Images of Women

http://shine.yahoo.com/beauty/teen-girl-petitions-seventeen-magazine-stop-airbrushing-models-130000558.html


Above is a link for an article about the 14 year-old girl in Maine who, this past May, petitioned Seventeen magazine in regards to them photo-shopping their models. She asked them to start featuring at least 1 untouched photo shoot each month. She also blogs on SPARK, a non-profit organization who demands an end to the sexualization of girls and women in the media. At the time of this article being published, only Glamour magazine had agreed to stop altering their images. And some celebrities recently, including Jessica Simpson, have offered to be photographed without makeup or retouching.

I think what this girl did was amazing! She took one of her passions and actually did something about it, instead of just talking about it. This is a wonderful idea for an activism project. These images in magazines, like what Dr. Kilbourne talked about, can greatly affect women's perception of themselves. We should not be holding ourselves to a standard we can never reach. And why can we never look like that? Because it's fake! Advertisements should show us a real image with the model wearing their product. Wrinkle cream, make-up, hair products- how do we know how they really look if they are digitally enhanced anyway? Along with that, it would be nice if clothing companies showed a wide variety of models in their ads. Different bodies and from all races and ethnic backgrounds. I also like what Dr. Kilbourne mentioned about having the photos labeled if they are photo-shopped. This way the consumers know that it may not be natural and we can stop having such unrealistic expectations.

I also love this photo of Marilyn Monroe. If only models looked like this these days. Dove is doing a pretty good job of showing "real" women in their current campaign. We can only hope that more will follow!

Hospitals running a business, or rushing a natural process?

I wanted to comment on a point that was brought up in class earlier this week in reference to the hospital scene in The Business of Being Born that showed the nurses writing on the board keeping track of the women in labor and which drugs they had been administered, how long they were taking to deliver, etc. In no way do I think that doctors or nurses are bad, and of course I agree that they need to stay organized and keep track of their patients. However, I think what makes that scene so poignant (especially for pro-midwifery) is that it shows the health care professionals treating all the women the same and not considering their personal needs. It's a very business like and determined by the medical professionals wanting to hurry the process up and free the rooms, rather than letting the birth process take it's natural course and happen on it's own time.

I believe that the female body- for the most part- is capable of giving birth successfully and does not need extensive medical interventions. There are of course exceptions to this, and the drugs are there for a reason. But I don't think everyone needs them and I think doctors are very quick to use them in order to push the process along. They do this in order to open up more rooms and, ultimately, make more money. For most businesses, that wouldn't bother me. But when it comes to birth- something to special and unique- I think women should be treated with the utmost care and respect. Their wants and needs should be respected and granted, if possible and within reason. I'm not doubting that some doctors and nurses that work in hospitals do care about their patients and are nice, hardworking people. But, at the end of the day, they have time restraints and will use interventions and other things they were taught in medical school in order to make the process go quicker. For such a natural process, it would be much more comforting if doctors allowed it to just happen on it's own and intervene only when completely necessary.

I think in order for this to happen, maybe nurses should be taught midwifery practices in medical school. Or perhaps doctors and nurses should not be taught about birth at all and leave that specifically to women who are trained in that and that only. It would be wonderful if more women knew that they have options and were fully educated on their choices. Midwifes have a bad reputation, and I would love to see them regain the field that is theirs, or at least bridge the gap between them and doctors and be able to work together. At the end of the day, women and their babies should be the priority. Not making money.

A Bit Disappointed...

The Jean Kilbourne  convocation speech was really fantastic, though I was surprised that it didn't deal more with body image and the expectations women are made to live up to. Yes, alcohol and cigarette advertising is atrocious, but as Kilbourne said, the advertising is really geared towards the addicts. Whereas the way that society presents women and body image affects virtually everyone.

The portion she did discuss body image was fantastic! She brought up important issues that everyone should really be aware of in today's society, such as how photoshop has taken the place of using real women's bodies for advertisements and how, due to the over sexualization of the woman body, the body is sometimes used as an object (i.e. date rape, pornography, etc).  The overuse of photoshop vaguely reminded me of The Business of Being Born. Most labors happen in hospitals, where the use of synthetic hormones are used to speed the process along, for women's bodies aren't apparently good enough or prepared to give birth on their own. The same thing is true for the female body in advertising: the natural appearance of a woman's body, no matter how thin or curvy or porcelain or ethnic her body is, will never be good enough to appear in a magazine. The body has to be manipulated using photoshop and other computer technology in order to be worthy of an advertisement. Kilbourne's examples drove home the absurdity of the expectations a woman's body must meet. When power over the body is being taken away from women, there is a real problem in our world.

