Proof that a firm but polite email can work wonders, LI Families has taken down the paragraph suggesting that there are no risks at all for pregnant women to get manicures, pedicures or hair treatments that I objected to in my “Not So Healthy” post. Well done, LI Families!
Sara Robinson wrote an article in Alternet last week, “Why Patriarchal Men Are Utterly Petrified of Birth Control.” (Hat Tip, Amanda.) It’s an excellent article and I believe it really underscores the heart of many of our current arguments about sex and feminism.
What I think needs to be added though is that it’s not just the technology that has changed, it’s that our attitudes have changed with it that creates the panic. Humans have always sought methods of contraception. Condoms have been around for hundreds of years. Diaphragms and the use of substances thought to be spermicidal dates back thousands of years. As the story of Onan reminds us, people have known about withdrawal since the beginning of recorded history – and recent studies show is it is incredibly effective if used correctly.
The other thing we learn from the way some religious traditions have interpreted the story of Onan is that the opposition to contraceptives has existed for centuries. And yet people continued to use them. It’s almost impossible to separate out the changing role of women with the decrease of taboo around contraception use, especially as technology made contraceptives more effective and easier and safer to use. The two trends obviously fed off of one another. Diaphragms made from vulcanized rubber allowed women some freedom, and then the pill and IUD gave even more. But those working women with planned pregnancies were the ones demanding more and better contraceptives. Now we have arrived at a point in history where not only is contraception incredibly effective – it’s also overwhelmingly popular – and that is what is creating a crisis for patriarchy.
New technologies are not always more popular and more frequently used as they advance. To draw a contrast – technology has also made weapons more effective and efficient. We can kill people with predator drones, atomic bombs and machine guns far easier than in the days of bows and arrows or even cannon balls and muskets. And yet we are growing less violent over time. If we were using modern weapons at the pace we are using modern contraception – there would be no people left on Earth at all.
Conservative Christians who oppose any form of contraception (and even those who allow Fertility Awareness Method) frequently refer to the popularity of contraception as “The Contraceptive Mentality.” It appears that this term was first coined by Catholics. The argument goes that if people use contraception and it fails, the woman will probably get an abortion because the fact that she was using contraception is evidence that the couple did not want a child. Somehow, Catholics believe that this makes contraception itself the cause of abortion. The logic is faulty, because before contraceptives were so widely available, women still sought abortions – and as contraceptive use goes up, the abortion rate goes down.
These people reject the rebuttal that we just need more and better birth control and better education about how to use it because they believe that contraception causes people to have sex when they do not want to get pregnant, and that if it did not exist those not ready for a(nother) child would simply abstain. There is no evidence for this belief, and Guttmacher Reports that “Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.” This does not include whatever percentage of women who giving up babies for adoption who did not use birth control when they got pregnant. That these women went ahead and had sex without using contraception even though they did not want to give birth proves that people will have sex, even when they do not wish to procreate. Additionally, if that 46%+ had improved access to contraception and information about how to use it correctly, many of those women would not have gotten pregnant unintentionally in the first place.
If there is such a thing as “The Contraceptive Mentality” I would argue that it is a good thing. When Margaret Sanger was teaching people how to use contraception, she was doing it because her dream was for every child to be a wanted child. Contraception does not cause a lack of interest in parenting. There have always been people who could not bear the burden of child rearing. We had ways of dealing with those people, whether they be abortions, early forms of contraception or “foundling wheels” where people could abandon unwanted children no questions asked. Instead, now we have the knowledge and the technology to prevent the burden of unwanted pregnancy. I find it far more humane to teach contraception than to build orphanages. It’s much better for people who love each other to be able to share their sexuality on their own terms than for them to live in fear from the exhaustion and bankruptcy that more children than they could handle can bring them.
What scares patriarchs is that more people agree with me. It’s not the mere existence of contraceptive technology – that’s been around for ages. The way that feminism and contraception have advanced and strengthened each other – and that this has culminated in a world where people accept contraception as a good thing and women’s equality as self evident are the revolutionary ideas they are attacking.
If you follow me on Twitter, you will see that one of the descriptive terms I use for myself is “podcast addict.” They are an integral part of my exercise routine, daily commute and errand running. In no particular order, I’d like to review some of my favorites. To see all of my podcast reviews, click here.
