Response to “Combahee River Collective Statement”

In “The Combahee River Collective Statement,” the women of the Combahee River Collective explain black feminism, the tenets of the group, the problems of organizing black feminists, and what issues the organization will focus on. The writer begins with a statement derived from Angela Davis’ work, that “Black women have always embodied, if only in their physical manifestation, an adversary stance to white male rule and have actively resisted its inroads upon them and their communities in both dramatic and subtle ways” (1). The writer recognizes the contributions of countless women who came before and made sacrifices for black feminism. Although many black women had been resisting oppression for generations, the first official black feminist group, the National Black Feminist Organization (NBFO), was formed in New York in 1973. This group grew out of its founders’ realizations that black women needed a collective voice that was both anti-sexist, unlike groups formed by black and white men, and anti-racist, unlike groups formed by white women. The writer states that coming to this group is a “political realization that comes from the seemingly personal experiences of individual Black women’s lives,” which I found to be an interesting realization of power.

The writer describes women who had previously felt “crazy” because of the combined oppression and lack of resonance in established movements, until they came to the black feminist movement. I found this interesting—it is easy for one to feel “insane” when it seems that no one recognizes their struggle, when their struggle stems and grows from multiple sources, yet they are not given a public forum in which to express their experience. In that way, I feel that coming to the black feminist movement must be affirming. One’s struggle is finally recognized for the unique experience that it is, and it becomes not a source of solitary sadness, but a source of shared power. This is further supported by the author’s statement that the Collective considers Black women to have inherent value for which it is worth fighting for liberation, separate from simply gender or race. The writer states that the Collective’s “politics evolve from a healthy love for ourselves” (2), a sentiment which must also serve to affirm and create a source of power for group members.

The Statement continues to address the economic structure—the Collective calls for “the destruction of the political-economic systems of capitalism and imperialism as well as patriarchy” (3), however, the writer believes that a socialist revolution must be specific to the needs of all oppressed peoples, otherwise, society will not improve. The writer also calls for an extension of Marx’s theory to address the specific economic situation of black women, as well as for an examination of the multifaceted experience of black women. I found the Collective to be extremely understanding of social dynamics, as seen in this statement: “We have a great deal of criticism and loathing for what men have been socialized to be in this society…but we do not have the misguided notion that it is their maleness, per se—i.e., their biological maleness—that makes them what they are.” The author addresses the “socialization” of men to adopt certain roles and oppress women—I feel that this stems from a complex understanding of social dynamics. The author is careful to separate biology from socialization, no doubt because the author is aware of the historical implications of biological determinism.

I found this reading, overall, to be very interesting and insightful into the organization and unique issues faced by black feminists. I only found two points that I would critique. The author states, “if Black women were free, it would mean that everyone else would have to be free since our freedom would necessitate the destruction of all the systems of oppression” (4). I cannot agree with this statement, because even though the Collective does call for radical, positive social change, this change would not necessarily free all oppressed peoples. The author doesn’t mention the disabled, undocumented, or incarcerated—who, while they would no doubt benefit from the destruction of capitalism and white patriarchy, I would not say that they would become entirely liberated, because each group faces an entirely unique set of challenges. Also, the author states, “the material conditions of most Black women would hardly lead them to upset both economic and sexual arrangements that seem to represent some stability in their lives” (5). While I agree with the author’s statement, I believe it can be extrapolated to most women who are poor, working class, or otherwise oppressed. This is most definitely an issue that has not been fully addressed by the mainstream, white, middle-class feminist movement.

My discussion questions for the class are, what do you think of the aims of the Collective, and of the challenges to organizing black feminists? Do you agree with the author’s statement that the freedom of black women would mean the destruction of all oppressive powers, and therefore, comprehensive liberation?

Rethinking Transphobia and Power- Beyond a Rights Framework

In this chapter of Normal Life, Spade defines power as a methods of overcoming discrimination and relates power to the functioning of society and as to why certain laws and policies are more effective than others. Using the framework of Michael Foucault, Spade identifies three modes of power relative to specific contexts including trans vulnerability and promotes reform through the definition of power. According to Spade, one must understand the idea of power in order to have a progressive society and combat discrimination (Spade 108).

