Oops, sorry this is so late in being posted. I will accept your blog comments posted here until this Sunday, since I posted this so late.
Oops, sorry this is so late in being posted. I will accept your blog comments posted here until this Sunday, since I posted this so late.
“Our Womenâ€/â€Their Women†shocked and amazed me.
I feel naive to admit that I had not given much thought to the violation of women being a tactic of war. I feel naïve because examples of this violence are all around. The same day I read this article I read an article in the NY times about the rape epidemic in the Congo. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/world/africa/07congo.html?ref=world.)
Reading after reading in this class supports and reinforces the shock I feel when I realize just how prevalent gender based prejudice and oppression and violence is all over the world. How women’s bodies are territories to be conquered and controlled. As women our bodies are not our own. They are screens for the projection of what society wants to play out. Whether they are seen as fertile ground responsible for the continuation of “a people†as in the U.K, and their wombs celebrated as “a homeland†or violated as an act of war, aggression, violence and domination or controlled as a means of economic development as seen in Peru.
In “Our Womenâ€/â€Their Women†it is described how women’s bodies are used as battlefields. As societies connect the reproduction of “a nation†with a strategy to win wars, it is no wonder these same wombs are attacked. As V. Spike Peterson states in this “patriarchal metaphor is the tacit agreement that men who cannot defend their woman/nation against rape have lost their ‘claim’ to that body that land.â€
Women are used as strategic warriors in these wars of nations and cultures and identities, yet they are given no voice in the matter. Women are seen as property, belonging to the nation, to the men of the nation and as “national resources†at the same time. And though they are not respected or valued for their contributions to society unless they are deemed worthwhile by men, they are only “perceived as victims of oppression and brutality at the hands of other nationalities.†Women are raped as a means to defeat men and to defeat nation or a people. It is seen as a way to embarrass men for not being able to protect their women and to conquer another land, community, nation by “planting new seeds†within that which the perpetrator opposes and wishes to dominate.
In the article about the Congo, women of all ages are being raped and brutalized not only by men but by weapons. Women are losing their ability to reproduce and suffering horrible medical injury as results of rape. The article states that in the Congo “brutality towards women is becoming almost normal†as in some towns up to 70% of the women have been raped. Rape is being used as a weapon of war and is so prevalent that it is becoming a wider social problem. These women are raped to destroy them, to destroy their ability to reproduce (as in the cases of rape with weapons), to destroy communities and to break people. Women who are raped may be left by their husbands and those who try to protect them from attack are often killed themselves. Rape is being used as a form of physical and psychological warfare and the acceptance of violence against women is spreading.
All of these articles really made me think about the way women’s bodies are portrayed, and how the government thinks they have control of each an every woman. The article that stood out the most to me was “Close Your Eyes, and Think of England”. It discusses England and other richer countries in the world’s declining population. The government in England thinks that the women should reproduce when needed to, no questions asked. The government doesn’t really care about women and their rights, they just do not want their society to fall apart: “But the belief that expanding women’s rights and decreasing population size are correlated can be troubling to policy makers in a context where population is already low and falling as in Western Europe today.” (Close Your Eyes and Think of England, Brown and Terree, page 3). My question is, why would women want to bring a baby in the world and not give them any rights as well. Clearly, women if a women does not want to have a baby then she shouldn’t. The baby would not recieve the same care if they were brought here by a mother who was forced to have a child.
Another good point that this article made me think about was the racism that the government has towards poorer nations. According to the government, the fertility problems can only be in the rich nations: “It is important to note that fertility declines in less industrialized nations are almost framed positively.” (Close Your Eyes and Think of England, Brown and Terree, page 7). This to me is horrible! If the government gave us better resources than maybe we wouldn’t have the problems we have today. Also, low income people should be viewed just as important as people that make alot of money. This is viewed in the article Hijacking Global Feminism: Feminists, the Catholic Church, and the Family Planning Debacle in Peru, this article explains how low income peruvian women were sterilized not to have children! Why are low income women treated so differently?? The governemt thinks they can tell women when, and when not to reproduce.
Lastly, Close Your Eyes and Think of England discusses bribing women to have babies. The government is promising women more resources and more support by men if they give birth to babies. There is no way the government can promise this. They should be trying to do this anyways, not only doing it for women who do certain things for their society. Also, the British government is trying to convince women how much better they will feel is they have a baby: “British women are culturally being defined as freer if they become more interested in motherhood.” (Close Your Eyes and Think of England, Brown and Terree, page 16). I do agree that motherhood is wonderful, but how can you feel freer if a government is telling you WHAT TO DO WITH IT!
