12/2 Summary Post

In her chapter titled "Updating the Gendered Empire", Cynthia Enloe discusses the role of women both in in war and in post-war societies. She begins with pointing out that many feminist historians have actually given us fresh and detailed accounts of how women and notions of femininity were originally pressed into our society by early empire-builders. Topics that would have previously been considered human interest stories largely surrounding the lives of women should not be considered as serious commentaries on foreign policies. Although the empire builders might have all been men, they were, as Enloe points out, "men who thought (and worried) a lot about women" (271). She continues by describing a meeting in the 1980s in which a group of native Canadian women of the Innu community brought together dozens of women to discuss the effects that a NATO air force base was having on their lives. This conversation surrounded how unequal international power relations between masculine governments depend on unequal relationships between men and women and also on global ideas about where women will be and where they should stay. The results of this conference pointed out five important political realities: (1) women are intimately engaged in the little noticed daily workings of those unequal international military alliances (2) women's roles in these large structures of international power are far from uniform (3) every one of these women is where she is on the global map due to dominant ideas of femininity (4) many women are privately ambivalent about the complicit roles they play in these unequal international power structures and (5) the women are still counted upon by foreign policy-makers to keep playing their supportive, or at least passive, roles.

She continues by describing how the roles of masculinity and femininity are determined both by the powers in charge and by the imperial powers. Empires are created out of unequal alliances between the ambitious imperialists and the local actors who believe they will be able to gain from supporting the outsiders. She claims that "the military strategy that the Bush administration adopted to conduct its invasion [of Afghanistan] has hobbled, not facilitated, the genuine liberation of most of Afghanistan's women and girls" (283). The differing and rival forms of masculinity in Afghanistan are necessary for the investigation of contemporary American expansionism. This contest is often called one between the "warlords" and the "neckties". The warlords' ability to control women in their provinces and act as the guardians of true Afghan femininity is a crucial component of their ability to raise and mobilize armies. The neckties' on the other hand see themselves as builders of a new centralized state, a political structure based on laws and budgets instead of on guns and armed road blocks. This contest, however, simply makes women into mere symbols, subordinates, admirers or spectators.

Enloe continues by discussing how Afghan women are largely left out of the process of constitution writing and therefore will face a set of laws that potentially continues and enhances the male dominance of society and government. The only individuals who are able to change things in the government are those she calls "closed-door" bargainers, who gain their influence and power through public support, access to weapons and armed men, economic resources and credibility in the eyes of the foreign men who are orchestrating the bargaining. Women, however, have none of these aids and are therefore largely left out of the government system once again. She describes how "women's liberation in any country rarely follows a simple path onward and upward" and feminist progress needs to have staying power. She concludes by pointing out that there is a never ending temptation for women who live outside of war-torn areas to not know what should really be focused on in the feminist struggle. Although the crafting of expansive, cohesive politic influence is tricky, founders must keep gender in mind when forming new government. Masculinity has always been necessary in empire-building but instead these masculinzed political cultures need to be investigated while paying serious attention to women. The only way to ensure that extreme masculinity can be avoided is by paying close attention to women's experiences, actions and ideas.

In her paper "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others", Lila Abu-Lughod questions the US argument that part of justification of the "War on Terrorism" is the saving of the Afghan women. Instead of acknowledging differences between cultures, we seek to "save" others. Lughod discusses how Americans view the veil as oppressive and against basic human rights; however this is not at all the case. We must instead work with people of different cultures in situations that we "recognize as always subject to historical transformation" and we need to think of our own responsibilities to address injustice. Abu-Lughod stresses that we must first accept the limits of "cultural relativism" before trying to change societies in order to save them.

In her article "Whose Security", Charlotte Bunch argues that the perception created by President Bush and the Western media that almost all American support Bush's militaristic threats is not at all true. Feminists have actually been opposed to Bush's actions from the beginning but it is clear that they do not have very much impact on US foreign policy, which is military and corporate driven. Bush used Afghan women's rights to rally support for war but he has done nothing to sustain this commitment to women. She points out that other countries resent the US for our reactions to 9/11 and "this resentment stems in part from the fact that 9/11 is not seen as a defining moment for the rest of the world". She argues that we must also not accept the idea that our government had no other choice but to declare war. 9/11 has actually increased many problems feminists had already been dealing with including (1) growing global and national inequities (2) the rise of extremist expression of religious and/or nationalist fundamentalisms that threaten progress on women's rights (3) the escalation of racist and sexist violence and terrorism in daily life that is acompanied by economic exploitation and trafikking of women and (4) an increase in militarism, wars, conflicts and terrorism that affects or targets civilians, largely women and children in deadly ways. The efforts to promote human security were actually hindered by 9/11 due to the rise in masculine warrior tendencies. She ends her article by saying that the "excuse of 9/11 has been used not only to curtail human rights in the United States but also around the world". The US "commitment to human rights" actually helps legitimize the abuses of governments that have never actually accepted these standards. Despite women's attempts, they are still not respected or largely listened to in major human rights organizations. Women have changed many aspects of life in recent history but women's activism must be both local and global in order to truly succeed.

News Flash: The Fiery Suicides of Afghan Women

The New York Times article Of Afghan Wives, a Desperate, Fiery WayOut, written by Alissa J. Rubin, illuminates the distressing situation of many Afghan women.  Often in Afghanistan, women in abusive relationships, who are suffering with mental diseases such as depression, or in other troublesome situations will try and escape their sorrows through a painful suicide.  These women set themselves on fire, hoping to elude life rather than deal with their agonizing reality.  This self-inflicted violence is attributed to each woman’s situations in Afghanistan which often times are situations of domestic violence, poverty, and unhappy, arranged marriages.  Thus, like most violence against women, these are ‘sticky situations.’  The suicide is seen as an escape because there is usually no other alternative route for these women.  These suicides can be attributed to Afghan male attitudes towards power and violence, a lack of other alternative escape routes, and the overall inferior position of women in the Afghan societal structure. 

