User:Tarahperkins/sandbox

Norplant

Normally removal is not complicated, however in the beginning of its facilitation doctors were not trained in removal procedures, which proved to cause further complications later on[7]

Although effective in regards to preventing pregnancy, in countries such as Indonesia, those currently taking Norplant are the only ones to receive their paycheck on time. It has also been reported in Indonesia that women have been threatened at gunpoint in order to accept the removal Norplant, in order to control population growth. [18]

Targets

Norplant was essentially a desired form of population control, specifically targeting African American women . At first the device was marketed specifically to poor women, and included an incentive of $500 from legislative members, along with an additional $50 dollars supplied to the women each additional year the device remained inserted . Due to the fact that society most often associates welfare recipients to be of African heritage, the black population in turn became the target population; blacks are also five times more likely to live in poverty, furthering the likelihood that they would be supplied the device. In addition to African American women, the teen population was also greatly affected by Norplant. Black birthrates to teen mothers are more than double compared to whites, which unfortunately further links the black race as a direct target for this form of population control . Although effective in decreasing teen birth rates, Norplant produced unintended consequences in relation to sexually transmitted diseases. More specifically, Norplant indirectly offered an incentive to have more sex; Norplant secured teens protection against having children, allowing them to have more sex without the burden of possibly having a child, which thus greatly increased the odds of contracting an STD . Overall Norplant failed to get at the root of the problem in regards to women in poverty. It was assumed that having too many children induced poverty, when in actuality the root cause was and still is the structure imposed upon them. Meaning that the lower class is often ignored, thus causing the rich become richer, while the poor become poorer.

The Victorian Economy

Sally Shuttleworth

During the Victorian era, the economy was seen as something stable, and controlled by man. However, if disrupted was seen to produce catastrophic effects on society. Due to the economy's high variability, it was often compared to a women's menstrual cycle and vice versa. The ideologue of the time, Herbet Spencer, describes the economic system as a "magnificent landscape trenched with dark drains", meaning that as a whole the economy is rather beautiful and structured, but needs to be controlled in order to avoid complication. In relation to the woman's body, the money of the economy was directly related to the blood within the body. At the time a woman's menstrual cycle was also seen as something that needed to be controlled, often mentally. The woman's body was not reflected in a positive light, described as "the sewer of all the excrements existing in the body". If the cycle's flow was obstructed, it was believed that the woman would be led to insanity, and thus the medical industry grew in order to solve these problems.

Sex (edit)

The child was seen to be in need of correction in order to be socially accepted in the future. However the situation proved to be far more complex than was originally thought. In the first surgeries, parents were not often consulted on the decision-making process when choosing the sex of the child. Doctors took it upon themselves to decide what was best based on certain forms of evidence, such as hormonal levels, or other extreme forms. Biologist Anne Fausto Sterling states that in the past doctors would decide if the sex were to be male or female based on the measurements of the penis or the clitoris . For example in one study of 100 newborn males, those with penises measuring in at2.9 to 4.5 centimeters are deemed acceptable and therefore designated as male. However one that measured less than 1.5 centimeters would undergo a female assignment. The idea of the environment and social norms shaping the sex of the child was not included, but instead the doctors relied mostly on a biological determinist perspective.

Sexual Dimorphism

In the past, specifically in the mid-nineteenth century, anthropologists found it crucial to distinguish between the male and female brains. An anthropolgist of the time, McGrigor Allan, argued that the female brain was similar to that of an animal . This allowed anthropologists to declare that women were in fact more emotional and less like their rational male counterparts. McGrigor then concluded that women’s brains were more analogous to infants, thus deeming them inferior at the time . To further these claims of female inferiority and silence the feminists of the time, other anthropolgists joined in on the studies of the female skull. These cranial measurements are the basis of what is known as craniology. These cranial measurements were also used to draw a connection between females and Negroes. French craniolgist, F. Pruner, went on to describe this relationship as: “The Negro resemble[ing] the female in his love for children, his family, and his cabin" . Pruner also went on to say that the negro is what the female is the white man, “a loving being and a being of pleasure” . New forms of cranial measurmet continued to progress well into the early twentieth century in a effort to further implement the sexual dimorphism between male and female skulls.

Social effects

Beginning in the late twentieth century to present day, more and more women are becoming involved in science. However, women often find themselves at odds with expectations held towards them in relation to their scientific studies. For example, in 1968 James Watson questions scientist Rosalind Franklin's place in the industry. He claimed that "the best place for a feminist was in another person's lab" , most often a male's research lab. Women were and still are often critiqued of there overall presentation. In Franklin's situation, she was seen as lacking femininity for she failed to wear lipstick or revealing clothing . Women believed that in order to gain recognition, they need to hid there feminine qualities, thus appearing more masculine. Women in the sixties were often forced to wear men's clothing, which often did not fit for they were to large or too short within the crotch area. Being that most of women's colleagues in science are men, women also find themselves left out of opportunities to discuss possible research opportunities. In Londa Scheibinger's book, Has Feminism Changed Science?, she explains how men discuss research outside of the lab, but this conversation is preceded by talk of sports and the like, thus excluding women . This causes women to to seek other women in science to converse with, this causes their final work to be looked down upon if seen that a male scientist was not involved.