I was excited to hear that two of the feminist blogosphere’s most prominent writers were going to collaborate on a podcast. Amanda Marcotte and Samhita Mukhopadhyay record “
Amanda and Samhita discuss current events and pop culture from a feminist perspective, providing insightful analysis with a deliciously
snarky brand of humor. Frequently, discussions involve the intersectionality of feminism with other social justice movements such as a recent discussion about interracial marriage or the way access to contraception and abortion care are more difficult for poor women. Other times they will talk about how a particular issue has impacted them directly – trying to navigate sex and relationships as a feminist or how to deal with the misogyny inherent in much of popular culture. They have excellent chemistry together – I feel more like I’m listening to an interesting conversation between friends over drinks than to a podcast.
Some episodes feature guests, Sady Doyle was interviewed about an article she had written on dating advice for teenage girls. Another recurring segment involves a twitter hashtag – #femquery – which was created to solicit questions about feminism which are answered during the show.
Highly recommended for any feminist with a sense of humor.
EDIT: The paragraph I objected to has been taken down. LI Families did not inform me directly, but when I shared this post on their message board another commenter pointed it out. Good work, LI Families!
On February 10, the website Long Island Families sent out an email and posted an article entitled “Mommy To Be Myths” debunking various old wives tales about pregnancy. I’m no expert, but most of it seemed to be sound and healthy advice that I had heard before. But the last one startled me.
Cut out your routine manicures/pedicures/hair appointments False. Although being in a very fume-filled environment is not the best for long periods of time for anyone, you will not harm your baby in any way by getting your routine mani/pedi. Scheduling your appointment for a quiet time at the salon will help cut out any fumes you may be exposed to.
I really object to the way this downplays the risks of the chemicals found in many nail polishes, nail polish removers, hair dyes and hair straighteners. It’s true that some brands of nail polish have become safer in recent years, but risks still remain in brands that haven’t changed and in many nail polish removers.
Additionally, the post mentioned nothing of the recent controversy about formaldehyde in a popular hair straightening treatment or the health risks of breast cancer and fibroids from hair care products frequently used by black women.
Finally, there was no mention that phthalates found in many common cosmetics pose a risk of hyperactivity once the child is born.
I know that pregnant women are bombarded with all kinds of pressure and unsolicited advice. But to simply hand wave away a legitimate concern is irresponsible. There are plenty of ways for a mother to be to relax without increasing the risk of harm to her or her baby.
In my review of Orgasm, Inc. I talked about the New View Campaign, and organization dedicated to challenging ideas about female sexuality promoted by the pharmaceutical industry.
Recently, I also watched the documentary “The Perfect Vagina” (hat tip Christopher Ryan’s facebook page) a BBC film about the growing incidence of labiplasty and other genital cosmetic surgery done on women.
The has FDA approved labiplasty in the United States even though the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement in 2007 against the procedure,
These procedures are not medically indicated, and the safety and effectiveness of these procedures have not been documented. Clinicians who receive requests from patients for such procedures should discuss with the patient the reason for her request and perform an evaluation for any physical signs or symptoms that may indicate the need for surgical intervention. Women should be informed about the lack of data supporting the efficacy of these procedures and their potential complications, including infection, altered sensation, dyspareunia, adhesions, and scarring.
The New View Campaign has started a petition, asking people to sign it and urge the FTC to regulate labiaplasty more strictly. I believe that this is an excellent course of action. Because sometimes these surgeries are performed because a person has a legitimate medical need, and because I believe that people should be able to modify their bodies as they see fit, I am not in favor of prohibiting this procedure. However, because of the risks involved, I do believe that women must be informed of them so that they can make an educated decision. Requiring surgeons to inform patients of all of the risks involved is one of the provisions the New View Campaign is calling for.
A few years ago, I decided that I wasn’t going to change my last name if I ever got married. It was something that had always bothered me about marriage, and when I realized that I could get married without changing my name (Thanks Feminism!), the idea of marriage looked a lot more appealing.
My mother and I were having a conversation about my decision after Adam and I were engaged and I said, “I’m not changing my name. But if someone makes a mistake and accidentally calls me Mrs. Lee, then I won’t get offended. People make mistakes and it won’t be worth constantly getting bent out of shape for.” To which my mother responded “Well I certainly hope you wouldn’t get offended! It would be an honor to become Mrs. Lee!” An “honor” she knew I wasn’t going to receive.
All of my female friends who have gotten married have either hyphenated or changed their name. Some said they liked the tradition. But a few told me that “It’s just easier.” I don’t understand how hours of paper work and standing in line at bureaucratic offices and on hold is “just easier” than…doing nothing. But as Amanda Marcotte has written what “just easier” really means is that it’s easier to suck it up and do the paperwork than stand your ground and be seen as a castrating feminazi.
I’ve gotten a few pieces of mail addressed to Mrs. Adam Lee which is oddly unsettling even though I know it’s an archaic form of address – neither my first or last name is on the envelope, and yet it’s a communication meant for me.
