• anna j. clutterbuck-cook
  • contact
  • curriculum vitae
  • find me elsewhere
  • marilyn ross memorial book prize

the feminist librarian

the feminist librarian

Category Archives: think pieces

Campus Safety: Panic or Pragmatism?

19 Tuesday Feb 2008

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in think pieces

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

boston, feminism, simmons

I’ve been meaning to write about the way safety is handled on the Simmons residence campus for a while now, but this photograph finally provoked me into action:


This poster, courtesy of the “gotcha” campaign, in which residence staff come around at random hours to check and see if dorm room doors are locked, is only the latest in a whole series of educational tactics students here at Simmons have been exposed to over the school year. We have also been warned against “piggybacking” (letting someone unknown into the dorm with your swipe card) with posters that describe in ominous terms incidences in which women have been raped and murdered by assailants in their dorm rooms because of an unlocked door.

We also receive campus safety alerts via email, which alert us to acts of aggression that happen in the neighborhood of the college. Each email concludes with a list of basic safety measures:

As always, the College is concerned for the safety of our community members. We recommend the following precautions to maximize your safety:

• Be aware of your surroundings
• Do not walk alone at night whenever possible
• Do not listen to your iPod while walking
• Always make sure to walk on well lit streets staying on the same side as the street lights
• Be aware of the people around you
• If you carry a cell phone, make sure the battery is charged and it is turned on
• If you are walking alone at night tell a friend when you are leaving and when you expect to arrive at your destination

If you see anything suspicious or would like a walking escort between campuses, please call the Simmons College Public Safety Department

While these emails are usually matter-of-fact and probably the best approach to keeping students informed about what is happening around the campus, I also wonder about the ubiquity of these awareness campaigns, and how they feed into a culture of fear about life in an urban environment–particularly life as a woman in an urban environment.

Clearly, as a woman in my mid-twenties, having lived and traveled alone in a variety of places, the question of personal safety is not a new one. And to some extent, I agree with the common-sense advice of the campus officials: it’s usually a good idea to keep your door locked (if for no other reason that the desire not to have someone steal your computer), and to “be aware of your surroundings.” However, it becomes a particularly interesting question to consider in the context of a college campus, surrounded by college-age women who are being sent particular messages about danger in the world and how they ought to protect themselves from it.

As a feminist, violence against women is something I am aware of in a political, philosophical, and personal sense. In feminist circles, we refer to a “rape schedule”–the idea that ability to move freely in the world is curtailed by our awareness of the possibility of physical violence. As Jessica Valenti explains in a Salon interview:

Can you explain the concept of a “rape schedule”?

I first heard about it in my women’s studies classes. It’s the idea that every woman in one way or another lives on a rape schedule. Every action you take is built on an awareness that you could be attacked: from walking with your keys in your hand, to locking your car doors at an intersection, to deciding to go home a half-hour earlier. There is no public space for women; the whole world is a prison where you have to be constantly aware at all times that you’re a potential victim. What’s more terrifying is that it’s not necessarily preventative. Most rapes are committed by people you know and trust and let your guard down with.

So there are concrete ways in which my being-in-the-world is limited because of the fact of my sex: I fantasize about going backpacking in the Adirondacks, for example, but solo camping in remote areas is out; and on the other extreme my freedom to move about urban environments after dark is a constant question mark.

On the other hand, feminists in the last twenty years have raised the question of how much the media spotlight on particular acts of violence (for example, random attacks by strangers) get highlighted while other acts of violence (such as those perpetrated by intimate partners, who presumably would have access to your dorm at your invitation) are not the focus of these scare campaigns.

Also, it is important to note the assumptions this email makes–particularly that it is possible to arrange to walk in company, and that you have an individual whom you can make aware of your daily movements. I don’t believe the advice not to walk alone would be a piece of advice offered to men as a matter of course. And I wonder what those of us who live alone are supposed to do? Call up our closest relative and tell them when we leave work in the evening? What’s with this “while you are sleeping” line in the “gotcha” poster? Coming, as it does, on the tail of flyers that describe the violent rape and murder of a young college girl in her bed while she was sleeping, there’s a definite over-tone not merely of material security against theft but also of sexual violence.