Male power and ideas of masculinity and dominance in Afghanistan are linked to and can be the catalysts of these ‘fiery suicides.’  Many of the Afghan women who commit these ‘fiery escapes’ are suffering from abusive relationships at home.  About 45% of Afghan women are married before they turn 18.  These marriages are usually arranged and often the girls are given in marriage as compensation for a family debt.  These women are thus often viewed and treated as slaves.  They are condemned to a life of servitude and often, to a life of abuse as well.  This can happen because in an arranged marriage, there is usually no love or sometimes even no prior relationship present before the marriage.  Therefore, the husband and his family will often treat their new ‘family member’ as an inferior and make her feel powerless and worthless.  Abuse often also results from this and can be committed by all family members.  “Violence in the lives of Afghanistan’s women comes from everywhere: from her father or brother, from her husband, from her father-in-law, from her mother-in-law and sister-in-law.”  The Afghan women are seen as instruments for keeping house and producing children.  “Her primary job is to serve her husband’s family.  Outside that world, she is an outcast.”  These women are not given the opportunity to receive educations, to hold jobs, or to make an income.  They are in helpless situations where they are made powerless and ultimately hopeless.  This situation parallels Betty Friedan’s argument in the Feminine Mystique.  The Afghan women could be simplified as dissatisfied housewives who feel isolated and yearn for something more.  These women are silenced, cut off from their families, and have no voice in this patriarchal society.  Their domestic life is their fate.  Unlike with Betty Friedan and American women in the late 1900s, however, these Afghan women cannot rebel against their lifestyles.  “It is shameful to admit to troubles at home.”  Oppressed women are supposed to put on a good face and not complain.  Furthermore, their religion and their society dictate that these women do not have a choice.  They cannot leave these situations or complain about them.  Their abuse is to a degree accepted and celebrated as it is not condemned or deemed wrong by society.  It is generally accepted that men can do whatever they want to their wives.  Their wives are their property.  This ideology is a way to keep men in powerful and dominant positions in society.  The women are given from one man (their father) to another (their husband) as property.  Thus, the women have no say and no rights.  This allows for unchallenged male authority.  Men project their own inadequacies on women in cruel and unusual ways.  They beat, debase, and abuse them in order to prove their own masculinity.  Male entitlement and patriarchal oppression allows dreadful acts such as honor killings and suicide by fire to occur at an astonishing rate.  Thus, these situations are ultimately generated to keep Afghan men in powerful and authoritative positions in society.  Furthermore, with the war in Afghanistan, Afghan men could feel demasculinated or overpowered by American troops.  Thus, in order to reaffirm their manhood and regain a sense of superiority and power, Afghan men overpower and subjugate women to whatever they please.

In these situations, Afghan women turn to suicide because they believe it to be their only chance of escape from agonizing lives.  These women believe they have no other possible ‘escape routes.’  Similar to other situations of domestic violence, it is extremely hard to get out of a violent relationship.  Often these women live in poverty and thus do not have the financial capacity to leave their spouse.  Also, if they have children, they need money in order to leave safely with their children and still be able to provide housing and food.  These women have to keep their children safe which can often be improbable if they left their spouse.  Furthermore, many times the abusive spouse makes the abused spouse dependent on him.  In Afghan society, it is extremely frowned upon for a woman to leave her husband and return to her own family.  She also is often forbidden from seeing her own immediate family once she moves into her husband’s house.  Thus, she becomes dependent on her husband as she is cut off from any outside support and family.  Furthermore, most of these women are not allowed an income.  Thus, they are extremely dependent monetarily on their husbands and ultimately cannot leave the relationship due to this dependency and reliance.  In the Islamic country of Afghanistan, it is generally interpreted from the Qur’an that men have the power of life and death over their wives.  Thus, religious literature and principles can be construed to dictate that these women cannot leave their husbands or, if they do, they deserve to be heavily punished or killed.  Social stigma also keeps these women in these appalling relationships.  In Afghanistan, women who leave their husbands are seen as tarnished or ‘marked.’  “Returned runaways are often shot or stabbed in honor killings because the families fear they have spent time unchaperoned with a man.  Women and girls are stoned to death.  Those who burn themselves but survive are often relegated to grinding Cinderella existences while their husbands marry other, untainted women.”  Often, burn cases will be “homicides masquerading as suicides.”  Several cases have been documented where “women were beaten by their husbands or in-laws, lost consciousness and awoke in the hospital to find themselves burned because they had been shoved in an oven or set on fire.”  These women live in constant fear and apprehension.  They have no control over their lives or their situations.  If they try to leave and make a better life for themselves, they could be killed or marked as a tainted, fouled woman.  These Afghan women are trapped in unfortunate situations of which there seems to be no escape except for death.

These situations are accepted and almost conventional in Afghan society for appalling reasons.  Women are viewed as subservient; an inferior gender.  Society by and large believes that these women are supposed to do exactly as men say, no questions asked.  These women are given at young ages in arranged marriages and are supposed to accept and even be thankful for this life.  They are put in extreme situations where they are belittled, beaten, and abused by their in-laws for years.  They are not supposed to complain and cannot easily escape to new realities or lives because Afghan women have severely limited options.  Furthermore, as previously stated, their faith and religion can be interpreted to ordain that they follow this lifestyle.  In the Qur’an, it states in Sura 4:34 “men have authority over women because God has made one superior to the other, and because men spend their wealth to maintain them.  Good women are obedient.  They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them.  As for those among you who fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.”  One could infer that Islam preaches that violence towards noncompliant women is the appropriate punishment.  Honor killings are carried out with an astonishing frequency.  These killings occur when a woman has been disobedient or has sexually misbehaved and they are carried out by male family members who usually avoid sentencing or penalties.  Killers who are found guilty typically receive only a couple months in jail and are regarded as champions or heroes.  Honor killings include murders of women who have been raped and thus ‘tarnished’ even though the sexual act was forced upon them.  There have also been documented scenarios of girls killed because they went for walks without asking their father’s permission.  These women have absolutely no rights or respect in society.  Anything they do without male permission is penalized.  These women are surrounded by a massive ‘birdcage.’  They are valued only for their ‘slave labor,’ sex, and as progenitors of children.  They are treated as property and until attitudes change, ‘fiery suicides’ will continue to occur with a frightening frequency and an even more frightening societal acceptance. 

The fiery suicides of Afghan women are appalling and sickening.  These women feel as if their lives are so miserable and painful that their only escape is to set themselves on fire.  Women are forced into these situations due to the superior attitude of men, their lack of alternative escapes, and their own position in society.  Change can only occur if Afghan views on female equality and decency change.  However, it has become an extremely accepted and established belief that women can and should be treated with disdain and violence.  Thus, to change this custom and ideology, the youth has to be educated on gender equality.  Change has to start from the bottom up. 

Short Response to 11/30 Readings

After first reading the two chapters in Enloe's book "The Curious Feminist", in which she describes how militarized rape occurs primarily due to the psychological and social construction of masculinity, I began to think a lot about the motivations and motives for rape. Enloe discusses at length the life of Borislav Herak, who she describes as "an ordinary man" (99) who ended up raping 16 women, some of whom were killed afterward. She describes how he was never actively involved in politics prior to the beginning of war in 1991, when he fled to the mountains of Sarajevo and was taken into one of the semi-autonomous militias that was formed with the goal of pursuing ethnic Serbian territorial control. She describes how the military men were simply trained to perform orders no matter what they were, from rape to murder. Enloe includes the transcript of an interview with Herak in which he describes how he was told to go and rape young women and followed the orders simply because he had been trained to. This interview reminded me of a book I read freshman year called "The Banality of Evil" by Hannah Arendt. In her book on the Holocaust, Arendt argues that the great evils in history were not committed by fanatics or psychopaths but by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated in the actions with the view that they were normal. As she talks about in the second chapter, the US outlaws and looks down upon rape of American soldiers and local women; however the strippers and prostitutes who are paid to sleep with the American soldiers are not "worthy of our sympathy". The fact that our government turns a blind eye to or even supports these forms of prostitution for our male American soldiers shows the underlying social implications of a male dominated society that encourages hyper masculinity overcoming and controlling females.

The two NYTimes articles we read also support many of Enloe's arguments. It is clear that sexual assault and rape are still very common in our troops today since both of these articles were written in 2009. Even though women are proving themselves as soldiers out in the battlefield, they feel safer outside fighting than they do travelling to use the bathroom. The fact that women are more likely to be raped than killed in the armed forces is a clear sign that steps need to be taken to protect them.

