Friday, March 31, 2017

The Politics of Sex

Tom Ranocchia
Media 384
Prof. Caçoilo
3/31/2017


Watching so many women come together for January’s Women’s March was a great precursor for this course. Seeing the determination and passion shown by the women paved the way for me to understand issues such as reproductive and sexual rights from a new perspective and to have greater awareness of the true fear that government policies with regard to these issues can generate. Like many young people who have grown up in the post Roe v. Wade era, I have taken much for granted.

Among other things, until several weeks ago I was unaware of

-       just how expensive birth control can be for women
-       how numerous and how dangerous the side effects of birth control can be
-       how many states – in 2017! - impose complicated, invasive and unnecessary procedures and other restrictions on women seeking abortions

And I was most definitely uninformed regarding the horrific practice in the US of sterilizing women of color without their permission or knowledge.  As Jennifer Nelson points out, “coerced fertility control was racist and abusive” (Nelson 4) and it is unsurprising that women of color would have a different outlook on the issue of reproductive rights. While mainstream and white feminists focused their attention on abortion rights and freedom to choose options such as sterilization, women of color have been compelled to look beyond this at the wider issues of state support for contraceptives and economic support so that poverty is not a barrier to reproduction (Nelson 18).



While women are not monolithic in their views, they have clearly been united by current political events, including the election of Donald Trump, which have increased anxiety that the fundamental rights of women are at risk. Roxanne Gay expresses the fear of many women that, in the hands of mostly male politicians (and particularly at a time when Republicans control the executive and legislative branches, not to mention control 32 state legislatures and 33 governorships), women’s rights are indeed alienable. As such, they can be demonized by politicians cynically attempting to distract people from the much more dangerous issues facing our society today, and they can be stripped away (Gay 268).

At the federal level, Republicans in the Senate are trying to confirm a Trump nominee, Neil Gorsuch, for the Supreme Court as part of a long-term strategy to make the court more conservative and more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade at some point in the future. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are attempting (not with any success thus far!) to repeal or water down the Affordable Care Act, putting millions of women in the situation where they could lose their health insurance and their access to affordable contraception and health care. Among the provisions of the legislation being proposed is to cut off Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood – essentially defunding it - for any services including contraception, cancer screenings and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.  (Note that reimbursement for abortion is already excluded from payments going to Planned Parenthood.) The GOP would say that, although the federal government does not fund abortions specifically, providing Planned Parenthood with over 40% of its income each year means that it does in effect subsidize abortions.  The legislation proposed by Paul Ryan would encourage women to use Federal Health Community Centers that provide, other than abortion, the same services as Planned Parenthood. The goal, therefore, is to limit access to abortion and to deny the right of pregnant women to choose abortion.  In defunding Planned Parenthood, the government would remove an option that has historically been an important, safe space for women of all backgrounds to deal with their private health issues, and this would represent a misogynistic “slap in the face” to all women.  It should be noted that a Kaiser poll indicated that an overwhelming 75% of people do not want to see Planned Parenthood deprived of resources for the non-abortion services it provides. Interestingly, this includes majorities of both Republican women and men. http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-aca-replacement-plans-womens-health/

At the state level, where Republicans dominate public offices, there are “creeping” restrictions on abortion introduced routinely.  As Roxanne Gay writes, “waiting periods, counseling, ultrasounds, transvaginal ultrasounds, sonogram storytelling - all of these legislative moves are invasive, insulting, and condescending because they are deeply misguided attempts to pressure women into changing their minds… as if women are so easily swayed that such petty and cruel stall tactics will work” (Gay 272). Clearly the implied message of these abortion restrictions is that women are inadequate to the task of making decisions regarding their own bodies.

In Texas last week a senate bill passed which bans “dilation and evacuation” abortions, the most common and the safest second-trimester procedure (Texas Tribune). The passage of the bill will require women to undergo additional medical procedures. The reaction of reproductive rights activist Amanda Allen speaks for all women in saying that lawmakers “need to abandon their crusade against women’s dignity and focus on measures that actually improve the lives and health of women and their families.” https://www.texastribune.org/2017/03/20/texas-senate-wrongful-births-dismemberment-ban-legislation/

 While the issue of abortion - which brings forth debate over science, religion and human rights - is clearly controversial, it is more surprising that in 2017 women need to be fearful of losing access to contraception and health and welfare programs designed to assist them in having and rearing children if they desire. Surely those who are oppose abortion so strongly would be in favor of funding these alternatives? Yet, Gay discusses the problems faced by women wanting to avail “themselves of birth control with the privacy and dignity and affordability that should also be inalienable” (Gay 274).

In an article on restrictions on birth control, Tanya Steele examines just what lies behind the desire of men to prevent women from accessing contraception and she finds that the answer lies in the fact that sexuality belongs to men and that they want to maintain the status quo and keep it this way. Steele notes that birth control gives women the opportunity to “understand our sexuality without life-altering consequences” and that it does so within a culture that is dedicated to male sexuality. She says that “the desire to restrict birth control is, at its heart, the desire to stop women from sleeping around” (Steele). She goes on to say that men are not interested in the desire of women to experience their own sexuality and that birth control levels the playing field for women, so is not an issue that men relate to. As with many things, rescinding access to birth control has greatest impact on those who are financially marginalized and who, by virtue of their greater need for connection, will by necessity take more risks.  Steele would like to see greater rallying for access to birth control as a means to sexual exploration.  Her view is consistent with that of Beauvoir who felt that “the female body ought to be the situation and instrumentality of women’s freedom, not a defining and limiting essence” (Butler 16). She suggests that with a more gender-balanced view of sexuality (which would flow through to media and culture), we would see fewer unintended pregnancies and failed marriages.

Steele uses the case of Hobby Lobby, a company that won a Supreme Court ruling allowing it not to provide contraceptive coverage as mandated by the Affordable Care Act for religious reasons, as an example of the restrictions that women are facing.

Steele also looks at the media, which she sees as having reinforced notions of the centrality of male sexuality over the years. She does note that television shows such as Orange is the New Black are placing an emphasis on female pleasure, and calls on vanguard content creators to reinvent the idea of sexual representation. I believe that her calls are being heeded as current television programming, which is at the forefront of progress, takes women’s sexuality and desire into account more and more frequently. Programs such as Transparent, Masters of Sex and Outlander would be examples of this. See also this article from New Republic magazine: https://newrepublic.com/article/120667/television-2014-figured-out-what-sex-women


Steele is correct when she says that birth control levels the playing field for women and gives them much greater opportunity to explore their sexuality. The same applies to legal abortion, which offers women much greater scope for taking charge of their own lives. There can be no doubt that unrestricted reproductive rights have a serious impact on male control and male self-perception, as does seeing women so unified and determined to hold their ground and push for greater change. While I consider that the most recent election was decided on many factors, the significant and lasting change that would be brought by a progressive female president certainly must have played a part in the thinking of all voters.

Works Cited

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, 1989.

Gay, Roxanne. Bad Feminist: Essays. HarperCollins, 2014.

Nelson, Jennifer. Women of Color and the Reproductive Rights Movement. NYU Press, 2003.

Steele, Tanya. “Hobby Lobby, and a Woman’s Right to Sexual Exploration.” Rewire. 10 July 2014. Web. 20 Mar. 2017.









No comments:

Post a Comment