A woman in Idaho has brought the first lawsuit directly challenging the constitutionality of the “fetal pain” abortion ban.
Jennie Linn McCormack, was briefly charged with having an illegal abortion in June, McCormack and her sister acquired RU-486 (the abortion pill) from the internet where she took said pills and aborted the fetus in her home.
Idaho is one of six states that have banned abortions after 20 weeks due to the belief that that is when the fetus begins to feel pain. In 2010, Nebraska legislation passed the nation’s first fetal pain law which paved the way for the ban. Idaho law bars women from getting abortions from anyone but licensed Idaho physicians. Furthermore, the state requires that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital.
One should note that there are no elective-abortion providers in southeastern Idaho, forcing women seeking the procedure to travel elsewhere. McCormack was unemployed and had a monthly income of just $200-$250. Given these circumstances, and the fact that McCormack already had 3 children, there was no way she would have been able to afford the time or money required to travel to Salt Lake City to obtain a “legal” abortion.
Opponents of the ban hold that the law violates the Constitution because it doesn't contain an exception allowing for abortions if necessary to preserve the mother's health or well being. The ban doesn’t take into consideration the unique circumstances of individual women.
McCormack is seeking class action status in her law suit against Mark Hiedeman, the state prosecutor. She is also challenging other aspects of the abortion ban holding that it violates the constitution.
What is so frustrating about these bans is that they are often based on so called scientific claims that are supposedly about protecting the fetus even if it means ignoring the wishes or best interest of the mother. In the case of Danielle Deaver (see link above), she was denied an abortion even after it was discovered that due to a lack of amniotic fluid her uterus was literally crushing the fetus. Deaver had gone through several other miscarriages where the Doctors had been able to induce labor once determining that the fetus had little to no chance of taking a first breath. In these instances the Deavers decided together to spare the pain of Danielle and the fetus by inducing labor.
Nebraska had enacted the nation's first fetal pain legislation, banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation. So the Deavers were forced to wait over a week to deliver baby Elizabeth, who died after just 15 minutes. Even though the risk of infection for Danielle was high and the fetus was being crushed by the uterine walls it was impossible to induce legally because the fetus still had a heartbeat and the mother's life was in no immediate danger.
In this particular case one must wonder why such a private tragic situation turned into a very public news item. The Deavers wanted their child and wanted to prevent the pain and suffering of their family; why then, is it okay for the law to prevent them from doing so? Doesn’t the right to privacy equal, privacy? Who was really hurt because of this law?
All part of a disturbing trend, these restrictions do little else except hurt women. In the case of Jennie Linn McCormick, the fact that she lived in an area without an accessible or affordable abortion option led her to seek alternate means. In Idaho, women who cause their own abortions, or who get abortions from unlicensed physicians, face up to five years in prison and up to a $5,000 fine.
In Oklahoma, a law requires women to undergo a sonogram, and depending on the state of pregnancy, it could be a transvaginal one, which involves insertion of a wand. There is no exception for sexually assaulted women. Texas and Ohio took steps earlier in the year to enact a law that banned abortion as soon as a doctor could detect a heartbeat. It is generally agreed that a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks. Federally, it is legal to have an abortion up to 24 weeks and longer if the mothers health is in jeopardy.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
American Apparel; Soft Core Porn
Yup, for all the great things one can say about American Apparel, for me it always comes down to the creeptacular dude in charge and the soft core porn they call advertisements. I can't support AA nor give them my money regardless of the domestically friendly, sweat-shop free and Eco-friendly practices.
I like some of the American Apparel clothing, I really do. Between picking up a few items at the Goodwill now and again and being given a t-shirt or two over the years, I have worn several items made by American Apparel. Some of there clothing looks really cool and comfortable and or other desirable attributes, but it's never enough to make me forget about where it's coming from.
Take this for instance, only one of MANY photos of models available on the AA web site. The photo archives section of the web site offers the tag line "Some of the best and most evocative images captured by our staff." It's upsetting that the models are frequently very young looking, objectified and half naked. You can see the straining rib cages of the often topless models and in this ad for leggings the young women is completely naked from the waist up showing off her practically non-existent breasts.
Is this really the only way to show a model in a zip up bathing yellow bathing suit?
It's not evocative to me, in numerous photo's you have shots that don't even include the item of clothing being advertised, just the half open mouth of the model.
There are so many sets of photos that I couldn't even look at them all without spending most of the day viewing creepy voyeuristic images of young women.