It is hard to understand why different countries subject women to such harsh inequalities such as being sterilized or being forced to reproduce “Close Your Eyes and Think of England.” I recently read about the declining population in Germany and that for every child born to a family, some sort of incentive entrails. The bigger picture shows that for some sort of public health reason the countries population is declining, but instead of focusing on the underlying reason of a declining population, the national campaign for couples to reproduce is the focus point of the country.
Looking at the opposite end of the spectrum, countries which are sterilizing women due to insufficient resources, economically, and for health reasons, is a shame that they are informed with such simple health resources. Being seen as a piece of property in which men control and have an ultimate say, is degrading but looking back 50 years ago on our country, women were much less informed. Public knowledge would be the resolution to the growing or declining population. Birth control means can be inexpensive and resources to aid the growth of population can be easily distributed but for government reasons, women are treated lesser than men. The United States has made most progress as compared to other countries, in terms of women’s rights.
The article Hijacking Global Feminism: Feminists, the Catholic Church, and the Family Planning Debacle in Peru, makes me feel like it would be such a simple task of informing the women on their bodies and how they should be treated. The overall social influence is the greatest impediment on how women are able to view themselves. It would be socially unacceptable for the women to be informed, and most of them have come to the conformity that they way they live, is the correct acceptance in society. The few “rebels†whom defy their rights are the reasons why women can often overcome the suppressions they have succumb to.
RainbowBright: Could you elaborate upon your statement that the U.S. has made the most progress in terms of women’s rights? Give me examples to support this statement and then please tell me to which other nations you are comparing the U.S.
After reading through all of the articles, the one that impacted me the most was “Wake Up Little Susie: Single Pregnancy and Race Before Roe v. Wade”. The common theme that I found in this particular reading, was redirecting blame to promote economic advancement. This theme, though it is quite prevalent to this particular reading, has been consistently addressed in prior readings. After reading the personal accounts of pregnant, unwed, women who were desperate for services that provided them the fundamental rights that our country is based on (life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), I was not only shocked, but it broke my heart. Not only is it inhumane to make a person feel they need to decide between begging for adequate help and taking their own lfe, but American culture is redirecting the public’s attention, in order to blame the victim and further economic growth.
Throughout this reading, the blame was consistently placed on “black childbearing women, targeting these women as “violating the ethic of self-reliance”. I am amazed that the Supreme Court can even discuss ethics when the reason women are placed in these situations is due to the governmental framework that they are placed in. Rather than looking at our culture of hierarchy and oppression to explain the increase in “illegitimate” births, our government finds easy targets to redirect attention away from the government’s framework, and place it on those people who are merely victim to the cultural structures that are put in place.
These contradictions are seen during this time period in more ways than one. In regards to birth control, once again there is a conflict in the accessability to adequate birth control (other than sterilization) and the attack on women for the increas in illegitimate births. How can you blame someone for having an unwanted pregnancy when they are not provided with safe options to prevent the pregnancy in the first place? In addition, public institutional policies where taking away women’s control over their fertility and claiming that “only the state could effectively manage the fertility of girls and women producing illegitimate babies”. How can a white patriarchal society tell women how to use their bodies? It amazes me that these ideas where actually taken into account in our history.
Overall, it seems that to this very day, our country is based on blaming the vicitm and the ideals that our country was founded on have been twisted and bent to the point where anything can be justified in order to promote economic advancements.
The reading “Hijacking Global Feminists, the Catholic Church, and the Family Planning Debacle in Peru” by Christina Ewig made for an educational reading in relation to family planning policy abroad. First, I think the article showed the arbitrary nature of international law. As many know, international law is fairly maliable in practice. The laws enacted by international actors possess few mechanisms of inforcement. Unfortunately, issues taking precedence for what the US views as national security remain better enforced compared to those seen as nonissues for the US. The problems of family planning in Peru took the backburner for multiple reasons. One of which is the fact the traditionally the US views the issue of population control in Latin America as detrimental to its national security. Unfortunately this view issues support for the former family planning policy, which primarily emphasized forced sterilization. This fact does not suprise me. Behind mainstream news, one digs up plenty of unethical programs supported by the United States. What did suprise me was the article’s lack of emphasis on the role played by international financial aid. How did such aid affect the actions of Fuijimori’s regime? It should be noted that i do not mean to distract blame from the regime itself, but rather to pinpoint the pressures provided by international aid. The regime acted with knowledge that using international feminist discourse would usher the international support much need in Peru. With the world criticism of Fuijimori’s coup, the regime needed the international aid to consolidate power. Therefore, Fuijimori’s regime manipulated international feminist rhetoric from the Cairo conference to garner the necessary support. Yet, the regime never intended to implement programs to supplement its rhetoric. I wonder perhaps if the regime would have still placed emphasis on feminist rhetoric if it didn’t so desparately need the funding from international actors. Therefore, I think international actors provide a fundamental role in the national policy of foreign nations through provisions of foreign aid. In addition, I feel that if developing countries weren’t held to such a tight leash in relation to the allocation of foreign aid, there might not be such drastic consequences. For example, if the US had not cut funding to Peru after the coup, perhaps the regime would not have manipulated feminist initiatives in the manner it had. Yet at the same time, perhaps emphasis on women’s rights would not have been brought to the public forum without the politics of the regime. In the end, there are obviously alot of factors to consider when discussing policy failures.
