Every so often you hear about how a supposed "male birth control method" is mere moments away from perfection (really?)
The idea of a male contraceptive is not a recent one. In "America and The Pill" by Elaine Tyler May, there is an entire chapter entitled "A Pill for Men?"
Research began in the 1950's out of the goal to treat infertility (as it did for female contraceptives). Several studies were conducted on small groups of prison inmates and mental patients. Unethical to say the least, these test groups differed only slightly and showed some success with reducing and even eliminating sperm count. Unfortunately, the side effects ranged from the small scale decreased libido to the more serious effect of shrunken testicles. Furthermore, the test subjects were not engaging in sexual acts with women and could not replicate how a compound might work in a heterosexual relationship.
Throughout the 1970's, China conducted similar experiments on drugs that could be used to halt sperm production. Worldwide, but especially in China and India, concern was growing about population control and the idea of a contraceptive for men was appealing for numerous reasons. In fact, due to the one-child law, contraceptives were already mandatory in China.
A decade or two after Scientists declared male contraceptive just around the corner, women in America cried foul when the medical community lacked to produce any tangible methods that shared the responsibilities of contraceptives with there male counterparts. After all, if science could finally introduce a way to control the reproductive activities in women, why could they not accomplish the same for men?
What the issue comes down to now as much as it did then is that women can get pregnant and men cannot. Men have nothing, or at least significantly less at stake than women when it comes down to birth control. When the possibility of reduced libido came up as a potential side effect in female contraceptives, it was considered unimportant. In the case of male birth control, preoccupation with sexual side effects is widespread.
In general, the questions and concerns of male contraceptives regarding their safety, effectiveness, and reversibility have led to a widespread lack of interest among men for their use. Some men have suggested that they would be interested in using a male contraceptive as long as it wasn't chemical and didn't effect their hormones. Psychologically speaking, men often equate the ability to impregnate females with the ego relating to masculinity.
So, why else hasn't this male birth control come to fruition?
To be continued...
Monday, July 25, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
"blog" and "her" part I.
Are blogs for and by Women bad for Women?
Here is what has been in my head floating around of late.
If you are a women and you want to write about cupcakes on your blog where would you sign up and start going all cupcake crazy? Wordpress? Google? Blog her? Do you aim to reach the largest audience by going with the biggest, easiest and most user friendly site or do you put yourself with other foodies who want to live and breathe cupcakes? Should you be investigating how many men have ever sought out a blog written about cupcakes? What about a forum specifically for Moms, Moms like cupcakes and I'm sure some of them are looking for recipe blogs.
At this point I should probably inform my readers that there are so many existing blogs about cupcakes out there that if you were actually planning on blogging about cupcakes you may want to reconsider and go in another direction. Overall, my point is that choosing your blogging associations have a lot to do with what you want to get out of it.
In my brief research about women blogging for women, the general consensus of what I've found is clearly not supportive of women only blogging communities. In fact, most of the pro-women blogosphere comments are really anti-anti women blog sentiments. One women will sound off about how uncool and irrelevant women geared blogs are and some women will agree wholeheartedly, others will jump on the author and those who support her as women hating women. Confused? It's okay, the main division here seems to be about why women would write about anything of value specifically as a women.
I think it's pretty obvious when a site is trying to sell you on some product or advertisement by focusing on a specific demographic. Mom blogs are a different issue for me so I will go there another day. However, women who express Feminist views by any definition, seem to be a downer to some other women. Some criticism asks if the goal of Feminism is equality, why do Feminists segregate themselves from "mainstream male/co-ed" blogging sites by creating separate ones? Is that what the goal is? Preaching to the choir? Women and Feminists are not one in the same and not all blogs are created equal. How far can the argument go?
Until we revisit this topic, I leave you with a recent piece from the blog by Susannah Breslin. The article and the comments following are definitely worth a read through.
Here is what has been in my head floating around of late.
If you are a women and you want to write about cupcakes on your blog where would you sign up and start going all cupcake crazy? Wordpress? Google? Blog her? Do you aim to reach the largest audience by going with the biggest, easiest and most user friendly site or do you put yourself with other foodies who want to live and breathe cupcakes? Should you be investigating how many men have ever sought out a blog written about cupcakes? What about a forum specifically for Moms, Moms like cupcakes and I'm sure some of them are looking for recipe blogs.
