WTF, Shit sucks for women.

Womens Rights March, 1960

There have been hundreds of laws passed from 1769 to 2018 aimed at policing women's bodies. Women continue to be one of the most marginalized groups on this planet. Anywhere from voting rights, working night shifts, working government jobs, to birth care have been policed, and put out of reach for women in one of the most advanced nations in the world; America. Today there still exist many laws limiting what a woman can and cannot do.

 One of the most crucial factors on the matter is access to proper birth control. Women have fought endlessly to demand proper healthcare for pre and post birth. Anything from easy access to contraceptives to medically regulated abortions is what women are striving to make accessible and a human right. In early 2018, 347 measures to restrict abortion or birth control had been introduced in 37 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Refinery29 gives a more in-detail view of these measures: “ten new restrictions on abortion were adopted in five states. Several states have put extreme restrictions in place since Trump's election: Iowa tried to ban abortion at six weeks, well before many women even know they are pregnant; Mississippi also tried to ban the procedure at 15 weeks; Arizona now requires women to explain why they are seeking an abortion. “

It doesn't stop there. At the start of President Trump’s term, one of his first executive actions was to expand the global gag rule (also known as the Mexican City Policy), which he has renamed the “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance.” The policy was first

Trump signing Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance
Policy, 2017

introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, and later expanded by President Trump in 2017, which required foreign NGOs to certify that they will not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” with non-U.S. funds as a condition for receiving U.S. global family planning assistance and, as of Jan. 23, 2017, most other U.S. global health assistance. This action not only blocks health care and birth control options, but targets funding for HIV under the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), maternal and child health, malaria, nutrition, and other programs (KFF). Now, may I add that Trump passed this policy the day after Mothers Day, and during women's health week. Within Trump’s term, he has been faithful to his Pro-Life stance and has nominated two anti-choice justices to the U.S. Supreme Court; and has continued Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. Wow.

What these types of legislation/policies/barriers do is dehumanize women. When powerful organizations support, condone, and even create these policies, they become the enforcers of evil. These entities whether it be the government, private or religious organizations, all work to limit the pursuit of a happy, fulfilling life for many women. This equates a woman to a lesser value as a person. To deny basic health rights to a person, insinuates the lack of importance for the person, in this case, women. These issues give us a clear insight as to the ideologies that still plague our government and its supporters. And as unfortunate as it is, the forefront runners and leaders of this movement are male, specifically religious heterosexual males.
The media plays a big role in influencing the misogynistic culture of dehumanizing women. As alarming as President Trump’s actions have been toward women, the media is just as macabre. We learned earlier in the semester how engraved in patriarchal ideologies our society is. Through Berger in Ways of Seeing we have analyzed some of its core like the male gaze, and it’s dangers. The biggest issue at play is not only the objectification of women but the over-sexualization. What the media and our corrupt government have in common, is that they both love women… in bed. A woman's role in media has been to be an eyesight rather than a character, an object to masturbate to rather than to talk to. Laura Mulvey explains the involuntary passive role of women, in Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema “ In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female. The determining male gaze projects its phantasy on the female figure which is styled accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionist role, women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness. - she holds the look, plays to and signifies male desire.” We consume these ideologies and become one with what it teaches. We have viewed, streamed, and owned film that supports this hierarchy of passive, unintelligent, sex object female. Through this perspective, media has hurt how women’s bodies and sexuality are viewed by morphing women into objects making them a commodification/export that can be sold and marketed.

Now, times are changing. The media is a tad more aware. The whole idea of beauty is evolving and becoming more conscious of its viewer, yet through such progress, much is still left to achieve. Lindsay King-Miller brings to light some of the issues still present in changing the way media cooperates with women. In King’s piece PRETTY UNNECESSARY: TAKING BEAUTY OUT OF BODY POSITIVITY , she explains the danger of beauty and its association with freedom and self-empowerment. King explains that our issue overall with exterior appearance is not a  stable companion to partner with empowerment. The media has begun to take on the role of body positivity, but what King explains that this marketing technique is just as shallow as sexism itself  “This is what’s dangerous about making physical attractiveness synonymous with empowerment. The need for visibility often becomes entangled with the “need” for beauty, because media so seldom represents bodies and faces not considered beautiful that it becomes difficult to recognize ourselves if we are outside of the mainstream beauty standard.” King goes on to dissect the roots and concept of beauty in media by stating that its founded on hierarchy, racism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, ageism, cissexism, and other forms of marginalization. What the media can do to help combat negative views of women's bodies and sexuality is learning to change the way we view women. Pieces like these of Lindsay King-Miller are revolutionary, they force us to look in different directions where the conversation has not reached. The fact alone that King’s article exists is a step in the right direction. I want to end my post with one of King’s quotes:

“We should affirm our bodies for what they can do, how they can feel, the tribulations they’ve survived, and the amazing minds they carry around, without having to first justify their existence by looking pretty. “ - Lindsay King-Miller.