So I am troubled by the way in which women at Simmons college are constantly reminded of their vulnerability (however statistically unlikely) to violent attack. I wonder whether it is simple pragmatism, or whether it is schooling young women into a sense of danger that is, overall, misleading and socially controlling. Thoughts?

What Women Want: Insecure Men?

14 Thursday Feb 2008

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in think pieces

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

feminism, gender and sexuality

don’t worry boys: we’ll be your interpreters for the evening

Just in time for Valentine’s Day, the Wednesday edition of the Boston Globe had a feature story on the website www.hertaste.com, the gist of which is summed up in their tagline: “you are being overlooked by women for details you didn’t even know mattered.” The Globe explains:

“Guys think it looks good,” says [site co-founder] Panagopoulos . . . “But what men think looks good and what women think looks good are two different things.” Adds [co-founder] Kassner: “What guys miss is that women are picking up on little details. It’s like a secret world that guys don’t have a clue about.“

And what, pray tell, are the the “little details” men know nothing about? The categories on the Hertaste homepage are “fashion,” “garage,” “pad,” and “gifts.” That’s right: guys categorically, it seems, don’t know how to 1) dress themselves, 2) purchase the right car or car accessories, 3) furnish a house or apartment, or 4) shop for gifts that say “I actually know and really like you.” Those life skills are all part of the secret world we women live in that guys are clueless about. So the women of Hertaste are here to save the day.

I find this incredibly offensive to women and to men alike.

The premise of the website is this: That men must—but don’t know how to–make themselves attractive to (hot) women (as evidenced by the chicks lounging on the homepage). This narrative of male incompetence at understanding women draws on the tired pop psychology theory that “men are from Mars and women are from Venus.” Such thinking dehumanizes women by suggesting they are so different from normal human beings (men) that they aren’t even from the same planet. It also belittles men by suggesting that they’re such idiots that they’re incapable of actually relating to their fellow human beings (women) without an intermediary to translate women’s mysterious feelings and motives.

Specifically, in this case, Hertaste deploys this pervasive narrative of gender difference as part of a time-honored marketing strategy: building on, or manufacturing, insecurities in order to sell stuff. Dudes! Women will think you’re a loser if you don’t buy expensive clothes, electronics, drive a suave car, or give her expensive jewelry. What ever happened to romantic notions like–uh–having a real conversation? Enjoying a shared interest in literature or movies? Or even–more prosaically–simply prioritizing student loans over a black leather couch?

Fundamentally, my problem with this website is summed up in its very name: her taste. This isn’t a website about learning how to better express who you really are, but rather a site that encourages people to perform the sort of gendered identity they think “women” as a group will have the hots for. I can’t speak for all women out there, but let me just say that’s about one of the biggest turn-offs I can think of.

Blog for Choice: The Radical Idea that I am a Person

22 Tuesday Jan 2008

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in think pieces

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

blog for choice, feminism, politics

Today is the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision and NARAL Pro-Choice America has asked all of us in the blogosphere to write posts about why it’s important to vote pro-choice. Welcome to Blog for Choice Day 2008. Here are my thoughts.

“Childbirth is, by definition, a loss of control over the body . . . but in the hospital, the surrender is usually of the body to the provider. Women often lose control over what’s done to the body, rather than over what the body does.”

–Jennifer Block, Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care (165) [1].

Today, I am terrified of being pregnant or giving birth in the United States. I am not frightened of the physical experience of being pregnant. Nor am I intimidated by the difficult moral decisions I may face if that pregnancy is unplanned or if something goes tragically wrong. I am not afraid, as Jennifer Block so eloquently puts it, to “lose control over [what my] body does” when pregnant. No.