The three modes of power are as follows:

1) Perpetrator/Victim Power: Exclusion and Subtraction

In this first category, power is seen as “violation requiring remediation” (Spade 102). In this instance, power functions as a form of “subtraction” because things such as property, health, etc are taken away from people because of the perpetrators themselves or their actions (Spade 103). However, this mode brings up lots of criticisms because it doesn’t seem to account for the inequality of the entire population. Foucault brings up the idea that power is just more than deduction, it is the ability to establish and enforce certain forces and make them stronger (Spade 103). Relating this back to trans, Spade asserts that certain bureaucracies give life chances and opportunities at the expense of others, but this is tolerable because it is under a legal standpoint that supposedly promote equality. In order for us to understands transphobia and other forms of discrimination, we must understand power.

2) Disciplinary Power: Norms of Good Behavior and Ways of Being

This mode of power constitutes how certain practices such as racism and transphobia formulate the “norms” within a society and how a person should act. These norms are enforced through laws and policy making strategies which in turn influence thinking and socialization of an individual. Through disciplinary power, individuals are taught as to what makes a person a “good” person and individuals acquire characteristics that are functional in society. This is also used to explain labeling and how people are labelled as certain types of people, based on their actions. For example, having labels such as gay, straight, and lesbian which seem to dictate a person, even though they just someone’s personal preference. According to Spade, these labels are what constitute the norms within a society and further enforced through the law and bureaucracies (Spade 106). Foucault also mentioned violence as a means of social control and formation of norms. Resistance to these concrete norms such as feminists, gay rights activists, etc promote alternative ways of being just as legitimate as a “standard norm” (Spade 108). Spade concludes this mode of power through criticism and states that law reform is ineffective in altering these established norms and it leaves these stigmatized standards prevalent.

3) Population-Management Power: The Distribution of Life Chances

This form of power is based on the idea of security and insecurity (Spade 110).Certain laws and policies are enacted that supposedly promote the well-being of the nation but according to Spade they just define the terms of normality and constitute who is is a normal person and who is a threat to society (Spade 110). Basic ideals such as social security, identity documentation, migration policies, property ownership, etc dictate social control and how a “normal” person is identified and how a possible “other” is seen. These concrete ideas are what set the framework for a “moral panic”, because the norm for a citizen is identified and anyone who defies that is seen as a threat which will cause moral uproar in society. This is specifically used in the cases of racialization of the law and how racial and gender exclusion is used as a method of targeting a certain group through legal operations. For example, reducing public assistance and welfare programs, as a way of targeting the black single mothers who “cheat” the system (Spade 112). The legality in this instance is just used as a means of expressing power, and controlling the population into what those who hold power want. Life chances are distributed to populations that display the ideal characteristics of those who have power (Spade 113). This method of power is used to explain the racial wealth divide, as life chances are offered to a small population of white people and the colored race is left with little opportunity for economic mobility, which leaves everyone in a limbo (Spade 114). Population control is one step above disciplinary power because it dictates what is normal for a whole population, rather than the individual. Population control is specifically seen in the cases of poor and colored populations as an exemplification of what is deemed as normal and what is seen as defying or challenging the system. Major criticisms of this model are the fact that this is not specific to the individual and it does not address how certain populations are disadvantaged because of these set laws and dictations.

Relating these methods of power to Trans 

Trans activists have studied how the formulation of disciplinary norms leaves trans people disadvantaged because it forces them to conform to certain gender standards and without that they are deficient in rights such as employment, social services, and medical needs. Spade also analyzes the trans issues in terms of population control. Spade states that altering the law such as decriminalizing sodomy, and making hate crime laws inclusive to sexual orientation, will not alter people’s mindset (Spade 125). Spade states that explicitly changing the law will cause a further race/class divide amongst lesbians and gays which is a negative effect of “reform” (Spade 125). Spade enforces the idea that power, control, and population distribution are essential for reform of trans politics, not just issuing anti-discrimination laws and inclusion laws. Law must be studied in the terms of power and what repercussions it has on the greater population, and this is the way that specific practices can be targeted, and better yet, improved.

I believe that though this was a heavy and complex reading, it provided a lot of insight for reform and change. By using the framework of Foucault, Spade successfully established the guidelines for progression and gaining a sense of stability.

Spade – “What’s wrong with rights?”