Next, I thought the reading, “The Making of Matriarchy” superbly educational. I had no idea that government agencies conducted night raids into households receiving welfare. It astonished me that there have been no reprocussions for such governmental actions. I feel it is a complete invasion of privacy and civil rights to conduct such raids. In fact, all the issues brought up in this article I felt to be a violation of constitutional rights. Unfortunately, governmental policies enacted against women’s bodies remain commonplace throughout history. In the end, the lack of empathy and humanity in these policies and politicians outraged me.
The article that struck me the most was “Our Women/Their Women”. I could not believe the view Croatian men had towards women, as mere biological reproducers of the nation. Women were expected, almost required, to keep producing children, and were seen as traitors if they did not. These women who “resisted their role” were viewed as “selfish, unwomanly, and unpatriotic”. Having the right to an abortion is unheard of; those who did are outcasted, seen as “mortal enemies of the nation” and traitors. Giving birth to a few children is also not good enough in Croatian society, being that those who do not have at least four children have yet to fulfill their “unique sacred duty”. When losing a child in war, it should not produce feelings of sadness in a women. This woman is supposed to blame herself for not having more children to then comfort her over her loss. What appauls me the most was reading that while women are so vital and essential to their nation, they are equally viewed by men as “potential enemies of and traitor to their nation, collaborators in its death”. Croatian men feel they must control women’s bodies in order to keep their nation in tact. It is disgusting to me that the mother’s of their children (willingly or not) are not given any rights or choices about their own bodies, instead they are entirely controlled by men.
I was also in shock to read that one of the only ways a woman in Croatia can recieve any form of respect is through suicide. One women shot herself in the mouth, a mother of 2, and was only then seen as “a real hero”.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge how disgusting it is that women’s bodies are being used as weapons of war. “Over and through the actual bodies of women who reproduce the nation, men define its physical limits and preserve its sanctity. Over the battleground of women’s bodies, borders are transgressed and redrawn.” Women are brutally raped as a weapon of war, and the men who cant prevent this rape of “their” women, are just as defeated as they would be on the battlefield, having “failed to protect their borders”. It is not important that a raped women is viewed as devalued property, that is something the woman, the victim, will have to cope with, another part of her life that she is not in control over but rather a man is.
I really enjoyed all these articles and had never looked at women’s bodies in this way before. I had not realized that women’s reproduction affects so many aspects of life, and that there are politics which go along with it. The comparison between a woman and the home country, or “motherland” is such an apparent parallel in countries fighting for land and trying to expand their borders and their power.” Our Women” is whom the country needs to fight for, keep pure, and protect, while “Their Women” need to be raped, kidnapped, and reduced in numbers. After all, more women mean more reproducers, leading to the births of more potential warriors and an increase in population size of the enemy nation. At least this was the line of thinking of many of the key actors in battles between countries. When warriors want to break down another country to its very core, they rape and violate the women of the enemy country.
This serves in defiling members of the population that are considered very valuable (often simply because they are able to reproduce), and it is an attempt to infiltrate the unity of the country by changing the demographics of a population. It is important to note that raped women were considered “damaged goods” or “devalued people”, even by their own fellow countrymen and women.
As noted in the reading “Our Women, Their Women”, raping the other’s women is a violation of territorial integrity, an act of war, as a means of establishing conquest and jurist diction.” Along with gaining land and successful conquest of a larger portion of the target country, the raping of “their women” is an equal form of success by taking something that belongs to the other country…their women’s reproductive loyalty to their country and their women’s pure and untarnished sexual history.