What wakes me from nightmares, sweating, in the early hours of the morning is the knowledge that, as a pregnant woman, I will lose my right to determine what is done to my body. What knots my stomach is the knowledge that, under current legal precedent, when I become pregnant I could be stripped of my rights to bodily integrity—including the ability to consent to or refuse medical procedures. What terrifies me is the knowledge that as a pregnant woman I could, at the discretion of a doctor or a judge, be treated as an individual whose medical decisions and right to self-determination have no merit, whose personhood is less worthy of consideration than the personhood of the developing child I carry within my body.

I didn’t always feel this way. When I hit puberty and began to menstruate I was awed (as I still am) by my body’s new capacity to sustain pregnancy and give birth to a child. The women whom I knew and read (thanks Mom!) described women’s reproductive lives in feminist terms: they placed women, their laboring bodies, and their self-determination at the center of pregnancy and birth narratives.

Over the last twelve years, however, I have been forced to recognize how fragile my right to bodily integrity and self-determination is. I have gotten the message loud and clear from politicians, judges and activists: My personhood is conditional. My body is not my own. I am one broken condom, one impulsive sexual encounter, one sexual assault, one anti-abortion, conscience-ridden pharmacist away from becoming less than a person in the eyes of the law.

The modern political and legal struggle over abortion rights, and reproductive rights more broadly, has developed a hyper-focus on the question of fetal rights [2] and the definition of when life begins [3]. We have forgotten to consider an equally important question: regardless of how we determine when human life and constitutional rights begin, when do women’s basic human rights end? I ask this question of anyone who supports anti-abortion, fetal rights policies: do I somehow become less of a person in the eyes of the law the moment I become pregnant?

The right to bodily integrity is fundamental to our social contract here in the United States. The belief that we are all separate beings, existing within our own skin, and that no one has the right to violate our separateness without our consent, has been built into our legal framework. This respect for the human right to bodily integrity is so profoundly important to our legal and social framework that it actually supersedes our right to live. No one can be compelled against their full and free consent to give of their body for another human being–even if that other human being will die as a result of consent being withheld.

As Jennifer Block writes, “there is never a situation where the court can compel an adult to undergo a medical procedure for the perceived benefit of another human being” (255). We may make the case that it is the ethical thing to do, to donate blood or to put our own lives at risk to rescue someone from drowning. But despite making a moral argument that it is the right thing to do, we don’t compel individuals to perform these tasks: they must make the final decision themselves. At no point does their body cease to be their own.

Yet pregnant–and even potentially pregnant–women find that this basic right to bodily integrity is routine breached by medical professionals, politicians, and judges who determine what they may or may not do—or choose not to do–with their bodies. Marsden Wagner, former Director of Women’s and Children’s Health of the World Health Organization, documents in Born in the USA [4] the way in which pregnant women’s decisions regarding their own medical care are routinely ignored. Women who have expressly stated their desire for non-interventionist births are subjected to drugs without their knowledge, mutilated by unnecessarily episiotomies, or denied the right to attempt vaginal births after cesarean section. These practices are contrary to basic legal rights nationally and many human rights standards worldwide.

As Melody Rose details, in her book Safe, Legal, Unavailable? [5], in the thirty-five years Roe v. Wade has technically protected women’s right to terminate a pregnancy, opponents of abortion and women’s rights have chipped away at women’s legal standing by creating a systematic network of regulatory policies and legal restrictions [6]. While the developing child–and even the potentially fertilized egg [7]–slowly gains legal rights to constitutional protection, women are jailed to protect a fetus, punished for what they put into, or do with, their bodies [8], forced to continue pregnancies against their express wishes or made to seek the permission to end those pregnancies from lovers [9], estranged parents, or hostile judges [10]. They are denied birth control [11] and punished for its failure. They are denied the right to choose where, with whom, and how they give birth or denied the right to birth at all [12].