This chapter of Normal Life, “What’s Wrong with Rights?” is posing the more specific question of “What’s wrong with hate crime laws and anti-discrimination laws that activists are fighting for?” Spade explains the logic behind the proponents of these laws and argues that they aren’t civil reforms that allow for systemic change. And here, he is referring to laws affecting trans* individuals, but he uses race and sexual orientation as better-known (longer-know?) examples.

Anti-discrimination laws are argued to provide legal validity to claims against discriminators (employees, supers, restaurants, etc.) and punish them, while also preventing others from doing the same. Proponents of hate crime laws argue similarly: that laws that punish people for committing hat crimes force law enforcement officials to understand the value of trans lives. And both laws promote trans visibility and the collection of discrimination stories (which I personally think are really important to provide a deeper depiction of discrimination, and necessary for the larger back-story of any group of people; though I do realize Dean Spade wouldn’t disagree with me, figured I’d put this opinion here).

So then Spade breaks down why these types of legislation aren’t providing the kind of civil reforms we may think they are. As he puts it, “One concern is whether these laws actually improve the life chances of those who are purportedly protected by them.” Basically, do hate crime laws and anti-discrimination laws get the job done? Spade examines briefly the impact of these types of laws on the lives of people of color, and indigenous peoples. The answer’s “no, not really.” Wage gaps, hostile work environments, violence–these all persist. And the reasons behind that are multi-fold:

• Often, the people who are being discriminated against can’t afford legal help.
• Even if people do approach courts regarding discrimination, there’s the additional obstacle of having to “prove it.”
• The most common discriminators are people who are in positions that control the lives of the marginalized. I was shocked to see welfare workers on the list, though unsurprised to see immigration officers and prison guards. Did anyone else feel that way?
• In the last 30 years, enforceability has decreased. I’m not too sure I understand why. If anyone can provide clarity about this, please leave a comment explaining to me!
• In the case of trans people, bathroom access is one of the largest sources of contention between employers and trans employees. But if a private company claims to not discriminate against trans people, then “denying a trans person access to a bathroom that comports with their gender identity at work is not interpreted as a violation of the law.” (p. 83)

Using critical race theorist Alan Freeman’s work, Spade explains how this framing of the law (these anti-discrimination and hate crime laws) perpetuates the idea that these forms of discrimination are individualistic, and not systemic. Freeman’s term is the “perpetrator perspective.” As Spade puts it, racial discrimination is often illustrated “through the perpetrator/victim dyad,” as if every racist is fundamentally so. But this ignores the historical context of racism, the “disparities in life conditions” that are effects of long-standing discrimination. And it contributes to the idea of “color-blindness” and, as Spade says, “pretends the playing field is equal.” I think Spade really nails it on p. 86: “Defining the problem of oppression so narrowly that an anti-discrimination law could solve it erases the complexity and breadth of the systemic, life-threatening harm that trans resistance seeks to end.” When we argue that these laws will work, we are perpetuating the thinking that “only if people worked hard, they’d get what they earn,” and that “people deserve however much they’re working toward.” The other big point Spade makes is that hate crime laws are only further supporting a prison industrial system that does not truly have the best interests at heart for of citizens, and a law enforcement system that is not protecting the people it claims to at all, but seeking them out to punish them. As he says on p. 90, “Criminal punishment cannot be the method we use to stop transphobia when the criminal punishment system is the most significant perpetrator of violence against trans people.”

Does anyone have any information regarding this last quote (beyond an episode of Orange is the New Black)? I personally thought of Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” Campaign. While the videos are important on a social level, and that’s a pretty significant level, it’s not campaigning for legal and civil reform. I realize I’m making a contentious opinion here–does anyone disagree with me? Sound off on the comments please!

The Common Place of Law

The Common Place of Law, by Patricia Ewick & Susan S. Silbey explores legal consciousness and how legality is experienced and understood in everyday life.  Legality refer to the meanings, sources of authority and cultural practices that are commonly recognized as legal, regardless of who employs them or for what ends.  Legality determines what you can or are prevented from doing. Multiple stories were taken from different people who had some interactions with the law to study their experiences and interpretations of the law.

The book separates the law into three narratives, “before the law” “With the law” and “against the law.”  “Before the law” is viewing the law as objective, with organized rules and structures. The people view the law as a buffer between their everyday lives, as if the law is physically in a separate sphere. Probably can be view as if the law is almost invisible as you go on with your daily routines.

