Women's Health

I have talked a bit on this blog about health in general, and women's health in particular.  The latter was discussed in my post about Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  A recent experience of someone close to me has inspired me to expand on that post.

Toward the close of my BCAM post I made the following statement:

Nowhere in these "women's health" and breast cancer awareness campaigns is any attention paid to whether or not women have equal access to healthcare; whether they receive the same treatment/respect by health professionals (in terms of their personal ability to act and make decisions; the assignment of moral culpability; the risks that are taken; and the expectations as to their ability to cope and recover); or how social norms and gender stereotypes may affect women's attitudes toward their own bodies and health. 

And here is the perfect example. A woman I know very well went to the doctor recently.  She was in physical therapy, and as a result of some conversations with her therapist, she was interested in having some imaging done to try to isolate a root cause of her injury.  The doctor told her, "There is no root cause.  You're a woman.  You're designed to push out babies.  You're going to have hip pain from time to time.  Your ligaments are overly stretchy because you need to get a baby through the small birth canal."  Now, the woman in question does NOT have stretchy ligaments (in fact, she's extremely tight), and seeing as to how she is not and has never been pregnant, she could not push out a baby right now if her life depended on it.  The doctor was apparently unaware that pregnancy hormones are responsible for all the increased elasticity at the time of childbirth.  He thought women are just like that all the time.  So he refused to help this woman.

This example illustrates the way in which "women's health issues," while commonly perceived to be a function of the female body itself, are often generated by social/political factors like institutionalized gender stereotypes and the false assumptions of medical practitioners.  People are all caught up with breasts and whatever else constitutes "women's health," but I would think the fact that a woman can be denied diagnostic imaging simply due to the fact that she is a woman - that is a real women's health issue, and one that no one is likely to talk about.

Book Review: The New Jim Crow

By Michelle Alexander

The New Jim Crow has been creating a bit of a buzz. The importance of this book is its claim that America’s racial caste system still exists:  the prison is the new plantation. Alexander makes the startling claim that there are more African Americans in prison today than there were enslaved in 1850. With all the attention given to America’s supposed racial progress (part of the larger Ideology of Progress, which is used to trumpet Western cultural/moral superiority), Alexander provides a sobering and much needed wake-up call to the contentedly oblivious citizens of the United States. Her challenge to prevailing ideas about racial equality is indispensible. Although she is obviously not the first person to question the true extent of racial equity in the United States, by framing current conditions as a “racial caste system” she is able to highlight structural continuities throughout U.S. history and carefully consider the difficulties presented to those who desire real systemic transformation.

To bolster her argument that the War on Drugs and the prison-industrial complex work together to sustain America’s racial caste system, Alexander describes the many critical points in the criminal justice process at which discriminatory practices are both legal and institutionalized. To start, Alexander notes that rates of drug use and sale are fairly identical across all racial/ethnic lines. In other words, African Americans do not use or sell drugs with any greater frequency than white Americans do. Yet, the War on Drugs is waged predominately in African American communities and random searches are largely targeted at people of color. Large-scale transfers of military equipment for use in drug law enforcement has increased violence and further diminished the security of “ghetto” neighborhoods. After their arrest, African Americans are subject to racial bias in the criminal justice system: prosecutors seek harsher sentencing for black defendants and are more likely to bring their cases to trial. Minimum sentencing laws ensure that minor infractions (possession of small amounts of marijuana, for example) result in years behind bars. Furthermore, these sentencing measures focus on drugs that are associated with people of color (e.g. possession of crack, a “black drug,” will land you many more years in prison than cocaine, a “rich, white person drug.”) Finally, once prisoners are released, additional punishments (such as excessive fees, ineligibility for welfare and public housing, and the loss of one’s right to vote) impact the lives of poor, urban dwellers more severely than those who have greater personal and familial financial security. The result of all of the above policies and practices is that, despite equality in drug use and sale, a very significant percentage of African American men (in Washington, D.C. for example it is around 75%) are at some point arrested and thus for the rest of their lives face all of the discrimination that was institutionalized in the Jim Crow era (hence “The New Jim Crow”).

