaware of their privilege and power over females. Some of these privileges for men include, being far less likely to face sexual harassment at work; being aggressive without fear of being called a bitch; not having to sacrifice a career after having children. This happens every single day, without question. Men are paid more, respected more, and assumed to be more qualified for jobs. 

Now, how does male privilege map to transgender? In 2011, it was reported in a national survey that transgender people were twice as likely to be unemployed than the general population and 15% of the transgender population reported a household income of under $10,000 per year,” (Sears, Mallory 2011). It is blatantly apparent that there is extensive discrimination against transgender people, especially in the workforce. This shockingly high rate of unemployment and low income leads me to think that transgender people are fearful of entering the work force; they may be fearful of being discriminated against by bosses and co-workers, fearful of not being paid honest wages, and a multitude of other emotional fears.

This injustice reveals how trivial gender is and how it problematic it is because of it’s social construction. It is simple to suggest just paying every person a fair salary, but that is easier said than done. Our culture is so attached to our identities-especially gender. Without our gender, who are we? What is going to happen in the workplace if a person’s gender isn’t easily identifiable? What happens if the transgender man acts too feminine or too masculine? What if a transgender woman is capable of a high leadership position, but has the anatomy of a woman, will she be denied the job even though she identifies as a man? When we apply transgender to the unequal pay of men and women, the problems with gender itself begin to unfold.

If the real problems with gender begin to unfold, then our entire culture as we know it is at stake. In our current binary system, men are expected to hold the higher paying jobs like CEO, doctor, or senator; and likewise, women are more commonly secretaries, nurses, or teachers. So, if a transgender person occupies one of these jobs, he/she is challenging the binary system and that is causing unrest in the workplace. If transgender employees start pushing up against the “gender defenders” (Bornstein pg. 74) then what will happen? It is quite possible that gender politics will have to be redefined. Our entire culture of gender is going to have to change to make way for a new, inclusive and accepting culture. Male privilege is going to have to be ended and equality in the workplace must replace it. 
There has been some progress made, but there is far more work to be done. Currently one of the only things being done is the addition of “gender neutral” bathrooms to buildings on college campuses and businesses. This is a step in the right direction. But it is not enough. Yes, people will feel more comfortable using the restroom at work, but they are not being paid fair wages, and that is the issue I struggle with. Male privilege and the binary gender system seems so archaic after reading Reis, A Body in Doubt, and Bornstein’s Gender Outlaw. So, after so many years and generations, why is this rigid system still controlling our society? Why is gender allowed to deny people jobs? Why is gender allowed to decide a person’s salary?

There is no answer for this problem-only more questions. It is unfair and unjust that anyone should be paid unequal wages for the same work. But it is even more unjust for a boss to have to analyze what gender a person “really” is before assigning them a salary. Transgender people in the workforce are being discriminated against. Gender is controlling the workforce today. Something that has been socially constructed is inhibiting people from living their lives openly and is making it impossible for some people to express their true selves. Another damaging aspect of this problem is how gender is ruining the American Dream. There is an entire population of people, of American citizens, that are being denied their chance at the American Dream. If transgender people are discriminated against in the workplace, they will never have the chance to make a living for themselves and their families. When addressing a solution to factoring out male privilege, Bornstein says, “A better solution to this situation would be to point out what’s going on, and to talk it though,” (Bornstein pg. 76). I think she is absolutely right. This is a subject that receives very little attention, and if nobody starts the conversation, there is no hope in finding equality in the workplace for transgender people. 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/24/gender-pay-gap/1652511/

 http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Sears-Mallory-Discrimination-July-20111.pdf 

Bornstein, Kate, and Kate Bornstein. Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women, and the Rest of Us. New York: Routledge, 1994. Print.