“With the law” is a closer social interaction with legality. Stories were told about how individuals exercise the law and try to work it to his/her advantage, such as the story of Charles Reed. In this section, people play by the rules and try to participate in the legal aspect of the law. However, the law favors those with resources and skills, so only those privilege people can truly play with the law to their advantage.

Finally, “against the law” is a legal consciousness with an adversarial relationship toward the law. This is a model of resistance against legality for those that cannot work with the law, usually, because the law excludes them from their legal protection.

This section is about the relationship between power and law “might makes right.” An example from the book, Bess Sherman life was shaped by the influence and operation of laws. For example, due to her lack of resources and money, the medical terms for her diagnosis were all out of her control and the law appears to be inaccessible to her, rendering her powerless. She has no choice, but to submit to all the terms in order to continue receiving diagnoses for her illness.

Those that fall into this category of legal consciousness tend to avoid calling the police for help, getting a lawyer, etc. Some people view “against the law” as a game, much like Jamie Leeson.  A game to engage with or play with. Another example is the story of Millie Simpson, in a situation where she demonstrate a small victory against the law by suggesting to volunteer in a church (one that she already volunteers in with or without the law intervention) as her fulfillment for her legal obligation.

-Amy Cheung

Against the Law

Jessica Tipis

Chapter Six

Against the Law

In the beginning of the chapter six we are presented with two stories, which both seem to have a different concept. With further information I realize that there are a lot of similarities. Although both individuals come from a different social status and have different consciousness on legality they both recognize that the law is not always on their side. Both respondents understand that the law is in Time/Space yet its not always effective. Due to the difference in social status each one of them acts against the law and its injustice in their own way.

Bess, a sixty-four year old black woman living in a lower class neighborhood in a poverty-stricken building, views the law as ineffective and unfair. Although Bess doesn’t believe that she is in any way in contact with the law, on a contrary in her everyday life experience she interacts with the system. In the case of her “nephew”, Bess wrongly believes that the child is legally hers, which by a law she created in her own mind. Furthermore, in the case of her social security experience, she feels the true justice is not in her reach due to the fact that she lacks the financial rank to hire an attorney to expedite her case. Against the law she proceeds in her own silent resistance, not believing in justice or being afraid of retribution.

Jamie, a young white male living in an upscale neighborhood also sees the law sometimes ineffective. Although he believes in the law and order of a day-to-day life, there are cases in which he trusts vigilantism is more effective. His threats against his neighbors show he is willing to act against the law to institute what’s right.

Against the law, requires resistance. Firstly, the subject has to understand that they are of a less power to the establishment. Injustice has been committed against that individual and action is required for their benefit. “Given the pervasive authority of law to define, organize, and violate the lives of individuals, it is not surprising that many persons described themselves as caught within a foreign and powerful system against which they acted.” Resistance towards legality can be in many forms, silence like in Bess’ case, and vigilantism in Jamie’s case.

Normativity, an individual recognizing that the court is always a power that they cannot fight to win, so they resort to avoidance and resignation. Individuals understand that you can’t trust that the system is on the individuals side, so it is better to throw in the towel. The legal representative of the law are “god” like figures that cannot be beaten.

In the case of constraint, individuals see the modern rational law corrupted by bureaucracy and lack of concerns for the citizen’s rights. The law, as they see it, doesn’t effectively resolve disputes to benefit them, recognize the truth of the matter and does not provide solution to injustice. The recognition of the individual’s powerlessness in front of the law leads to inaction and acceptance of the outcome.

To summarize the capacity, is the individual’s use of rational knowledge and observed activity’s to shape a resistance against the law. The action against the law is finding a loophole, creating a lie or disobedience, as well as using the same law against the perpetrator.

Every individual sees the law as an authority and understands that the law is not perfect. The justice system is unfair and in many cases does not implement its own rules therefore the individual takes action in which way he or she feels appropriate against the law.