At this point I should probably inform my readers that there are so many existing blogs about cupcakes out there that if you were actually planning on blogging about cupcakes you may want to reconsider and go in another direction. Overall, my point is that choosing your blogging associations have a lot to do with what you want to get out of it.
In my brief research about women blogging for women, the general consensus of what I've found is clearly not supportive of women only blogging communities. In fact, most of the pro-women blogosphere comments are really anti-anti women blog sentiments. One women will sound off about how uncool and irrelevant women geared blogs are and some women will agree wholeheartedly, others will jump on the author and those who support her as women hating women. Confused? It's okay, the main division here seems to be about why women would write about anything of value specifically as a women.
I think it's pretty obvious when a site is trying to sell you on some product or advertisement by focusing on a specific demographic. Mom blogs are a different issue for me so I will go there another day. However, women who express Feminist views by any definition, seem to be a downer to some other women. Some criticism asks if the goal of Feminism is equality, why do Feminists segregate themselves from "mainstream male/co-ed" blogging sites by creating separate ones? Is that what the goal is? Preaching to the choir? Women and Feminists are not one in the same and not all blogs are created equal. How far can the argument go?
Until we revisit this topic, I leave you with a recent piece from the blog by Susannah Breslin. The article and the comments following are definitely worth a read through.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
No Cost Birth Control
This article explains how President Obama commissioned the non-partisan Institute of Medicine panel to recommend which preventative health services insurance plans should cover under the Affordable Care Act. One of the main recommendations by the panel was to provide no cost birth control through all insurance companies.
Also reported by the IOM is the option that health insurers pay for HPV testing, contraceptive and lactation counseling, HIV screening and breast-feeding equipment.
Of course the ones opposing no cost birth control are the ones who still believe that any type of contraception is going to induce an abortion.
It's hopeful news, especially considering the wave of anti-choice fervor in defunding Planned Parenthood. Keep an eye on this proposal ladies; depending on your insurance (or lack there of) you may end up saving anywhere from $15-$50 a month.
Also reported by the IOM is the option that health insurers pay for HPV testing, contraceptive and lactation counseling, HIV screening and breast-feeding equipment.
Of course the ones opposing no cost birth control are the ones who still believe that any type of contraception is going to induce an abortion.
It's hopeful news, especially considering the wave of anti-choice fervor in defunding Planned Parenthood. Keep an eye on this proposal ladies; depending on your insurance (or lack there of) you may end up saving anywhere from $15-$50 a month.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
I got a feeling (or this mystique ain't my mystique).
After World War II, American Middle Class women were supposed to be the happiest people on the planet. Why then were so many women experiencing depression, neurosis and a growing sense of unfulfilled potential? The phrase the "problem with no name" was coined by Betty Friedan in the wake of an unspoken epidemic sweeping through the suburban homes in the 1950's and 1960's. Friedan wrote the book that would finally offer a title to this problem in 1963; "The Feminine Mystique."
In the 1950's women had everything they could dream of and little stress to boot. Willingly removed from the public sphere they finally had time to bake their own bread, sew clothing for themselves and their children and get dinner on the table promptly at 5:15pm. The only fight for the modern day women was to find and keep a husband and be responsible for the happiness of him and her five children. Women were thrilled about the new way to wax their floors and microwave dinner. With no unfeminine concerns like the economy and politics, women everywhere were joyously filling in the census blank with the occupation of "housewife."
Freudian theories cannot be entirely blamed for the creation of the feminine mystique but it can be said that the ideas put forth by Freud significantly contributed to its conception. For instance "Penis Envy", was a concept used as an explanation of what was wrong with American women. Men and Women were different and women strove to compensate for her lacking phallus. More to blame was the overwhelming acceptance of Freudian psychology as ideology for the decades following World War II. This allowed the masses to perpetuate the school of thought found in Frued's theories. Legitimizing the mindset that women couldn't possibly want more than to satisfy the needs of her husband and children led to a movement reshaping the way several generations of women were raised. Women were taught that their main goal in life was fulfilling the wants and needs of her superior. A daughter is ruled by her father first and her husband second. The repressive arrangement led to women being herded back into the home and into Victorian era prejudice.