Response to 11/23 Readings

I was watching some ridiculous show the other day that showed the top ten worst mass murders.  And now, thinking back, almost every single one of the murderors was a white, pretty priviliged man.  One of the murders, known as the texas tower sniper, was done by Charles Whitman (picture below).

Charles Whitman was a student at University of Texas and a former Marine.  Looking at his picture, he is a white male in his 20s.  He killed 16 people, shooting from the tower at the University with a sniper.  This reinforces Steinem's article.  The typical "hate crime" is caused by heterosexual white men who kill for no "economic or rational gain."  Similarly, Whitman was grew up in an upper middle class family.  He was a superior student and had lots of friends.  He seemingly had a decent life.

It's scary to realize that no one is really publicizing the fact that these men are committing "supremacy crimes" because of their "impossible expectation of dominance to which they've become addicted."  This needs to change.  If we focused on this fact, perhaps things could get better and some of these crimes could be prevented.  As Steinem says, sons need to be raised like daughters!

Short Response to 11/23 Readings

After reading Steinem's article, "Supremacy Crimes", I really started thinking about how I feel so safe in my every day life and yet the most common serial killers (or killings with no real motivation) are white non-poor men. I know I do not really have any enemies in my life since I am not a drug dealer nor do I owe anyone large sums of money; therefore my murder would hypothetically be considered a "senseless" killing. The weird psychological motivations that Steinem describes including seeing their behavior as "an appropriate--even 'manly'--response to the frustrations and disappointments that are a normal part of life" (1). As Johnson describes in the article we read at the beginning of the semester, our entire system of patriarchy helps contribute to these middle/upper class white men's expectations of dominance to "which they've become addicted" (1). At the end of her article, Steinem describes how the gender of these men are not focused on as it should be. If it were women who were most likely to be serial killers, then the media would most likely focus almost primarily on their female gender. If it were men of color, then their race would be focused on. Since white middle/upper class men are the "norm", the only aspect that is focused on of these male killers is their youth. I agree with her final words saying "just as we as society have begun to raise our daughters more like son--morel like whole people--we must begin to raise our sons more like our daughters--that is, to value empathy as well as hierarchy; to measure success by other people's welfare as well as their own" (3).

Summary Post 11/18

In her excerpt "Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape", Susan Brownmiller begins by describing how the typical American rapist is simply an aggressive, hostile youth who chooses to commit violence acts upon women. There have been very few article on rape in psychology journals and even Freud barely mentioned the topic, in part due to the typical Freudians' unwillingness to make a moral judgment. Instead, Freudians seek to "understand" what they called "deviant sexual behavior" but never condemn an individual's actions. Freudian criminologists "defined the rapist as a victim of an uncontrollabel urge that wasinfantile in nature, the result of a thwarted natural impulse to have intercourse with his mother" (275). The rapist was viewed simply as an individual they could treat who was simply a sexually well-adjusted youth whose act of rape is simply just another act of plunder like robbing a store. Then in 1971, an Israeli sociologist named Amir published a study of rape in Philadelphia. The report was the first pragmatic, in-depth statistical study of the nature of rape and rapist. Amir was a student of Wolfgang, who was one of the first to admit that social injustice is one of the primary causes of the subculture of violence behind rape. Wolfgang focused on two primary variables: social class and violent crime. He ultimately came to the conclusion that those individuals who are in the lower class are much more likely to encounter sexual violence. Amir's Philadelphia study found that the average rapist "had no separate identifiable pathology aside from the individual quirks and personality disturbances that might characterize any single offender who commits any sort of crime" (279). The report showed that most of the rapists were lower class, 71% of the rapes were pre-meditated and 43% of the rapes were classified as group rape. Brownmiller ends her article with describing how a world without rape would be one in which women could live without fearing men but instead men who commit rape have changed the world forever.

In her article "Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color", Crenshaw specifically looks at how both race and gender play very important roles in studying violence against women. She presents the problem that comes with identity politics in which it "fails to transcend difference, but rather the opposite- that it frequently conflates or ignores intra group differences". Her objective of the article is to explore both the role of race and gender in violence against women of color specifically and show that many of the experiences that black women have do not fith within the traditional boundaries of race of gender discrimination that is primarily focused on in political movements. She describes how intersectionality, or the interaction between racism and patriarchy, leads to the limits and struggles that women of color face. The economic issues including access to employment, housing and wealth confirms that class structures play a very essential role in defining and understanding the sexual violence experiences of women of color. She describes how "strategies based solely on the epxeriences of women who do not share the same class or race backgrounds will be of limited utility for those whose lives are shaped by a different set of obstacle". She also explains how counselors have a hard time helping women of color because it is so difficult to find not only contacts but also resources to help them get back on their feet. She also goes into detail about one woman who did not speak english well enough to be let into any of the shelters she tried to seek refuge in due to their strict standards about language requirements. She also discusses how the black community often tends to suppress issues of domestic violence in wanting to uphold their reputation in the community. Even many women of color agree with the very anti-feminist ideas regarding the necessity of a woman's allegiance and subservience to a man to the extent that they believe the woman should be physically punished if she disobeys her husband.

In "Don't Call Me Survivor", Emilie Morgan describes how she was first raped at the age of 13. This rape, however, lead to a downward spiral into numerous more rapes throughout her young adult life until she finally found people she could connect with and talk about her experiences. She ends the story by asking people to not yet call her a "survivor" because she still does not feel like one yet. The emotional and psychological consequences of rape live on much longer than one could even imagine. After her first experience being raped at the age of 13, she describes how she had no one there to support her through the difficult time. She was scolded by her parents and ostrasized by her friends and peers. She describes the next rape as even more traumatic since she was older and had a fuller understanding of the true consequences. Not only did she harbor the feelings of the rape being in part her fault, she also was once again treated like a cheap slut by anyone who knew. What I found most depressing and sad about Morgan's story is that she had no one to turn to. Why does our culture still not really blame men for the rape crimes they commit but instead blame the victim? Our patriarchal society has a long way to go before it can actually call men and women considered equal.

Response to 11/18 readings

The chapter from Susan Brownmiller’s book was somewhat, well more like REALLY, frightening.  It is true that the media publicizes rapists to be psychopaths.  But that is so far from the truth.  In thinking back to the Colgate climate survey, a huge percentage of girls (I forget the actual percent) have been sexually assaulted.  That’s on Colgate’s campus where the average male is smart, wealthy, and unmarried.  If these guys are capable of sexual assault, then who isn’t?  That honestly is an extremely scary realization. 

Rape also works to keep women from being free, powerful, and from feeling safe.  It’s another bar in the ‘birdcage,’ keeping in double binds and in fear.  It is great that women have been uniting to speak out against rape.  However, as Crenshaw notes, identity politics can ignore issues of color or class.  Furthermore, (a fact that really scared me) is that immigrant women can remain vulnerable to sexual assault because they do not have access to waivers.  This issue among many others that Crenshaw addresses have to also be brought to light.  Rape has to be spoken about AS WELL AS these issues.

