Pro-Choice Slip and Slide

Things that make you go WTF!?

“Well, if you apply that preventative medicine universally, what you end up with is you’ve prevented a generation. Preventing babies from being born is not medicine.”

OMG, Obama is forcing sterilization on people!

Oh wait, no. Obama is just requiring health insurance to cover birth control as a preventative heath measure. Because, as we all know, once a woman takes any measure to prevent pregnancy they will never be able to conceive again.

That was some sarcasm for the uninitiated.

Maybe I missed something, but is the world in the midst of being underpopulated? No?

Considering I know more women who have had children as the result of failed birth control versus either those who have never taken prophylactic methods to prevent pregnancy OR those who have purposefully remained childless* I’m thinking population isn’t really a concern. In fact what I am thinking is that this is actually pretty racist. Kind of like you get the feeling he’s worried about the ‘coloreds’ outbreeding whitey.

The statement was made by Rep. Steve King from Iowa and surprise, surprise. He’s white, catholic and has a problem with minorities. He’s for racial profiling, against equal rights for gays and wants to kick all illegal immigrants out of the country. He’s also been particularly charming about the US President, suggesting that Islam extremist would applaud his election and that Barack Obama’s policies, “demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race – on the side that favors the black person.” C-LAS-SY!

The we have the crazy religious perspective from Jeffrey Kuhner of the Edmund Burke Institute.

“In short, liberals want to create a world without God and sexual permissiveness is their battering ram. Promoting widespread contraception is essential to forging a pagan society based on consequence-free sex,”

OK, seriously? Who the heck uses the phrase battering ram when talking about sex(ual) permissiveness? It’s just begging to be taken out of context. “Oh dear, Winston’s idea of foreplay was “Effie, brace yourself.”♠

Besides that? So. Many. Questions! Like: How come pagan religions were a their peak LONG before the creation of over-the-counter hormonal contraception? More seriously: Who actually believes in “consequence-free sex”? Those who promote comprehensive sex education, encouraging individuals to be safe from disease and to choose pregnancy when they are ready for the commitment that entails? Or those who think having a dozen kids will be all hunky dory as long as you’ve signed a marriage certificate regardless of health and financial stability?

Trust me, those who encourage access to birth control generally have a much better handle on the effects of sex.

What worries me however, is not only the increasing amount that reproductive choice is being attacked but how more and more things we take for granted are being attacked. Abortion was always a sticky issue but then they went after comprehensive sex education in schools and now birth control?

“Slippery slope” is considered a logical fallacy but the world isn’t logical. As social conservatives gain ground chipping away at abortion rights in the USA they become more embolden to attack other areas of women’s reproductie lives.

* Which may be because I’m still fairly young in the grand scheme of things
♠ I wonder what rating this movie would have had without the William’s ad-libs.

 

When Women’s Health Doesn’t Seem All That Important To Women

There was a great article on the Ms. Magazine blog written by Frances Whittelsey about how we don’t talk about hysterectomies. We don’t talk about how they are overdone, that there are alternatives and that many women suffer serious health consequences because of them. Yet what many of these women suffer still falls to silence.

Whittelsey asks aloud why women don’t get more involved in their sexual health when a decision about a hysterectomy are to be made. Why do we spend so much time and effort looking sexy and not on having a satisfying sex life?

I think it’s probably because women have long been trained to trade sexual satisfaction in exchange for looking good.

It seems to be almost a funny thing to say in the age of Sex in the City and the rabbit vibrator, but a woman’s sexuality really isn’t about her. A woman’s sexuality is still perceived as an attraction, a show, an advertisement.

I recently finished Peggy Orenstein’s Cinderella Ate My Daughter and I really thought that Orenstein did an excellent job of exploring of feminine ‘performance.’ In the end it’s not the pink, or the fairy tales, or pretending to be a princess that is the problem with the Princess culture. It’s the consumerism; the buying, the accessorizing, the complete obsession with ‘good looks’ being the defining characteristic of what a woman is. What starts out innocently as painted toes and plastic tiaras ends with mini-skirts and crop tops. Mass consumerism of products that focus on outer beauty teaches young girls to focus on their outer beauty.

Combine that with culture that then views a woman’s sexuality as a transactional item. Not only is it used to sell, well, every thing but we frequently speak of it as though it were a currency. Sex and beauty are seen as commodities that one could trade for other wants. Sex is talked about as something that women can either “give up” or they can “save it.” As if it (sex!) were money in a piggy bank. And just like cold coinage, sex retains no emotional value. It is not seen as something for women; her sexuality is divorced from her sexual pleasure.

So is it really that surprising when these women reach their adult years their sexuality is still about performance? About looking good rather than their sexual enjoyment? So yes, it is not too difficult to believe that women are putting more effort and thought into their face cream than the future of their sexual health.

I find it interesting that Whittelsey claims that the extreme hysterectomy rate has not received the same amount of attention as other feminist health issues, which is true. One of the examples she lists however is the rate of cesarean sections.

It’s an interesting parallel, because hey, they both involve cutting up uteruses, but the coverage often given to c-sections is not exactly positive.

The mass media headline was that women were driving up the c-section rate for a convenient and painless* delivery. This spawned the ‘too posh to push’ tagline. Women were simply to self-absorbed to go through a vaginal birth.

Unfortunately the feminist response was lacking. That too posh to push junk? Sexist as hell, and many feminists rightly called it out as such. But that was it. Most never went further; they never thought to ask, is there a problem here?

Any literature that I read from a feminist perspective didn’t actually care to comment on the actual c-section rate, and if they did they pretty much argued that even if 100% of births were elective c-sections, it would be OK, because that was what women were choosing. Which irritated the hell out of me.

I’ve said this before but “choice” is meaningless if you don’t have a full picture of the facts. It’s kind of like choosing a door on a game show. You can see you can pick Door #1, Door #2 or Door #3 but, as you can’t see what’s behind those doors, it’s just a crapshoot.

Now you can probably see how this fits in with the hysterectomy problem. Being a personal medical choice, the feminist line is to trust women and leave it up to them. Women making their own decisions = not a problem.

But it does become a problem when women are prevented from making informed decisions. In the case of both hysterectomies and c-sections women are often not told of the long term health risks. In both cases they are often not given their full range of options and sadly they are often given inappropriate reasons for why they need to have the procedure.

In the end, it’s all up to individual women but they shouldn’t have to fight their way through this in the dark. Get informed, spread the word, encourage second opinions, and talk to your doctor like you’re interrogating them. When people are full aware of the options, it is much easier to make the right choice for themselves.

* Whoever came up with that one has certainly never had major abdominal surgery.

Who Did We Hire?

So I finally got around to watching Inside Job. It is a documentary about the inner workings, and the decades long build up, to the world financial crisis of 2008. Obviously an event that is still affecting us today.

Although the story focuses primarily on the actions of Wall Street and U.S. policy makers, it actually opens up in picturesque Iceland. See Iceland deregulated their banks, that’s where our story begins. The banks, left to their own devices they quickly racked up debt to the level of more than 40 billion euros. Then, quicker than you can say “profit,” the whole thing crumbled. The currency of Iceland, the króna, lost more than half its value. People across Europe lost significant savings that had been held with the Iceland bank Landsbanki and their subsidiary Icesave. Unemployment had tripled within Iceland.

What caught my eye however is the fact that months before a consulting firm perused the bank books merely a few months before the collapse… and found nothing wrong. In fact their report was enough to earn these banks as ‘AAA’ investment opportunities, the most secure investment rating available.

That consulting company was KPMG.

Now, if you’ve been following the budget situation in Toronto, that name might seem familiar. Ah, yes, the same firm, KPMG, is deciding what should and should not be cut from the Toronto budget.

Pardon me, but why the hell are we taking advice from a company that couldn’t recognize a bank clusterfuck that was about to bring a country’s economy to its knees?

They have also been accused of fraud, assisting tax evasion, and bribery. But hey! They are also one of the top employers in Toronto!

How the hell is that not a conflict of interest? The people claiming what should, can and can’t be cut from the budget are possibly financially motivated. Then even if a team was carefully selected from employees who live outside the Toronto area; KPMG still pays taxes in Toronto and could be affected by raising rates! *facepalm* *facepalm* *facepalm*

This is not acceptable behaviour from so-called professionals, and Toronto City Hall continues to look more and more like a three-ring circus.

Subscribe

  • Facebook
  • RSS Feed
  • Twitter