Michelle Alexander’s broader arguments about reform and social transformation echo a number of key points that I have already discussed in this blog. 1) Policies like affirmative action and the presence of “token” minorities in the upper echelons of society, to the extent that they obscure the reality of on-going systemic oppression, may cause more harm than good. 2) Reformism is doomed to failure because it divides people’s energies and attentions and fails to confront the root causes of inequality. 3) We are not a post-racial society; our progress is, on the whole, illusory (in Alexander’s words “cosmetic”). To the third point, one need only look at the comment threads.... well.... anywhere on the internet, to see evidence of overt racism.

However, Alexander could have taken her argument even further. Yes, affirmative action is diverting attention and resources away from real systemic change. But is the War on Drugs really the root of the racial caste system? Slavery and Jim Crow were both confronted head on, but that did not stop the caste system from continuing unabated. That is because the root of racial caste is not any particular policy or institution, but rather the system itself. That is, capitalism. Alexander comes close to openly invoking capitalism as the cause of racial hostility, but always censors herself before going too far. Probably this is because she is trying to appeal to a “mainstream” audience and does want to sound too radical. Nonetheless, that is where the real battle is. That is where all of our energy and resources must be directed. If we want real change, we must confront capitalism. We need to educate the public, infiltrate the media, spread an awareness of the reality of capitalism in order to dampen the power of the propaganda currently dominating public discourse.

Is Julian Assange a Hero?

I have felt very conflicted about Julian Assange.  On the one hand, I appreciate the attempt of Wikileaks to bring public awareness to what the U.S. and other powerful interests are really doing around the world.  On the other hand, I would like to maintain consistency with my principle that allegations of sexual assault should never be dismissed.  In this respect, why should Julian Assange be treated any differently than Dominique Strauss-Kahn?

Then today I came across this commentary.  Couldn't have said it better myself.

Empowerment: Racist Rhetoric

I have already talked about the Western obsession with “empowering” women in other parts of the world (see here and here). Today I ran across this article detailing yet another statement to this effect: “this White House paper sums up by saying that 'across all [these] objectives, we will: deepen our engagement with Africa's young leaders; seek to empower marginalized populations and women...'”

I don’t really have anything new to say. I just felt my point was worth emphasizing. The discourse about empowering women and “marginalized populations” in other countries is a means of: 1) Asserting Western moral and cultural superiority (a sneaky form of racism); 2) Reinforcing the narrative of Progress; 3) Obfuscating domestic inequalities; and 4) Providing justification for various sorts of intervention (neocolonialism).

Most tellingly, this rhetoric is premissed on the assumption that it is Western powers that must do the empowering, while women and subalterns are passive recipients of empowerment, unable to act on their own accord.

It feels so good to be the Savior.

Male Violence

The other day I came across an article discussing the gendered nature of mass killings. I took a look because I was curious about what this person might have to say about gender and violence.

To start, the author presented some fairly obvious data illustrating the disproportionate prevalence in the United States of mass killings committed by men compared to those committed by women.

Now, the author took the data as an indication that males possess some sort of innate tendency toward violence. In fact, she chose for an analogy illnesses like lupus and anorexia, which disproportionately affect females, and to which an awareness of gender is employed in treatment and prevention.

And so I completely lost interest in this ground-breaking analysis. Any argument that rests on the concept of "human nature" - particularly a nature whose variations follow exactly along lines of gender and race - is automatically suspect to me. I have already discussed the rhetorical use of "human nature."  Yet I do not think I have touched on the social construction of gender in enough detail to warrant a link here.

I don't want to get too far off course, so I will limit myself, for now, to violence and aggression. It is commonly believed it is a biological fact that males are more aggressive than females. And testosterone is the culprit. In fact, no such evidence exists. Studies on testosterone are notoriously difficult to conduct, and the best ones have been conducted on birds, not people. Furthermore, they do not yield any conclusive findings.