Rape is about power more than it is about sex.  As Brownmiller notes, most rapes also had some form of sexual humiliation.  Thus, the act becomes a way to show male domination over women.  As Emilie Morgan remarks in “Don’t Call Me a Survivor’, “I am not sure which was harder: being gang-raped, or having the sudden realization that this is what it means to be a woman” (Morgan 36).  Sexual objectification and violence harness women’s sexuality and ultimately keep women from being threats to male dominance and sexuality.  Rape (it is scary to say) becomes a way of uniting women because all women are influenced and affected by it whether or not they have been victims.  We all know there is always that chance BECAUSE we are women.  Men do not live in the same fear.  Fear of rape does not exist for them unless maybe they are in prison.  I remember in 9^th grade, in health class, I asked my health teacher if women were capable of raping men.  She just started laughing, thinking I was trying to be funny.  I was naïve and honestly wasn’t sure.  Turns out, it is a huge joke in society.  Men being raped by women is something that does not happen (maybe cannot happen? Who knows).  But women being raped by men is a huge problem.  Thus, rape becomes a female problem.  However, on the flip side, men raping other men is not advertised or discussed unless when prison is concerned.  I wonder if that is a major problem that is just ignored because society tends to overlook homosexual issues or problems.  I obviously know that male-female rape is a huge issue but is male-male? 

In order to learn a little bit more, I did some searches online and came up with some pretty interesting stats.  Most people believe that men who rape other men are always gay.  In fact, most of these men are heterosexual.  Women can rape men although out of all rapes, a female raping a man is only 2%.  Something that I found REALLY interesting was that more male rapes occur every day in prison alone than there are rapes of all females in the USA.  This should get more publicity!

Summary for 11/11 readings

Atul Gawande’s article has an interesting form.  The article begins with the introduction of Elizabeth Rourke, a pregnant woman almost at her due date.  Gawande will skip around, discussing Rourke as she gets closer to delivering as well as discussing current issues involving child birth.

Rourke is an intern at a hospital and thus knows the pregnancy process fairly well.  She is aware that she has to wait until her contractions are five minutes apart to call the doctor and go to the hospital.  She also had decided on giving a natural birth, sans epidural and C-section. 

Gawande then talks about the medical process of child birth, down to the gory details.  In the first trimester, female hormones cause the joints of the pelvis to elongate and loosen.  When its delivery time, the uterus starts to form a funnel shape, which the baby is ultimately pushed through via contractions.  The cervix will slowly soften and relax as the baby’s head pushes against it.  This is called ‘effacement.’  Finally, an opening will appear and slowly widen.  Eventually the amniotic sac will burst and this pressure will increase the opening even more.  When the opening is between 7 to 10 centimeters, the baby’s head will enter the vagina and ultimately be pushed out.  This process is extremely dangerous.  At any point, there could be mistakes or problems that could lead to harm to either the child or mother.  In order to avoid such harm, midwives and doctors have been racking their brains for years.  The first instrument invented was the crochet which had hooks to crush the fetus’ skull in order to pull out the fetus and save the mother’s life.  Other devices were later invented that were specific to the position the baby was in.  The forceps was the most successful tool invented although it was kept as a family secret by the Chamberlen’s for years.  However, even with all these measures, in 1933, there was 2,041 maternal deaths in childbirth and of those, 2/3 could have been prevented.  Presently, there has been a huge rise in Cesarean sections with about 1/3 of American women using this method for childbirth.  Gawande later discusses the merits and problems of this

Returning to Rouke, she was having a lot of problems.  Her cervix was not dilating fast and Rourke had already been in extreme pain for many hours.  Finally, she opted out of her original plan and took epidurals.  It also turned out that her baby ended up getting stuck.  With these progressions, Rourke had already been in labor for 30 hours and the baby still had not been delivered. 

Virginia Apgar made a huge contribution to the childbirth.  She created the Apgar score which rated the condition of babies.  This created competition by surgeons to have higher scores.  Thus, more attention was paid to the babies after birth and if the babies looked unhealthy, they were not given up on as they had been previously.  Thus, more babies were saved from what could have otherwise been death.  However, the field of obstetrics seems to not have a huge attraction for medical students or professionals.  Interestingly, it saves the most lives out of any other medical profession.  Another intresting thing to note is the lack of forceps use in childbirth.  Since it is an extremely difficult skill to teach, C-sections are instead turned to in such instances. 

Back to Rourke: Rourke ended up having to have a C-section as she had been in painful labor for an excruciating amount of time.  Her baby was successfully delivered with an Apgar score of 9 after five minutes.  Gawande at this point goes into heavy detail of a C-section, commenting on the amount of risk attached to such a surgery.  It is not as simple as women seem to think these days.  There is still huge risk attached.  Yet even with these risks, most surgeons are turning to C-sections.  Is this because it fits better into their schedules and makes them more money?  Natural births are no longer as heavily considered.  C-sections are immediately offered.  This shift to ready surgery is somewhat frightening. 

The second article, “How Childbirth Went Industrial: A Deconstruction,” talks about and criticizes Gawande’s article.  Goer begins by indicating a parallel between Rourke and Princess Charlotte’s childbirthing experiences.  Goer points out that Gawande does not make a case that the current tools in obstetrics (such as Pitocin) have made a positive difference.  Gawande also appears to have no argument to C-sections as he points out numerous positives associated with it.  Gawande also praises doctors for doing whatever interests them regardless of research trials.  Furthermore, there has never been a point where obstetric interventions have enhanced newborn results.  Goer points to numerous studies to support this fact.  Enhancement in chidlbirthing process came when doctors didn’t ‘meddle’ as much.  Gawande also states that C-sections will save lives in difficult situations.  However, the facts do not support this statement.  Women are more likely to die in C-sections or have complications than during natural births.  Goer also goes on to state a multitude of risks for the mother that Gawande ignored attached to C-sections which include hysterectomy and pulmonary embolisms.  Newborn risks include respiratory complications and sensitivity to allergens.  There are many more risks with having a C-section to a natural birth as Goer points out.  Furtehrmore, the more C-sections a woman has, the higher risk she is at each time.  Goer also looks at the standardization of care in obstetricians.  This has done nothing to regulate the use of medical intervention.  A careless attitude has been adopted and women who might not necessarily need C-sections are receiving them nevertheless.  This attitude is also seen in many other surgical cases.  Goer also comments on the Rourke story.  Rourke’s story cannot be seen as typical.  It is an irregularity.  In 2005, a study done showed that only 2% of women received all the ‘care practices’ that Rourke received.  Most women can have birth much more ‘naturally.’  Also Rourke did not receive a doula and she had idealistic hopes that were not realistic.  Goer essentially criticizes and disagrees with almost every aspect in Gawande’s article.