My Reaction to Jean Kilbourne

After attending Jean Kilbourne’s  presentation I was left with sort of mixed feelings. I don't think she offered us information that we didn’t already know. Nor does she state explicitly what she expects us to get out of her presentation. I didn’t walk away from it saying advertising is bad. In fact, I thought that a lot of the advertisements were really clever. I think she failed to acknowledge the fact that while advertisements can "manipulate" women and men everyone has free will and possesses the will power to not buy a certain product. Corporations don’t have control over the individual so when one purchases a product that is their decision and responsibility. And how are people supposed to sell products otherwise? I think the media does use women to sell. Obviously. But they aren’t necessarily degrading them in doing it. I mean sure there are some cases. But sex sells because it’s a part of us so what’s the harm in using it? I think the brunt of the responsibility is placed on the individual to decide what they do and do not want to partake in , regardless of the pressure that advertising places on the consumer. 

Jean Kilbourne and Art Expression

I really enjoyed Jean Kilbourne's presentation. The part that really caught my attention was when she was talking about women in advertising. I liked how she brought up that the 'ideal' women that are portrayed in advertising cannot possibly be achieved. The part where Jean talked about how women are seen as things really, really interested me. Not only did she show us examples, she talked about how sometimes in advertising women's bodies are dismembered. With these dismembered body parts, women are being dehumanized. When people are dehumanized, violence is inevitable, said Jean Kilbourne in her presentation. I was really excited when hearing about the portrayal of women from Jean. This is because in my paintings, I focus on the dehumanization of women. My paintings are abstract views of the most sexualized parts of the female form (i.e. breasts and buttocks). I paint them in an unattractive manner and the colors that I paint with are meaty colors (i.e. reds). The point to my paintings are to shock and educate my viewers. I am trying to show people how women are often viewed and treated. My main focus is how they are treated during sexual assaults; however, I find that my concept does relate to other things as well (i.e. advertising). For me to be learning more and more about what I am trying to portray in my paintings is very fulfilling. My goal is to one day change the view of society with my paintings. In Stryker's book, there was a quote that directly connected me to my paintings. On page 6, Stryker says, "Some members of the minority group make art or write literature that changes the way others think of them and the issues they face." When I read this, I was stunned. I knew that this was what I was doing, and I really enjoyed that. Knowing that I am using my paintings to make such a strong statement really means something to me.

Repetition in Kilbourne's speeches

The day before we saw the Jean Kilbourne lecture, my Women in Global Cinema class watched her film "Killing Us Softly." I noticed during the convocation that a lot of what she said was a repeat and even her jokes were identical.  At first I kind of laughed at this because, well, why couldn't she come up with some new jokes? But as I continued to think about it, the way she repeated herself was useful.  It forced me to remember the points she made and I even looked for ads like the ones she was talking about. Kilbourne is such an intelligent woman and phenomenal speaker that I couldn't believe I would ever think she was anything else.

At work, right after the convocation, one of my co-workers was flipping through a bridal magazine.  We loved every single dress that was in the catalog.  After looking at a few models, though, I realized it was because of who was wearing the dress, how they were posing, and the way the dresses looked with the backgrounds.  Every single one of the models was definitely a size zero- there was not one plus sized model in the magazine.  This was really upsetting because the message is: unless you are a size zero, you cannot look good in a wedding dress.  This must be such a discouragement for brides-to-be.

We also noticed that many of the models in the catalog were extremely young- probably younger than twenty.  I remembered from the convocation and film that advertisers target young people on purpose.  They are saying that only young people look good in these dresses so if you are over the age of thirty, don't even bother getting married.  Even though wedding dresses are not cigarettes and alcohol, I think they target young people for the same reasons.  Young people can be easily convinced and also easily convinces their parents to buy them things that they want.  If a young woman is looking at a magazine, there are no dresses that are cheap.  She is being easily manipulated into wanting an expensive dress- and thinking that expensive is the only option.

