Running Head: PERSPECTIVES OF THE WAR-ON-WOMEN

Perspectives of the War-On-Women Angella Giannacopoulos Laura Wake-Ramos Preston Barrett The Pennsylvania State University

PERSPECTIVES OF THE WAR-ON-WOMEN Abstract

The War-On-Women is a serious issue that has come under scrutiny recently. This war brings into light womens rights, and focuses on how they are being oppressed. Examples of this include Rush Limbaughs recent public attacks on Sandra Fluke calling her a slut and a prostitute. This is simply one example of how women are being oppressed. However, several communication theories offer a way to find a solution. The first is Standpoint Theory, which basically states that all knowledge is subjective. Because of this, it is important to look at issues from the minoritys perspective as they generally have a more inclusive view of the issue, and will allow for a more even distribution of power. Another communication theory is Symbolic Interactionism. This states that people assign meanings to symbols based on how the symbol is perceived. This perception is shaped by many things, primarily day to day interactions with other people, which also shapes the concept of self and community. Both of these theories can be applied as women are underrepresented in government and media, so their voice is not being heard. And when they are being represented, women are portrayed as being weak and needing for care, or as promiscuous concubines who need to be watched. To end this War-On-Women, the symbol of what it means to be a woman needs to change, and it has to have increased spotlight in the public eye.

PERSPECTIVES OF THE WAR-ON-WOMEN Perspectives of the War-On-Women

The War-On-Women has been an all-out campaign to control, intimidate, and humiliate women as a group (Conniff, 2012). The war is against women not only in the American public life, but in politics, and through media sources as well. In the past, women have been insulted by sexual slurs or privately degraded. Now there is a new level of the issue, because women are being publically offended. One example that caught the publics attention was when Republican representative, Rush Limbaugh, publically embarrassed a Georgetown University law student. He called her a slut in front of a congressional panel, after she spoke of her opposition for a federal health-care exemption (Noonan, 2012). Women are expected to be able to handle these types of attacks without offense, in return for the equal opportunity to voice their opinions in American politics. In addition, the War-On-Women has revolved around the issue of womens health care, and the right for women to make personal choices for health and values (2012). For example, the governor of Texas has pushed a rule making it illegal for funds to go to Planned Parenthood, which provides insurance for 40% out of the 130,000 women enrolled in the program. In the year 2011, a record of 92 new abortion restrictions were passed in 24 states, breaking the previous record of 34 (2012). Republicans seem to be limiting womens

reproductive rights, including birth control, which 90% of American women rely on (2012). An interesting theory that can help to define this topic is the Standpoint Theory. This theory works on the premise that for any issue, there are different standpoints or perspectives to look at the issue from (Griffin, 2012). The problem with this, however is that there is often a majority that feel a certain way, and the lens through which the problem is examined is from the standpoint of the majority. This leads to numerous problems. First of all, just because there is a majority consensus doesnt mean that the rest of the group does not matter. Second of all, it

PERSPECTIVES OF THE WAR-ON-WOMEN

highly limits not only the scope of the problem, but also the possible solutions. Because of this dividing factor, an in-group/out-group dynamic is created, developing a difference of cultures between the two groups (2012). The negative of this is that the majority often already has support, whereas the different people that compromise the minority opinion (marginalized groups) are at a disadvantage. Not only do they have to bring about their ideas and try to show that the new idea is a valid one, but they also have to prove that the current situation is not working. By placing the burden of proof on the marginalized groups, the majority simply needs to defend the status quo, and when the society is in the mindset of this is how we have always done it, that job is much easier (2012). The importance of this is that those in the marginalized groups often have a better understanding of the situation (2012). Those who are in power can easily turn a blind eye to things that make them uncomfortable, but the marginalized groups often have no choice but to struggle through those situations. A good way to bring about change in society is to change the way that society looks at an issue. This is what Standpoint Theory is about. Instead of standing in the middle and looking right on top of a topic, a more comprehensive tactic of standing at the edge and looking at all the ways that the topic can be approached will yield a greater number of possibilities and better results. This brings to light the idea of local knowledge versus knowledge from nowhere (2012). This idea states that knowledge is partial, and that the context of the knowledge, such as time, place, experience, etc., makes an impact, instead of knowledge that is value-free from an unknown source (2012). Because the majority has the power, they also have the ability to manipulate knowledge; they decide what is important to talk about and set the groundwork for what is socially acceptable. In doing so, the majority shapes society. Only by

PERSPECTIVES OF THE WAR-ON-WOMEN

looking from the outside in can a total representative view of society be seen, creating a strong objectivity in the process (2012). Another interesting theory that coincides with the previous theory is Symbolic Interactionism. This theory follows the basic idea that perception is reality. In this theory, meaning is situated in people, not things (2012). The three basic principles of this theory are the principle of meaning, the principle of language, and the principle of thought. The principle of meaning, which is defined as the construction of social reality, highlights that humans interact towards other people or things based on the meanings that they have assigned to those people or things (2012). Language is defined as the source of meaning, highlighting the principle of language which states that meaning comes from social interaction between people. The final principle, the principle of thought, states that an individual modifies their interpretation of a symbol with his or her own thought process. Thought is defined as taking the role of the other, which leads into the important idea of self versus community that this theory touches on. An important idea that this theory holds is that a person cannot find their self through introspection, but rather through imagining how they look form another persons perspective (2012). Because a person has to think about how others perceive him or her, an idea of a generalized other, or community comes about. This is the result of the expectations of others are socialized, and shapes how a person thinks and interacts with the community around him or her, creating social norms (2012). Symbolic Interactionism describes how a social reality is created by language (Griffin, 2012). The language used in political debates defines the publics perceived reality of the figures and the situation. Over the past few years, public female figures are being called demeaning names, such as slut, whore, prostitute, bimbo (Noonan, 2012), which is somewhat new