The media and AA themselves has been pretty open about the peculiar behavior exhibited by AA founder Dov. Charney. This screwball Canadian is no stranger to sexual harassment law suits and has masturbated in front of a female reporter on at least one occasion. He flouts that he is an nontraditional employer and holds professional meetings in his bedroom. He admits that he has slept with a number of the employees, uses sexual charged lingo (Cunt, Slut) freely and walks around the factory in his underwear.
There are articles dating back to 2004 noting Charney's bizarre behavior and uncouth business practices. This article from 2006 is a great introduction (yes it is 6 pages) to the world that is Dov Charney's mind.
If you want to hear about Charney's take on domestic violence go here.
The sad, but bitingly believable satire from The Onion.
The list goes on and on. Anything good that has come out of American Apparel is tainted in my opinion because of Dov Charney and his pervy ways. I would like to think that given the amount of negative attention, (not to mention the companies money problems) people would either stop buying from American Apparel or insist that the practices be altered. It's all well and good to laud the company for the conditions and wage practices but by ignoring all of the questionable or sexists practices you are saying that it doesn't bother you.
Well, it bothers me.
I like some of the American Apparel clothing, I really do. Between picking up a few items at the Goodwill now and again and being given a t-shirt or two over the years, I have worn several items made by American Apparel. Some of there clothing looks really cool and comfortable and or other desirable attributes, but it's never enough to make me forget about where it's coming from.
Take this for instance, only one of MANY photos of models available on the AA web site. The photo archives section of the web site offers the tag line "Some of the best and most evocative images captured by our staff." It's upsetting that the models are frequently very young looking, objectified and half naked. You can see the straining rib cages of the often topless models and in this ad for leggings the young women is completely naked from the waist up showing off her practically non-existent breasts.
Is this really the only way to show a model in a zip up bathing yellow bathing suit?
It's not evocative to me, in numerous photo's you have shots that don't even include the item of clothing being advertised, just the half open mouth of the model.
There are so many sets of photos that I couldn't even look at them all without spending most of the day viewing creepy voyeuristic images of young women.
The media and AA themselves has been pretty open about the peculiar behavior exhibited by AA founder Dov. Charney. This screwball Canadian is no stranger to sexual harassment law suits and has masturbated in front of a female reporter on at least one occasion. He flouts that he is an nontraditional employer and holds professional meetings in his bedroom. He admits that he has slept with a number of the employees, uses sexual charged lingo (Cunt, Slut) freely and walks around the factory in his underwear.
There are articles dating back to 2004 noting Charney's bizarre behavior and uncouth business practices. This article from 2006 is a great introduction (yes it is 6 pages) to the world that is Dov Charney's mind.
If you want to hear about Charney's take on domestic violence go here.
The sad, but bitingly believable satire from The Onion.
The list goes on and on. Anything good that has come out of American Apparel is tainted in my opinion because of Dov Charney and his pervy ways. I would like to think that given the amount of negative attention, (not to mention the companies money problems) people would either stop buying from American Apparel or insist that the practices be altered. It's all well and good to laud the company for the conditions and wage practices but by ignoring all of the questionable or sexists practices you are saying that it doesn't bother you.
Well, it bothers me.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
In your Face Buffer Zone Laws.
This article came out on Boston.com this morning.
As I read the article the first thing I felt was anger, that was quickly followed by a sense of hopelessness, finally I was irritated and then motivated to write about it.
In terms of Abortion clinics, the buffer-zone law seeks to keep protesters a certain distance from the building and the patients entering it. The specifics of the buffer zone varies according to legislation and most states in the U.S. do not have a buffer zone law in place.
On the Federal level, The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), was past by Bill Clinton in 1994. In response to the rising incidences of violence and attempted (and successful) murders being committed in the 70's, the law specified behavior types that are prohibited in the case of reproductive centers.
You cannot obstruct the entrance to the building or the parking lot. You cannot physically try and stop people from entering. You may not trespass or commit acts of vandalism. Threats of violence, stalking individuals and bomb threats are specifically prohibited as well. The rights guaranteed under the first amendment do allow for protests, disseminating information, shouting or singing and carrying signs or posters.
Massachusetts and California have enacted buffer zone laws that require protestors to remain at least 35-feet away from the entrance to a facility providing abortions. For more specific policies go here.