Short Response to 11/9 Readings

As Maria mentioned, these readings also made me think about my own stance on abortion. Personally I am also pro-choice; however I believe it is a hard decision to make before actually being put in the position of being pregnant with an un-wanted child. All of the readings, however, emphasized at least to some extent how much it is really a WOMAN'S issue and not a man's. I believe that way too much attention has been given to men's rights and beliefs on the issue and not enough has surrounded women's opinions. How can we say that we have really gained equality as women when men are still making the decisions about what we can and cannot do to our own bodies? Right before I read tomorrow's assignment, I read a very interesting article in the NYTimes that briefly discusses how the Republican party's recent takeover of power in the house will likely lead to the challenging of many current issues including the legality and access to abortion. The fact that abortion is even a partisan debate proves that women do not have enough control over it. The recent elections saw a decline in women in political positions and therefore even more men are being given the power to control our right to choose. As Arcana describes in her article titled "Abortion Is a Motherhood Issue", the decision whether or not to abort a "fetus" (or "child", depending on the context) is strictly an issue up to the mother. Although Roe v. Wade did determine a cut-off point as to how far along in the pregnancy an abortion is legal, which I agree is necessary; however a woman's right to choose in the first trimester should be up to her and her alone, not the men who have been elected into government positions of power.

Response to 11/9 Readings

After reading the articles assigned for class, I began to think about my own beliefs regarding abortion.  I have always considered myself pro-life and I still support that immensely.  However, after reading the articles, I came to realize women should not be divided between pro-choice and pro-life.  We should be pro-help.  We should help women in whatever decision they make and not judge.  It seems that one of the hardest parts of making a decision in regards to an abortion is what everyone else thinks.  And that should not be the case.  Other people's thoughts should not necessarily be taken into consideration.  The choice should be 100% your own.  Yet, our society is structured in a way that other people's opinions do become a part of our own decision.  People's judgements are intimidating and fearsome.  This should not happen.  We should accept each and every individual decision and just be supporting.

Furthermore, I was curious to see what pro-life media and advertisements looked like.  I looked at a couple websites and each one seemed to use fear tactics or intimidation techniques.  Horrifying pictures of fetuses etc. were displayed.  Some were too graphic that I don't even want to describe them.  I did find a picture that I think Allison Crews talked about:

I just hate that people would use such techniques to try and influence women.  And I'm not saying pro-choice is perfect either.  But women should have the right to do whatever they want and EVERYONE should support that.  It is no one else's battle and it should be no one else's choice.  The government should not be allowed to decide if a woman should birth a child or not.  That's insane to me. 

I also found a website that had speeches by a young girl, Claire, who looked like she was only 7 years old or so.  She talks about pro-life.  That is extremely disturbing to me.  People can be pro-life and I support that.  But young children should not be forced to have certain beliefs based on their parents beliefs.  A 7 year old girl is not going to have her own opinions yet on abortion.  By forcing opinions on her, she will have trouble forming her own beliefs and ideas.  Everyone should be able to make up their own mind.  This was similar to Allison Crews as she said she would protest for pro-life outside of abortion clinics before she was 10 years old.

News Flash #2:Is the Modern Woman Really Any Different?

In her NYTimes article “New World, Same Old Gender Roles”, Torregrosa argues that the recent movie The Social Network clearly portrays many of the common sexist gender stereotypes that exist both within and beyond the collegiate life. The film chronicles the creation of the immensely popular social networking site, Facebook, by its founder Mark Zuckerberg, who is characterized as a very nerdy, socially incompetent young man. According to Torregrosa, “the movie rips open his [Zuckerberg’s] character flaws, which bubble to the surface during sleep-free days of manic computer hacking, and in awkward social and sexual encounters.” (Torregrosa). What is interesting to note about the film, however, is its depiction of almost all of the female characters as sexually promiscuous attractive girls who have little to nothing to contribute to the actual creation of Facebook. Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, admitted that even he was shocked at the extent of the blatant sexism he found when researching for the film and reading the book upon which the film is based. Instead of being intelligent, motivated and impressive female Harvard students, the women are “figurines in the background, one face melding into another, one lithe body identical to the next.” (Torregrosa). The film emphasizes our society’s association of women with sexuality, thereby contributing to the assumption that women are not and can never really be as successful as most men. In her book Enlightened Sexism, Douglas explains that the media tells us that women have achieved equality; therefore these blatant portrayals of sexism are justifiable and humorous because of their clear absurdity. The movie, however, is closely based on the real life of Zuckerberg, and although not always 100% accurate, its grounding in real life events and experiences emphasizes the clear similarities between the females depicted in the media and the lives of real women.

The girls in the film are “sexy, seductive, willing and eager to serve and service the boys” (Torregrosa) with their only function appearing to be to fulfill the male leads’ desires. Since this movie is closely based on a true story, this portrayal of women in a hyper-sexualized manner illustrates not only the media’s depiction of sexual women as a tool to attract audiences but also that there is truth behind these depictions in the real world. Screenwriter Sorkin claims that “it’s not hard to understand how bright women could be appalled by what they saw in the movie but you have to understand that was the very specific world I was writing about” (Torregrosa). I asked my mom what she thought about the movie after I learned that she had seen it, expecting the extremely positive responses I had heard from everyone else. Instead, she replied saying that she couldn’t enjoy the film due to its extremely sexual and slutty portrayal of the college girls. She asked me if the representation was accurate of Colgate and I ended up honestly telling her that in part, yes; it wasn’t that different from what I see out on Friday and Saturday nights here. Girls are continually told by the media, friends and sometimes even family that they need to act promiscuously in order to be truly accepted, envied and ultimately happy in our modern society.

The females are characterized as nothing more than sexual objects whose primary goal in life is to be loved and admired by men. Zuckerberg first comes up with the idea for Facebook from his creation of a website that allowed Harvard students to compare one girl’s picture to pictures of animals and other girls and then publicly vote on which one was more attractive. As Sorkin points out, “Facebook was born during a night of incredible misogyny” (Torregrosa), as proven by the creation of a website comparing women to farm animals and then to each other based on their appearances. As Douglas points out in her discussion of the popular men’s magazine “Maxim”, men often justify their sexual objectification through describing these women as unattainably attractive. Since “the objectification of women is so over the top, and constantly wedded to suggestions that most guys are so totally under the women’s thumbs, that its sexism is meant to be seen as pathetic” (Douglas 13). Zuckerberg and his friends are clearly portrayed as extremely nerdy and nearly socially inept boys at the start of the film. The movie opens with a scene showing Zuckerberg and his girlfriend being unable to have a logical and coherent conversation due to his extreme lack of social skills; however by the end, his success acquired from the creation of Facebook brings him attention from attractive girls despite his awkward mannerisms. This film characterizes the females as merely appealing sex objects that are to be acquired by successful intelligent men. The film “exposes a strain of sexism that runs wide and deep among the nerdy entrepreneurs and exalted geek geniuses” (Torregrosa).