You will argue, surely the prevalence of violence among males (compared to females) throughout history is proof enough. The problem is, it is difficult to make judgements about some sort of pure, unadulterated "human nature" when it has, for its entire existence, been so thoroughly polluted by society and culture.

To me, the fact that acts of mass violence are almost entirely committed by men suggests that this violence does not stem from any human nature at all. There is no evidence that anything biological is driving gender differences (gender as a set of behavioral traits, as opposed to sex, a set of anatomical features); and heaps of cross-cultural evidence prove just the opposite. However, there are countless numbers of societal features that do create and sustain gender differences. So it would be logical to suppose that these same societal characteristics are responsible for nurturing a male tendency toward violence.

To that end, I have subsequently come across the following articles that argue precisely that point.

http://jezebel.com/5928584/why-most-mass-murderers-are-privileged-white-men 
http://mona-uwi.academia.edu/ChristopherADCharles/Papers/1266846/Hegemonic_Masculinity_and_Mass_Murderers_in_the_United_States

Prevention Rhetoric

Every so often in the U.S. (this is true all over, but I stick with what I know), someone who never attracted too much attention before will buy a bunch of weapons and go on a killing spree. Everyone is shocked, of course. And ultimately, there is speculation and debate about how this might be prevented from happening in the future.

Prevention may be sought at the level of policy: say, gun control laws? It also may be attempted at the level of individual psychology: looking for the so-called “warning signs” that supposedly, if we are vigilant, can alert us to potential disaster.

Prevention discourse is a perfect example of the way in which the contradictory aims of neoliberalism and government function together in modern capitalist society. On the one hand, prevention rhetoric forms a key component of governmental power and the ideology of progress. That is, the impulse to try to rationally order human life to maximize happiness and minimize harm, along with the belief that this goal is attainable. Or, in raw terms: the urge to manage human beings with the tools of law and science (especially psychology) for the purpose of the common good.

On the other hand, prevention discourse simultaneously locates responsibility for phenomena NOT in the structure of society as a whole, not in the system itself, but in individuals. That, of course, is why psychology is key. (Once individuals are responsible for personal and collective goods, interventions can take place at the individual level.)

The problem is, responsibility does ultimately lie in the system itself, as much as people may want to attribute things like mass killings to some mystical psychosis or neurosis. We live in a society in which the production of arms in ridiculously large quantities is vital to the functioning of the economy. We operate within an economic system that alienates and dehumanizes masses of people. Our consciousness is permeated by a discourse that frames violence as a useful tool that can be justified by a variety of ends. To the latter point, I find it a bit ironic that the same people who are so horrified by an act of violence are, in the next moment, advocating (and almost relishing the thought of) violence against the perpetrator as a just and noble act.

It is impossible to prevent people from doing things that are unexpected. It is impossible to control people. Attempting some sort of technocratic solution to violence of this nature is futile. (A friend of mine tried to start a discussion about "If guns were regulated like cars..."; I was so tempted to respond:  yes, and those regulations adequately prevent drunk/angry/mentally impaired people from driving and killing people.)  Government policies and psychological research may be unable to restrain human actions, but the system itself, in terms of the availability of the means of violence that it proffers and the attitudes toward violence that it engenders, can make these mass killings more or less likely.

Divide and Conquer: Part 2

I have discussed the nefarious impacts of an ever-proliferating web of non-profits and government agencies, which diffuses the focus and energies of well-intentioned people in a multitude of different directions, preventing the emergence of a unified radical movement.