The article in question opens by referring to a team of abortion opponents aiming to strike down Massachusetts buffer zone laws by claiming that the law infringes on their constitutional right to free speech. As discussed above, the right to free speech remains intact within the law, it just prevents strangers approaching patients or staff trying to enter the building directly. The argument for repealing the buffer zone law due to it being unconstitutional is that the zones prevent protesters from "properly" conveying its message.
“There needs to be a means of true communication," said Michael J. DePrimo, a civil rights lawyer based in Connecticut who represents several of the protesters in the case. They include an 84-year-old doctor, an 83-year-old grandmother, and a 30-year-old seminary student.“
They argue that due to logistics, the protesters are pushed much further away (at least in Springfield) and this infringes on their ability to adequately express their views to anyone entering the clinic. Deprimo argues, “There’s no way [one of the protesters] would have any opportunity to go up to that person and talk to that person."
What is specifically upsetting to me is the complete lack of understanding that preventing protesters from directly confronting patients or those entering a clinic is the entire point of the buffer zone law and FACE. In 1994, John C. Salvi III, went on a shooting rampage at two Brookline clinics that ended in the murder of two women. The atrocities committed by so many of those who seek out clinics are too numerous to list here. Arson, bomb threats, shootings, attempted murder and murder are all examples of clinic targeted violence. Dr. George Tiller, probably the most well know individual murdered by abortion foes, was fatally shot once in the face on May 31st 2009 while serving as an usher in Church. This was not the first attempt on his life.
It defies logic that protesters are arguing freedom of speech infractions when they are continually proving the dangers of leaving clinics, their patients and staff, open to the illegal crimes and behaviors displayed by their associates. I'm not saying all protesters are out to murder, but how do you tell which protesters are dangerously unstable? You can't, until they commit a crime. Women entering abortion clinics are not committing a crime. They are NOT committing a crime.
In a grossly oversimplified version of the problem, protesters are not looking to persuade or gently coax women to sources of unbiased, scientifically correct health information. They are aiming to shock, horrify and shame women who are exercising their own rights. Extremists have shown over and over again that they will go to any length in order to prevent legal abortions from taking place, including putting innocent people in the line of fire to prove their point.
Not only is it perfectly legal to carry posters of mutilated fetuses, botched abortions and religious propaganda, the protesters often shout awful things and berate those trying to enter a clinic for whatever reasons. Even after the law was passed groups of protesters have said that they are able to persuade women from having an abortion by offering last minute advise or "help" to provide resources. If their message is that strong and they are that convinced of their mission then they can obviously share the same poignant experiences that miraculously change the decision of a women to have an abortion, from the other side of the parking lot.
As for the status of the move to declare the buffer zone in Massachusetts unconstitutional, "US District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro told the lawyers to submit more documents and said he will then take the matter under advisement."
*Quotations unless noted otherwise are all taken from Miton J. Valencia's article assessable here.
As I read the article the first thing I felt was anger, that was quickly followed by a sense of hopelessness, finally I was irritated and then motivated to write about it.
In terms of Abortion clinics, the buffer-zone law seeks to keep protesters a certain distance from the building and the patients entering it. The specifics of the buffer zone varies according to legislation and most states in the U.S. do not have a buffer zone law in place.
On the Federal level, The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), was past by Bill Clinton in 1994. In response to the rising incidences of violence and attempted (and successful) murders being committed in the 70's, the law specified behavior types that are prohibited in the case of reproductive centers.
You cannot obstruct the entrance to the building or the parking lot. You cannot physically try and stop people from entering. You may not trespass or commit acts of vandalism. Threats of violence, stalking individuals and bomb threats are specifically prohibited as well. The rights guaranteed under the first amendment do allow for protests, disseminating information, shouting or singing and carrying signs or posters.
Massachusetts and California have enacted buffer zone laws that require protestors to remain at least 35-feet away from the entrance to a facility providing abortions. For more specific policies go here.
The article in question opens by referring to a team of abortion opponents aiming to strike down Massachusetts buffer zone laws by claiming that the law infringes on their constitutional right to free speech. As discussed above, the right to free speech remains intact within the law, it just prevents strangers approaching patients or staff trying to enter the building directly. The argument for repealing the buffer zone law due to it being unconstitutional is that the zones prevent protesters from "properly" conveying its message.
“There needs to be a means of true communication," said Michael J. DePrimo, a civil rights lawyer based in Connecticut who represents several of the protesters in the case. They include an 84-year-old doctor, an 83-year-old grandmother, and a 30-year-old seminary student.“
They argue that due to logistics, the protesters are pushed much further away (at least in Springfield) and this infringes on their ability to adequately express their views to anyone entering the clinic. Deprimo argues, “There’s no way [one of the protesters] would have any opportunity to go up to that person and talk to that person."