Educating People on Those Outside the Norm

I feel that we as a society have never been properly educated on those who do not fit into the social norms, such as those who are considered transgendered. We at a very young age are told about the accepted categories every person must fall into, such as race and sex. When someone enters our point of view who refuses to fall into one of these roles, we often feel uncomfortable and make quick assumptions. My lack of education was made very prevelant to me in class on Friday and through the reading. I had no idea what the difference was between someone who was consdidered "intersex" or someone who is "transgendered" or the contrast between "sex" and "gender". Knowing these key concepts, I feel, is important for us as a society because it would help us to understand that their are a variety of people who don't feel comfortable in our accepted system. Further knowledge about thoses who are considered "different" would prevent descrimination and stereotyping. I think it would also normalize people who move away from their origional gender and make them better accepted in our culture.

Abercrombie and Fitch for Kids?

Jean Kilbourne's Convocation was a real eye opener for myself and I'm sure alot of other people there. Some of the things she mentioned were absolutely mind blowing to me, but yet made perfect sense. I mean why wouldn't advertising company's target young kids. They're young and can be easily influenced. One of their best selling points is sex. And lets be honest when you are first starting off middle school all you ever really want is to be accepted by your peers. The best way from what I remember to become apart of the in croud in middle school was to either look the best, or wear the least amount of clothing. This is all Abercrombie & Fitch promotes in their advertisments and store. They surround the store with this sex appeal that realistically cannot be achieved, and they target young middle school students for this reason. Their self-esteems are delicate and they become convinced that they need this clothing to be considered sexy or hot. All the men and women in these ads look as if they are having the time of their lives, an why shouldn't they be. Thier bodies look as if gods came down to eath and chizled them out of stone. The thing that kids don't know is that a lot of this is not even realistic for the models. So much photoshoping and airbrushing is done to make these models look the way they do. And it saddens me that this will be an endless cycle for the generations of  kids/teens that come after us. Middle school is already hard enough. Why do these store become such a toxic trend. I remember being young and falling into this trend. It was difficult to because my family like others didn't really have the money to be buying all my clothing from stores like Abercomebie and Hollister. I remember though not feeling good about myself in school unless I wore these name brands. The advertisments say it all. And without them I think a lot of young kids/teens could have been saved by their insecurities.  

Advertising Gender

In class we talked about all different combinations a person could be when it came to identifying ones sex or gender. Theirs gay, straight, transgender…etc., but I've noticed these divisions aren't really seen through advertising. When Dr. Jean Kilbourne presented, it seemed like she was mostly concentrated on woman and men in the media. Which makes since because as I'm sitting here writing this I can’t come up with any well-known gay or transgendered ads with perhaps transgendered models or even just having a ad that talks about the issue. It could be true that there are several transgendered models working but the fact that they are transgendered are not opening disclosed. Perhaps some people would want to just "fit in" with what society says is normal but I feel some people would want the chance to show the world that everyone is different and that we don't have to fit into these cookie cutter molds that history has made for us.

I feel the more we expose what else is out their for people the more people will become comfrotable with it. I know it will still take some time for certian people to believe that their are people that think, act and live differently then they do. Perhaps showing not the sterotypes of the world in the media will help people realize that their not alone. Real people dont look or act like the people in the magizines so why show them?

Pansexuality

Pan-sex-u-al adj.
Not limited or inhibited in sexual choice with regard to gender or activity

This is how Websters dictionary defines the term pansexuality. This is a relatively new term and while this is true enough, I don't feel like this really encompasses what it means to be pansexual. The definition that to me really encompasses what it means is this one from urban dictionary:
one who's affections, romantic platonic or sexual, are potentially geared towards anyone regardless of sex or gender identity.

I don't like labels and definitions applied to people but if I'd have to pick one, that would for me the best one. I find sexuality especially to be such a personal thing that no one should try to impose another label upon for you.
This was something I personally struggled a lot with in high school because even just three or four years ago the term pansexual didn't exist. You were straight, gay, or bi, and those were essentially your only options. I never really identified with any of them. I was raised in a home where I never really had gender imposed on me; if there was a toy I wanted, regardless of whether it was a girls or boys toys, I would get it. I was raised to accept everyone for who they were, not based on their appearance, so being raised like that, it had carried over into my sexuality. I felt like bisexual never really encompassed who I felt I was. But everyone is so obsessed with labels in high school so I had to be something. I also at the time didn't know who to articulate that I didn't care what you were packing in your pants, it had more to do with who someone was, what their personality was. I couldn't articulate this definition for myself when I was fifteen.
I don't think it's really up to anyone else to define someone's sexuality for them, and I would much rather someone asked me about it than they assume something that's not true or partially true. Usually people of different persuasions are very open and willing to talk about things if you are genuinely interested. A little bit if respect goes a long way. 

