The Business of Being Born

I think that I am pretty highly susceptible to movies like this because right after I saw this documentary I was pretty convinced that if I ever had children, I was definitely going to want a home birth with a midwife instead of going to the hospital. I told my friends this and they were not as convinced. They were still pretty sure that if they ever had children they would go to a hospital. Which is fine, to each their own, but their largest reason was "what if something happens?"

And I think that the point of the documentary is that like 98% of the time, for those who choose midwives and are healthy, nothing will happen (that is not a real statistic, there is a real statistic in the movie that I can't remember, so don't quote me on that). Okay just got a stat  from the American Pregnancy Association: 60-80% of pregnancies are low risk and in these pregnancies there is no advantage to going to a hospital over having a midwife. We have come to an age where women have been convinced that something bad will happen to them during birth; so they go to hospitals, listen to doctors, and are partially removed from making their own choices regarding their own birth. 

It's interesting. When the documentary began and it started by telling the audience that hospitals are all a business to make money, I was pretty skeptical (partially due to the fact that for a period of my life I wanted to be a doctor and I currently have like 4 or 5 friends who are going to med school). But it all makes sense. Ambulance rides are expensive, the ER is expensive, everything is expensive. Granted this high expense is partially due to the high risks and expense of being a doctor (who have to have like the highest malpractice insurance fees), but it partially seems ridiculous. 

Back to birthing babies though. When women go to hospitals they have their autonomy removed regarding their body when it really isn't necessary and that bugs me. I guess that is largely the message I got pertaining to the documentary. Ugh, maybe I just won't ever have kids.

Our Bodies, Our Crimes

Once during eighth grade I was hanging out with two of my friends and the topic of abortion came about. I remember saying quite frankly that if I ever became pregnant as a teenager, I wouldn't hesitate to seek an abortion. The two friends I was hanging out with seemed shocked and their responses surprised me as much as my statement surprised them. They talked a little bit about God and church and fetuses being babies, but I held my stance.

Suffice to say, I have never quite understood why abortion has always caused such a fuss. But then again, I have gone so far to say that I am not just pro-choice, I am pro-abortion. And after reading Our Bodies, Our  Crimes I stick by that statement more than ever. The auther, Jeanne Flavin, talks about how by labeling the argument for the right to abortion as pro-choice we assume so many things. We assume that women are in a financial situation where they can abort, we assume that the barriers to abortion do not exist for every woman. I personally have never liked the phrasing "pro-choice" because it seems to imply that there is an agreement with the "pro-life" side that abortion is still a taboo topic and a last choice option. I like pro-abortion because I believe that every woman should have the right to have an abortion with no obstacles like money or invasive ultrasounds or fetal heartbeats standing in their way. I also want to make it clear right now that I also support women who do not choose to have an abortion as well. 

I also like how Jeanne Flavin discussed how the argument for abortion often makes women seem powerless as well. Currently, a lot of talk about abortion is that there should be exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger. Right now, I am all for these arguments if they prevent states from enacting laws that could outright ban abortion using very specific concepts, but overall the argument is flawed. As Flavin points out, women are seen as powerless victims or sexual harlots. There is no in between. By framing the case for abortion in terms of just taking action for victims, it draws back to the idea that women are powerless. And I think creating that implication is what stunts the argument. We can't argue for something that should be empowering for women while at the same time framing it in terms that cause women to be victims.

Another conversation I had with a different friend, this time during my senior year of college:

Me: I would totally carry on an illicit Republican affair with Paul Ryan.

Friend: But what if you got pregnant? You're baby would be half Republican.

Me: Are you kidding? I'd abort that shit.

Friend: I am going to make you a shirt that says that. "I'd abort that."

I don't suppose I am ever terribly politically correct. But I like the shift in the tone of my conversations. I can't imagine speaking to my friends during high school and them having the same reaction. I am actually that kind of joke would have gotten me ostracized from certain social circles, well that joke and my casual attitude towards abortion. But abortion will never be a basic right for all women until we can talk about it casually: remove the stigma and its taboo status. 

And I don't think the US currently recognizes that by increasing access to abortions we have less teen mothers, fewer mothers that are forced to raise children in impoverished conditions, we stop condemning female sexuality. Flavin discusses neonaticide and a significant contributer to neonaticide: a climate of moral conservatism. If women, particularly teenagers, did not feel so condemned by society for having sex, perhaps they would see out contraceptives, perhaps they would tell their parents that they were pregnant, perhaps they wouldn't deny their pregnancies. But we don't live in that society. We live in a society where abstinence only sex education is promoted (and I know first hand what abstinence only education was like), I mean, condoms weren't really talked about in my high school. I didn't even receive a proper education on how to use a condom until college (and there are a lot of ways to break a condom that I am sure that some of my classmates in high school would have liked to know how to avoid and save themselves some stress). 

A third conversation with a different friend from college, a friend who labels herself as "pro-life":

Her: Every time I have sex I am afraid that I got pregnant until my period comes. And I swear it is always late after I have sex.

Me: I don't have those worries. If I get pregnant I am just going to take a trip to Planned Parenthood.

Her: I know that and I respect your choice to do that. 

What she doesn't realize is that her last statement makes her basically pro-choice. Although she herself would not get an abortion, she respects my hypothetical decision to get one. And the conversation on abortion ended with that. She did not try to change my opinion, she just respected that. And that makes her pro-choice.

Abortion is a topic that I always will get in fights about. It just makes me angry. It makes me angry that Roe v. Wade was passed 40 years ago and state lawmakers are still trying to find ways to ban abortion. It makes me angry that it is 2013 and we are still fighting for basic women's rights. I don't really know that I will ever not be angry. At least not until I have the same access to abortion as a cis-gender man does to his Viagra.

Jason Collins, Masculinity, and Sports

I always liked playing softball. I played every summer recreationally from when I was a kid living in Arizona through high school. When I played in my high school summers, it was probably the only place where it was normal not to wear makeup or jewelry. Makeup will just sweat off and jewelry (like earrings) could be caught or ripped off. Playing softball was probably the only time that I fit in because I don't wear makeup or jewelry.

I lead off with softball because we talked in class about gender in sports. Specifically the masculinity that partaking in sport imbues on its players. Sports is one of the few areas that I can think of where men can interact closely without the "gay" label placed upon them because of the perceived inherent masculinity of sports. This masculinity applies to not only men but women as well. And that's the reason why it isn't a big deal when women come out in sports.

When women come out in sports, it isn't unexpected. On the other hand, Jason Collins's coming out story will probably be the biggest sports news of the year. Of course, a part of this is due to the importance that the United States places on the Big 4 male sports (baseball, football, hockey, and basketball) because many others in different sports have come out over the years (here is even a top 10 list of those who came out last year) some during their tenures as professional athletes and a lot from after their retirements. But also, because being gay somehow clashes with the ideal of masculinity that is inherent in sports. This article gives a good breakdown of these ideals. This isn't to demean Collins's coming out or make it any less of a big deal, because it is a big deal. And I think that whenever a famous person comes out it will continue to be a big deal for a long time.

The inherent idea that to play sports you have to be hegemonically masculine is problematic. It prevents both men and women in sports from coming out. For men they are going to have to fight harder and play more aggressively to be seen as equally as masculine and capable as their heterosexual teammates and for women they have to fight to maintain an image of femininity.