This fulfillment of gender roles by female characters in the movie clearly emphasizes the differing expectations of a woman’s potential in the workplace and those of a man. Although the girls are also supposed to be students at Harvard, there is no emphasis on their academic intelligence or career goals. The movie fulfills the stereotype of girls attending a prestigious university in order to meet their husbands as opposed to pursuing their own career paths, potentially creating their own multi-billion dollar corporations. It is the men who are expected to turn into entrepreneurs who will ultimately be the future of the tech universe. The girls are portrayed as “empty-headed, giggly, drug-sniffing manipulative strumpets” while the men are the successful producers, creators, innovators and ultimately billionaires (Torregrosa). Both genders are playing into what Johnson calls the system of patriarchy that controls our current society. This patriarchy is a set of deeply ingrained beliefs, symbols and ideas about men and women and humanity that both permeate and structure our culture. Patriarchy re-enforces the lack of career expectations of women while emphasizing the necessity of men’s success in the workplace. Both the characters and also the viewers of the film play into and enforce this system of patriarchy. Some people might argue that it’s just a movie and is not a realistic representation of real life; however it must also be noted that it is almost only men who are coming up with these multi-billion dollar innovations. People might be surprised if a woman excels in a challenging job while this achievement is often expected of a man. Toregrosa describes how a friend of hers who works at a digital newspaper admits that there are a number of female producers and editors; however the most creative innovators with the most potential to truly succeed are all young and are all male. The Social Network is a film about the rise of our modern social networking capability; however the movie also indirectly highlights the extensive changes that are still necessary for women to actually be considered equal today.

The close association between the portrayal of female characters in movies such as The Social Network and the reality of women’s role in today’s society shows how extremely influential gender roles still are today. Although the media tries to convince us that women have gained equality, true-life based movies such as this one prove that this assumption is clearly false. The Social Network topped the box office charts for weeks after its release just over a month ago; however very little attention has actually been paid to its depiction of the female roles. The lack of conversation over this topic in relation to the film shows the extent to which this hyper-sexualized role for females is used in all aspects of the media. True-life based movies like this one show us we can no longer deny that this female gender role continues to be enforced in all aspects of our modern society.

Response to 11/4 Readings

I think society has a really skewed view about people in unfortunate and typically financially poor situations.  The majority of society seems to think that unfortunate people are in such a position because its their own fault.  Beggars and homeless people live on the street because they wasted their own money.  They were not smart enough to invest it.  Single, poor mothers are in such unfortunate positions because they couldn't hold onto the father and don't want to work.  They should've used a condom etc. etc.  The current welfare law reinforces these stereotypes by forcing single mothers to work.  The law essentially implies that single mothers would not choose to work if they could.  Thus, they must be lazy and inept.  These assumptions are ridiculous.  No one wants to be poor, strapped for cash, unable to spend time with their children.  No one sanely consciously chooses that.  It boggles my mind that society could actively tell such people that it's their own fault.  One of my friends chastised me for giving money to a beggar one day.  She told me it was a waste.  It was his own fault and he'll probably just spend hte money on drugs.  Until our society realizes that the way our society is built forces people into these positions and keeps them from being able to climb out, the gap between the rich and the poor will just continue to grow.  Single mothers will become a class of their own.  It's a scary thought.  We need to provide welfare; give single mothers money to care for their children.  Until we do that, we're going to have a positive feedback cycle.  Children of poor single mothers will grow up in an almost parentless environment if the mother is working all hours.  This is not an ideal or emotionally good situation.  Thus, the child could end up with emotional or mental problems and will most likely stay in poverty. 

11/4 Summary Post

In her article "The Lady and the Tramp: Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice", Gwendolyn Mink discusses how the primary goals of 2nd wave feminists have not been aimed at earning rights for those lower class women who need support from welfare systems. She points out that most feminists are "supereducated, do-good feminists, most of whom would never need a welfare check" (55). Although some women tried to argue that a war against poor women was actually a war against all women, she realized that his slogan really failed to rally many women at all. Many middle-class women even participated on the anti-welfare side and many feminist congress members did not use their positions of power to even try to make a difference. She describes the Personal Responsibility Act, which denied single others their entitlement to welfare, and how there was no real widespread opposition to its passing in 1996. Mink questions why so many feminists were completely unconcerned about this need for welfare reform even though it could be argued that it "encroached on their basic civil rights as well" (57). Until reading this article, I never really thought about how poor single mothers are the only Americans who law forces them to work outside the home and are the only ones who are punished due to their decisions to have children, as Mink points out. She ultimately argues that welfare is actually a condition of women's equality that has not yet been fulfilled. Women used to be paid for their work at home but no are forced to choose between wages and children. She references the common racially charged conceptions of welfare supported women as "lazy, promiscuous and matriarchal" (59). She also notes that the middle class feminists' emphasis on women's right to work outside of their homes has actually been a hindrance to the recognition of the need for a better welfare system for single mothers. Another part of the problem is that "white and middle-class feminists...see welfare mothers as victims- of patriarchy, maybe of racism, possibly of false consciousness" (60). Out of the feminist movement for gaining the right to work outside the home grew the expectation that only jobs outside of the home are truly productive and beneficial to society. Mink ends the article by suggesting that we begin to provide single caregivers an income in recognition of their work to address the poor woman's side of the gender divide.

News Flash: The Gender Inequality behind espnW

In the New York Times article, ESPN Slowly Introducing Online Brand for Women, Katie Thomas writes about the possible creation of an alternative ESPN channel marketed solely for women.  The design of a complementary ESPN television channel, espnW, which is primarily targeted to a female audience, is an insulting and degrading idea for several reasons.  By indicating that women need a feminized, ‘girly’ version of ESPN, the station is implying that women are inherently different from men in the way they enjoy, watch, and play sports.  Therefore, the creation of espnW implies that women are not equal to men as sports fans or athletes.  It also stresses societal gender roles by creating two distinct channels: one for men and one for women.  It lastly denotes that ESPN is too intense or extreme for women and thus women need their own separate channel for a type of protection or buffer. 

VERSUS

The idea of espnW is a distasteful and offensive idea for women’s sports in general.  The creation of an alternative channel to ESPN indicates that female sports and male sports are intrinsically different and have dissimilar fan pools and needs.  It implies that female sports are softer, weaker, less popular versions of male sports since females are commonly seen as the weaker and more defenseless sex.  These weak, female sports do not belong on popular and widespread ESPN. The creation of espnW would allow female sports to be essentially separated, quarantined and caged, allowing ESPN to have only “real sports:” male sports.  This could simply be a way for ESPN to devote 100% of its time to male sports, shunting female sports to its ‘side’ channel.  In reality, female sports are extremely similar to male sports.  Soccer, basketball, track, swimming, lacrosse, hockey etc. all follow the same basic rules with some small exceptions regarding physical contact.  The only major difference is gender.  Thus, by creating a channel just for female sports and consequently possibly having ESPN broadcast only male sports, the TV network is ultimately saying that men and women are not equal.  There is a disconnect between them and their corresponding sports are thus unequal as well.  Furthermore, it is implying that women only enjoy watching female sports and men only enjoy watching male sports.  This is unfair to both genders.  There are many women who love baseball and football: all male sports and vice-versa for men.  The channel should not promote and enforce these gendered stereotypes.