Advertisements Effecting Society

I left speaker Jean Kilbourne's presentation on Thursday satisfied with the topics she went through with such convincing language and relaxing voice. It had me questioning all the advertisements around me that I don't often notice and wonder if they've had any sort of influence on me. For example, I went back on an old SPIN magazine for music, and looked at the ads I had once viewed at the end of each issue. I saw many ads for American Spirit Cigarettes, that casually states it natural additives and declaring it a 100% addictive free tobacco. Unsurprisingly, not too long after I had realized I purchased multiple packs of American Spirit's with no regard to the advertisement but the whole all natural" image the ad made the cigarette out to be stuck in the back of my mind. There was really so much the ad was not covering, but they did a sufficient job getting it's point across that this was one cool brand of cigarette, a "quality"choice for one who wants to try something different. 

Jean Kilbourne spoke of the subliminal impact ads have on society and how big business regulates such things to broaden the market and seek out new potential, young buyers of their product, regardless of what the message might contain. Like, Virginia "slims" to reach out to the females who may be self conscience of their weight, and would care to replace meals with cigarettes. Many of these advertisements speak to you deep down without ever realizing it. This effects everyone, but especially women in society as they tend to be targeted in many alcohol and food advertisements that may suggest that they must look a certain way, and that by consuming their product can help them do so. Many women are sucked in to the phony ads that are out there, targeting almost anything, from their appearance and what accessories would make them seem "cooler". Advertisements could perhaps provoke very risky, unhealthy behavior and even disorders.

To expand a little on some of the topics Jean Kilbourne mentioned, a lot of these ads are subliminal, which tends to produce a discrete sensation that is intense enough to influence the mental process of behavior of the individual. Below happens to be an image of an advertisement for a flooring company with a lady holding a glass in her hand. Random, but if you turn your head, the image upside down appears to be a lady pleasing herself. This could attract people's eye for a number of different reasons.

“A wise girl kisses but doesn't love, listens but doesn't believe, and leaves before she is left.” ― Marilyn Monroe

Many of us, I think, were blown away by Jean Kilbourne, not only by her deep social understanding but also her polished diction, and effective speech. The woman did not stumble, did not apologize, did not falter, and did not need to resort to desperate tactics of argumentative speech to make a compelling presentation.
Part of her likability was linked to her treatment of the issues, which was fair and patient. We are all fairly aware of the dangers of subliminal messaging, and I was expecting nothing new, thinking I had heard it before. So she had her work cut out for her, expanding more on a subject many are familiar with already. Kilbourne's ideas were fresh, though, and carefully articulated. My favorite part was when she was speaking about the fairly new practice of objectifying men in advertising. "Certainly," she said "I do not want to see this happen to any person, man or woman." She pointed out that (and she is careful to say that it is not exactly a direct result, but an indirect one) the objectification of women is a catalyst for the social culture that demeans, silences, degrades, and abuses women.
So is the objectification of men going to have the same result? I suspect not, but stereotypes about men, or men as sexual objects, I personally believe can be just as devastating, on the level of the individual and also in a broader context.
When a woman is treated like an object, when she is reduced to her body parts, when her "silly" feelings and desire for respect are trivialized, it is heartbreaking, but that woman is allowed to defend herself. It is socially acceptable for a woman to to speak out against her abusers, and to say to those who degrade her: "You have hurt me. You have hurt my feelings, my heart, my soul. You have affected me, and my mental state." At least nowadays, I think, it is fairly safe for American women to do this in many situations.
However, when this happens to a man, the same reaction is not socially acceptable. Today, there is a belief among women that men see any sex as acceptable sex. This is perpetrated by the media, by movies, even literature. They believe that men do not naturally make connections between the physical act of sex and feelings of commitment, or love. The long history of women being emotionally vulnerable and easily hurt from men that treat sex as casually as a handshake, has left many women confused, anxious, tortured, and eventually, numb. These women go on to assume that every man is this way, and that it is simply the way of all men to treat love as a game, an act of conquest. They go on to do the same thing to men, loving and leaving them, in so many words. The problem is that men do have feelings-- men can fall in love, and when they do, and they realize that many girls have been hurt to much before by cruel males to trust another one or are too wary to agree to any commitment, they lose hope. They give up on women, just as women give up on men.
And when a guy loves a girl, and the girl turns to him and says "What are you talking about? I thought it meant nothing to you? I thought it meant nothing to all guys," that man is not allowed to protest, or demand sensitivity on her part. That man risks his masculinity and the respect of his male friends if he expresses a need for love and respect. I think that it is very sad, many men probably go their whole lives without ever meeting someone that respected them or their bodies, because girls by the age of fourteen are taught to believe that men cannot love like women.
 In health class, girls are taught to protect themselves and boys are taught that girls resist and not to pressure them. They are already being pressured to assume the role of the passive, yielding, protective female and the invading, penetrating, territorial male.
I do not mean to shift our discussion of women to a discussion about men so fast, but after the convocation, all these things came to mind, and I wondered if anyone else sees it this way. I could be wrong.

