The Pill Turns 50

There’s no such thing as the Car or the Shoe or the Laundry Soap. But everyone knows the Pill, whose FDA approval 50 years ago rearranged the furniture of human relations in ways that we’ve argued about ever since.[1]

This weekend, I ran across an article on Time.com memorializing the 50th birthday of the birth control pill. While not talked about in much detail during our readings, giving women authority over their reproductive system had dramatic consequences for heterosexual sex lives and the demographics of the American family. While such a shift in social attitudes did not occur immediately, by the 1970s, couples were marrying later and having fewer children, while women were increasingly interested in pursuing careers outside the home.

As with any major social change, the Pill was not universally accepted. The Vatican strongly rejected the use of any form of artificial birth control with the publication of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968, and many African-American leaders in the Black Power movement equated the use of birth control to “black genocide.”[2] Despite opposition, however, two-thirds of Catholic women were using birth control by 1970, and many black women fought for access to contraception. As the Time article states, “when contraception was put under a woman’s control, it put many other things under her control as well.”[3] This newfound sense of power might very well have appealed to women without regard to race or religion.

Looking at my own family history, it’s not hard to see the impact of birth control on families. My paternal grandfather was one of eleven children, and my maternal great-grandparents had four children in five years (if my great-grandfather hadn’t been killed while my great-grandmother was pregnant with their fourth, I’m guessing there would have been many more siblings). The trend continued even into my parents’ generation; after my maternal grandfather died, my grandmother remarried a widower with nine children from his first marriage. Granted, coming from a Catholic background, my data might be a little skewed, but families of that size are nowhere near as common as they used to be. Out of all my (step-)aunts and (step-)uncles, no one has more than four children. I’m one of two. While I have no plans to go around asking about birth control usage at the next family get-together, it’s clear that birth control had a major impact on American families, even moderately conservative ones like mine.

I find the quote that begins this post (and the Time article) incredibly interesting. We can simply call the Pill “the Pill,” and everyone knows what pill we’re talking about. I’m hard-pressed to think of another product that has that degree of recognition. Given our fascination with the Gosselins, Duggars, and other so-called “mega-families,” the introduction of series like MTV’s “16 & Pregnant” and “Teen Mom,” and the ever-present debate over the extent and type of sex education in schools, it will be interesting to see if and how use of the Pill changes over the next several decades.

[1] Nancy Gibbs, “The Pill at 50: Sex, Freedom and Paradox,” Time website, 22 April 2010.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.

Beyond the Grave…

“He passed a small graveyard surrounded by a high iron picket fence. A white graveyard, he thought and snickered bitterly. Lawd Gawd in Heaven, even the dead cant be together!” [1]

In Richard Wright’s novella Fire and Cloud, Reverend Taylor notes the racial divide that crosses the fundamental basis of Christianity as he journeys back from near death.  Perhaps the most steadfast belief that could create a common ground between whites and African Americans is a belief in a higher power and eternal life beyond the grave.  But even in death, racism still exists.  Academic studies of segregated cemeteries are surprisingly limited.  The practice by law should have ended with the 1866 Civil Rights Act which states,

“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make an enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.” [2]

But Jim Crow laws allowed traditionally white public cemeteries to refuse the sale of burial plots to African Americans.  In the 1950s it was estimated that 90% of public cemeteries nationwide included racially restrictive rules. [3]  It was not until 1969 when a dispute erupted in Birmingham, Alabama over the sale of a burial plot for an African American soldier killed in Vietnam that the courts determined the racial restrictions unconstitutional. [4]

Although the practice of segregated cemeteries has been legally abolished, it was alarming to find that the practice is still being carried out socially even today.  An unidentified female murder victim became the subject of a racially charged situation in rural Texas in 2008, when two judges fought over where and by whom the woman should be buried.  The case was initially handled by DeWayne Charleston, the county’s first black justice of the peace, who stated,

“In my time as J.P., I’ve come to understand that I am to call black funeral homes to pick up black people, white funeral homes to pick up white people…I didn’t want to cross that line when I was dealing with white bodies and the families were grieving, because I didn’t want to make a political point out of a case like that.  But here was a case where the body was unidentified.  I believed this was it, this was the opportunity for the cemeteries to be integrated without offending anyone.” [5]

The county’s top elected official, Judge Owen Ralston, who is white, argued that the funeral for the unidentified women would cost much less when handled by the Canon Funeral Home, traditionally used by whites.  The woman’s body was eventually buried by the Canon Funeral Home, but Judge Charleston noted of the woman and his desire to exhume her body, “…if nothing else, the Lord sent her to be laid to rest in Texas for this purpose, for a milestone…she can help heal the racial divide in our community.” [6]

Was Richard Wright admonishing the act of segregating the dead though the thoughts of Reverend Taylor?  I wonder if Wright would accept the current trend of being buried within a socially constructed segregation based on religious or church affiliations and pre-purchased family plots.  Should cemeteries be forcibly integrated by those who are living?  Does it all boil down to a final personal choice that should remain free of judgment? What happens, as in the case of the unidentified woman in Texas, when the person is unable to express their final wishes?

