Ahhh… eugenics raises its’ ugly head, again

“All of the hundreds of billions we gave to Haiti, during the Clinton years, was wasted. Nothing will change there, without a significant push for birth control. Haitians are poor, and uneducated , with no social structures, but they keep producing more and more progeny who are also poor and uneducated, and without social structure. We must help them with this crisis, but we must not waste more money in Haiti, without some kind of highly structured plan for strict birth control.”

–Comment by Mitchell Jones of Pennsylvania on David Brooks’ column on the earthquake tragedy in Haiti, January 15, 2010.

Sigh.

Here we go again. There is some disaster, somewhere in the world, and people get to have a chance to make all sorts of opinions about how Black folk raise their babies.

Let’s keep it real here: when was the last time that people recommended White folk taking more birth control after a natural disaster? 90 people were killed, 1500 injured and tens of thousands left homeless after an earthquake struck 26 towns in Central Italy last year. Anyone remember a news article blaming the Italians for having too many children, thus not deserving of U.S. aid?

Yeah, didn’t think so.

I don’t understand why every time poverty and race are mentioned the next comment is invariably something to do with “those people” not having any more children. One could think of many other responses: Gee, I wish the French hadn’t left a colonialist legacy of racism and slavery in Haiti that has continued violence and poverty to this day. Or, one could say, my, this most recent U.S. recession has shown me how greatly the privileges of the rich affect the lives of the poor; that sure makes me feel mercy and compassion for the poor Haitians.

But nope. You still get people like dear old Mitchell Jones recommending that poor Black people dig their way out of a horrific and tragic earthquake by not having any more children.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by this. After all, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and the woman who launched the birth control pill in the United States, is a known eugenicist.  She gave lectures to the KKK, launched what she termed the “Negro Project” (which aimed to get birth control into Black communities), and is known for such admirable statements as:

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

and….

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

What a lovely woman.

Now, now, I am sure that there are some who would eagerly contradict me. But Christine, that’s all in the past! That comment in the NYT was by a crackpot. Surely no rational person thinks that birth control is a useful way to keep the Black folk down anymore?

Wrong.

Fact Number One: The Center for Disease Control has reported that Black women are disproportionately more likely to have an abortion than women of other races, leading some Black activists, including Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King, jr.’s niece, to question why Planned Parenthood is overwhelmingly located in Black neighborhoods; other activists call abortion a “Black Genocide”. Fact Number Two: In a study published in the late 1990s, economist Steven D. Levitt of the University of Chicago and Stanford Law School Professor John J. Donohue III concluded that legalized abortion might explain why America experienced an overall reduction in crime from 1991 to 1997.

Eh. cough. cough.

Lemme just take that one again, real slow now. So these “well-educated” MEN think that abortion is a good idea because it reduces crime….And they think they are….what…? Well intentioned? Scientists?

Makes you wonder if the next time you pick up your OrthoTricyclen at the drugstore if it should have a little warning label on it, like cigarettes.

WARNING: Birth Control may be hazardous for your racial health. Black women in particular may have adverse reactions.

_________

References for quotes:

1. Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

2. Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

Do Chicks Still Rule?

A few weeks ago a girlfriend of mine and I sat around sipping wine and talking world issues. She’s a naturopathic doctor and after we went through vaccines (she’s against) and depression medication (plenty of natural alternatives), we lighted briefly on female circumcision.  ”I’m so glad women in the West don’t have to deal with such misogyny,” my gal-pal declared. I acquiesced at the  time, but the comment stuck a little in my craw. And ever since I have been wondering…

…are women in the West so much better off than the rest of the world?

The more I have been thinking and looking and listening over the last few months, the more I am convinced that American misogyny is alive and kicking. It’s just changed, that’s all. It’s gone underground and it is so insidious that we barely even notice it.