The creation of a separate channel is also offensive to female sports viewers.  ESPN seems to be saying that women need a more feminized, girly version of their channel to really enjoy it.  They cannot just watch sports for sports sake.  The channel has to be decorated and filled with traditionally female things to really allow a woman to relate to and enjoy sports.  The vice president of ESPN, Laura Gentile, even says “women see us as an admirable brand that has authority.  But they see us as their father’s brand, or husband’s, or boyfriend’s brand.   They recognize it’s not theirs.”  This is extremely distasteful to female sports fans because it’s essentially saying that they cannot enjoy ESPN.  They should understand that men’s sports are for men only and thus, ESPN, which broadcasts mostly men’s sports, will not seem welcoming or appealing to them.  This is ridiculous as it is applying a stereotype to male sports that they can only be enjoyed by men.  In order for women to enjoy sports, their channel must incorporate “women finding self-esteem in sports and about getting a pedicure” (Gentile).  This comment is extremely degrading as it plays on societal labels of what a female should enjoy.  It denotes that a female sports fan will only be a sports fan or enjoy a sports channel if health, fitness, and beauty are included.  This demeans women, saying that women only want to essentially help themselves and not simply enjoy being a sports spectator.  Furthermore, by bringing up pedicures, beauty, fitness etc., it is reducing female sports fans to their gender and keeping them from identifying as simply a universal sports fan.  Instead, they will see themselves as inherently female and separate from male sports fans. 

The need for other applications in the female sports channel also implies that women are less motivated, inspired and genuine fans than men.  The only reason they could enjoy sports is if there are other aspects, such as health and fitness attached.  It is not really for the sport, itself, that women are excited and intrigued.  This implication is frustrating and demeaning especially for women who are really involved and captivated by sports.  This insinuation was further reinforced at a retreat hosted by ESPN to toss around and discuss the idea of espnW.  The retreat had activities including sunset yoga and ‘how to ride a Harley.’  These leisurely activities played into typical gender roles, implying that women should do yoga and would never know how to ride a motorcycle unless taught by a third party.  This just shows again that ESPN is influenced by gender roles and thus the creation of espnW will thus reflect stereotypical values.

Women are also commonly seen as the weak, pathetic and frail sex which needs protection.  The rough, brutal intense sports of ESPN could be viewed as too much for women to handle and thus the creation of espnW is a way to protect weak women from the cold, mean world of male sports.  Although the channel never explicitly states that this could be a reason for espnW, it seems highly likely that it is.  Why else would they create a separate female channel?  Women love ESPN.  One quarter of their viewers is female.  There is no reason to create an alternative channel unless the corporation is viewing women through the eye of societal gender roles.  Male sports are typically more physical.  Female football almost entirely does not exist.  Male lacrosse, ice hockey, wrestling and boxing allow for much more physical contact and fighting.  Thus, females should be sheltered from such recreational violence.  It would hurt and tarnish their character and soul.  Again, this reflects age old assumptions about women.  Women are still sometimes seen as pure creatures who should remain in the household untouched by the filthiness of outside society.  This remains a common assumption even though women have proven time and time again to be as strong (if not stronger) as men.  They are equal to men and should be able to enjoy and watch whatever they choose.  They should not be treated as less powerful, capable or formidable as men just because in the past, this has been the common and almost universally accepted assumption. 

The idea of a separate women’s channel also could be used to regulate and control threatening women.  Sports have always been a topic that many men can socialize and come together over.  Many men bond over commonly loved sports teams or have riveting sports conversations or debates that can shape or break friendships.  Furthermore, young boys are commonly raised to play and love sports at early ages.  They are encouraged by their parents to join teams and enthusiastically route for the local squads.  This same passion is not provoked, cultivated, or encouraged in young girls.  Therefore, it is understandable why most boys and men share a common passion for sports as it has been engrained in them since being toddlers.  This is not true with most girls and women as this passion is not encouraged in females and might even be inhibited or depressed as it does not play into typical gender responsibilities.   Thus, sports conversations mainly occur between groups of men.  Few women join in.  The women who do join in can be seen as threatening and aggressive.  They are intruding in a traditionally male pastime, crossing gender lines.  They are interrupting an all-male sphere of power and domination.  By having knowledge of sports, a female can enter this sphere and consequently intimidate men.  As Susan Douglas talks about in ‘Castration Anxiety,’ society has a huge fear of powerful women and female domination.  Thus, in order to alienate these ‘threatening’ women and put them back in their place, there needs to be an alternative sphere for them.  This is where the creation of espnW comes into play.  Having two distinct and separate channels for men and women keep females in the own separate compartments.  They cannot threaten men or even relate to them.  Thus, it is ultimately a way to harness and control female power. 

The creation of an espnW is a demeaning and distasteful idea.  The construction of an alternative ESPN for women implies that women do not relate to sports in the same way men do.  It implies that there are inherent differences in the way men and women watch and play sports.  It also works to essentially abash threatening women who are real sports fans by secluding them to separate spheres from men.  The real change that needs to happen in ESPN is not to make a separate channel for women.  Women are as eager and enthusiastic fans as men and many wholeheartedly love ESPN.  Instead, ESPN should work on broadcasting more female sporting events.  Also, ESPN female reporters should be chosen for their sport knowledge rather than their physical appearance.  ESPN thinks that it is doing women a favor and making a mark in gender equality.  Instead, if espnW is created, they are taking a step backwards.  Other things at the network could be targeted instead to put women on a more fair playing ground with men in the worlds of sports.

Short Response to 11/2 Readings

All four of the assigned readings clearly emphasized the disadvantages women must face in the work place. In "The Mommy Tax", Crittenden describes how much money mothers end up losing in their lifetime due to their decision to have children. Having to work part-time, these women are often either laid off or paid less than they were prior to their pregnancy. I was astounded by the fact that the US is one of only six countries in the world that does not require a paid maternity leave and that only eight states have laws prohibiting discrimination against parents in the workplace. In a nation of supposed freedom and opportunity, I am extremely surprised by the fact that we are one of only a few countries that doesn't try to support its working mothers. Women are instead, told to "be a man", to finish school, find a job, and put off children until the very last minute; however biologically this strategy has been found to be very harmful to women who hope to have kids at some point. This article really reminded me of an episode I watched recently of Desperate Housewives (a show about five or six women who live in the sububs). I don't really watch the show but in this episode, one of the main women was on hard financial times with her husband and she made the decision to earn some extra money by making sexually suggestive movies of herself for a company that streamed the videos to men mainly abroad. She was able to earn money by turning herself into a sexual object; however about half way through the episode one of her friends finds out what she is doing and confronts her about it. She responds by defending herself as having no other options which really got me (and apparently her friend as well) to think about what a woman is supposed to do in a situation when she is used to having the money to feed he family but suddenly is unable to.



In "Maid to Order", Ehenreich describes how we are turning into a country in which those women and families in the upper-middle and upper classes are no longer doing their own cleaning and instead are hiring poor, lower-class women to do it for them. Ehenreich points out that these maids are not treated much better than slaves or servants and are often not actually given fair wages let alone health insurance or pension plans. This article made me think about my family's "cleaning lady", Maria. She has been cleaning our house since we moved to Los Angeles over 10 years ago and I really feel like she is part of the family. She moved to the United States and moved in as a stay-at-home nanny for our good family friends over 30 years ago and uses the money she earns cleaning our house every Saturday to go on cool vacations to places like China and India. I realize Maria is the exception and not the rule; however I thought that Ehrenreich was somewhat exaggerating when she said that having a cleaning woman teaches children that some people are better than others. Although I do believe it is an issue that all of these maids are female instead of a mix between men and women, I also think that in our current economic status with such a high level of unemployment, not all housekeeping jobs should be viewed as evil.