I was also appalled of the long history of women being forced to reproduce, whether it is something they wanted to do or not. Since women have the biological ability to reproduce, the assumption is that they have the social and emotional desire to do so. It was socially acceptable to reproduce, because after all, women’s roles as reproducers were their primary roles in society. Professional and educational opportunities and advancement for women were not the priority of the nation or the government for much of history, in accordance with the sentiments expressed in “Close your eyes and think of England.” Just this instruction for women is demeaning…it is basically instructing women to just have sex, who cares if you are enjoying it or you can support another child? Thinking of England refers to reproducing for one’s country and to be a loyal, patriotic, and true citizen of a nation…you must contribute to the population maintenance of your country.
But the only people that were targeted for increased reproduction were the native people of the country; typically white, middle class women were those who were encouraged to reproduce. Popular opinion was that minority women reproducing would simply cause problems and lead to the economic and social degradation of society. These were the women whose fertility needed to be controlled and sterilization campaigns primarily targeted poor, uneducated indigenous women who were not asked for informed consent for the procedure to occur.
All these articles were very informative and introduced me to new material I had not considered. It is frustrating that population control which directly ties to economic development initiatives is placed above the concern and sensitivity to women’s bodies and for women’s human rights. Women and their bodies, in general, are viewed as something that everyone should have a say in, everyone is very knowledgeable about, and anyone can invade a woman’s body and adjust her reproductive capabilities if needed. This is obviously not okay and not true and this thinking needs to drastically change in order for women’s health issues and rights to be improved and respected.
I never realized how much control the government and people have tried to have over women’s bodies. Even making these subjects part of their campaign. I just don’t understand how people can do such harmful things to women and there bodies. For example, in the article Hijacking Global Feminism, these family planning programs are supposed to help these women. Instead, these women at risk with the bad sterilization procedure and didn’t even bother to offer other useful contraceptives. Once again the poor was targeted with lieing billboards. They deceived these poor families in believing that they become higher in their class status.
The Wake Up Little Susie reading really stuck out to me. Seeing the letters from the black women to the President really touched. They are trying so hard to reach out for help and they are just being ignored. It is so sad to see that some of these girls felt like their only option was to kill themselves. Most of them had no one to turn to and I could never imagine not having any type of support from my family or friends. How is it that black women were considered irresponsible and it was there sexuality that made them have babies but only a psychological problem when the white women got pregant without a husband. It said, “The definition of white single pregnancy as a psychological rather than a sexual phenomenon was bolstered by the definition of black single pregnancy, in distinction, as purely sexual.” How is it that the white woman couldn’t just have a single pregnancy because she was sexual, but it had to be because something was wrong with her psychologically.
A quote that disgusted me was “Her vagina, used for his sexual pleasure, was the gateway to the womb, which was his capital investment-the capital investment being the sex act and the resulting child the accumulated surplus, worth money on the slave market.” Women during slavery had no control over their bodies and these white men were taking everything they had; their self dignity and then using their children for a few dollars. They were forced to have these children and then they were taken from their mothers. This quote makes the woman sound like she is just a piece of meat rather than a human being.
Annie Davis is a great woman who really made an effort to help women. I agree with her completely in her ways and how she focused on making people see black women as individuals and that cultures are not different for white and black. She gave black women hope to live a better life with their babies. Annie Davis opened up the gate to clean and safe maternity homes and housing for black women. They deserved to receive good care because like Davis said, they are Americans too.
With so much brutality and absurdity in this world, as time goes by one thinks that things would just get better. By these readings one is made to stop and rethink our own lives, our actions, our priorities. A seed was planted in all of us at reading this material, and if not I hope it will. It is not a matter of “our country”, “our women”, it is a matter of the whole world. The use of women’s bodies by their enemies and their own countries makes one sick and an indispensable question arises, what do we do? By being ignorant one doesn’t have to do anything, but once you know history, you know it can happen again. What does one do to help in the struggle of protecting women, children, ourselves? I do not know how difficult it is for each one of us to begin to try to understand what these women have gone through, but I do know that if we just ignore the facts and think this does not affect us, we are committing a crime. Tears of pain came down my face as I read parts of these articles, imagining being raped, feeling there is no place for me and my child in my own country, being an outcast by your communities after going through a nightmare (wanting to die). Brutality lingers all around us and it will not stop soon enough, we are amazingly privileged and we must not forget nor take it for granted. Now I feel restless and think of what the hell I can do to address these issues.