If this were the 50's and 60's, women my age would have long since become wives and mothers. I have peers that are married and a lot of 26 year old women I know are already or in the process of becoming Mothers. I've heard some say that the Feminist movement has put women in a more undesirable place now than when they had fewer choices. The idea that women are supposed to be able to do it all seems like a mixed bag when considering Friedan's time versus the present. Sure, women should be able to have a career and a family and juggle everything perfectly while maintaining a sense of fulfillment. However, women are human beings. Women are not exempt from the basic human desires and feelings of selfishness and occasional lethargy. Feminism is about choice. Though that simplifies it significantly it doesn't change the fact that for most of history women have been told what their roles are and what they need to do to find fulfillment. Betty Friedan's book comes right out and says that women cannot be faulted for seeking happiness and fulfillment outside the private sphere. Women are not inferior to men, they are different and equal. Humans need to learn and thrive and be challenged in order to function successfully and women are not an exception.
Stephanie Coontz revisits Friedan’s work in her new book "A Strange Stirring." Published in the beginning of this year, Coontz argues that the same problems facing women in 1963 are still very relevant today. Coontz also examines the obvious gap in The Feminine Mystique which is of course, the omission of women of color and the working class. Coontz does praise the condemnation of the Freudian psychiatric methods that suggested women need not search for meaning beyond that of their roles of mothers and wives. Stay tuned for a more in depth review of Coontz's book after I acquire it here and read the text in its entirety.
In the 1950's women had everything they could dream of and little stress to boot. Willingly removed from the public sphere they finally had time to bake their own bread, sew clothing for themselves and their children and get dinner on the table promptly at 5:15pm. The only fight for the modern day women was to find and keep a husband and be responsible for the happiness of him and her five children. Women were thrilled about the new way to wax their floors and microwave dinner. With no unfeminine concerns like the economy and politics, women everywhere were joyously filling in the census blank with the occupation of "housewife."
Freudian theories cannot be entirely blamed for the creation of the feminine mystique but it can be said that the ideas put forth by Freud significantly contributed to its conception. For instance "Penis Envy", was a concept used as an explanation of what was wrong with American women. Men and Women were different and women strove to compensate for her lacking phallus. More to blame was the overwhelming acceptance of Freudian psychology as ideology for the decades following World War II. This allowed the masses to perpetuate the school of thought found in Frued's theories. Legitimizing the mindset that women couldn't possibly want more than to satisfy the needs of her husband and children led to a movement reshaping the way several generations of women were raised. Women were taught that their main goal in life was fulfilling the wants and needs of her superior. A daughter is ruled by her father first and her husband second. The repressive arrangement led to women being herded back into the home and into Victorian era prejudice.
If this were the 50's and 60's, women my age would have long since become wives and mothers. I have peers that are married and a lot of 26 year old women I know are already or in the process of becoming Mothers. I've heard some say that the Feminist movement has put women in a more undesirable place now than when they had fewer choices. The idea that women are supposed to be able to do it all seems like a mixed bag when considering Friedan's time versus the present. Sure, women should be able to have a career and a family and juggle everything perfectly while maintaining a sense of fulfillment. However, women are human beings. Women are not exempt from the basic human desires and feelings of selfishness and occasional lethargy. Feminism is about choice. Though that simplifies it significantly it doesn't change the fact that for most of history women have been told what their roles are and what they need to do to find fulfillment. Betty Friedan's book comes right out and says that women cannot be faulted for seeking happiness and fulfillment outside the private sphere. Women are not inferior to men, they are different and equal. Humans need to learn and thrive and be challenged in order to function successfully and women are not an exception.
Stephanie Coontz revisits Friedan’s work in her new book "A Strange Stirring." Published in the beginning of this year, Coontz argues that the same problems facing women in 1963 are still very relevant today. Coontz also examines the obvious gap in The Feminine Mystique which is of course, the omission of women of color and the working class. Coontz does praise the condemnation of the Freudian psychiatric methods that suggested women need not search for meaning beyond that of their roles of mothers and wives. Stay tuned for a more in depth review of Coontz's book after I acquire it here and read the text in its entirety.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Urban Outfitters
In the catalog most recently sent out from Urban Outfitters there is a page picturing a bedspread and a collage of posters and magazines on the wall above the headboard.