An entire class of people are being stripped of their right to bodily integrity simply because of the bodies with which they were born. Increasingly, women are told not only that their rights are less important than the rights of the fetus they carry, but that they are too ignorant or vulnerable to make their own medical decisions. Last year’s Supreme Court ruling, Gonzales v. Carhart [13], is only the latest example of the misogynistic paternalism [14] that has come to characterize the legal and political landscape of reproductive justice. As Sarah Blustain wrote last year in The American Prospect:

The finding of activist conservative judges or radically anti-abortion legislatures, no matter how local, help accrue new definitions of the unborn that make it incrementally easier to successfully ban abortions. Perhaps even more troubling is the idea that these cases could slowly build a new judicial and legislative definition of women, as a childish and barely competent moral decision-maker for whom legal abortion becomes a menacing option from which she needs protection [15].

Access to safe and legal abortion may only be one small part of the landscape of reproductive justice [16], but it is a crucially important one. As Linda Paltrow has pointed out, anti-abortion activists have succeeded–through their focus on fetal rights and paternalistic protectionism–in establishing a precedent of abusive intervention into the lives of women and their families:

At least one federal court has said that sending police to a woman’s home, taking her into custody while in active labor and near delivery, strapping her legs and her body down, to transport her against her will to a hospital, and then forcing her without access to counsel or court review to undergo major surgery [cesarean section] constituted no violation of her civil rights at all. The rationale? If the state can limit women’s access to abortions after viability, it can subject her to the lesser intrusion of insisting on one method of delivery over another [17]

This is why I lie awake at night wondering if I’m brave enough to become a mother. I know that to become pregnant in the current legal climate will mean that I wake up every morning with the knowledge that my right to bodily integrity may be violated by doctors and politicians who disagree with my medical decisions, and that many judges will uphold those violations in a court of law.

I vote pro-choice because I believe that to legislate away women’s meaningful access to a full range of reproductive options–from birth control to abortion to the right to give birth where, with whom, and however she chooses–is to effectively curtail our ability to participate in the political and social life of the nation [18].

I vote pro-choice because I believe that the freedom of consenting adults to form sexually intimate relationships, whether or not they can–or desire–to have children, is a basic human right, not a privilege.

I vote pro-choice because I believe pregnancy, childbirth, and the decision to start a family should be a responsibility fully and freely chosen, not a punishment for sexual expression.

I vote pro-choice because I believe in women’s ability, as women and as human beings, to make practical and moral decisions regarding our health care and family lives.

I vote pro-choice because I believe pregnant women have the same rights to bodily integrity and full and free consent as any other human being.

I vote pro-choice because I don’t want to be forced to choose between motherhood and my own human rights.

Most of all, I vote pro-choice because of my belief in the radical notion that women are people.

Why Didn’t I Move to Washington?

17 Thursday Jan 2008

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in think pieces

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

feminism, michigan, politics

Just in time for the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, NARAL Pro-Choice America has released their report Who Decides? that details the state of reproductive rights nationwide. They assign each state a letter grade based on the legal, political, and social factors (such as health coverage for birth control, access to women’s health services, and abortion laws). Not that I find it particularly surprising, but here’s the performance of a few states I take a personal interest in:

  • Michigan . . . . . . . F
  • Massachusetts . . B-
  • Oregon . . . . . . . . A
  • Washington . . . . A+
Yep. There’s a reason why I felt like I was living in hostile territory when I was in West Michigan (and my heart goes out to all of you who are still fighting the good fight). Not that I’ll rule out moving back there someday, but sometimes it’s nice to imagine what it would be like to live in one of those states that got an A. Like when I’m starting a family, or, I don’t know, maybe just being a woman.