The articles this week mostly focused on women in other countries and how their bodies were being used to meet others’ agendas. These women were controlled through social stigmas, wars between nations, and governments seeking economic development.
I wanted to look at how women’s bodies are seen as property or borderlines within our own country that weren’t talked about in the articles. Our nation is unique in that it has citizens from every culture, religion, and race that coexist, albeit with different levels of tolerance. In the ’50s, it was absolutely unacceptable for people from different races or religions to date, nevermind have children. There was a stigma, especially with the white race, that having a romantic relationship with someone outside your race, would defile the white person. And having mixed race children was seen as ruining the purity of the white race. The blame was always on the non-white race, especially if the woman was white. The idea was “How could a white woman want a non-white man?” White men didn’t respect white women’s choices and judgement. As the all-knowing father figure, many white men thought they knew what was best for “their” women and relationships with non-white men wasn’t it.
Nowadays,I think women’s choices are respected more and mixed race relationships and multi-racial children are much more accepted in society but there is still a stigma and a lack of understanding. Multi-racial children are pressured to identify with either race or religion by the government, society, and sometimes even their own families. The government wants these kids to “check a box,” when they’re filling out forms and for IDs. The different social groups want the child to belong to one group or the other. For children with a black and white parent, the color of their skin often dictates which social group, which culture they are accepted into. For others, it could any number of factors that leans them to one side or the other. Even though these kids aren’t multi-national, they are still being made to pick a side, a cultural side within our nation. The decision can label them “theirs” or “ours” and their bodies assimilated into a specific group that will be used for future agendas. For instance, a half-hispanic, half-black person who has darker skin, grew up identifying as “black” may be expected to date only black men and have black children thus assimilating their bodies and their children back into black culture.
In this response, I speak about how women’s bodies become political more often than men’s because of their “traditional” role as subservient to men and for their ability to carry a child. However, I hope I pointed out how both men and women’s bodies can both be part of a political conflict especially within the context of our country.
The articles this week really shocked me. I agree with Star in saying that I cannot believe how much the government has had control over women’s bodies, forcing sterilization, and even tricking women into it! The fact that it has happened to women unknowingly totally baffles me, and frankly, pisses me off. How is that fair? Another thing that angers me is the fact that most of the people who have tried to have control over women and their bodies have been MEN! Men, who will never even begin to know what it feels like to go through some of the things that women go through, such as bearing a child. How can they even have the nerve to do that? It makes me sick..
In the “Our Women, Their Women” reading,(about Croation men/women) there was one paragraph in particular that stood out to me, and again, angered me. It says, “Women as mothers and reproducers of the nation, but they are also potential enemies of and traitors to their nation, collaborators in it’s death… thus while “our” women are to be revered as mothers, all women’s bodies must me controlled.” The paragraph goes on to say that women’s bodies as ‘incubators’ are important in controlling the boundries of the nation. It also describes how women should be; warm, caring, nurturing. This was the reading that really made me the most angry. In a way it stirred up all of the emotions reagarding this topic that I never really knew I had before. Calling women containers, simply vessels, while men provide the genetic information. Like I said before, how does that even make sense? What about all of the things that women have to go through? Emotionally, physically..If a man had to experience half of the things that go along with reproduction and these other issues, I’m not sure that we would even be having these conversations. I was totally disgusted and shocked by this reading, but this reading, and the other ones for this week were very informative, but I feel a little bit overwhelmed by these issues. I agree with Fifi, what the hell should we do??
All of the articles really opened my eyes to how governments all over the world manipulate womens’ reproductive systems for economic and political gain. It is sick that women are thought of and discussed as merely instruments, incubators, and vehicles which the government can control, greatly increasing their risk for violence. I was especially struck by “Our Women/Their Women” and thought about how those women who had been raped by a man from another nation survived psychologically and physically afterwards in their own community. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be to live in a society where they are abandoned by husbands and fathers and stigmatized as contaminated and even their babies are considered enemies.
I feel as exasperated as Fifi when asking the question what can we do? This is happening all over the world and we must not only acknowledge what these women and their children are going through, but try to do something about it too.
This article discussed feminists in these regions promoting empowerment through various activities. However it also mentioned journalists coming to refugee camps and looking for women who had been raped and could speak English to tell their stories. This made me think about whether or not the journalists are using their stories as an effective way to give back to the women who spoke of their experiences. I think it’s necessary for them to interview with the purpose helping these women, and to find tactful and anonymous ways of doing so, and not using their stories as further means to exploit and control the women and their situation.