What is specifically upsetting to me is the complete lack of understanding that preventing protesters from directly confronting patients or those entering a clinic is the entire point of the buffer zone law and FACE. In 1994, John C. Salvi III, went on a shooting rampage at two Brookline clinics that ended in the murder of two women. The atrocities committed by so many of those who seek out clinics are too numerous to list here. Arson, bomb threats, shootings, attempted murder and murder are all examples of clinic targeted violence. Dr. George Tiller, probably the most well know individual murdered by abortion foes, was fatally shot once in the face on May 31st 2009 while serving as an usher in Church. This was not the first attempt on his life.
It defies logic that protesters are arguing freedom of speech infractions when they are continually proving the dangers of leaving clinics, their patients and staff, open to the illegal crimes and behaviors displayed by their associates. I'm not saying all protesters are out to murder, but how do you tell which protesters are dangerously unstable? You can't, until they commit a crime. Women entering abortion clinics are not committing a crime. They are NOT committing a crime.
In a grossly oversimplified version of the problem, protesters are not looking to persuade or gently coax women to sources of unbiased, scientifically correct health information. They are aiming to shock, horrify and shame women who are exercising their own rights. Extremists have shown over and over again that they will go to any length in order to prevent legal abortions from taking place, including putting innocent people in the line of fire to prove their point.
Not only is it perfectly legal to carry posters of mutilated fetuses, botched abortions and religious propaganda, the protesters often shout awful things and berate those trying to enter a clinic for whatever reasons. Even after the law was passed groups of protesters have said that they are able to persuade women from having an abortion by offering last minute advise or "help" to provide resources. If their message is that strong and they are that convinced of their mission then they can obviously share the same poignant experiences that miraculously change the decision of a women to have an abortion, from the other side of the parking lot.
As for the status of the move to declare the buffer zone in Massachusetts unconstitutional, "US District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro told the lawyers to submit more documents and said he will then take the matter under advisement."
*Quotations unless noted otherwise are all taken from Miton J. Valencia's article assessable here.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Urban Outfitters (again) and the Sexualization of Girls
If you allow your 15 year old daughter to model in questionable poses do you then have the right to sue the photographer if those pictures end up on a t-shirt?
According to the parents of teen model Hailey Clauson, you do.
Clauson's parents filed a $28 million lawsuit against Urban Outfitters and photographer Jason Lee Parry for using images of their daughter on a t-shirt as well as other products.
It's hard to say exactly if the parents consented to the images or not. This one in particular has gotten the parents in a furor over what they call "a blatantly salacious" image of their daughter.
The parents knew about the photo shoot and its racy poses, but object to the retailer’s use of them without their permission. Supposedly, Clausons agent at the time, complained about the provocative pictures and Parry agreed not to publish them. Blood is the New Black is the manufacturer of the questionable t-shirt and according to them they were not aware that the model was 15 at the time. Parry said the images were stolen from him and Blood is the New Black says they have worked with Parry in the past and had his permission to print the t-shirts.
Regardless of the exact story, I have been troubled by the models in urban outfitters catalogs to the extent that I don't even open them anymore, they go straight in the recycle bin and I make a call to ask them to take me off the mailing list.
Obviously, the parents are likely to come under fire for allowing the photographs to be taken in the first place. I think this brings up the bigger issue of how young models are portrayed as sexual beings from alarmingly young ages. It's frustrating to see clothing made for children as if girls as young as 7 have to worry about wearing a padded bikini top.What? Or skinny jeansHuh?
It sickens me to think about women being blamed for sexual abuse, rape, assault and other perverted and violent acts because of how they are dressed. Women who are adults experience this blame game and there are those who would agree that women dressed promiscuously are asking to be raped or assaulted.
Basically young women and girls don't stand a chance against this double standard. There are halter tops for girls as soon as they are out of the womb. Companies make skinny jeans and padded bras for girls that are 7 years old. Where is the outrage? Why aren't parents refusing to buy these things? Instead of buying your 7 year old niece a tube top for her birthday you should give her Mom the $15 to put away for college. If we are taking away the self-esteem of girls at such a young age, what can we expect them to do in the future? How can we expect them to even take themselves seriously?
According to the parents of teen model Hailey Clauson, you do.