And while we’re on the subject of maps and rankings, Mapping Our Rights: Nagivating Discrimination against Women, Men, and Families is another interactive report on human rights in the United States. It was put together by Ipas, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and SisterSong and includes a greater diversity of important factors, such as the right to gay marriage and the legal status of midwifery. The results are thus more complicated, but tell a roughly comparable story. Ranked from 1 (most favorable) to 50 (most hostile) we have:

  • Michigan . . . . . . . 43
  • Massachusetts . . 11
  • Oregon . . . . . . . . 10
  • Washington . . . . . 2
I don’t know what they’re drinking up there in Washington state, but whatever it is, I wish they’d share it with the rest of the nation. I’d say they were just living too close to Canada, but then again so are the Michiganders and that doesn’t seem to have helped.

I think these three happy uteri live in Washington . . .

. . . and thanks to Radical Doula for the head’s up on the NARAL report.

Golden Compass: Feminist Theology?

12 Wednesday Dec 2007

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in think pieces

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

books, feminism, movies, politics

. . . Not if you see it on the big screen, at least according to Hanna Rosin’s review, “How Hollywood Saved God” in The Atlantic Monthly.

While I am very much looking forward to seeing the movie adaptation of The Golden Compass, by Philip Pullman, on the big screen this weekend (my first movie in the theater since . . . um . . . well, before I came to Boston, I swear on both volumes of my Shorter OED) it’s been interesting to hear some of the debate about the film, the books, and their treatment of religious issues. While I’m not sure I would go so far as to label it a “controversy,” as it was billed on this morning’s “On Point” discussion on NPR, it does seem to have stirred up a little, shall we say, dust in Catholic and Evangelical circles.

In the books on the other hand . . .

“On Point” actually had some extremely thoughtful guests (Ms. Rosin among them) who were discussing the theological themes in both His Dark Materials, the book trilogy, and the movie-makers decisions to elide most of the deeper re-workings of Biblical and spiritual themes. Professor of Religion Stephen Prothero won my heart with his passionate defense of literature as a way for young people to explore the Big Questions and engage in meaning-making for themselves, as well as his delight in Lyra, the series’ protagonist, as a feminist heroine:

My daughters get dressed up as Hermione for Halloween and for the Harry Potter parties, and you know Hermione is a wonderful character but she’s sort of carrying the water for Harry Potter, who gets to be the hero . . . and I love that about the books [that Lyra gets to be the heroine]. I think it’s wonderful to tell girls to question authority, to make a little trouble, to be suspicious when people talk in God’s name as if God is speaking to them through an earphone.

Even more radical, of course, is Pullman’s project of writing an “alternative Genesis” with Lyra as a new Eve whose initiation into sexual awareness is the catalyst for redemption. The narrative is an explicit “response to the church,” Rosin points out, drawing on her interviews with Pullman himself, “this idea of patriarchy and misogyny and the idea that she should be Eve, and she should re-write the story of Eve.”

“And I would argue,” Prothero follows up, “that what we have there is something quite like feminist theology . . . that we shouldn’t be thinking about God as this old man with a beard in the sky . . . why do we have to have the woman be the villain here? Why can’t she be the hero?” Amen.

Plus, I hear that seeing the daemons on screen is worth the price of a ticket. So see you at the theater!

As an aside: My one reservation about the books, incidentally, is the way they are being marketed–much like the Harry Potter books–to a pre-teen audience when they are actually much more dense and in some ways more frightening, than Rowling’s series.

Also, Tom Stoppard wrote one of the early screenplays–wouldn’t you love to have seen that version??!

Reproductive Justice

13 Sunday May 2007

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in think pieces

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

feminism, politics



I bought my copy of the most recent issue of off our backs this week, and it turned out to be an entire issue dedicated to “reproductive justice.” The concept of reproductive justice, it turns out, is a way to re-vision the depth and breadth of what we have conventionally thought of as “reproductive rights” or even more narrowly, “pro-choice” advocacy. It focuses not only on or legal access to reproductive choice, but also on the social and economic inequalities that make those “rights” the privilege of those with power and resources.