The articles and discussion for this past Thursday’s class were different for me than any this semester have been before in that the subject matter is so troubling and current that it’s hard to put out of your mind after you leave the classroom. Which isn’t a bad thing at all–but I agree with some other people who have commented on how frustrating the feeling of helplessness is.
I just read the article about the Congo that was handed out in class; I’m really glad it was posted on the blog because it was so informative and descriptive, and really provided an example of something going on right now rather than just in a historical context. Both this and the article about women in the Balkans talked about rape as a form of warfare; especially in the “Our Women”/”Their Women” article, symbolism about women’s bodies as boundaries and as territory that had never occurred to me were introduced.
A big part of what I noticed in all the articles were the conflicting messages from political and societal sources directed at women. The “Wake up Little Susie” article pointed out the catch-22 faced by black single mothers: They were living outside acceptable gender roles by being too independent and forming a family without a man. However, having to get help from the government made them at the same time too dependent.
A similar conflict lies in the image of the women as a “vessel” for children; this view paints women as virtually unrelated to their children–the fathers are what counts. At the same time, however, women are (in some arenas) expected to devote their lives to nothing but the bearing and raising of children. This perspective relies on strong connections between mothers and children, because what mother would want to be nothing but a mother otherwise?
The articles and discussion for this past Thursday’s class were different for me than any this semester have been before in that the subject matter is so troubling and current that it’s hard to put out of your mind after you leave the classroom. Which isn’t a bad thing at all–but I agree with some other people who have commented on how frustrating the feeling of helplessness is.
I just read the article about the Congo that was handed out in class; I’m really glad it was posted on the blog because it was so informative and descriptive, and really provided an example of something going on right now rather than just in a historical context. Both this and the article about women in the Balkans talked about rape as a form of warfare; especially in the “Our Women”/”Their Women” article, symbolism about women’s bodies as boundaries and as territory that had never occurred to me were introduced.
A big part of what I noticed in all the articles were the conflicting messages from political and societal sources directed at women. The “Wake up Little Susie” article pointed out the catch-22 faced by black single mothers: They were living outside acceptable gender roles by being too independent and forming a family without a man. However, having to get help from the government made them at the same time too dependent.
A similar conflict lies in the image of the women as a “vessel” for children; this view paints women as virtually unrelated to their children–the fathers are what counts. At the same time, however, women are (in some arenas) expected to devote their lives to nothing but the bearing and raising of children. This perspective relies on strong connections between mothers and children, because what mother would want to be nothing but a mother otherwise?
A quote from Brown and Ferree’s article that struck me was “In the United States, coercive control over reproduction, such as legal limitations on abortion, is part of a cultural struggle against equal recognition of diverse family forms and racial/ethnic groups.” (page 6). That quote made the issues surrounding the body politic in the various contexts presented resonate much more for me. Despite being adamantly pro-choice, I have never considered the abortion debate in the United States outside of a religious or “moral” context. Seeing it in the light of being a higher attempt at exerting social control made me think much more critically about coercion on the part of governments and the usurping of language, whether feminist, religious, or ideological, for political agendas.
In the Brown and Ferree article, they emphasized the pushing of traditionally feminist issues by politically conservative news sources as a better evil to a potential influx of immigrants and foreign cultural values and traditions. The successful pitting of “their women” against “foreign women” using the guise of a feminist framework was enlightening to have laid bare. The fact that “English women” only could be encouraged to have more children with the implication that it was to “combat” the number of children relatively born to immigrant and other foreign-born women is such blatant racism and classism, and yet somehow the use of language in those articles likely failed to cause even many social liberals much alarm.
The Mostov article presented a more extreme form of coercion and repression using the body politic. Women of the cultural group were not only coerced to have more children, or chastised for not having enough, but women of other cultural groups were seen as targets of physical and emotional assaults against their reproductive organs. This control of the “other’s” reproductive system was echoed in both “Hijacking Global Feminism” and “Wake up Little Suzie”.
The usurping of feminist language in the article focusing on Peru was also a sharp contrast to it’s use in England. Feminist language was used in Peru not to encourage childbirth, but to encourage sterilization and achieve a form of population control. This control largely represented the network of white leaders who saw the potential to steer economic forces by selectively controlling women’s reproduction. As environmental concerns have been used politically to push population control measures, policymakers became smart in Peru in using feminist language and politics to quell opposition to their racist policies, and to delay response from women’s rights groups.