Becket and Herbert, excerpts from Banished Reading Response

In the book “Banished”, by Becket and Herbert they do research in Seattle to explain how exclusion has now resurfaced into modern day society. Many are being banned from going into certain parts of the cities by regulations like: Stay Out of Drug Area (SODA), Stay Out of Area of Prostitution (SOAP), Trespass Affidavit Program (TAP), Anti-Social Behavioral Contact and Anti-Social Behavior Orders

.They start off by telling the stories of people that have been wrongfully convicted of a crime and banished from that area for a set amount of time. One example is of Rhonda, who was arrested for talking to a man that could help her find her mother. The man was in an area that was well known for drug trafficking and because she was there she was arrested for “drug traffic loitering”. She got banished from being in the place that her mother resides in. To a daughter that cares for her mother, she would of course break that law. This would then have her put back in jail and have her SODA order extended.

In the book they define banishment as “a punishment inflicted upon criminals, by compelling them to quit a city, place or country for a specific period of time” (10). This banishment dates back to The Old Testament and in Ancient Greece (10). How are we not passed this type of exile and moved forward to better ways of “social control”? Vagrancy and loitering laws are also examples of laws in cities to arrest whoever they think looks like they have no destination. These laws criminalized the basic needs for a person. As a homeless person the only place you may have to sleep for the night is say the public park on a bench. This results in them breaking the orders placed against them and having them extended, because they have nowhere to sleep safely.

In the last chapter of the book their findings were that “banishment works primarily to expand the criminal justice system and dimish both the life circumstances and rights bearing capacity of those who are targeted” (20). The rich get richer and the poor gets poorer. This is a perfect example of this. Law enforcement are targeting people for “how they look and what they symbolize rather than specific behaviors”(15). This happens right here in New York, with the “Stop and Frisk”. You see this in the poorer neighborhood as the banishment are in these neighborhoods as well. The people in jail are also mostly the homeless and people of color (18).

They believe this is just a failure and does not benefit anyone for the future. This creates full prisons with people that have commited misdemeanor crimes. This gives the already needy person one more thing to need, if they are not aready in jail, a place to sleep without getting arrested.

This is a video about sex offenders who have been forced to live under a bridge because they have been banished from everywhere else in the city.http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xE1uWnxVRXk

Law, Property, and the Geography of Violence:The Frontier, the Survey and the Grid

The article “Law, Property, and the Geography of Violence”, by N. Blomley, notes that various intellectuals have found connection between state law and violence. For example, Max Webber identifies that state law is controlling violence by transforming it to a legitimate force within territory. Derrida has argued that “Law is always an authorized force”. It is hard for N. Blomley and his students to answer the question regarding the law and violence, because they are contrasting one another. Liberalism tries to find violence outside the law and posts state regulations because it contains and prevents anomic anarchy. This article is concentrated on violence relationship to private property. It states that there are intrinsic and consequential geography to law’s violence regarding to private property. The author bring out three specializations ;the frontier, the survey and the grid.

     Property: It is the right to use some land or share its benefits. N. Blomley writes,” Regulation among the people by distributing power to control valued resources “. The property gives its owner the right of excluding, using or transforming the others. These actions are enforced by custom or the law. The access to a property is an indicator of one’s position is social hierarchy by affecting class, race, and gender relations. There are social differences in access to real estate. According to statistics 90 % of the property belong to 10 % of U.S. household. The affects wealth health and well-being. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. These factors also relate to racial minorities and women. They don’t benefit. The property also includes in itself social symbols, meanings and stories. It plays a big role in formation of national identity. Property owners are not just technical users of land but also they engage in some moral questions of social order. N. Blomley sites Carol Rose, in order to think about the intersection of property and social relations. According to C. Rose property depends on continual active ‘doing’ and it’s not static pre-given entity. C. Rose states that can be ‘persuasive’ , that is linked to shared understanding.    Blomley isolates three geographic concepts: the frontier, the survey and the grid ,in order to understand legitimation, origins and property.

      The Frontier: The illustration of the frontier may include figurative, temporal or spatial, is essential to this process. Inside the frontier is the secure tenure, fee simple ownership state guaranteed rights to property. However, outside of the frontier it is uncertain and undeveloped entitlements. According to the Locke, America was all. It was here that violent frontiers of property were more deeply involving. Jeremy Bentham gives a clearer example of the frontier that divides property and violence. J. Bentham stated that property and law are bonded together, and can’t survive without each other. Geography plays a huge role in mapping of savagery. N. Blomley, sites Ellen Churchill Semple, who carved out a conceptual frontier between, “advanced” and “lower” societies. According to her “lower” societies also have internal violence, such as abortion, cannibalism , murder of elder and weak, suicide and etc.. As of N. Blomley, the poor are identified as treat to property, not only because of the crimes but also because they disturb the property value, both economically and culturally.