Two things jumped out at me immediately; one was a cover from PlayBoy Magazine and the other was a large pin up of a naked women with smaller pictures covering her nipples.
I am not saying that Urban Outfitters pretends to be anything other than a clothing magazine targeted at young hipsters who want to wear "urban" outfits. However, I remain disgusted at the blatant disregard of responsibly taken by this company when it comes to questionable products and advertisements.
In the past UO has been criticized for creating sexist, racists and classist T-shirts as well as carrying the controversial board game "Ghettopoly." One shouldn't be surprised that UO has moved on to posting PlayBoy on the walls of the "bedrooms" in its catalogs so why was I?
Well, I don't think it was surprise I felt per say, it was more like mild shock and then disgusts and then an intense feeling of curiosity. Half naked skinny girls adorn the colored and black and white pages of a typical UO catalog, I knew that. I also know that the T-shirts in question said "Eat less" and "Fathers, it's up to you to protect your daughter's virginity!" Let's not forget the T-shirt with the words scrawled in golden glitter "Poverty Sucks." In 2008, the company had a gay friendly T-shirt that had " I Support Same Sex Marriages" on it and that shirt was pulled off the shelf in 2008. Many critics had harsh words for UO after that though UO stated that it was pulled because it "wasn't selling."
Is it hip to be offensive? I don't know. I can't in good conscience spend money on anything from Urban Outfitters and I can't figure out what the appeal is for others to buy these items either. The former President and founder of UO claimed that he "very, very, very rarely" had regrets or second thoughts about potentially offensive products and he also openly donated thousands of dollars to anti-gay politicians. The current President of UO is openly gay but that doesn't stop the company from using hot button slogans as T-shirt designs for the young and sexy to sport.
Other controversial UO T-shirts? "Everybody loves a Jewish Girl" surrounded by dollar signs and a T-shirt that featured a Palestinian child holding an AK-47 over the word "Victimized".
I feel hipper already.
Two things jumped out at me immediately; one was a cover from PlayBoy Magazine and the other was a large pin up of a naked women with smaller pictures covering her nipples.
I am not saying that Urban Outfitters pretends to be anything other than a clothing magazine targeted at young hipsters who want to wear "urban" outfits. However, I remain disgusted at the blatant disregard of responsibly taken by this company when it comes to questionable products and advertisements.
In the past UO has been criticized for creating sexist, racists and classist T-shirts as well as carrying the controversial board game "Ghettopoly." One shouldn't be surprised that UO has moved on to posting PlayBoy on the walls of the "bedrooms" in its catalogs so why was I?
Well, I don't think it was surprise I felt per say, it was more like mild shock and then disgusts and then an intense feeling of curiosity. Half naked skinny girls adorn the colored and black and white pages of a typical UO catalog, I knew that. I also know that the T-shirts in question said "Eat less" and "Fathers, it's up to you to protect your daughter's virginity!" Let's not forget the T-shirt with the words scrawled in golden glitter "Poverty Sucks." In 2008, the company had a gay friendly T-shirt that had " I Support Same Sex Marriages" on it and that shirt was pulled off the shelf in 2008. Many critics had harsh words for UO after that though UO stated that it was pulled because it "wasn't selling."
Is it hip to be offensive? I don't know. I can't in good conscience spend money on anything from Urban Outfitters and I can't figure out what the appeal is for others to buy these items either. The former President and founder of UO claimed that he "very, very, very rarely" had regrets or second thoughts about potentially offensive products and he also openly donated thousands of dollars to anti-gay politicians. The current President of UO is openly gay but that doesn't stop the company from using hot button slogans as T-shirt designs for the young and sexy to sport.
Other controversial UO T-shirts? "Everybody loves a Jewish Girl" surrounded by dollar signs and a T-shirt that featured a Palestinian child holding an AK-47 over the word "Victimized".
I feel hipper already.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Men and My Uterus
Some days I really am at a loss.