The article “Our Women / Their Women” by Mastov really drove home the idea of women’s bodies being used as a battlefield for politics where women’s bodies are no longer owned by women themselves. The idea of women’s bodies and especially their wombs as representative of homeland territory and as vessels for growth of a nation, owned by males, makes women’s bodies property to be controlled. I have been familiar with the idea of rape as a war tactic through women’s studies classes where we talked about female refugees and their stories. The planting of a foreign intruder’s seed represents destroying the enemy’s property, a raped woman is seen as devalued polluted property and signifies defeat of the enemy. Another war tactic is to damage the womb so badly that the woman is sterile, this is discussed in the article about the rape epidemic in Congo.
I think the first time this topic was introduced to me was when I went to the vagina monologues when I was a freshman in high school. There is a monologue in which a female refugee tells the story of her vagina and womb as a fertile green homeland, which is raped and gruesomely destroyed by foreign soldiers. She uses familiar symbolism when talking about her vagina, as a green fertile homeland, with a clear stream, by the end of the monologue it is a barren place no crops grow and the stream is polluted, she is a ruined woman. At the end of the monologue she talks about how she deals with her rape through detachment, she does not touch, she does not live in her hometown anymore, she is a refugee. This monologue makes me cry every time.
My vagina was my village
An extract from Eve Enlser’s Vagina Monologues
My vagina was green, water soft pink fields, cow mooing, sun resting, sweet boyfriend touching lightly with soft piece of blonde straw.
There is something between my legs. I do not know what it is. I do not know where it is. I do not touch. Not now. Not anymore. Not since.
My vagina was chatty, can’t wait, so much, so much saying words talking, can’t quit trying, can’t quit saying, oh yes, oh yes.
Not since I dream there’s a dead animal sewn in down there with thick black fishing line. And the bad dead animal smell cannot be removed. And its throat is slit and it bleeds through all my summer dresses.
My vagina singing all girl songs, all goat bell ringing songs, all wild autumn field songs, vagina songs, vagina home songs.
Not since the soldiers put a long thick rifle inside me. So cold, the steel rod cancelling my heart. Don’t know whether they’re going to fire it or shove it through my spinning brain. Six of them, monstrous doctors with black masks shoving bottles up me too. There were sticks and the end of a broom.
My vagina swimming river water, clean spilling water over sun-baked stones, over stone clit, clit stones over and over.
Not since I heard the skin tear and made lemon screeching sounds, not since a piece of my vagina came off in my hand, a part of the lip, now one side of the lip is completely gone.
My vagina. A live wet water village. My vagina my hometown.
Not since they took turns for seven days smelling like faeces and smoked meat, they left their dirty sperm inside me. I became a river of poison and puss and all the crops died, and the fish.
My vagina a live wet water village.
They invaded it. Butchered it
And burned it down.
I do not touch now.
Do not visit.
I live some place else now.
I don’t know where that is.
Extracted from The Vagina Monologues
The main theme in all of these articles is the absurd way that women’s bodies are being used as more of a tool for other’s political and financial gain. It is beyond my ability to comprehend how people of a nation can actually place blame on a woman who has been sexually victimized and ostracized because of that for fear that the woman and her resultant offspring would actually be “enemies” of that nation. When i read the Congo article, a lump in my throat formed at the thought that these atrocities actually go on, but to the extent that it happens is unthinkable. We chose to turn a blind eye to the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and allow the SAME people (and more) to get away with these types of heinous crimes. The fact that men leave their wives because they believe they are now “tainted” is gross. Why are women seen as an intricate part of a plan to create a 100% “pure” country some places, a means to increase financial gain in others, and seen as the cause of poverty in others (in the Peru article)? In “Our Women/Their Women”, a multifaceted and contradictory definition is given to all women! How can one define a women other than by who she is as a human? This article describes them almost as a war machine!! Very helpful when used properly, but when not controlled or handled by the right people, they are toxic to the nation.
The topic in these articles that hit closest to home would be the idea of “mixing” nationalities,ethnicities,etc. I am bi-racial, but am almost ashamed that I have actually picked sides when confronted with the question “how do you identify”. How can you answer something so cut and dry, especially when you don’t believe you should have to? Can being an “American” truly ever mean what it stands for? How does one begin to address issues so ingrained and so far-spread? Can one redefine women’s gender roles around the world to create positive change and to gain power of their bodies? One cannot even say “regain” because clearly, it is something that we have never had, and has always been exploited in one way or another. This issue seems to be the diseased “root” of problems that far outnumber ones that just immediately come to mind. Again we must ask ourselves, how do we gain something back that we never had?