Summary of 11/2 Readings

In the chapter "the Mommy Tax," Crittenden explores the economic consequences of becoming a mother.  Studies have shown that the most disadvantaged people in the workplace are women with children.  Mothers earn much less than childless women.  This reduction in wages is termed the 'mommy tax' and is typically greater than one million dollars for college-educated women.  Crittenden talks of her own personal experience.  After her son was born, she took some time off from her job at the New York Times.  Because of this break, she did not recieve pension and lost 50-60 thousand dollars per year.  She ultimately gave up almost half of her life earnings just because she wanted to spend some time with her newborn son.  In middle-class families, the mommy tax will likely be above 600,000 dollars.  In lower-income families, having a child can push the family into poverty.  Taking care of elderly family members has a similar effect on one's annual salary.  Caretakers lose a good deal of money because they take off time to help care for elderly family members. 
Crittenden also cites the example of Virigina Daley.  Daley was fired from her job as an interior designer after she had a baby and attemped to create a more flexible schedule.  She sued her company, Aetna, but lost the case.  It seemed that the jury thought Daley had 'overextended' herself and it was too much to ask from her to raise kids and have a professional career. 
Furthermore, women still do not earn as much as men.  Women earn about 60 cents to every dollar a man makes; a biblical ratio found when God talks to Moses about the Israelites.  Many people believe this is no longer true.  And its not accurate in the case of single, young, childless white women.  But if all women are taken into account, this ratio still holds true. 
Mothers do not only earn less than men but they also earn less than childless women.  Women without children make 90% of men's wages while mothers only earn 70% of men's wages.  This disparity is mind-boggling and research has been undertaken to attempt to discover why mothers earn so much less.  Several possible reasons include the fact that American mothers will quit their jobs as they don't get paid maternity leave.  Employees are penalized for 'job interruptions' and thus when a mother has to take time off to care for a child, she will be penalized.  Mothers also cannot typically work the mandatory overtime hours as they have to be home to care for their children.  This can lead to layoffs or decreased wages.  Also many mothers work part-time and are consequently paid less than full-time workers as employers believe part-time workers do not work as hard.  This is seldomly true.  Many mothers also own their own businesses so that they can have flexibility.  However, these small businesses don't recieve as much aid or capital as men who start their own businesses. 
Fathers who help take care of their children also earn less than men who either have wives who stay at home or are childless.  This is called the 'daddy tax.' 
Crittenden also cites the example of Cindy DiBiasi.  DiBiasi was a reporter who worked extremely hard and was very successful.  She became pregnant however she used her pregnancy to help her move forward, allowing the news crew to film her progress and the birth of her child.  However, when she got pregnant a second time, she was unable to keep up with her previous schedule and tried to create more flexibility.  She was met with hostility from her employers.  She was demoted and put into a job that was feasibly impossible with her schedule.  She ended up having to quit.  This story demonstrated how having two children can be extremely incompatible with women's careers. 
Sometimes the mommy tax can be lowered if women have children later in life.  Once their careers are established and secure, having children will not be impractible or incompatible with careers.  However, the risk with this is waiting too long and then being unable to have children.  The government should also give more aid to mothers. Other countries, such as France, have amazing programs and financial aid which allows mothers to not necessarily pay the 'mommy tax.'  The USA does not do this however they do something similar for veterans, giving boat loads of aids to veterans even if they only served in peacetime.   

In the article "Maid to Order," Ehrenreich talks about maids in the United States.  Cleaning jobs such as the ones that maids are employed to do are seen as subservient.  Being on one's hands and knees immediately evokes an image of a servant or a lesser being.  Earlier in the feminist movements, housework was supposed to be an equalizer.  It was supposed to provide more work for women.  However, no one considered the fact that men were the 'domestic exploiters' of housework.  Wives cleaned up after their husbands.  Housework defined bonds between husbands and wives.  Soon, in order to avoid fights between spouses, maids were hired.  This was seen as a way to provide more work for women.  It was seen as a positive.  However, housework is degrading.  Housework is deeply ingrained in degrading relationships and work to reinforce them.  Furthermore, when men are the ones being cleaned up after and women are the ones doing the clearning up, this creates a way to reinforce and continue male domination and power. 
Most maids hired are women of color and of the lower-class.  Most maids are independent 'free-lancers' instead of working for corporations such as "Merry Maids."  Maids are paid well below the poverty line.  Furthermore, some maids are treated as slaves as they are not regularly paid and work incredibly long hours. 
Recently there has been a rise in corporate cleaning services over independent maids.  Instead of having one maid come in everytime, three or four people would come in uniform with one of them being the designated 'boss' who would speak with the employers.  However, employees in the corporate cleaning services can be majorly screwed over.  They can get paid even less than an independent worker as the corporations will dock their wages on imperfect attendance etc.  Furthermore, cleaning the house becomes more of a factory-like process.  The same method is employed everytime.  The rooms are cleaned in a certain order adn in a certain way.  Furthermore, the main necessity is speed and thus the houses are not necessarily being 'cleaned.'  Instead they are made to look like they are clean when in reality, germs have been spread and nothing has been actually sanitized.  As society continues to build bigger houses and have services for more and more things, the percentage of homes that have a maid will increase.  This will perpetuate class hierachies.  Servility of colored women or lower-class women will persist as they will be the ones continuing to clean the home while the typically white women who hire them will be off doing 'better thigns' with their time. 

In 'Reality Check' by Hakin-Dyce, she talks of her experience as a poor college student fighting to make enough money to survive.  Although she had a great education and seemed to be a powerful and active student, she was unable to find a job and had to consider demeaning work as a go-go dancer.  Miraculously, she was offered a job as an English tutor the day of her audition for go-go dancing and thus never had to commit such demeaning acts.  The article stresses how many poor and working-class people, however, are not miraculously saved.  They have to face sexually demeaning and degrading work just to survive.  There are no alternatives.  Although they are able to make money through these jobs, it costs them something important.  These women have to sacrifice somethign daily when they go to their jobs.  As Hakin-Dyce says, she came so "close to shutting off a part of who I am, that part of me that is spontaneous, creative, open and empowered" because she almost became a go-go dancer. 

In "Knowledge is Power," Maria Cristina Rangel writes of her experience as a beneficiary of welfare, as a mother of two, and as a full-time student.  Rangel begins by noting that poverty is not somethign one chooses.  It is not something that is one's own fault.  No one wants to be in that position.  No one wants to be helpless, money-less, dependent on the government.  She has tried everything she could.  She has thought ahead yet it still is not enough.  Getting out of poverty is nearly impossible in this country.  Rangel moved to Massachusetts in 1996 and she recieved a TAFDC which allowed her to attend Smith.  She recieved some benefits although it was not enough to fully feed her children or provide consistent daycare.  She had to continually report to a caseworker to show that she was still tryign to find a job etc.  This was particularly demeaning because OF COURSE she was working to find a job and working to make her situation better.  But in this country, it is so hard to do and most people are unable to come out of poverty.  Rangel ultimately became a member of Welfare, Education, Training and Access Coalition to spread awareness and help others in similar situations.  She talks of the inadequacy of government welfare and benefits.  These need to be raised.  The country cannot continue to ignore the class problems and huge discrepancies.