Men will never become pregnant. That is something I believe the majority of people can agree on regardless of political affiliation.
I'm not saying that Men don't get to have an opinion on Abortion; I am saying that there opinion shouldn't hold much merit. Obviously if the man provided the sperm that creates the fetus their opinion matters a bit more. Ultimately, men will never experience pregnancy and therefore cannot make the claim that they know anything about terminating a pregnancy.
Yes, that is where I am going with this. Men make policies, Men sign laws, and Men make judgments about what's best for Women when they have no business doing so.
I am particularly struck by the war on women that has come to the forefront of state and national lawmakers. Mike Pence, John Boehner and Rick Perry are some of the more prevalent anti-women figures proposing bills and signing laws that take away not just abortion services but reproductive health services in general. Do these men have daughters? Wives? Friends that are women?
In Kanas, Rep. Pete DeGraaf suggested that women purchase insurance to pay for the cost of an abortion just in case they get raped and may need one.
Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Republican who supports abortion rights, questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.
DeGraff said: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"
Bollier asked, "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?"
DeGraaf drew audible groans from other House members when he responded, "I have a spare tire on my car."
"I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for."
This is disgusting; this is sad and dehumanizes women. How can you even respond to the comment about having a spare tire? I mean what? Are you honestly comparing a tiny part of an automobile to an unplanned pregnancy potentially from an assault and rape? What kind of person thinks like that? What kind of State, Country or Government can say that you should get a rape insurance plan?
In other news the state of Texas passed legislation that requires a sonogram for women seeking an abortion. Should the women decline to view the sonogram the image can be described to her.
Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who had tried to pass the bill in previous sessions stated that God was finally ready for its passage. It's also nice to know that women can count on the separation of church and state. State Rep. Patrick also said, “Standing for life is not a partisan issue. It’s a God issue.”
Great. I feel better already.
Men will never become pregnant. That is something I believe the majority of people can agree on regardless of political affiliation.
I'm not saying that Men don't get to have an opinion on Abortion; I am saying that there opinion shouldn't hold much merit. Obviously if the man provided the sperm that creates the fetus their opinion matters a bit more. Ultimately, men will never experience pregnancy and therefore cannot make the claim that they know anything about terminating a pregnancy.
Yes, that is where I am going with this. Men make policies, Men sign laws, and Men make judgments about what's best for Women when they have no business doing so.
I am particularly struck by the war on women that has come to the forefront of state and national lawmakers. Mike Pence, John Boehner and Rick Perry are some of the more prevalent anti-women figures proposing bills and signing laws that take away not just abortion services but reproductive health services in general. Do these men have daughters? Wives? Friends that are women?
In Kanas, Rep. Pete DeGraaf suggested that women purchase insurance to pay for the cost of an abortion just in case they get raped and may need one.
Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Republican who supports abortion rights, questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.
DeGraff said: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"
Bollier asked, "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?"
DeGraaf drew audible groans from other House members when he responded, "I have a spare tire on my car."
"I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for."
This is disgusting; this is sad and dehumanizes women. How can you even respond to the comment about having a spare tire? I mean what? Are you honestly comparing a tiny part of an automobile to an unplanned pregnancy potentially from an assault and rape? What kind of person thinks like that? What kind of State, Country or Government can say that you should get a rape insurance plan?
In other news the state of Texas passed legislation that requires a sonogram for women seeking an abortion. Should the women decline to view the sonogram the image can be described to her.
Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who had tried to pass the bill in previous sessions stated that God was finally ready for its passage. It's also nice to know that women can count on the separation of church and state. State Rep. Patrick also said, “Standing for life is not a partisan issue. It’s a God issue.”
Great. I feel better already.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Talking to my Dad (or Slut Parade Walk FAQ's)
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Guttmacher Institute
The Guttmacher Institute focuses on providing factual evidence and sound research on sexual and reproductive health issues. They focus on the abortion debate being placed in the proper context of closely related issues like unintended pregnancy, contraceptive use and sex education.
The Institute has just released an educational video describing the facts behind who has abortions in the US.
Take a look
The Institute has just released an educational video describing the facts behind who has abortions in the US.
Take a look
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)