Spreading the Message

As I read our class blog many students have chosen the topic of midwifes, so I can’t help but jump on this interesting topic myself.  When reading, Exorcising the Midwives prior to class, I was disgusted in how they regarded the occupational position of a midwife. They described how a midwife is mainly used for the “rural poor and the immigrant working class in the cities” (page 77) and even used words such as dirty and incompetent. Being frustrated with this article was an understatement.  Not only does this put a bad name on this occupation but this also just puts more constrains on women in the workplace. By saying the women in the field of midwifery are incompetent we are once again turning the authority and power over to men who typically work in the hospital settings.

If the article was not enough already, after watching the documentary in class, The Business of Being Born, my eyes were even more open to the oppression of women. By seeing all of the complications that are needed to go into a “normal” hospital birth you can only wonder why so many Americans still go through with hospital births each year. I took all of my curiosity and newly found knowledge to discuss the subject of birth with my mother. I knew both of my mom’s births were in the hospitals but I was curious to her feelings on the hospital setting.  Being the biggest over thinker and over planner, my mother said she wanted things to be organized and run smoothly and she felt like she needed the hospital setting for support of her worries. My mother did stress the importance of the natural births that she had. She said it was the only way she ever considered giving birth.

By taking information from The Business of Being Born video and my mother’s personal experiences, my opinion on childbirth have changed. In my opinion I feel as if many people are unaware of midwifes and what they can do for their expecting mothers. It is important to share this information to get the message out.

-Bridget

Depo Privera cancer causing?

I just wanted to comment on (pg 104) "Depo-privera...caused cancer in test animals". I looked up some facts about the "new" Depo-provera shot that most females have been given as an option for birth control. Basically the website says that "Depo-subQ Provera 104 contains 31 percent less hormone than the original Depo shot (104 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate). Because it has a lower dose of progestin, it may lead to fewer progestin-related side effects" (about.com). It also warns about bone loss stating on the box ""Women who use Depo Provera may lose significant bone mineral density (BMD)." BMD measures how much calcium is stored in the bones. Using this method over time can result in a calcium loss, but calcium starts to return once this method is stopped."
 It seems strange to me though that no one ever mentions that it caused cancer in test animals. In our article Reproductive Rights that was listed as the reason they stopped using it on the Relf sisters. This was never something mentioned to me by my doctor. However after doing some research I found that it does increase the risk of cancer, specifically breast cancer. Lifenews.com states that "A new study of women using the Depo Provera birth control drug finds the risk of breast cancer is increased, according to information released today from the on Abortion/Breast Cancer.
The group notes a study of 1,028 women ages 20-44 in the April 15, 2012 issue of Cancer Research found that recent users of Depo Provera (DMPA)  for 12 months or more had a statistically significant 2.2-fold increased risk of developing invasive breast cancer."  I thought it was interesting and just wanted to share.

The Business of Being Born  has me wondering about the meanings of motherhood, nature vs. culture, science, and the Hippocratic Oath. Has there always been this much tension between mothers and doctors? I have heard of the guilt trip every mother that chooses a milk machine has to go through. Personally, I doubt that the benefits are worth the heartache the arguments cause Mothers that do not breastfeed, but I am pretty glad I was breastfed myself. When it comes to health concerns, it seems there is so much contradictory schools of thought out there. First chocolate is good for you, then it's bad; have a glass of red wine every night for your heart, but then you're an alcoholic; a single cigarette harms the baby, but quitting will cause them stress too. I was told sheep's dung was a presumed cure for smallpox only a couple hundred years ago.

This article is another example of good intentions gone awry when it comes to prenatal care:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19443910
 Who knows what medicines we take daily now that will prove harmful in a few decades. But aren't many mothers doctors themselves, and therefore the definition of informed consent?