Now that it’s our second holiday season as a married couple and we have sent out our second batch of holiday cards with return address labels that have both of our first and last names written on them clearly, Adam is getting frustrated that most cards are sent to “Mr. and Mrs. Adam Lee.” I really don’t care if it’s addressed that way to both of us, I just want to see the sparkly cards and see the pictures of people’s babies and pets. But this morning Adam remarked to me, “Is it worth sending out these cards if everyone just ignores you and erases your name?” I was like “Yeah! Glitter penguins! Duh!”
But I’m touched he’s offended on my behalf. Maybe I should gently remind people that I did not change my name. If I never tell anyone about it, aren’t I playing my own game of “it’s just easier?”
Although I missed it in theaters, I was able to watch Orgasm, Inc. on DVD this weekend. It’s a documentary about the quest to find a drug that can increase sexual function in women, a “female Viagra.” What I learned was compelling.
As you might have guessed, the quest for a “female Viagra” began immediately after the original hit the shelves, drug companies were heady with success and had dollar signs in their eyes. The filmmaker, Liz Canner, follows one company racing to be the first to stake a claim and win FDA approval and also the New View Campaign, a group of activists led by several feminist academics who claim that drugs are not the answer to Female Sexual Dysfunction (FSD).
For a drug to be approved by the FDA, it must treat a specific medical condition. New View claims that FSD was made up by the drug companies who are looking to sell more drugs to women. I have always been skeptical of the claim that 40% of women are sexually dysfunctional. It sounds like whatever traits these women have in common would be within the range of normal human sexuality, which varies wildly. However, I was curious, perhaps it was like nearsightedness or flat feet – an incredibly common ailment but one that was also harmful and could be easily treated.
The opposite point of view argues that if women are having trouble with sex, the culprit may be that women’s expectations of sex are much too high or that they are simply uneducated. One of the women in the movie who claimed to have FSD was capable of orgasm, but could not do so during intercourse! I was aghast. Most women cannot orgasm during intercourse. Research indicates that the ability to orgasm during intercourse might be related to a physical characteristic – the distance between the clitoris and the vaginal opening – not a medical problem.
Dr. Leonore Tiefer from New View repeatedly states that an orgasm does not come from a bottle. She talks about how sexual desire is something created by the people having sex. It seemed like a call to women who prefer to view sex as something that “just happens.” In a culture that views women as sexually passive and objects to be acted upon, this is a challenge. It is a radical shift to see oneself not only as a person who is sexually desired by others but as a person who has sexual desires and can act to pursue them.
Orgasm Inc. explores other topics related products and services related to women’ sexuality, pornography and sex toys, labiaplasty and even media personalities who have made a name for themselves advising women about sex. A storyline about a sex educator who crashes an FSD conference, and a suspenseful FDA hearing create the climax (!!) of the film. This documentary updated my sex education – there were several stories I had heard about briefly in the news, like the orgasmatron – a spinal implant that can dispense bliss with the push of a button that I had never followed up with.
In our increasingly sex negative culture, it was refreshing to spend some time thinking about efforts being made to improve the sexual happiness of women – even if many of the people doing it have agendas that are entirely profit motivated. In exposing the marketing blitz of Female Sexual Dysfunction, Orgasm Inc. encourages us to think critically about our sexuality – something that can be a little bit scary, but can lead to great beauty and joy.
I’ve been reading a lot of r/mensrights lately, in part because they have occasionally linked to posts I’ve written, and also because I’m a glutton for punishment. I think that David Futurelle at Man Boobz does an excellent job of distilling what is going on with regards to MRA’s on the internet and taking the piss out of it. But there are a few premises I see repeated over and over that I would like to address.
One is what David calls, “We Hunted The Mammoth To Feed You” and it goes something like this – feminists have no right to complain about anything men do, ever because back in the caveman days, men did EVERYTHING and women sat on rocks eating bonbons. The problem is that this varied wildly from culture to culture. From wikipedia:
An extreme version of this line of thought posits that, up until the Upper Paleolithic, humans were frugivores (fruit eaters), who supplemented their meals with carrion, eggs, and small prey such as baby birds and mussels, and, only on rare occasions, managed to kill and consume big game such as antelopes.
So when Paul Elam tries to make the case that women do not contribute anything of value to society because men kill whales, we can see how deluded he is. But if we are going to play “The Flintstones,” yes, men were out killing whales (or baby birds) but then women were the ones supplying the fruits, nuts and shoots which eventually led to agriculture.
