The Business of Being Born

While I got a little queasy at times, I though the Business of Being Born was very interesting and eye-opening. The most shocking statistic for me was the one about how the rate of Cesarean sections for women has increased so dramatically as of late, and how the prevalence of C-sections increases around 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. This suggests that doctors are performing them so that it will be quicker for them, with no regard for the baby or the mother.

For me, this doesn’t change my preference for a sterile, clean hospital environment with the latest technology as an environment for my child to be born into. However, it does underscore the importance of having a doctor that you can trust and that you are sure will respond to your wishes. This reminded me of the scene in Knocked Up where Katherine Heigle’s doctor is out of town, and the doctor who fills in doesn’t want to perform a natural birth as she requests.

I really appreciated how the movie was very balanced on how it presented different views of the best way to give birth. They included accounts from a variety of doctors, midwives, and other experts that all had different opinions and input on the birthing process. I also like the way the producer followed around a couple who were deciding how to have their child. This humanized all the facts and figures that they threw at you, and helps the audience to see that the people who choose alternative birthing practices aren’t crazy, uneducated hippies.

Our Bodies, Our Crimes: Bad Mothers

I had mixed feelings about the "Bad Mothers" chapter of Our Bodies, Our Crimes. On the one hand, I think Flavin makes several good points about how a woman's substance abuse or past mistakes should not automatically make her ineligible for parenting. I had never thought before about what it would be like to have the right to parent your child completely stripped away, and cannot imagine the pain this would cause a mother.

However, I think the way that Flavin portrays social workers, government agencies and foster families as the "bad guys" who are trying to strip away incarcerated mothers' rights to their children is wrong. As one woman she quotes says, "Don't go throwing words around like 'partnership'. Because no one who has the power to take away my child is my partner." (Flavin 156).

Though I'm sure there has been several cases where the rights to their children have been stripped from mothers unjustly, and foster families have not taken care of children of incarcerated mothers as well as they should have, it is unfair to portray these people as simply wanting to take children away at all costs. Foster parents and social workers make many sacrifices and receive extremely low compensation for putting the rights of these children first.

While Flavin makes many references to the rights of women being breached, she makes little reference to the rights of the children in question- such as the rights to a permanent and stable home and adequate care. While there may be instances where permanency should be sacrificed for reunification, as Flavin suggests in the end of the chapter, often it is difficult for incarcerated women to secure things like housing after release.

Flavin also fails to bring up the rights of the child when it comes to visitation rights of the mother in prison. Children who are old enough should have the right to discern for themselves whether or not they want to visit their mothers in prison. In some cases, the lack of reunification or keeping in touch with their mother while she is incarcerated, especially in cases of neglect or abuse by the mother, may end up being beneficial for the child in the long run.

Michael Dixon and Mizzou Rape Culture

Though we haven't done much discussion in this class on gender and how it directly relates to the pervasive rape culture of our school (and our country), I thought it would be timely to do a post on the recent events and buzz surrounding Michael Dixon.

As everyone at Mizzou now knows, Dixon was named in two separate rape allegations in the past week. Nearly everyone I've spoken with about it is either confused or misinformed about what happened, what it means, and perhaps most importantly, what actually constitutes rape.

The Maneater recently published an editorial  addressing many of the arguments that "Dixon supporters" have been using- and shockingly, there are quite a few. The hashtag #FreeMikeDixon has been all over Twitter. The editorial brings up several great points- that reporting rape in this culture that we have created is almost more trouble than it's worth, and inflicts even more pain on the survivor.

It's important to look at the gender constructs that have created this culture... where did it come from? At the very heart of the matter, I believe that most people as humans believe that rape is wrong... so where did these shades of grey and victim blaming come into play? How did we, as gendered and sexualized human beings, get to this point?

Several of our readings have touched on this point, and how we can prevent and hopefully reverse it. Jeanne Flavin suggests that we need to get rid of the "patriarchal structure"and blames it for the unequal and anti-woman culture that we live in. This may be the case... but what steps can we take today to begin reversing this structure? I believe it will take the large amount of men and women who are sick of the horrifyingly frequent sexual assaults and rape on our campus to begin the movement and truly unify us as One Mizzou.