Language, agency, and access to information proves to be at the core of these issues when it comes to women, once again. As Frank Dikotter, author of "Race Culture" in our textbooks, says: Eugenics was not so much a clear set of scientific principles as a 'modern' way of talking about social problems in biologizing terms... Eugenics gave scientific authority to social fears and moral panics". Having limited access to information, not getting the whole story, being unable to interpret the language of the medical profession, or being unable to articulate your own wants and needs (common problems for women trained in passivity) makes for a lot of junk science going around, and problems down the line. However, believing in spirits or a pseudoscience can probably be just as harmful as seeing the body as a machine, comprised of mechanisms, gears, good and bad bacteria, and not a temple for the soul. After years and years of grueling study of the human body, most doctors prefer to simply think of the body as meat and organized bone. There's only so many babies you can birth before it just becomes muscle memory, 99% common sense, right?

Though, doctors for the most part, we must remember, are drawn to the profession out of the desire to help people.

Breast Feeding in the classroom by Kate Rapp

I was planning on doing my blog about The Business of Being Born, and how when I first watched it I wanted to show my boyfriend, my friends and family the movie because it's so amazing. But then I read the article about the professor who breast feed during class. I became really angry about the situation because honestly who has the right to tell someone not to feed their child- in ANY situation. So I did my research and found that it is legal for any mother to breastfeed in private and in the public and 45 states including New York and Washington (where American University is). "New York created a Breastfeeding Mothers Bill of Rights, which is required to be posted in maternal health care facilities. New York also created a law that allows a child under one year of age to accompany the mother to a correctional facility if the mother is breastfeeding at the time she is committed" (http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/breastfeeding-state-laws.aspx). But also employers that have more than 50 employees have to provide reasonable break times and places (other then the bathroom) to either express milk or to breastfeed a child. So that makes me wonder if the college did provide these services? But even if they have, it is still legal for a mother to do this, so why was it ever an issue? It also disgusts me that someone would have a problem with a mother feeding her child, it's the equivalence of any other child asking a mother for food and that mother completely disregarding/ignoring her child. Along with that I hate that people sexualize breastfeeding- it's not like a woman wants to take out her breast and show it to the public, it just so happens that's where it comes out. If breast milk came out of your nose no one would have a problem with "nose-feeding" in public. A woman shouldn't be punished for nourishing and providing for her child.

Breast-Feeding Professor Causes Controversy

Dear students,

 I have enjoyed reading many of your reactions to The Business of Being Born.

Since we have been discussing childbirth in class I thought some of you may be interested in the following story, which received a lot of recent media attention.  Adrienne Pine, professor from American University, caused controversy when she breastfed her sick infant during her class, which incidentally is titled "Sex, Gender, & Culture."

You can read more about the story here.

Many spoke out stating that her actions were inappropriate.  Is this another example of women's biological functions being deemed as pathological?  Why is breastfeeding seen as "terrifying" and "inappropriate"?  What might the reaction be if a male professor brought his sick infant to class?  Would he be told that he should have taken sick leave?  What do you think?

Jeff

Midwifery as status symbol

The article "Exorcising the Midwives" explains that in the past, midwives were used by mothers of a low social standing.  "It was the 'lower' half of society which clung to the midwife and her services: the rural poor and the immigrant working class in the cities" (Ehrenreich and English).  Having a midwife showed that one did not have enough money to pay a doctor when he or she was needed.  The midwife, along with the poor, were considered "dirty."  That is why midwifery was continued to be looked down upon by the upper and middle class.

Until now, that is.  In 2012, midwifery is a symbol of high social standing.  I found an article from the New York Times online titled "Midwife Becomes a Status Symbol."  Midwifery has always been a symbol for some social ranking, but the tables have definitely turned.  The article explains how three wealthy women chose to be assisted through their pregnancies by midwives.  It says that midwives are becoming "trendy."  The founder of Midwifery of Manhattan claims that they have to turn a lot of women down who want to have midwives.  Midwives spend so much time caring for a mother and her baby, that they become limited.  Midwives are now medically trained and licensed, and becoming more trusted by mothers.

It is crazy to me how people's perceptions of concepts like midwifery can change so drastically.  If you think about it, it's pretty hypocritical, but also interesting and exciting that midwives are finally getting a chance to strive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/fashion/the-midwife-becomes-a-status-symbol-for-the-hip.html