Selection

After watching this video and doing some research on sex- selective abortion, I can't help but be reminded of topics we've touched on in class.
From what I understand, sex-selective infanticide has long been a practice of many countries of Asia and some in Africa to help “control populations”. By having more boys than girls, the amount of potential pregnant women decreases, thus the population of the nation. Additionally, in these countries, the authors commenting in the video say there is “such a demand for maternal and wifely labor...you see women getting married earlier, you see less tolerance for women who don't want to fulfill roles that are already in short supply”. It seems that males would almost want to import housewives from other locations that they know will “fulfill their roles” rather than dealing with their own female population. In this trafficking of women, those of maternal and “wifely” qualities have more value and are more of a commodity to these societies and their men. This results in men who are described as “unattached unsocialized men forming subversive secret societies or militias...” Honestly, this reminds me of an extreme example of our discussion of fraternity and sorority relationships. Wherein, the men use the women as objects to traffic around their “brotherhood”, and the women are selected in their sororities as well as by the fraternities based on their qualifications to make the males proud. The kind of selective process that goes into Greek life rushing and pledging reflects how much you are worth in their society- and if you are not good enough, apparently you are cast aside and unworthy. Especially if you are a female. On the other hand, I realize sex-selective abortion is definitely far worse of a system than campus life. Not only does it control the lives of the unborn children, but that of the mothers' who must give up their children to a “population crisis”. This also leads me to think that, if the majority of the preserved culture is male, and the males want to stay in power, all that is going to happen is this situation gets perpetuated until there has been a kind of socio-evolutionary process that ends with a culture composed of males, and maternal, wifely women who fulfill their expected roles.

--Anna Banana

Follow up to Charmayne Brown: Earnest Apology?

I did my research project on the recent hate crime involving Charmayne Brown who was attacked by Billie Jean (B.J.) Taylor and her family. Recently, B.J. issued an apology via CNN as seen here. I personally don’t feel B.J. represents herself or her community very well. She gives no real explanation for any of the racial slurs that were spat at news reporter Charmayne Brown, nor the reason for the violence, punching, beating, and pulling on the hair that she received. B.J. claims it was basically a crime of passion, that she and her family couldn’t control themselves and that if she could, she really would take all of it back. I feel that this experience isn’t going to teach this family anything other than to be more careful next time. They basically got off scot-free owing to the lack of hate crime legislation in South Carolina. B.J. stumbles through questions asked by the reporter and only seems to make a bigger fool out of herself, saying that she never threw out a racial slur, when it seems in the video she was equally violent and livid as the other three attackers. She says the reason they didn’t attack the white news reporters was because, when told that the family did not want to talk, the other news crew “just said okay and walked off” while Charmayne Brown and Ti Barnes (her cameraman) resisted, “throwing back comments at us, that they didn’t have to leave.” Well, heaven forbid that they be told by news reporters that they were on public property and had every right to be there. The nerve of Charmayne Brown, doing her job like she did! How dare a news caster attempt to report the news. B.J. denies it being race related, but the slurs that were yelled cannot be denied, even if she says she did not partake in the name calling. Even if she wasn’t throwing out the “N word,” she sure as hell wasn’t trying to stop her family members from saying it. She is a reflection of her family, her family is a reflection of her. It’s bad enough that B.J.’s relative killed her father. Was the attack worth more disgrace to the family name?

-Scrappy

To Pay or Not To Pay

While doing working on my research paper about child support, I discovered the following article:

If the parents (the two mothers) agreed that the donor would not be involved in any way, I think that should include child support. In my opinion, the biological mother should seek child support from her former partner instead of the donor.
When a gay or lesbian couple separates, does that mean that the “other” parent is not financially responsible for the children?
This situation is unfair to the donor because he is being asked to pay child support for the three children. By agreeing not to participate in the children’s lives, he relinquished any responsibility, including financial. The article does not state whether or not the other partner adopted the children. Even if she has no legal responsibility, she should have a moral obligation to the children. After all, she is their mother. Although she did not give birth to the children, she and her partner sought a donor in order for them to become parents. Does she think since the relationship has ended that she is no longer the children’s parent? When a heterosexual couple divorces or separates, the non-custodial parent is still responsible for the children. I think that this should apply to same-sex couples as well.

--Blackberry

It Keeps on Keeping on

First off, I must say that there is scanty action here at Learning Curve, which is a bummer. I do hope that my friendly contributors will pick up some slack this week (ahem, yes you!) I wanted to post a few links here for further reading, both have to do with gender in universities and both can be found at Inside Higher Education: first here, then here.

In an effort to help you keep on keeping on, read these articles and formulate a response to one of them. I would shoot for roughly 200 words or so--

In Solidarity,
Dr. Fem

Pervert!

This is a subject we talked about in some detail in our first week but this article just really stood out to me.

Don’t get me wrong I totally understand mothers wanting to protect their children but is this not going a bit too far? Now I’m not a mother clearly so I guess I just don’t have that super protective motherly instinct but this seems not only a little ridiculous but also very counter productive to what most women and specifically mothers say that want from a father, not to mention making a strong point about traditional gender roles. Traditional society would put men in the workplace so that MOM could afford to drive that Suburban to the waterpark and take pictures of the kids to show dad later. It was surprising to me to see that it was a band of mothers verbally attacking this seemingly caring, aparentally involved father. I would think that the mothers would be happy to see a father out with his children instead of the usual complaint about how dad won’t get out from in front of the TV to play with his kids. I guess that man should have been at the golf course or watching the game with his buddies instead of having a nice time enjoying some time with his children. Even though mothers are the group behind the complaint about uninvolved fathers, they are the ones perpetuating the notion that a dad SHOULDN’T be out with his father – lest he will be the target of some sort of social/societal punishment. I believe fathers should be equally as involved with their children as the mother should be and it is disappointing to see a group of mothers bashing a father for doing just that.

--Feminist Guy?

Women on the Job Market; Images of Harlem

Read this article about women in economic crisis and their status on the job market.  See here too for an article and photography of Harlem in the 70s and 80s.  Notice also that I linked a number of news sources you can use both for your project and general reading pleasure!

Dr. Fem

Entrenched, Systemic Sexism

In recent campaign speeches, the republican candidate for president, Senator John McCain, has emphasized his goal of protecting what he calls the “rights of the unborn.” It is in fact his goal to curtail and ultimately eliminate the reproductive rights of women in America. Senator McCain has repeatedly expressed support for a total ban on abortion and explicitly condemned any sort of exception for dangers to the health of the mother. He has also stated publicly that he is opposed to birth control being covered by medical insurance prescription drug plans, but is in favor of Viagra being covered. While this is no doubt a clear example of the influence of a powerful Washington lobby at work, the underlying motivations are undeniably sexist. The thunderous rounds of applause with which Senator McCain’s remarks were received are a clear indicator of the threat posed to women’s rights by Senator McCain and other conservatives in congress, but the underlying issue is not one of partisan politics, but of firmly entrenched, systemic sexism in America. The fact is, women’s reproductive rights are being threatened, and steadily eroded, by a legislative body overwhelmingly comprised of men. There’s something seriously wrong with that. I myself have very strong opinions on matters of female reproductive rights, but I firmly believe that I have no right to engage in the debate. I’m not qualified to weigh in on the subject. No man is. Simply put, as someone who does not possess a uterus, a man is utterly incapable of comprehending the physical and emotional complexities involved in decisions pertaining to such matters, and any man would be indescribably arrogant to assume otherwise. So until congress is comprised of a majority of female representatives, it should refrain from passing legislation that does anything but protect women’s rights to make their own decisions regarding their health.


-Numbereight