Clauson's parents filed a $28 million lawsuit against Urban Outfitters and photographer Jason Lee Parry for using images of their daughter on a t-shirt as well as other products.
It's hard to say exactly if the parents consented to the images or not. This one in particular has gotten the parents in a furor over what they call "a blatantly salacious" image of their daughter.
The parents knew about the photo shoot and its racy poses, but object to the retailer’s use of them without their permission. Supposedly, Clausons agent at the time, complained about the provocative pictures and Parry agreed not to publish them. Blood is the New Black is the manufacturer of the questionable t-shirt and according to them they were not aware that the model was 15 at the time. Parry said the images were stolen from him and Blood is the New Black says they have worked with Parry in the past and had his permission to print the t-shirts.
Regardless of the exact story, I have been troubled by the models in urban outfitters catalogs to the extent that I don't even open them anymore, they go straight in the recycle bin and I make a call to ask them to take me off the mailing list.
Obviously, the parents are likely to come under fire for allowing the photographs to be taken in the first place. I think this brings up the bigger issue of how young models are portrayed as sexual beings from alarmingly young ages. It's frustrating to see clothing made for children as if girls as young as 7 have to worry about wearing a padded bikini top.What? Or skinny jeansHuh?
It sickens me to think about women being blamed for sexual abuse, rape, assault and other perverted and violent acts because of how they are dressed. Women who are adults experience this blame game and there are those who would agree that women dressed promiscuously are asking to be raped or assaulted.
Basically young women and girls don't stand a chance against this double standard. There are halter tops for girls as soon as they are out of the womb. Companies make skinny jeans and padded bras for girls that are 7 years old. Where is the outrage? Why aren't parents refusing to buy these things? Instead of buying your 7 year old niece a tube top for her birthday you should give her Mom the $15 to put away for college. If we are taking away the self-esteem of girls at such a young age, what can we expect them to do in the future? How can we expect them to even take themselves seriously?
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Michele Bachmann,
So, yes. It is true. Michele Bachmann became the first women to win the completely fake and entirely unscientific Iowa straw poll. That seems to be a place where she is used to, a magical world where you can fill up with the type of self importance that allows you to make statements based on absolutely no truth what so ever. One doesn't have to search far in order to find the dozens and dozens of incorrect statements made by Michele Bachmann.
To name a few, Obama dipped in to the oil reserves at a time when we have never been as well off in that department and what does Bachmann say? She chastises the President for depleting the entire oil reserves. Try 4%, and as if no one else would have said anything about that before she did? She also has said that the Constitution only requires her to tell the census "how many people are in our home." Nothing else accept that. Yup, both illegal and wrong.
For one that comes out of left field, "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." One, she's wrong. Gerald Ford was President in 1976 when there was fear of a swine flu epidemic. Two, to suggest a partisan link with a deadly disease is idiotic not interesting.
Earlier in the year Bachmann stated that she was proud to be making a speech in the town of Waterloo, Iowa, where John Wayne was from, because she embodies his ideals. Unfortunately for her, it turns out that the actor John Wayne was not from Waterloo, John Wayne Gacy was and he was a serial killer.
Besides not knowing her history (John Quincy Adams is a founding father? His father is.) Bachmann has thirty ratings on her politifact file and only one of them is rated true. She has two rated mostly true, two rated half true and the other twenty-five break down as five mostly false, thirteen straight up false and seven of her statements are rated "pants on fire." Ladies and Gentlemen, we just might up with Pinocchio as the president.
To name a few, Obama dipped in to the oil reserves at a time when we have never been as well off in that department and what does Bachmann say? She chastises the President for depleting the entire oil reserves. Try 4%, and as if no one else would have said anything about that before she did? She also has said that the Constitution only requires her to tell the census "how many people are in our home." Nothing else accept that. Yup, both illegal and wrong.
For one that comes out of left field, "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." One, she's wrong. Gerald Ford was President in 1976 when there was fear of a swine flu epidemic. Two, to suggest a partisan link with a deadly disease is idiotic not interesting.
Earlier in the year Bachmann stated that she was proud to be making a speech in the town of Waterloo, Iowa, where John Wayne was from, because she embodies his ideals. Unfortunately for her, it turns out that the actor John Wayne was not from Waterloo, John Wayne Gacy was and he was a serial killer.