Then there is the more obvious divide and conquer strategy, of which there tends to be greater awareness. Historians and anthropologists have noted that the origin of the concept of “race” coincided with an attempt (successful) to create a wall of separation between poor whites and black slaves, and thus prevent them from uniting to overthrow the system that oppressed them both. Throughout American history, working-class whites have been told that they are competing with blacks (and immigrants) for jobs, all the while opportunist politicians cultivate an insidious racism which may be used to garner their support for the ruling elite. In the words of Bob Dylan (excerpts from Only A Pawn in Their Game):

A South politician preaches to the poor white man
"You got more than blacks, don't complain
You're better than them, you been born with white skin" they explain

The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid
And the marshals and cops get the same
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight

The strategic cultivation of poor, white racism is more well-known. But I often wonder if the same tactic is used to create divisions along lines of gender, sexual orientation, and class (the latter within the same race).

For example, there has been some attention given to the fact that macho-ism/sexism is more exaggerated within white, blue-collar and African American communities (this works internationally as well, but I will stick to the American context for now). There are many scholarly and popular examples. Just recently, for example, the CNN news anchor Don Lemon, upon publicizing his sexual orientation, discussed the extreme difficulties (greater than in American society at large) of being gay in the African American community. And there has been no end to the public discussion about sexism in hop-hop music and culture. Likewise, the image of white, blue-collar life is a paragon of gender stereotypes: blue-collar men fix cars, go hunting, ride trucks and motor cycles, get wasted at the bar and get in fights. Music associated with working-class culture (most notably country and hard rock) is rife with sexism. Lyrics this time from Brad Paisley (country singer):

When you see a deer, you see Bambi
And I see antlers up on the wall
When you see a lake you think picnics
And I see a large mouth up under that log

When you see a priceless friend's painting
I see a drunk naked girl
When you think that riding a wild bull sounds crazy
And I'd like to give it a whirl

These days there's dudes gettin' facials
Manicured, waxed and botoxed
With deep spray-on tans and creamy lotiony hands
You can't grip a tackle box

Yeah, with all of these men linin' up to get neutered
It's hip now to be feminized
But I don't highlight my hair, I've still got a pair
Yeah honey, I'm still a guy

Oh, my eyebrows ain't plucked, there's a gun in my truck
Oh thank God, I'm still a guy

Effeminate men (in the above song, the "dudes getting facials"), in contrast, are associated with elitism and upper-class lifestyles.

Moreover, many people have noted, with great concern, that successful blacks tend to disassociate themselves from poor black communities. They move out into the suburbs and adopt “white” cultural preferences. Black students who do “too well” in school may be criticized for “acting white.”

All of these public images, stories, and stereotypes serve to reinforce boundaries among various groups of people who would be better served by creating a unified front to combat an unjust system. I cannot help but wonder, based on the divide and conquer strategies that have been used to put a wedge been poor white and black, if the public images of these divisions (sexist/homophobic lower-class white and blacks, middle-class versus poor blacks, etc.) spring purely from the social realities.... or if the social realties themselves were partially constructed (and are partially reconstructed) by means of the proliferation of these images and stories in the public sphere.

Is there some iniquitous force lurking in the background, purposefully trying to create and exacerbate all numbers of divisions among the large population of oppressed human beings?

I can speculate, though I have yet to come across any real research. (If anyone knows of any, please comment!) It is a bit curious that, since the time of slavery, white men publicly called into question the masculinity of black males (for instance, calling them “boy”), seemingly trying to provoke them in some way, while scientists simultaneously disseminated their conclusions that black men are inherently hyper-masculine and aggressive. Then, there is the widely-circulated idea that one must be a bread-winner in order to be a “real man,” thus inciting men who are not able to adequately provide for their families to assert their manhood in other ways. Moreover, one must consider who really gets to decide what types of hip hop/hard rock/country music is available in music stores (real or electronic), heard on the radio, featured in movies, and thus ultimately, what artists and songs become representative of these genres? Finally, one must also observe that African Americans for the most part are not allowed to be successful unless they disassociate themselves to a certain degree from black culture and the life of the ghetto. Many students find that they have to “act white” in order to avoid being stigmatized by their teachers, if they want to do well in school. Thus, I can see some evidence that these divisions may be fostered by dominant groups.

 If this is the case, then it follows logically that it would be a divide and conquer strategy.