If I can make one critique about the movie Juno, I would have to say that it offers a somewhat distorted account of what single motherhood entails. While I appreciate that Juno’s character pushes the boundaries of traditional femininity, I am troubled by her calm, sarcastic, and, dare I say, masculine attitude when it comes to negotiating her pregnancy. I feel as though Junos disposition as a socially awkward yet endearing teen valorizes traditional aspects of masculinity, while simultaneously rejecting the arguably terrifying and stressful reality of teen pregnancy. Moreover, Juno was offered an abundance of support throughout her pregnancy, and this, I feel, completely ignores the many barriers women dealing with unwanted pregnancies must face when attempting to secure support.

Despite my own critical analysis of the film, many feminist scholars have also made strong arguments about this films tendency to undermine women’s rights. Similar to my reading of the film, Hoerl explores the ways in which this film this film inadequately represents instances of teen pregnancy. Hoerl unpacks the word ‘choice’ and notes that for many teenagers dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, choice is often grounded in the opinions and pressures of others. Furthermore, Thoma suggests that by implicitly putting forward the idea that ‘choice’ exists, Juno depoliticizes the topic of abortion. To elaborate, it would be to say that if ‘choice’ existed, there would no longer be reason for debate on the topic of abortion, which is highly problematic.

Works Cited:

Thoma article:

http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/full/10.1080/14680770903233001#.VCs5GuktDIU

Hoerl article:

http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/full/10.1080/14791420.2010.523432#.VCsqBuktDIU

One of the most salient differences between BCAction and Susan G Komen are the ways in which they tackle solutions to the current breast cancer epidemic.

Susan G Komen’s tendency to offer individual solutions to a global issue bears a striking resemblance to rhetoric of the post-feminist era as articulated by McRobbie (Mc Robbie notes that post-feminist discourse adheres to neo-liberal values). With neo-liberalism came a marked shift in how the state addressed health care. Somewhere along the line, the state absolved its responsibility to ensure adequate health care for its citizens, and placed this burden on individuals. Komen seems to be exacerbating this phenomenon, which is not necessarily a good thing.

On the contrary, BCAction seemed adamant in addressing the systemic issues that correlate with breast cancer. Issues such as poverty, sexism, racism, consumerism, etc. In doing this, BCAction is putting pressure on the state to take responsibility for structural inequalities that are conducive to breast cancer. Moreover, they are asserting the idea that eradicating breast cancer is a collective and holistic activity. Collective as in it takes people from every rung of the social ladder to address and pose solutions to breast cancer (not just for individuals who suffer the disease), and holistic as in it strives to eradicate the underlying causes of breast cancer so as to eliminate the disease entirely (as opposed to ‘just dealing’ with the disease once diagnosed).

Endearingly enough, however, Komen (and BCAction) offer resources (financial and supportive) for persons with breast cancer on their website. While I strongly believe that addressing systemic issues is integral to combating most health epidemics, I would also argue that it is necessary to provide ‘grass roots’ aid to those suffering, albeit a ‘band-aid solution’, for the time being.

Apart from the date of Kushner’s text itself, I noticed a few particular nuances in her writing that elucidate the era in which Kushner’s chapter exists. That is, that Kushner is writing in the unsettled space between second wave feminism and post feminism, as indicated by the various rhetoric she uses.

To begin, Kushner stresses female bodily integrity when asserting the necessity of qualified physicians. The idea of female bodily integrity is highly attributed to second wave feminism with the advent of the book Our Bodies Ourselves. Under every heading and every sub heading, Kushner stresses the need for highly skilled and specialized breast cancer physicians. In doing so, she simultaneously puts a positive value on the female body, a value denoting that the female body deserves to be embraced, and treated with the best available technology.

Furthermore, and despite that Kushner was not a medical academic, she structured her life writing in a way that resembled the writing of an academic text book. I feel as though her choice of writing this way is perhaps a response to the contemporary medical literature of that time, insofar as it did not provide an in-depth analysis of women’s health specifically. Although it can be contested that she was conforming to a strictly ‘masculine’ way of writing and representation, I personally feel as though she cleverly used ‘objective’ and ‘factual’ writing as a tool to have these issue taken more seriously…Perhaps.

Now to move onto the part where I feel as though Kushner is lingering on the cusp of post feminism. Kushner’s assertion that steps need be taken to screen oneself for breast cancer at an early age echoes Lucas’s video (a video made well into the post feminist era), and the ways in which she (Lucas) overstates the need for early screening. Coupled with early screening, Both Kushner and Lucas also promote self-screening, and personal responsibility for health. Self-screening and discourses of personal responsibility for health, however, are arguably a pervasive rhetoric of neoliberalism, and, as McRobbie states, it is not uncommon for post feminism accommodate neoliberal and capitalist desires. This takes pressure off the state to be rigorous when addressing women’s issues, simultaneously assuming that there is no longer a need for a politicized women’s health movement.

One idea that comes to mind when reading this weeks texts is that Western medicine, hiding behind the guise of ‘objectivity’, has sabotaged a myriad of traditional and cultural approaches to health and medicine. It is arguable then that western medicine has oppressive tendencies, perpetuating a myriad of gender, race and class binaries.

Quite often, contemporary medical rhetoric hides behind the guise of objectivity. However, as Goldacre and James point out, modern medicine is often driven by profit, and results are often manipulated in an attempt to sustain a certain reputation. This, to me, is far from ‘objective’. Moreover, conceptions of objectivity and the advent of the scientific method in order to carry out quantitative research are developments that are deeply rooted in colonialism. Having taken GRSJ 100, the understanding of colonialism as an incredibly racist, sexist and classist institution is common place. So how can we claim that western medicine is beneficial to everyone?

Judging by this weeks blog posts, it isn’t. Many of us have had a less than favourable run-in with contemporary health care. And one can only imagine how this negative experience can become  profoundly exacerbated depending on  ones gender, race, or class.

In sum, it is understandable that not everyone reaps the benefits of westernized medicine. Westernized medicine, although it is not without it’s incredible feats, is ultimately a ‘whitened’ institution, that is not equally received or accessed across the globe. This makes me wonder if utilizing an umbrella term such as ‘global health’ to assess ones state of being will ever be practical. Each individuals experience with health differs, and perhaps it should be treated as such.

When I am ill, the disconnect between health and social processes becomes apparent. As a part time student struggling with a full time job, coming down with an illness means falling behind at school and work. Rarely do social institutions (school, work, etc.) accommodate the inescapable reality of sickness, having a profound effect on how one experiences illness, and how this experience transcends into ones every day social interaction. For instance, when I become ill I must take time off work, which means less money, which greatly affects my quality of life. Moreover, falling behind at school warrants immense stress, again, greatly affecting my quality of life. In essence, my social reality is severely impacted when I am ill, and the supports in place to help a patient struggling with illness re-claim their capability and identity are few and far between.

Although I cannot say that I have ever suffered any serious ailments in my life, nevertheless, what I found most striking about this week’s readings is how fitting they were to my own experiences with illness. Given these experiences, coupled with the growing body of literature positing the idea that identity and social experience are altered by illness, I find it ironic that the opposite is rarely recognized in contemporary medical literature. That is, that just as illness shapes our social reality, our social reality simultaneously shapes our experience with illness (as reflected in this week’s readings). Furthermore, it is surprising that despite countless pieces of evidence that assert the need for, and benefits of, an understanding of the social underpinnings of disease and illness, contemporary approaches to disease and illness are framed as natural, or unaffected by social interaction.