![TYPED POST FOR 2.3.12:
I don’t have much to write today, but I have a few reflections regarding the readings from earlier this week and for Monday (though I haven’t finished all of them), but:
I really want to focus on Half The Sky for a moment. I know that Half The Sky is the novel that UConn Reads “adopted” in behalf of entire university to read and that’s nice. Though I would also like to point out that I have not read the entire book, except for what has been assigned, so I cannot give a legitimate opinion regarding the book [yet]. However, it is already stirring controversy.
Let me tell you a little story. I find it a little funny being a nursing major with a women’s studies minor because other than a reproductive rights/justice approach, what I learn in each realm can sometimes be on very polar sides of a spectrum (particularly the political one). When Barbara Gurr introduced why the novel was ‘kind-of’ part of our curriculum agenda, she also mentioned that she was appalled by the novel —but this is a sentient that I have heard and ‘kind-of’ discussed with self-identified feminists and other women involved in the women’s studies department/community who have read the book already. I obviously can’t speak for professor Gurr, but I can assume already that there are a few things that make this novel problematic:
For one thing, Kristoff glorifies that ‘oppressions [can be turned] into opportunity’, but his novel could present itself as more exploitative than inspiring because it targets conspicuously specific, marginalized communities of women (ie. women of color; women in global regions that are expected to be experiencing oppression).
And, I’m assuming that —though I have not read it entirely—the novel does not mention any oppressions occurring within the developed world nor the reasons that facilitate certain oppressions and how they are perpetuated by the global ‘system’ (ie. microediting/microfinancing).
For example, it is explicitly clear from the readings that microfinancing does not necessarily alleviate poverty, but rather, may actually perpetuate the cycle of debt, and domestic work, domestic violence, etc. Just a single example of this is the idea of home-based, informal workers within the Philippines, where being employed does not mean that you have enough to have a solid, sustained living. Thus, there is an increased likelihood that extra, informal work is necessary to compensate. However, in direct relation to women and informal work, there is a saying that “women are last hired, first fired”; though this may not necessarily be true because of the lack of women’s interest for maternity leave even during pregnancy and many womens’ [unfortunate] tolerance of violence against women within the work force as a means of just making a living (Podcast: Money in the Margins).
I’m sure there are many more reasons contributing to the controversy, but these are what I can make sense of for now.
Now, back in relation to how my nursing career intersects with a feminist agenda and Half the Sky, literally, the next day, my Public Health Nursing (NURS3130) professor, Colleen Delaney (bless her kind soul!), promoted the book with such vigor, and passion, reverence, and enthusiasm, which obviously put Half the Sky in a very different light. Professor Delaney, herself, appears to be a very genuine, calm person and I found it quite interesting that she held the novel to such high esteem, especially since she often references women’s health in her lectures more often than I think most students in that class recognize. From a nursing perspective, I can absolutely see why she would hold Kristoff’s work with such regard —it offers a holistic approach to health (an idea that not only incorporates physical and mental health status, but [economic] opportunity, recreation, spirituality, education, and other contributions to holistic health as well). And if oppression is turned into opportunity, this is an obvious win in terms of beneficial health outcomes, particularly for women.
In other, greater, national headline news, the Susan G. Komen Foundation has reinstituted funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care provider! This is a major win for Planned Parenthood as the organization has raised over $3 million since Komen’s defuding intiative! In fact, the mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, matched every dollar Planned Parenthood raised during its state of defunding by the Komen Foundation up to $250,000 to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America! To read the official statement released by Cecile Richards, herself, please click here.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz9mwqRRuV1ro3gt1o1_1280.jpg)
TYPED POST FOR 2.3.12:
I don’t have much to write today, but I have a few reflections regarding the readings from earlier this week and for Monday (though I haven’t finished all of them), but:
I really want to focus on Half The Sky for a moment. I know that Half The Sky is the novel that UConn Reads “adopted” in behalf of entire university to read and that’s nice. Though I would also like to point out that I have not read the entire book, except for what has been assigned, so I cannot give a legitimate opinion regarding the book [yet]. However, it is already stirring controversy.
Let me tell you a little story. I find it a little funny being a nursing major with a women’s studies minor because other than a reproductive rights/justice approach, what I learn in each realm can sometimes be on very polar sides of a spectrum (particularly the political one). When Barbara Gurr introduced why the novel was ‘kind-of’ part of our curriculum agenda, she also mentioned that she was appalled by the novel —but this is a sentient that I have heard and ‘kind-of’ discussed with self-identified feminists and other women involved in the women’s studies department/community who have read the book already. I obviously can’t speak for professor Gurr, but I can assume already that there are a few things that make this novel problematic:
- For one thing, Kristoff glorifies that ‘oppressions [can be turned] into opportunity’, but his novel could present itself as more exploitative than inspiring because it targets conspicuously specific, marginalized communities of women (ie. women of color; women in global regions that are expected to be experiencing oppression).
- And, I’m assuming that —though I have not read it entirely—the novel does not mention any oppressions occurring within the developed world nor the reasons that facilitate certain oppressions and how they are perpetuated by the global ‘system’ (ie. microediting/microfinancing).
- For example, it is explicitly clear from the readings that microfinancing does not necessarily alleviate poverty, but rather, may actually perpetuate the cycle of debt, and domestic work, domestic violence, etc. Just a single example of this is the idea of home-based, informal workers within the Philippines, where being employed does not mean that you have enough to have a solid, sustained living. Thus, there is an increased likelihood that extra, informal work is necessary to compensate. However, in direct relation to women and informal work, there is a saying that “women are last hired, first fired”; though this may not necessarily be true because of the lack of women’s interest for maternity leave even during pregnancy and many womens’ [unfortunate] tolerance of violence against women within the work force as a means of just making a living (Podcast: Money in the Margins).
- I’m sure there are many more reasons contributing to the controversy, but these are what I can make sense of for now.
Now, back in relation to how my nursing career intersects with a feminist agenda and Half the Sky, literally, the next day, my Public Health Nursing (NURS3130) professor, Colleen Delaney (bless her kind soul!), promoted the book with such vigor, and passion, reverence, and enthusiasm, which obviously put Half the Sky in a very different light. Professor Delaney, herself, appears to be a very genuine, calm person and I found it quite interesting that she held the novel to such high esteem, especially since she often references women’s health in her lectures more often than I think most students in that class recognize. From a nursing perspective, I can absolutely see why she would hold Kristoff’s work with such regard —it offers a holistic approach to health (an idea that not only incorporates physical and mental health status, but [economic] opportunity, recreation, spirituality, education, and other contributions to holistic health as well). And if oppression is turned into opportunity, this is an obvious win in terms of beneficial health outcomes, particularly for women.
In other, greater, national headline news, the Susan G. Komen Foundation has reinstituted funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care provider! This is a major win for Planned Parenthood as the organization has raised over $3 million since Komen’s defuding intiative! In fact, the mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, matched every dollar Planned Parenthood raised during its state of defunding by the Komen Foundation up to $250,000 to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America! To read the official statement released by Cecile Richards, herself, please click here.