     The Survey: “Traditionally the surveys were created by manorial officers or overseers who, at the court of survey, was charged with receiving tenants for the performance of ritualized ceremonies of homage and featly and reviewing the customary rights that made up a manor, based on the testimony of “true and sworn men”.”( N. Blomley, p. 126 ). However, by the end of the 16th century the surveyor became the person who would measure the land . The maps were used in everyday life, however , they were not mastered very much. It was used to show the boundaries of ownership and property itself. The survey and its maps very essential in establishing different political ideals. What about violence? The boundaries were violently    opposed. The hedges and borders were put down, officials were harassed. There was the State violence also. “Violence is not only a product of law but also its vector”.( N. Blomley, p. 130)

     The Grid: The author sites Harris(1997), as of whom, the grid is a persuasive form of disciplinary rule, with the help of upper power. They create rules by creating boundaries that are so important for the liberal regime.( N. Blomley, p 131). The property of grid is very easily negotiated by many of us. However, the act of violence towards the property depends on our social location. For example, there are rules that prohibit sleeping in the parks, trains or streets. Who does suffer from this rule. Definitely not the wealthy neighbor next door or even us. The people who violet this rules are homeless people. They are the ones who don’t have place to sleep. In relations to the grid gender violence is also explained legally. People who can be fit in the grid are easily targeted for the legal violence, often in form of very direct ways.

The author wants us to highlight the importance of the association between property, violence and space. Even though the article was written by Nicholas Blomley, my attention was caught by Jeremy Bentham’s idea that, property and law are born together ,and will die together. Let’s go back, when people would transfer from one place to another for locating food and shelter. However, they as soon as they started to settle down, the idea of boundaries and property came out. Later on we get the tribe leaders, kings, pharaohs , presidents .The property owners will dictate the laws that would be created for the “protection” of their belongings. Is this fair? Doesn’t this mean that there are going to be laws that violent “lower” class people?

 

Response to Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex”

In “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex,” Kimberle Crenshaw critically examines how racism and sexism are broadly (and separately) thought of, and the legal, societal, and political implications that this has. Throughout her paper, she uses the circumstances faced by black women as a lens through which to look at the intersection of race and sex in American society. Crenshaw intends to prove that our societal focus on discrimination is all too often one-sided; this is clearly seen in discrimination descriptions that claim in order to prove that one has been discriminated against, one must show that one would have advanced “but for the sake of” a defining characteristic. This leaves those who are multiply disadvantaged, in this case, black women, in a difficult position.

Crenshaw first lays out the legal precedents for denying the intersection of race and sex in discrimination. In the first case, although only black women were discriminated against (and not necessarily white women or black men), the court stated that “this lawsuit must be examined to see if it states a cause of action for race discrimination, sex discrimination, or alternatively either, but not a combination of both” and declared that black women could not be a protected class (59). This effectively prevented black women from expressing any dissent when their experiences did not align with those of white women or black men. In the second case, the courts refused to allow a black woman to represent white women or black men in a discrimination case. They left her with the option to statistically prove discrimination against only black women, which was impossible to do with the statistical pool with which she was provided, effectively ending her case (61). In the third case, two black women were not allowed to represent all black workers in a discrimination suit; their case was narrowed down to discrimination against black women, with no awards made to black men (62).

I particularly liked how Crenshaw broke down the contradictory court decisions: “Black women sometimes experience discrimination in ways similar to white women’s experiences; sometimes they share very similar experiences with black men. Yet often they experience double-discrimination—the combined effects of practices which discriminate on the basis of race, and on the basis of sex. And sometimes, they experience discrimination as black women—not the sum of race and sex discrimination, but as black women” (63-4).

Crenshaw then goes on to deconstruct the societal aspect of race and sex intersection. She writes about the challenges to representation for black women in both the feminist and black liberation movements—one represented by white women, the other represented by black men. In neither movement were the unique set of challenges faced by black women addressed. She also addresses assumptions made by society at large of black families-and how critiques of those assumptions focus on the inherent racism, but ignore the inherent sexism and the intersection of the two.

