politics of motherhood

I admit to being hypocritical about a number of things. I think this happens because I'm pretty stubborn, and once in a while two things on which i refuse to change my opinion come in to conflict. For example, I consider myself "open minded." However, upon being faced with the prospect of dating someone i thought was quite nice and smart but with who i profoundly disagreed about politics (particularly a certain brand of reaganomics), i ended things. when told i was being closed minded about the situation, i said, "you're right. and i accept that."

However, one issue I still struggle with is cesareans. In 2006 31.1% of US births were via cesarean, compared to 5.5% in 1970 and 2002 (most recently available) rates for France and Holland (two of the countries with lowest infant mortality) were respectively 16% and 14%. The WHO recommends that a rate of 10-15% is advisable. There's been much research determining the adverse affects of unnecessary cesarean sections, and I tend to readily advocate "natural birth" over cesarean. In fact, I'd say that I tend to think slightly less of mothers that give birth via cesarean, even when deemed "necessary" by doctors. Somehow I believe these women should be more assertive, argue with their doctors, stand up for their "rights," and demand natural childbirth. And somewhere in my biased mind I believe that those who don't want a natural birth are just ill informed or lazy.

But I'm trying. Because I also believe that a central part of reproductive justice is giving people the right to choose to reproduce or not, in whatever way they feel most comfortable. People--meaning the citizens, not some state institution--should have choice and autonomy in their sexual and reproductive decision. This means they should be able to choose any form of partem they see most fit. And if they happen to think that cesarean section is the most advisable or preferable way to do things, I should support them.

Well, much to do has been made over Sarah Palin's womb, children, and one particular child's womb lately. And while I don't think Bristol's fetus has anything to do with her mother's ability or lack thereof to govern, NAPW President Lynn Paltrow has pointed out some of Palin's own inconsistencies on the subject of autonomous reproductive choices in an open letter to the Alaska Governor. I highly recommend clicking on that link and reading for yourself, but for those of you too busy/lazy here is the point in brief: Paltrow points out inconsistencies in Palin's stances on abortion and forced cesarean in the context of the birth of her fifth child, with whom she waited over 11 hours after her water broke to enter a hospital. Paltrow respects Palin's ability to evaluate risk and make her own decisions. She simply asks that Palin extend such respect over choices to other women. I clearly can't do the letter justice. I guess that's why Paltrow is president of a national organization, and I'm just a lowly Ph.D. student...

mi camisa

i woke up this morning and threw on my yellow nlirh t shirt. i walked uphill to school, dodging cars as usual, listening to some mountain goats on the ipod.

i crossed the street, and headed onto the construction-scattered quad. as i passed the library i could see a bunch of small red and blue flags stuck into the ground. i figured it was an artful darfur or iraq war protest. as i walked past, i found it was something entirely different. red and blue flags to represent aborted "babies." the use of the phrase "pro-life."

i unzipped my jacket a bit.

salud. dignidad. justicia.

at least i chose an appropriate shirt today.

atletas embarazadas

my usual athletics consultant, k, sent me a link today about ncaa athletes that become pregnant.
and i, of course, have many thoughts.
first, i have to say that the glaring problem with the article is the complete absence of reproductive justice discussion. sure, i can imagine why, but there are a variety of topics approached in the article that require mention of rj for thorough discussion.

the very first paragraph begins, "The timing wasn't the greatest," bringing to mind my (mis) quoted statement from the chron, "I think that abortion rights are central to women being able to control their own lives." Followed by (surprisingly appropriately named) Junk's appraisal that my comment "implies that women are neither free nor equal citizens unless they can legally end a pregnancy." And her assessment is pretty right on.

I do believe that a woman who is unable to decide when, where, and how to get pregnant is neither free nor equal. The Daily Herald article illustrates both of these aspects. First, women who are not free to choose between abortion and a child are not free from several constraints. They are not free from biology. They are not free from economic consequences. They are not free from social consequences. They are not free to pursue a future of their choosing. But, by this argument really no one is "free," we all make choices within constraints not of our choosing (to loosely paraphrase Marx). And since what sort of "free" is not specified in Junk's article, I'll move on to the second point.

Women are not equal citizens if they are unable to choose. Now, since I've been reading a lot of Altusser, Ong, and other such citizenship theorists lately, I should mention that here I use the term "citizenship" to mean the full rights associated with being an official member of a group. I do not mean mere "belonging," nor do I mean simply the right to vote. Citizenship is hailed by the state and ensured through Ideological State Apparatuses. It includes the full protection of the state, the right to participation in the public sphere, and all benefits associated with membership. And it is not "merely cultural" (Judith Butler, 1997), but implies real material consequences. In the case of pregnant athletes these consequences are the scholarships they receive to attend school. When these scholarships are taken away, at best they are left with paying tuition. At worst, these women will be financially forced to quit school, and may also miss out on a promising professional athletic career (and I'm now resisting the urge to switch gears and launch into a critique of gender inequality in professional athletics).

Of course the consequences for women are only one half of the equality equation (haha). As the article mentions, many college athletes have children. While an undergrad myself, one of nu's star football players was the father of no less than 3 children. he went on to the nfl. Even one child for a female athlete, on the other hand, would not only preclude playing in what could be a pivotal season to be able to play professional sports. Perhaps I verge too closely to equating pregnancy with injury, which in some ways may be appropriate but from a legal standpoint gets, well, "sticky."

It is also important to note that members of a Clemson team did terminate pregnancy out of fear of losing scholarships. Now at risk of sounding like I'm anti-choice (bear with me here), it is an atrocity that a person would be compelled to terminate a pregnancy for such reasons. Of course, it happens all the time, and there are plenty of women who simply cannot afford a(nother) child and terminate pregnancies. Which points to the vast array of underlying problems, with healthcare systems, welfare states, maternity/paternity leaves, day care systems, and plenty of other institutions. All this is simply to say, that perhaps de Beauvoir was too quick to assert that "biology is not destiny." Unfortunately the current state of reproductive justice and the aforementioned institutions do leave women unequally equipped to claim the rights associated with citizenship.

Alright, now...moving on. In large part I agree with the article, but I find it too apologetic. Aside from her complete sidestep of rj issues, Babcock McGraw says she can "see both sides." Female athletes engaging in unprotected sex are being irresponsible, and this behavior is equated with drinking and driving or snowboarding. Sure, unprotected sex is never a good idea, but if female athletes are held responsible for such acts to an extent that they are dropped from rosters (and funding), to maintain equality, male athletes who father children should be held to the same standard. If we regard athletes as having a primary commitment to their institution (as the author implies), a child constitutes a breach of that contract whether the fetus is physically growing in the athletes womb or simply takes half of its dna from the athlete. Any distinction between to the two privileges male-boded athletes (as if they're not privileged enough). If athletes are dropped from rosters for "irresponsibility" this should include all bodily injury or change, drugs or drinking, or anything else that may get the athlete into legal trouble (even a misdemeanor arrest). Isn't this why we have Title IX?

the espnU website has a nice write up of outside the lines that includes a little video.

Ok, so now i'm just rambling on and i've spent too much time writing this instead of my paper on german anthropology. ah, procrastination...