It doesn’t end there of course, the argument continues that superior in their hunting skills, men invented EVERYTHING ELSE EVER. And while I cannot prove that women invented agriculture (It does logically follow that whoever was doing the gathering would gain an understanding of botany because they would need it to survive, just like the hunters would create more advanced spears, bows, etc.) we can prove that women have made significant contributions to our culture since history began to be recorded. And it’s not just Marie Curie.
There are scores of women scientists, artists and activists who shaped our world in countless ways, just like men do. Only the difference is that before the 1970’s they faced greater social and legal obstacles to do so – and so their contributions are even more extraordinary. Just to name one example, Rosalind Franklin lost out on her share of a Nobel Prize because of her gender.
I see a lot of posts complaining about women behaving crudely, or criminally, or cruelly. That’s because the fact that women are human, and can act just as despicably as men can, is in some way remarkable to MRAs.
The icing on the “We hunted the mammoth to feed you and then invented everything else” cake/screed, is something even uglier than the raw ignorance or their other arguments. A common MRA argument goes like this, since men are physically stronger than women, everything women have men could take away at any moment. To which I say, “No shit, Sherlock.” Does anyone ever think that women are every unaware at their relative physical weakness in relation to men, even for a second? Gavin DeBecker famously wrote,
At core, men are afraid women will laugh at them, while at core, women are afraid men will kill them.
That MRA’s drive this point home with repeated threats, the glamorization of MRA terrorists, and graphic fantasies of an apocalyptic future where women are all the slaves of men – reveals their argument – at its most basic level to be an appeal to force.
A large number of MRA arguments are based on making an appeal to force. And because of the quotation above, it is the best argument that they have. This is key to understanding their rhetoric, and to seeing past the anger and misogyny and nonsense. They are saying that because of their testosterone and muscle, they are right, and that they can enforce this rightness upon women at any given moment.
As I previously posted, I am a fan of the podcast, “Both Sides Now.” I think it’s refreshing to hear a debate between right and left that isn’t about name calling. However, I was shocked to hear such ridiculous rhetoric coming from all three participants about the HPV vaccine while listening to the September 17 episode. I’m really starting to understand Amanda’s obsession.
Mary Matalin and Arianna Huffington insisted that it’s wrong for the government to mandate vaccinations – especially this one because it’s “a personal decision.” Matalin made a point that her daughter is still a virgin and Huffington said “it doesn’t make any sense at all…They’re 12 year olds!” Both seem to miss the point that the vaccine is supposed to be administered before the onset of sexual activity, and so it would be most appropriate for a 12 or 16 year old who has not had sexual activity with a partner yet.
Mark Green, the moderator, chimed in that it’s not a personal decision because the disease is “easily spread.” Matalin retorted “Then vaccinate men!” No one brought up that the vaccine has been approved for men for the past two years! Huffington said that if you don’t have it, you can’t spread it, which is hopelessly naive considering the amount of people who have HPV – the chances of getting it from one sexual encounter (including vaginal intercourse with a condom, oral sex, manual sex or even kissing) are very high. It sounds like she’s promoting abstinence – which unlike the Gardasil – stops working the minute you have sex.
Green inexplicably states that a girl “without a mother as good as Mary or Arianna” could have sex and get HPV – and he sounds astonishingly ignorant, for someone who expresses concern about issues pertaining to women and girls all the time. Just because a person has sex doesn’t mean that they had bad parents. Each one of the people on the panel has has had sex, (evidenced by the existence of their children) and Mark Green’s daughter has had sex (as evidenced by his proud proclamation that he is a grandfather)- was something wrong with the mothers of these pundits or with Mark Green’s parenting skills? Parents who raise healthy children will not, in all likelihood stop them from having sex. Parents who get the HPV vaccine for their children can make sure that when they do have sex, their children will not get vaginal, labial, cervical, penile, anal or throat cancer.
Mark Green then suggests that people opposed to the HPV vaccine are anti science, but then immediately drops the point when Matalin scoffs at him that “it’s not measles, it’s not Contagion and it’s not the Ebola virus, you have to engage in sex irresponsibly – one would hope that you would find out from their partner if they have an STD [before you have sex with them].” Matalin ignores the possibility of one acquiring the virus during from shaking or holding hands, while kissing, during a sexual assault, or from a cheating partner one wrongly believed to be monogamous.
Green states “but science says that it works” before backing off completely. He doesn’t elaborate on the concept of heard immunity which, campaign donations aside, is the practical reason why governments mandate vaccines. I would be interested in a conversation about why Matalin and Huffington think an individual’s right to refuse a vaccine overrides the plain fact that if we are all vaccinated, we protect the health of everyone. How is a mandate for a vaccine different from a mandate for seat-belts (passengers ejected from a car during a crash can hit other cars and cause another accident) smoking bans in restaurants (which Green did bring up but no one addressed) or laws against drunk driving?