My favorite part of Crenshaw’s piece is her call to change our approach to anti-discrimination. While our current approach addresses discrimination “but for the sake of” one quality or another, this leaves those who face multi-faceted discrimination at a loss. Crenshaw states that we should instead begin with “addressing the needs and problems of those who are most disadvantaged and with restructuring and remaking the world where necessary, then others who are singularly disadvantaged would benefit” (73). This reminded me of the great Audre Lorde quote, “The master’s tools cannot dismantle the master’s house.” We cannot end multi-faceted discrimination by looking at it from a one-sided approach, by considering people to be different from a mythical norm, and therefore discriminated against, in only one way. We must consider people as a whole, with many characteristics of race, sex, class, sexuality, ability (and many others I have not listed!) in order to encourage full societal participation and progress.

My discussion questions for the class are, what do you think of intersectionality? Do you consider current policy to be adequate in addressing unique and multi-faceted discrimination? What do you think of Crenshaw’s policy proposal? What changes, if any, do you think should be made to current policy?

Unbearable Weight, Susan Bordo

In this piece Bordo seeks to broaden the view of the current Abortion debate in the U.S. by engaging in a thorough critical analysis of the history of women being subjected to reproductive control, discrimination, and being treated as sub human, often described as “fetal incubators” by Bordo. Bordo highlights many court cases where the bodily integrity and well being are undermined or outright ignored by judges who only consider the well being of the fetus at the expense of the rights of the mother carrying the child including religious practices and most importantly the right to privacy of one’s own body. Bordo raises questions around the issue of the “person hood” pregnant women especially women of color and from lower income status’ in an effort to show that the debate over the legitimacy of abortion is not so simply “a contest between fetal claims to person hood and women’s right to choose” but a more complex issue that raises questions surrounding the value of women and their rights in American society.

in the opening of the piece, Bordo sheds light on the contradiction in the legal system surrounding the value of life by citing examples of how people in certain situations can deny the survival of another person if that means one must undergo a surgery, on the grounds that the body is a sacred entity in which invasion without one’s consent is unthinkable, however in many cases women are subjected to forced bodily alterations and surgeries such as forced sterilization and forced c-sections. this is an excellent example of the duality in American culture where rights to bodily ownership must always be upheld…unless its the body of a pregnant woman, in which case all forms of invasion are fair play. This practice of forced bodily invasion immediately reminds of the practice of forced ultrasounds giving to women in certain states that are considering abortions, which was of great debate during the 2012 presidential election. it is interesting yet unsurprising that certain rights to privacy, health and reproduction are strongly upheld and promoted until they surround women and certain “defected groups” such as people of color, the poor and criminals. one example of this is highlighted by Bordo as she recounts moments in history where women having a third child were often coerced into being sterilized in order to maintain their medicaid regardless of their religious beliefs.

the absolute disregard for the practice of informed consent given for doctors to invade a woman’s body is another alarming theme that is all too common in modern American society resonating with the idea that women are quite often not valued as being a person but a mere baby carrying machine producing kids for a society run by men. this leads to the argument of the “Father’s rights” or the absurd belief that the father has more or equal say in the well being of the pregnant mother and her child. I do believe that a father has reproductive rights over the child however allowing men to bring suit against the mother of their children over an abortion, or forcing women to have children against their will greatly undermines the value of women in our society, and it is easy to see how they are often believed to carry children at any cost.

I am critical in Bordo’s piece as she never explains a further alternate view idea of father’s rights, for example a father being forced to raise a child against his will because the mother will not have an abortion when the father is incapable or unfit to be a father, it is my personal belief that not everyone is fit to raise a child and forcing anyone, man or women to rise a child can be damaging to not only the family involved but society as a whole. however i do fully agree with the bias towards women who may consume drugs or alcohol while pregnant without considering the potential abuse by the father, it is equally important that the father does not create a hostile environment for the child in the womb or out and the legal bias arresting omen for endangering their fetus in extreme situations is another way American society means to forcibly invade and control women, their bodies and the lives growing inside them.

Reading Responses with Discussion Questions

Hi All,

As I mentioned in class, please be sure to include a few discussion questions in your Reading Responses. See the syllabus for other ideas about how to write your response.