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