Matalin did say that the vaccine was too new and untested to mandate. However it has been on the market since June 2006, for over five years. At what point would it become acceptably safe for her?
They all do agree that it is a good thing that the vaccine exists though, which, regrettably, is something to be thankful for in the current climate. I was very disappointed with this segment, and while it wasn’t the first time I have disagreed with the hosts, it was the first time I felt like the discussion was just as silly and uninformed as most of the noise on cable news.
Tuesday night I attended Intelligence Squared’s debate “Men Are Finished” based on Hannah Rosin’s article of “The End of Men.” I remember my reaction to the initial article was along the lines of “What about Globalization? Isn’t this just the end of manufacturing? How much of the ‘man-cession’ is due to the wage gap?” These issues were touched on in the debate, but not in the depth I was hoping for.
This was my third Intelligence Squared debate, having attended “California is the First Failed State” and “The Two Party System is Making America Ungovernable” the first of which was even a bit wonky for my tastes and the second was extremely entertaining and intellectually stimulating.
I was prepared for a bit of silliness because debates about feminism can bring out total lunacy in some, but the mood was generally jovial and the debate was engaging and the best I’ve been to yet.
Initially, I was unsure as to why Rosin and Abrahms, the more feminist of the teams were arguing that Men Are Finished and that Hoff Summers and Zinczenko were saying they are not. I expected that the feminist position would be “Patriarchy has taken a blow, but men are just fine” and the converse to be that “Librul feminists have destroyed men.” I tweeted that this question is a little odd, because Feminism is not a zero sum game.
At the opening of the debate, the topic was clarified – Have we reached a tipping point where women can now expect to achieve the same accomplishments that traditionally have only been open to men? Have the changes of feminism been fundamental to society? If the answer is yes, then “Men are finished.” I think this is an oddly inflammatory way of stating a proposition.
Hoff Summers and Zinczenko argued that men and women are approaching equality because of feminism, and so men are not finished, they are simply equal. They did this with a heavy dose of “What about the menz?” David Zinczenko said that while there still is oppression in the world, “Male omnipotence ended in 1962.” Christina Hoff Summers argued that “If men are finished, we all are finished.”
Rosin and Abrahams built their case on all of the accomplishments women have made in the past half century and that traditionally female qualities are now just as valued or even in higher demand than traditionally male ones. Dan Abrahams cited many statistics about an alleged superiority of women – in legislating, in managing hedge fund portfolios even in diffusing potentially violent situations. I do not know if women who are in Congress and Wall Street are genuinely more talented than their male counterparts – I would argue that because of institutional sexism, only the best get to the top and that they must work much harder and achieve more to be taken as seriously.
The pro side was asked directly if feminism was a zero sum game, and they said no, of course not, but felt that the future looks brighter for women than men.
I did not get called on to ask a question, but there were two I was thinking of asking. First and most obviously I would have asked if the panelists thought that masculinity is finished – because I think a better case can be made for that. The other question I kept returning to was “Is Feminism over? Is there anything left for it to accomplish?” I had a feeling that the panelists might have said that it was over but for different reasons – Rosin and Abrahams because women are ascendant and Hoff Summers and Zinczenko because women are equal. However, they all did acknowledge remaining barriers to women’s success especially outside of the United States, so they might not have agreed so neatly.
I wasn’t exactly comfortable voting at the end of the debate that “Men Are Finished” but Rosin and Abrahams were miles ahead of their opponents in framing the debate. The argued that the decline of traditional gender roles has created a space where women can thrive and they are doing so when men – because of the decline of manufacturing and an increasing sigma against sexism are floundering. In world where brawn does not count for as much as it used to and where men are no longer automatically given deference, women have a chance to compete on more equal footing.
Hoff Summers and Zinczenko were not as grating as I expected them to be, but they came close. Their argument was convoluted – they were arguing that the proposition was preposterous, that men are disadvantaged by women’s recent gains, that society is too feminized now and it hurts boys, that men and women are equal AND that feminism has a long way to go. The frequent contradictions were did nothing to bolster their “separate-but-equal” “complementarianism” brand of feminism.
Patriarchy is not over, and even if it was, men, thankfully would not be. This debate, while it had its silly moments, was illuminating and made me feel hopeful about the future of feminism. The less feminist side of the panel frequently and strongly praised the gains women have made in years past and looked forward to a time without sexism. That we can all agree on these points is a great place to start.