But before I make my case I need to “out” myself. While I am ultimately completely appreciative of the fact that I can be an unmarried, 32 year old woman in graduate school who lives on my own without being a social pariah– I’m still only a fair weather feminist. Yes, I read Gloria Steinem and Audre Lorde in high school along with everyone else. I attended a women’s consciousness-raising group in New York for years and loved it. I have grappled with bell hooks and Gloria Anzaldua in graduate school and deconstructed the intersections of race and gender. But secretly, I have been wondering for a while if feminism is an overly academic charade. As I sit around kitchen tables and listen to my girlfriends I wonder what the hell feminism has actually gotten us. Hear me out: my girlfriends work two jobs. They are full-time moms and full-time career women. And they are drowning. While some do have fantastic husbands who help out at home, it is biologically true that there are certain things that only moms can do, and that those things require women to put in more time at home.  Furthermore, workplaces haven’t changed to accommodate moms, and the current culture of work-until-you-collapse certainly doesn’t help anything. Moreover, femininity seems to be getting attacked from all sides and we are too exhausted to do anything about it.

Case #1: Drag Queens

When I was 21 I hung out in a fantastic dive bar in Philadelphia. In those days, you could get a PBR and a shot of Jim Beam for two bucks, and see a drag show to boot. But after many drunken nights, the sociologist in me had to ask– why are men who mimic women showcasing mainly stereotypically negative qualities? 90% of the shows I have seen, and I’ve seen quite a few, play on cattiness, bitchiness, and hyper-sexualization. Why is that what a man who wants to portray a woman thinks of first?

Case #2: Sarah Palin

Look, I agree. The woman is clearly a media-hound and less than qualified to be the vice-president of the United States. As a dear friend of mine said– it’s like they took the understudy and pushed her onto stage before she’d had a chance to learn her lines. But does that excuse the way that her gender has been used to mock and revile her in the media? Her parenting skills, her clothing purchases, and her body (most recently on the cover of Newsweek) have all been court-marshalled to provide evidence for her unworthiness. Did anyone EVER criticize Bill Clinton’s raising of Chelsea after Monica Lewinsky? Does anyone EVER question what Barack Obama is wearing during this time of recession? And can you IMAGINE George Bush on the cover of Newsweek in speedos?

Case #3: Girls Gone Wild

I know it is an easy target but I have to include it. GGW is only the soft-core tip of the iceberg when it comes to women’s sexual humiliation. The porn industry is a $13 billion dollar a year industry and has been qualified by many as having now moved from the margins to firmly mainstream.  Never mind the fact that many experts consider pornography to be one of the worst addictions around, porn HUMILIATES women. These videos are not loving explorations of another’s humanity… they are exercises in men hurting and using women’s bodies for their own pleasure and walking away. And it is just kinda… accepted.  I was with a group of PhDs the other day and a few of the men were joking around about their porn habits. The only other woman in the group– a mother, joked back ‘Hey, it’s not just for guys!’ What is going on when women get off on watching other women humiliated?

Case #4: Sexual abuse of girls.

According to the Center for Disease Control, 1 in 4 girls under the age of 18 are sexually abused annually. Continuing my question about why women can be ok with participating in the humiliation of other women, I recently freaked over two news stories.  I recently read about John Jackey Worman, who was caught in August with 11,000 child pornography videos. He sexually molested girl children at his girlfriend’s daycare center in suburban Philadelphia. She held the camera as he raped an infant.

And also horrifically, Phillip Garrido. Garrido, a convicted sex offender, kidnapped an 11-year-old girl 18 years ago. A few weeks ago, she was found living in a tent in his backyard with two children she had by him. Garrido’s wife, Nancy, a nurse and non-profit employee, apparently participated in raping the little girl and watched over her for five months while Garrido was in prison.

Do I need to go on?

Case #5: Divorce

Divorce is out of control.  It is bad for women and bad for children and we have come to accept it as a natural course of the life experience.  I recently spoke with a married woman who told me she was considering having a second child. She said she was worried about being able to manage two children with her work schedule. ‘Is staying home with them for a few years an option?’ I asked. ‘I’d love that,’ she replied. ‘But I have to work.’ When I asked her why, she laughed and said, ‘oh god, I can’t lose my income! I don’t want to be one of those women who is up a creek when her husband leaves her for a younger woman at 60!!’

Why do women have to sacrifice family life so that they can prepare for the inevitable day when divorce might emotionally and financially rip their lives apart? Yes, plenty of men get hurt through divorce. But with single mothers making up a disproportionate amount of families in poverty in this country, I think my tirade is justified.