Loretta Ross, one of the guest editors of the issue, and a member of the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective, defines reproductive justice this way:

  • the right to have a child;
  • the right not to have a child;
  • the right to parent the children we have
  • the right to control our own birthing options

Her article does a beautiful job of broadening the conversation surrounding reproductive and sexual rights, calling on us to articulate the overarching values that lead us to a pro-choice position. “Reproductive justice,” she writes, “focuses on the ends [rather than the means]: better lives for women, healthier families, and sustainable communities.” Thinking in terms of reproductive justice “draws attention to cultural and socio-economic inequalities because everyone does not have equal opportunity to participate in society’s cultural discourses or public policy and economic values, such as abortion, midwifery, or mothering.”

I read Ross’ article, “Understanding Reproductive Justice: Transforming the Pro-Choice Movement,” just a few days after reading a lovely essay, “Being a Radical Doula,” by a Maria Perez, a young woman who works as a doula supporting women during pregnancy, childbirth, and early motherhood. In “Being a Radical Doula,” Perez articulates the fundamental connection between her pro-choice politics and her passion for working with pregnant and birthing women.

Both of these articles came across my desk just when I needed them, after several long weeks of going back and forth with anti-abortion folks about the abortion ban. It’s wonderful to know there are other people out there working hard to create a world in which reproductive justice is a basic human right for all.

And I keep thinking . . . perhaps in my grannyhood, I’ll become a radical, activist midwife myself!

Feminist Activism After Gonzales

29 Sunday Apr 2007

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in think pieces

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

feminism, politics

It’s been an intense couple of weeks, from the feminist-activist perspective. Since the April 18th Supreme Court ruling (Gonzalez v. Carhart) upholding–with a 5-4 majority–the 2003 “partial birth” abortion ban, I’ve been giving myself a crash refresher course in the theory and politics of women’s right to reproductive choice–including the “basic human right to decide what to do about a pregnancy” (see “Is There Life After Roe?” by Frances Kissling).

The ruling, while not unexpected, still felt like a punch in the gut when it came down. It is dismissive of scientific evidence, medical consensus, women’s right to bodily integrity, and the centrality of family planning in women’s equal participation in society. It upholds a shoddy law that is constitutionally vague (there is no medical procedure known as “partial birth abortion”) and based on congressional “findings” with which the majority of the governments own expert witnessess disagreed. The anti-feminism, implicit and explicit, in the majority opinion made me (and many of my friends) feel almost personally physically violated.

The one bright spot, legally and morally speaking, was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s powerful dissent, which rooted its argument in a feminist ethic of women’s right to participate in the right “to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.” Check out this awesome article describing how it could become the basis for future pro-choice law.

Serendipitously, a couple of weeks before the ruling was handed down, I got involved in the on-line community around feministing, a feminist blog. It’s been my first experience actively participating in on-line discussions (and at times the learning curve has been a little steep!), and it was incredibly helpful for my continued sanity that I was connected to the people who read and wrote on Feministing as the news was breaking. They have helped me to channel my rage into small, daily acts of useful protest. They even convinced me to phone my congressional representatives and ask them to support the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), now pending in both houses, which would protect women’s legal right to abortion. Those of you who know how much I hate/am terrified by the telephone will understand what a step that was!

All this political activity and feminist discussion has been a good reminder that, as I am sorting through career possibilities in the next few years, I need to be conscious about integrating my love of books and scholarship with my passion for feminist activism. Political involvement, and the community of (at least partially) like-minded individuals I become closer to as a result of being politically engaged, are necessary for my sanity and help me stay excited and hopeful about the future.

*and many thanks to all the Feministing bloggers and readers for pointing me toward most of the articles linked to this post.

Newer posts →
"the past is a wild party; check your preconceptions at the door." ~ Emma Donoghue

Recent Posts

  • medical update 11.11.22
  • medical update 6.4.22
  • medical update 1.16.2022
  • medical update 10.13.2021
  • medical update 8.17.2021

Archives

Categories

Creative Commons License

This work by Anna J. Clutterbuck-Cook is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • the feminist librarian
    • Join 36 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • the feminist librarian
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar