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.

Why “Personal Responsibility” Doesn’t Cut It

Whenever adults try to a rational conversation about health, food politics, and the “obesity crisis,” the pack of disingenuous whiners isn’t far behind.

Subsidies and the rise of cheap, bad food; “Personal responsibility!” they cry.

Trans fats, salt, and high levels of sugar; “Personal responsibility!”

Food deserts, long commutes, erosion of family time, lack of sleep and about a billion other things that have been linked to rising unhealthiness in our population? “Personal responsibility!”

Of course, that is complete and utter bull but, uh… (Put in your own phrase about how people are idiots, but you know, with a nicer tone.)

I came across two very good example however on why the average person is just simply not equipped to navigate the food minefield that is out there.

The first comes from a series carried on the Toronto Star website call The Dish. The concept is simple; readers ask about the nutritional information on some of their favourite restaurant and take-out foods and the details of the calorie, fat and salt content are published in the column.

This week they tested a spelt scone from a local bakery. The scone was advertised to contain 220 calories. What it actually possessed was 620 calories, about 180% more calories than was actually advertised. How is someone supposed to defend against that?

Wait, I can already hear it. You shouldn’t eat out, you should bring your food from home, you’re obviously just lazy, blah, blah, blah. Pour on the ridiculous and unattainable standards. Almost everyone is going to come to the point where they forgot, they ran out of time, they’re on the road, or other shit just got in the way. Some of us live ridiculously busy lives, or with complications that you would care not to think about. Some of us just want to take the time to relax and enjoy ourselves. Guess what? Everyone deserves the right to know what they’re eating and to certainly not be mislead about how much they are consuming.

Which brings me to point two. This week Campbell’s, of Campbell Soup Company fame announced that they would be added more salt to their soups to increase flagging sales.

This is of course, after a long hard campaign of telling people how good they are for reducing the sodium in their products. Who wants to bet we aren’t going to the see the ads describing how they have cranked the salt content?

How are consumers supposed to make good and healthy choices when the companies keep changing the goalposts? Now, not only do I have to check the label the first time I buy something, I have to check the label every time I purchase that product because who knows what the nutritional information is going to be this week. I’m betting there will be a point where both the higher sodium and lower sodium versions will be on the same shelf at the same time and the poor consumer will have to check every can that makes it into their cart.

The average person just doesn’t have time for that kind of crap. I already make my poor partner cry with my obsessive label checking; it certainly is going to happen with a mom who just wants to get in and out of the grocery store with her sanity intact while towing two tots along.

Voicing these concerns will have you admonished for ever daring to buy a product that comes in a package. Any one who dares to not bake their own bread from scratch, press their own tofu or culture their own yogurt from the fresh milk provided by their own holstein in their own backyard, obviously does not care about their or their family’s health.

No, the public does not need to be bashed over the head with the fact that potato chips are not a health food, but consumers still deserve some support in being able to quickly identify what is actually healthy on store shelves.

Subscribe

  • Facebook
  • RSS Feed
  • Twitter