Ultimately, here is my point. We have made great strides as women in this country– there is no dispute about that. But it seems to me that women (and men) have become complacent. Women are still being hurt, and misogyny is very much a pervasive part of our culture.

What terrifies me is how this misogyny is virtually unquestioned in the public sphere.

How many strides have we really made if only ninety years since we have gotten to vote (e.g., my grandmother’s lifetime) we are routinely mocked as strident bitches, the degradation of our sexuality earns people millions of dollars, and our female children, many of whom are in female-headed, impoverished households–are being sexually abused in record numbers?

It is with a heavy heart that I ask….. is the situation of Western women really so laudable?

Can you imagine complaining about going to Berkeley for $10,000 a year?

…or so saith the comment I just read in a forwarded email.

I have been reading similar comments all day, in between my visits to campus today. UCLA has been in an uproar– albeit a carefully orchestrated, mostly polite uproar,  for a few days now.

The comment was made regarding the protests at Berkeley and UCLA and across the entire UC system over the 32% tuition hike that was voted on today at UCLA by the UC Regents. It raises the cost of schooling to $10,320 by Fall 2009.  I read both the LA times and the New York Times articles about it, and many of the comments.  While most people got the impact of these decisions, quite a few others made comments like the one cited in my title. Sigh. Let me spell out WHY people should complain about going to Berkeley for 10,000 dollars a year.

(1) First of all, it isn’t 10,000 dollars a year. It’s more like 30,000 dollars a year. Los Angeles and San Francisco have some of the highest rents in the nation. California charges more taxes (I think) that anybody else in the world (ok, maybe that is an exaggeration, but it seems pretty damn close). In LA, sales tax alone is over nine percent. It’s an expensive place to go to school. Also outrageously expensive are things like textbooks, lab supplies, health insurance fees, and the occasional night out on the town. So when you are a student, working some 15 to 20 hours a week (which is a lot), making some 6 or 7 dollars an hour, a 32% hike is a LOT of money. That’s rent for three months. Or texbooks  and lab supplies and the occasional flight home to see your parents.

(2) The hike happened MID-YEAR. So students who applied to get into UCLA for this year had noooo idea that their tuition would drastically and dramatically change between Fall and Winter quarter.  Clearly, as the State of California is unable to balance her own budget, they could give a rat’s behind about the ability of anyone else to balance theirs. Way to have some foresight.

(3) Perhaps most importantly, this is part of the slow dismantling of the public sphere of the United States. Like parks, libraries, and the notion of the common good, the idea that we have public institutions, and spaces and places, that we all take care of for each other, is being buried under the most recent Walmart superstore. (I do gotta admit here that I am a sucka for that superstore. Good lord, it’s like a whole woooorld in those places. You never, ever, have to leave.) We are slowly becoming a completely consumerist, privatized nation.   That we barely flinch in the face of such grand gestures of privitization as this, has got to be some kind of indicator that we have become desensitized to the kind of America in which we once believed.

(4) The dismantling of the idea of equality along racial and socio-economic lines and the corresponding Horatio Alger dream of upward mobility.  The middle class is disappearing, and with it, our public schools.  $10, 320 dollars is a lot of money for the lower classes, who, by the way, are mostly Black and Latino. Inexpensive, excellent education through public universities is one of the few ways that the classes in the United States can still encounter each other, divided as we are geographically and in our labor. In other words, at a place like UCLA,  the children of a maquiladora worker and a Beverly Hills lawyer might sit next to each other in class.  They might have a conversation, and get to know about each other’s lives. In a city where the wealthiest and the poorest residents, mostly divided along racial lines, never have to intersect, and never have to learn how they share the same kind of humanity.  The way the new system is going, the child of the maquiladora worker will now only be able to afford a community college–if any higher education at all. This means waiting lists for classes, the possibility of having to take a class in the middle of the night (I kid you not– check the link), and a degree that means the class divisions of our society are guaranteed to be reproduced.

I’m not sure what the outcome of this will be. But I am worried, very worried. A generation without hope and failed promises is a desperate generation. Sometimes I look around me and for a moment, I feel as if I have caught a whiff of another world, of decadence in decline, of those eras bygone that tumbled down from their great projects and have had to relearn what really matters.