For most of my life that I can remember my mother has accepted no other path for me than that of education. Her view of feminism pertains strictly to economics, because of such, she pushed me towards what she considers a path towards self sustainability. While reading the article about pronatalism I realized that pronatalism can come in many forms. Because of my background; coming from privilege, it was a rare case when someone would suggest to me that I have babies before going to school, or that I was selfish for not being pregnant. In essence, I’ve only had the idea of anti-pronatalism inflicted upon me. Even though this is the case, it’s still other people’s ideologies on my body. If I decided today that I wanted to drop out of college and become a mother I would not be supported at all by my family in the same manner that a woman who chooses not to have children wouldn’t be supported (by her family).
My cousin is getting older. She put her career before marriage, relationships, etc. My grandmother wants to set her up with a nice young man to get married to because she wants to see grandchildren. My cousin feels the pressure and is getting increasingly anxious about it. That’s the only case of pressure of motherhood/reproducing I’ve seen within my experiences.
This weeks readings and class discussion was extremely eye opening and devastating for me. I feel completely ignorant for not being aware of the hardships and brutality that women have gone through and are still going through in different countries and around the world today. I was wholly uninformed that women’s bodies have been used for war tactics and that women have been raped to signify domination and defeat from their countries enemies. Reading “Our Women/Their Women†was extremely disturbing and upsetting to me. It makes me sick to think that women have been and are still being completely brutalized. To have their bodies used for political and economical gain is incomprehensible to me. That women are seen as merely objects and not as equal human beings to men is unfathomable.
The article concerning the atrocity that is happening within the Congo makes me realize that the cruel raping of women for political and economic gain is happening all the around the world. One thing that frustrates me with all of these readings is what can we do to help these women? I feel like I am becoming informed on the issue and knowledgeable on topics that are happening around the world, but these articles are not saying how we as individuals can make a difference. It would be nice to know what we can do to try and help the women who have to suffer these atrocities. I hate the feeling of being powerless and would like any suggestions on how to try and help eradicate this problem that these women are facing today. It makes me nausea to think that in the year 2007, women are still being exploited and victimized in such incomprehensible ways. I do hope that one day we can eliminate these types of crimes against women. It is just absolutely heartbreaking to imagine the pain and suffering they endure and will continue to endure throughout their lifetime.
This week’s readings about women’s reproduction as body politic have made me take a step back and really look at the way that society views women and our bodies. I was definitely naïve before reading these articles because I never realized how often and how common it is for women’s bodies to be thought of as “vessels†and many people in our society believe that our main purpose is solely reproduction. It is demeaning to me that people think our main contribution to society should be children when we are really worth so much more and have so much to offer. We are pushed and pushed to have children and are brainwashed to think that this is the only way to live a fulfilling life. At this point in my life I do not know if I want children, but I will admit that a part of me feels that my life won’t be fully “complete†without kids because women without children are almost ostracized in our society and we are just constantly told that women should have children because it will benefit everyone. I think women who do not have children should be embraced just as much as mothers because they have made a personal choice and we should respect this and not treat them any differently than women with children.
The article about pronatalism in England was shocking to me because, one, I never knew that the birth rate in England is declining, and two, because of the way the media presents this problem to the public. The media acknowledges that England has a population problem, but instead of being positive and giving optimistic solutions, the media is generally very negative and presents women’s bodies as objects and that it is our duty to our country to reproduce. The article states that the media in England uses four major tactics to try and get women to reproduce – begging, lecturing, threatening, and bribing. Although the begging and bribing articles can use positive language, the lecturing and threatening messages “employ negative messages, with lecturing discourses focused on individual causes—presenting childless women and men as immoral, selfish, lazy, or sick—and threatening discourses.†The media seems to overlook women’s feelings and constantly dwells on the unpleasant consequences of not having children and tries to make women believe that their lives will not be complete without having children. The articles try to make women feel guilty and the media’s “messages assert—with negative or positive language—that women have an essential or natural drive to have children.â€
After reading these articles I thought about the issue of pronatalism for a while and if I were a British woman I would feel an enormous amount of stress to have children because the media is always pushing this notion. It must be a horrible feeling to know that your country thinks you are only valuable when you reproduce. If the American media started pushing pronatalism in our country in a negative way like the British did, I am not really sure how I would respond, but I would probably feel disrespected, unimportant, objectified, and definitely offended. In my opinion having a baby is ultimately a woman’s choice because she is the one who carries the child for nine months so I have a hard time understanding how other people, especially men, think they have the right to tell a woman when and why to reproduce.