PERSPECTIVES OF THE WAR-ON-WOMEN

to American politics. It is shocking how these words are not private insults anymore, but rather public and open. Symbolic Interactionism describes how one creates an image of self through anothers perspective (2012). Insulting female public figures can offend a majority of the female population. If women see female public figures being sneered by terms that are specifically targeted towards females, their perception of self is belittled as well. Insulting female public figures upsets the whole female population, as well as a percentage of men who hold similar values. Furthermore, this theory supports how insults become a vicious cycle between both parties of political debates. If the Republican Party humiliates a female Democratic

representative, Democrats will pick up similar tactics to offend a Republican to maintain their self-image. Politicians must change with similar tactics to prove that they can handle these insults towards them, and willing to fight back. They are afraid of appearing weak, and losing the publics support. Instead of politicians arguing policies for the benefit of society, they are fighting to maintain their own self-reputation by humiliating others to stay afloat in the battle. Standpoint Theory can help explain the War-On-Women, because of the multiple perspectives of the situation, including perspectives created by Symbolic Interactionism. Each of these perspectives has different values and beliefs that affect the War-On-Women. One of these perspectives is defined by the Standpoint Theory, which states that men have reasons to defend the status quo. Men feel that they have to fight for their roles in society. Over the past few generations, the roles of men and women have become less defined. More women are active in careers that used to be dominant by men, and more men are taking up the typical housewives roles. The year 1992 marked the year for women to be encouraged to enter politics (2012). For the first time in history, a woman won the nomination of a major party in the 2008 U.S. Presidential elections. This historic event proves to show how far women have come to gain

PERSPECTIVES OF THE WAR-ON-WOMEN

equal rights in opportunities as men and how recent the break through is from the past traditions. This perspective of men defending their role in society conflicts with other perspective of women who are offended to have their opportunities controlled by this group. These two groups can be defined as an in-group and out-group. The in-group would be the dominant male leaders, who create policies that control female opportunities, and demean those women who detach from the status quo. The in-group has the majority of the support, which makes it more difficult for the out-group to have a voice. In the incidences of abortion laws, state governments are now tweaking laws and making abortions nearly impossible, despite the circumstances of rape or incest, and despite what public wants. In Limbaughs case, 72% of his followers are men (Conniff, 2012), so clearly the majority of women do not accept his policies. After all, these types of policies specifically affect women, so they should reflect the values of women. Since these womens opinions are being ignored or undervalued, this

perspective is considered the marginalized group. Another perspective in the War-On-Women issue, is that some people believe there is no real War-On-Women at all. This perspective views the situation simply as any other debate on policies, and certain people have escalated the conflict into a scandal, or in this case, a war. The media has helped to heighten the debate, and conveys a false reality to the public. On the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Stewart points out that the media has used the word war to describe multiple debates in the past decade, including Christmas, Hanukah, fossil fuels, sugary drinks, the Constitution, and chocolate milk (Stewart, 2012). This perspective sees the War-OnWomen is a phony political debate. If one political party can be accused of declaring a war on approximately 50% of the U.S. population, then this leaves only one solution available for the public: to vote for the other political party (2012) of course. This approach seems a reasonable

PERSPECTIVES OF THE WAR-ON-WOMEN

motive, because more women have voted in men in every Presidential election since 1964 (2012). Another perspective believes that abortion and womens reproductive rights have The

heightened within American politics as a battle to target certain religious voters.

Republicans are playing to them because they think if they can galvanize just enough Catholic voters, they will control the way the presidency goes" (2012).

PERSPECTIVES OF THE WAR-ON-WOMEN Discussion

The War-On-Women is a complicated debate, because there is not a singular cause or person to blame. Symbolic Interactionism helps to understand each of the different perspectives of the issue, and the Standpoint Theory draws the relationships between each perspective and explains why the debate still continues. The Standpoint Theory can also help draw solutions for the problem. Because there are so many standpoints of the issue, it is difficult to define an efficient solution. To begin listing solutions, the symbol of what it means to be a woman needs to change in society. The image of a woman is becoming more sexualized than the past, proven by the verbal harassments chosen, and how the media portrays women in advertisements and magazines. This way, all women would not be targeted on the same personal level, such as their sexuality. Secondly, public figures should focus on representing and listening to the values of the public, not on winning the election. By allowing the marginalized group to voice their opinions in an open manner, without being shut down and insulted, then new understandings and compromises can be established. This country is proud to declare that every citizen has the freedom to make their own choices, so female citizens should have the freedom of decided their own reproductive rights and the freedom of speaking their opinions without harassments. Experts understand that the debate will terminate after the years presidential election, and its possible that the voters might not favor the Republicans (Conniff, 2012). However, the greatest danger is not what voters remember, but what their impressions are. These are things that may be untrue, but can never be erased (2012).

PERSPECTIVES OF THE WAR-ON-WOMEN References (2012). Americas War On Women. The Toronto Star. (2012). Which Party Wages Real War On Women? Wall Street Journal, A14. Conniff, R. (2012). The GOP War On Women. The Progressive, 76(5), 8. Griffin, E. (2012). A First Look at Communication Theory. McGraw-Hill, 54-64, 447-458.

10

Noonan, P. (2012). Declarations: Americas Real War On Women. Wall Street Journal, A15. Owens, P. (2012). OPINION: Is GOP Waging War On Women? Tribune Business News. Stewart, J. (2012). The battle for the War On Women. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 8-9.