[1] Richard Wright, Uncle Tom’s Children, (New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2008), 203.

[2] Find US Law, “Civil Rights Act of 1866 & Civil Rights Act of 1871,” http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1866_civil_rights_act_of_1871_cra_42_u_s_code_21_1981_1981a_1983_1988.

[3] Kitty Rogers, “Integrating the City of the Dead: The Integration of Cemeteries and the Evolution of Property Law, 1900-1969,” Alabama Law Review 56, no. 1153 (2005).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Steve Friess, “Burial Exposes Racial Rift in Texas,” New York Times, July 5, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/us/05race.html.

[6] Ibid.

The Lord or Lenin

Reading Richard Wright’s “Fire and Cloud” and “Bright and Morning Star,” I was struck by the negative portrayal of Christianity and the Church within both stories.  The picture that Wright paints in these stories seems to be a reflection of his own life experiences.  In “Bright and Morning Star” the protagonist, Sue, finds a new religion in the teachings of the communist party.  The talk of her communist sons,

ripped from her startled eyes her old vision, and image by image had given her a new one, different but great and strong enough to fling her into the light of another grace.  The wrongs, and sufferings of black men had taken the place of Him nailed to the Cross; the meager beginnings of the party had become another Resurrection, and the hate of those who would destroy her new faith had quickened in her a hunger to feel how deeply her new strength went.[1]

Sue found that the “sufferings” of life could not be fixed by the Church and turns to the message of the communist party for answers.  Her fictional experience mirrors the real life experience of Wright which he recounts in his autobiography:

Before I had been made to go to church, I had given God’s existence a sort of tacit assent, but after having seen His creatures serve Him at first hand, I had my doubts.  My faith, such as it was, was welded to the common realities of life.[2]

However, while Wright was obviously turned off by the Church and its teachings, his attitude seems out of touch with the message of the civil rights movement that would come later under Martin Luther King Jr.

Martin Luther King Jr's church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta GA.

King recognized the power of the Church community and preached a message that was rooted in biblical principles. “God grant that ministers, and lay leaders, and civic leaders, and businessmen, and professional people all over the nation will rise up and use the talent and the finances that God has given them, and lead the people on toward the Promised Land of freedom with rational, calm, nonviolent means.”[4]  Perhaps Wright and other black communists failed to recognize the real power of the Church as was vehicle for change in Jim Crow south.  This leads me to question how much of Wright’s communist portrayal is indicative of the time, and how much of it is just an extension of his own beliefs.

[1]Richard Wright, “Bright and Morning Star,” in Uncle Tom’s Children. (New York: Harperperenial, 1991), 225

[2]Richard Wright, Black Boy. (New York: Literary Classics of America, 1991), 110.

[3]Ebenezer Baptist Chuch, http://commons.wikimedia.org

[4]Martin Luther King Jr. “A Realistic Look at the Question of Progress in the Area of Race Relations,” MLK online, http://www.mlkonline.net/progress.html

A Call for Empathy

The Huffington Post is a favorite blog of mine, so when in the course of my surfing I ran across Jeffrey Kaye’s February 25^th article, “Short Memories: Jews and Immigration,” I thought it was a really timely post given last week’s discussion.

Kaye’s thesis is simple but hardly without controversy, “that the Jewish immigration experience over the past century has more in common with present-day migrants than many Jews recognize or fully appreciate,” and that his fellow American Jews “would do well to draw a lesson from our own history and resist the temptation to scapegoat and demonize those whose crimes consist mainly of crossing political boundaries in search of better lives.” [1]

Two Worlds, Two Identities: Tradition and Womanhood in Bread Givers

At first glance, I assumed that this week’s topic (immigrant communities) would be primarily a study of class, race, and religion. Therefore, it surprised me that upon completing Bread Givers, my strongest reaction came from a gendered perspective. Because of my perception of Judaism as fairly liberal in regard to women’s issues, I had not considered the situation of the Smolinsky women and others like them. Not only did they face the discrimination of a mainstream America wary of the influx of immigration, but they also contended with a still-powerful traditional mindset that dictated a very specific place for women within the family structure. The three sections into which Bread Givers is divided represent Sara’s rebellion against outside perceptions of her as both an immigrant and a female, and her ultimate acceptance of these circumstances—though only on her own unconventional terms.

Christian Reaction to Brokeback Mountain

After reading and viewing Brokeback Mountain in class, I was curious to see the types of reactions floating around on the web. Here’s what Christianity Today had to say. Harry Forbes includes as part of his review: “Looked at from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels but few people can articulate, the plight of these guys is easy to understand while their way of dealing with it is likely to surprise and shock an audience. … While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true.”

Dissing Fashion in 1901… culturally.

Unorthodox. Puck, Vol. L, no. 1279. Sept. 4, 1901. Courtesy of the New York State Historical Association.

Caption: Gracie– Poor little Chinese girl!  You’ll never go to heaven if you dress like that!