Besides not knowing her history (John Quincy Adams is a founding father? His father is.) Bachmann has thirty ratings on her politifact file and only one of them is rated true. She has two rated mostly true, two rated half true and the other twenty-five break down as five mostly false, thirteen straight up false and seven of her statements are rated "pants on fire." Ladies and Gentlemen, we just might up with Pinocchio as the president.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
No co-pays for Birth Control
Monday brought this announcement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Beginning on Aug. 1, 2012, insurance providers will no longer be able to charge co-pays or other additional fees for government-approved birth control.
“The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need." Read More
After the unrelenting attacks on Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights as a whole this past year this news, at least to this Feminist, couldn't be more welcome.
“The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need." Read More
After the unrelenting attacks on Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights as a whole this past year this news, at least to this Feminist, couldn't be more welcome.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Male Birth Control part II
Women, imagine that you are about to engage in intercourse with a man and right before said act is about to begin you open your mouth to discuss protection but instead the two of you simultaneously utter the sentence "don't worry, I'm on the pill."
Hmmmmmm.
When considering the possibility of a male birth control coming to fruition, one must also consider the likelihood that males would actually take it. Forget the physical ramifications, it is a given that any drug decreasing sexual libido or physically altering the male sexual organs would never make it to the market. Can men really deal with the psychological ramification of halting their "biological destiny?"
While many different forms of contraceptives could be available for male use, the fact remains that women are the ones who literally bear the repercussions from unprotected sex. It's also very probable that in the majority of situations women wouldn't be absolved from the responsibility or the desire of taking contraceptives. In "America and the Pill" by Elaine Tyler May, it is stated that both men and women brought up the issue of trust when faced with the idea of men having contraception as a option.
On page 114, a 45 year old married father of three says this: "It is time for men to have some control. I think it would empower men and deter some women out there from their nefarious plans. Some women are out there to use men to get pregnant. This could deter women out there from doing this. An athlete or a singer is someone who could be a target and they could put a stop to that"
On the same page, a 28 year old women says "I have heard women say that they'd be against a male pill because they wouldn't trust men to take it. That's just silly. The point of a male pill isn't that it allows you to stop taking it. It's just that you have twice the protection. Also, I think that it will force men to be more responsible towards children they did father. No longer would the 'she tricked me' option be on the table."
The same argument but with very different connotations. It's interesting that some men and women view pregnancy as a trick to be played on one another but hardly reassuring that the two sexes are so suspicious of each others reproductive agenda.
For now we can ask the question, would it be more egalitarian for men to have the option of medically controlling their reproductive options? Of course. However, the science behind a male contraceptive may be getting closer and closer but the fact remains that unless an option was available that in no way effected the sexual function, ability, performance or appearance of the male reproductive organ, there isn't a man alive out there that would take it.
Hmmmmmm.
When considering the possibility of a male birth control coming to fruition, one must also consider the likelihood that males would actually take it. Forget the physical ramifications, it is a given that any drug decreasing sexual libido or physically altering the male sexual organs would never make it to the market. Can men really deal with the psychological ramification of halting their "biological destiny?"
While many different forms of contraceptives could be available for male use, the fact remains that women are the ones who literally bear the repercussions from unprotected sex. It's also very probable that in the majority of situations women wouldn't be absolved from the responsibility or the desire of taking contraceptives. In "America and the Pill" by Elaine Tyler May, it is stated that both men and women brought up the issue of trust when faced with the idea of men having contraception as a option.
On page 114, a 45 year old married father of three says this: "It is time for men to have some control. I think it would empower men and deter some women out there from their nefarious plans. Some women are out there to use men to get pregnant. This could deter women out there from doing this. An athlete or a singer is someone who could be a target and they could put a stop to that"
On the same page, a 28 year old women says "I have heard women say that they'd be against a male pill because they wouldn't trust men to take it. That's just silly. The point of a male pill isn't that it allows you to stop taking it. It's just that you have twice the protection. Also, I think that it will force men to be more responsible towards children they did father. No longer would the 'she tricked me' option be on the table."
The same argument but with very different connotations. It's interesting that some men and women view pregnancy as a trick to be played on one another but hardly reassuring that the two sexes are so suspicious of each others reproductive agenda.
For now we can ask the question, would it be more egalitarian for men to have the option of medically controlling their reproductive options? Of course. However, the science behind a male contraceptive may be getting closer and closer but the fact remains that unless an option was available that in no way effected the sexual function, ability, performance or appearance of the male reproductive organ, there isn't a man alive out there that would take it.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Male Birth Control Part I.
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...
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...
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)