Recently in 3: Inventing Identities I (Sep 20/22/24) Category

I messed up last week's weeks post by jumping ahead, both by focusing on the wrong week's reading and by trying to stretch it a little far how I was trying to connect the documentary The Business of Being Born to the Martin article.

That being said, I hope this post makes more sense and that I convince you to check out this film. Most of it is loaded on youtube (which is nice because you can take it in piece-by-piece) or if you have Netflix it streams free online.

In the article Coming to Understand: Orgasm and the Epistemology of Ignorance, Nancy Tuana uses the historical narrative of the scientific and societal discourse of women's bodies and sexuality to demonstrate how ignorance is systematically upheld. That is, the way in which we have come to understand the female body has to be understood as being inseparable from power structures that have an interest (whether conscious or not) in proving what they already believe to be true.

In watching the clip, consider Tuana's words:

"Ignorance is frequently constructed and actively preserved, and is linked to issues of cognitive authority, doubt, trust, silencing, and uncertainty" (195)

And also quoting Eve Sedgwik,

"Ignorance effects can be harnessed, licensed, and regulated on a mass scale for striking enforcements" (195).

Is it reasonable to assume that it's possible that decisions might be made for economic gain and status and that greed and competition unjustly influence some (not all) information and understanding? How have we as a society come to view birth and reproductive health? Is there an interest (again, conscious or not) in keeping women ignorant of their options giving birth?

Our class discussions about PMS and menopause have, oddly enough, coincided very closely with one of my other classes, Life Cycle Nutrition (I'm a dietetics major). With talks of increasing one's iron stores floating through my head as I scanned today's entries, I had an idea I think worth sharing: the medical community seems to divide women's lives into phases based on whether or not they can give birth, while men (who claim their fertility until the day they die) are just seen as simply, holistically that--men.

Indeed, one can argue it may be necessary to view human beings as little more than coordinated systems of flesh and blood from time-to-time, but I think the scientific community may be taking it too far. Once a boy becomes a young, strapping lad, what was once a light burden to begin with no longer exists; he now possesses the ability to reproduce, and that is that. For a span of roughly thirty years though, it seems (and by all means, correct me if you feel I am wrong), an unspoken pressure is placed on women to reproduce. Men have every right to "play the field," but if a woman doesn't have a due date to share at family get-togethers before she even really hits her stride in light (has anyone seen "Bridget Jones"?) she is looked down upon. The phrase "biological clock" also comes to mind.

Women have a choice whether or not they want to have children, and perhaps the medical community's tendency to place them in either pre-, eu- or post- is its way of coping with that. A good question to throw out there would be: by placing women into these different stages, are we indirectly pressuring them to reproduce? Also, is the linear biological model (we're born, spread our genes 'n' die) the best way to view women, men or any form of life?

While browsing one of my favorite internet sites one day a few weeks ago, I came across something a little strange, it was a link to a "Wall of Vaginas". Curious, I followed the link...

This sculpture seemed a perfect fit for my Blog Pop post for a few reasons. First, I found it a little unsettling that I thought of the sculpture as provocative. Although sculptures of vaginas are not really a part of my daily life (and probably not many other people's, either) why should it be shocking to see an explicit portrayal of a vagina? I think this question can in part be tied to Nancy Tuana's article Coming to Understand: Orgasm and the Epistemology of Ignorance. Although our society is bombarded with sexual images in media, the most blatant references are to the male phallus and the vagina is still a slightly more taboo subject. As Tuana elaborates, the vagina and other parts of female genitalia aren't even given proper detail and importance in science and medical contexts. Because of this constantly reinforced ignorance surrounding the female body and the vagina, women are not encouraged to be completely comfortable with certain parts of our bodies. Looking at this sculpture, I still have a little tinge of discomfort or the urge to turn away. I hope that can change, not because I want to be staring at vaginas all day, but because I don't want to have negative ideologies surrounding female anatomy affecting how I perceive my own body or those of other women. I think it would be interesting to find out how other people react to this sculpture and if they feel that our class readings help to understand some of what that reaction is about.

Another interesting aspect of this sculpture is that its sculptor is male. Jamie McCartney does all kinds of sculpture work, mainly body molds. I can't quite decide if I feel this work is problematic because of the specific ignorances surrounding vaginas that work to the detriment of women. Does anyone think that this could be an appropriation of an already tenuous subject matter that is more easily accessible to the sculptor because of his gender?

It is commonly thought that menopause marks the end of womanhood or that womanliness dies during that fateful period of time. Is menopause still a shame in the eyes of today's society? Despite the advances in science and culture, menopause is viewed as a uterine-laden, character flaw, and this perspective gives rise to many shameful myths. A term such as, "the change of life", removes women from humanity itself, making females into useless beasts. Negative connotations tied to decreased libido, estrogen, and mood swings make middle-aged women out to be a burden that must be dismissed. It's as if a functioning uterus is the only redeemable quality in a woman.

For example: I had a hysterectomy at age 27 due to complicated circumstances, and I am often asked by both men and women about when I am going to bear a child. I usually reply, "I can't have kids, because I had a hysterectomy". They reply, "That's a shame". Then, I receive the standard barrage of menopausal questions like: "What did you do?" "What happened to your sex drive?" "Do you get mood swings?" "Do you get hot flashes?" "Do you feel like a woman still?" Now, these questions may seem audacious to a progressive mind, but they are alive and well. And for this, I believe that society still features menopause as a death sentence.

In class earlier this week we talked a lot about Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English's very informative article about "The Sexual Politics of Sickness". They discussed the large class differences that were seen in the early 20th century and how all women were seen as "sick" just in different ways. Upper class women were "inherently sick" and very delicate, while working class women were "robust" and "inherently healthy". In reality they were exactly opposite of these descriptions but still it was a common belief to see women this way. They also talked about how menstruation was "regarded as pathological throughout a woman's life." As I read the article I couldn't help thinking about the below clip from Saturday Night Live that features a fake commercial.

Now I know it's a fake product and the reactions and everything are fake, but I think this clip tells us a lot about how society still has traces of those same beliefs from the early 20th century. Just the fact that we see this as funny shows how these ideas of women being inherently sick are still around today. We must have had some inkling of how women can be drastically affected by their periods to even know what was going on in this skit. Men especially have this view that women are different people and are not to be bothered during their periods. Maybe its because they know so little about menstruation, but maybe they feel that we do have sick tendencies. I do admit that some girls use this to their advantage though. They say they have cramps so they can get out of work or school, or blame their periods for their emotions or outbursts. So is there some truth to our inherent "sickness"? Are there still common beliefs today about our "pathological" menstruation? Do we still depend on the medical system for social reasons instead of biological needs?