Archive for December, 2005

so, what do I want this holiday season? In addition to a few small pleasures for myself (good food, good wine, good company, and maybe a new pair of winter boots), my wishes this year are much less material than previous years. What I would like best to see are the following:

  • an end to the invasion of Iraq
  • free medical care for everyone, especially HIV/AIDS patients in Africa
  • no more hungry bellies
  • gender equality
  • racial equality
  • religious equality
  • an end to homophobia/heterosexism
  • freedom for each country to choose its own method of government without interference
  • no more guns
  • an end to poverty
  • down with capitalism!
  • environmental sustainability
  • education for all, no matter how rich or how poor
  • human rights for every man, woman and child on this planet
  • peace

well, who knows? a girl can always wish.Speaking of which, I wish all of you a very happy, warm, and safe holiday season, no matter where you live, what you believe, and what you celebrate. May you pass into the New Year with a sense of peace and a sense of purpose, and may 2006 be the year of radical change in this little world of ours!

All the best,

Read Full Post »

This is an excerpt from a recently completed paper, written in reaction to a piece by Jacquelyn Zita that I had a strong reaction to, mostly because it covers a lot of things I am interested in: feminism, queer theory, anti-capitalism, and bioethics. I welcome any comments, as usual.


In 1993, Dr. Peter Kramer released a book called Listening to Prozac: A Psychiatrist Explores Antidepressant Drugs and the Remaking of the Self. The book chronicles Dr. Kramer’s experiences with the psychotropic antidepressant Prozac in his psychiatric practice. Kramer muses on how Prozac impacts self-identity, and the ways in which the drug seems to indicate that psychiatric problems have a biological nature. While Kramer poses some questions about the morality of using prescription medication as a way to achieve a health status that is “better than well” (Kramer, 1993, pg x), he ultimately advocates the drug, encouraging psychiatrists to “listen to Prozac”.

Jacquelyn Zita’s feminist analysis of Kramer’s work is held in stark contrast to the rave reviews the book received. In “Prozac Feminism”, Zita’s critique sheds light on problematic aspects of Kramer’s work that support patriarchal structures, further oppressing women and working counter to the goals of feminism. This paper will discuss how Zita’s analysis critiques Kramer’s positioning of Prozac as a feminist drug. I will argue that Kramer’s support of Prozac undermines the goals of feminism in four important ways: 1) by supporting a capitalist, patriarchal model of the medical treatment of illness; 2) by reconstruing feminism as “superwomanism”; 3) by ignoring the collective history of women’s struggles by placing the problems of feminism in the bodies of individual women; and 4) by reinforcing heterosexual institutions of marriage and the nuclear family. I will also discuss the concept Zita thinks may be instructive for feminists in responding to Kramer’s work, the “pharmorg,” and whether it is helpful in addressing these concerns.

Capitalism and the Treatment of Illness
Contemporary society has been overrun with the effects of global capitalism, and the treatment of illness is no exception. Prescription medications are produced by large corporations, and marketed as products. These medications are marketed to doctors through a large team of “representatives” (salespeople) who provide doctors with information about drugs as well as samples to pass along to patients. One estimate puts drug companies’ spending on physician-directed marketing at 14 billion US per year – approximately $30,000 US for each physician in that country (Wilkes and Hoffman, 2005). In this way, doctors become expert middlemen, without whom drug companies could not make a profit. Drug companies often offer incentives to doctors, tacitly encouraging doctors to recommend and prescribe the company’s products. Drug corporations also market directly to patients through increasingly visible television, Internet and print advertisements, situating patients as consumers – vulnerable consumers at that, because they are relatively uneducated about medicine and illness and in questionable states of health.

Patients are bombarded with advertisements for a specific drug that treats their illness or perceived illness – some ads provide means for patients to self-diagnose with quizzes and rating systems (see www.prozac.com, www.zoloft.com, www.wellbutrin-xl.com). Patients find out information about the drug through advertising materials, and then go to their doctors armed with information obtained directly from drug companies. By marketing directly to patients, drug companies are reinforcing their marketing efforts to doctors: patients who go to see their doctors and ask about a particular medication send a silent reminder about the previous marketing doctors have been exposed to by the drug company’s representatives. Patients are often given a sample and try the medication for free; if it works, the patients are already loyal to the drug because the company has made it so easy for them to receive the drug. Patients are reliant on the recommendation of their doctors, and as long as the medication keeps working they will be loyal consumers.

What is wrong with this picture? Drug companies use marketing materials to “educate” patients, so patients are getting one-sided, non-neutral information about their illness or symptoms that paints the drug company’s product as “the” solution to their problem. Patients see themselves as being “informed”. Meanwhile, doctors are also being subjected to undue influence from drug companies to sell their product for them. The diagnostic role of doctors is reduced so that pharmaceutical companies are the ones doing the diagnosing by way of the patient who self-diagnoses according to skewed information provided by those same drug companies. A recent survey of family physicians found 71% felt patient-directed marketing was responsible for pressuring doctors to prescribe drugs they otherwise would not have chosen. (Rosenthal, Berndt, Donohue, Frank, and Epstein, 2002). It is a picture of marketing circularity.

Those patients who may not be exposed to marketing (perhaps due to economic reasons) are kept out of the picture of the “informed” consumer-patient the drug companies are working to construct, and are left at the mercy of doctors who are influenced by the drug company’s salespeople and the patients who are asking for the drug. These economically deprived patients may be given free samples because they cannot afford the prescription on a regular basis, but this is subject to sample availability and the doctor’s discretion. If the “right” sample is not available, they may be given something else that is similar – the sample might not be a perfect match for their illness, but is made on the basis of what sample is available. If the drug representative has done his/her job, the doctor will have plenty of samples of the drug company’s product on hand and may pass it out rather than try to get the patient another drug that might be more appropriate.

Prozac, which is produced by Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals, has been heavily marketed since its release in 1987. Lilly has marketed the product through television and print ads, as well as its own Internet site. At www.prozac.com, patients can “learn” about specific illnesses that Prozac can help treat, and take a self-diagnosis test to find out if they have depression. Patients can print off a list of questions to take to their doctors, and economically deprived patients can apply for Lilly-funded financial help in meeting prescription drug costs. Lilly makes every effort to make Prozac accessible, as well as to ensure that patients think they need Prozac as opposed to other antidepressant medications rather than leaving the diagnoses up to doctors. It should be noted that other drug companies employ the same tactics to promote their products.

Kramer discusses a trend in medicine he calls “diagnostic bracket creep” (Kramer, 1993, pg 15), the phenomenon of using medication to diagnose illness: simply, if Sally responds to Prozac, and Prozac is used to treat depression, then Sally must have depression. Using medication as a diagnostic tool in this way can increase the scope of a particular illness by discovering a new set of patients who might not have been diagnosed with that illness according to traditional methods of diagnosis. Kramer describes this in the case of Julia, a woman who “bore little resemblance to the patients a psychiatrist ordinarily labels as having OCD [obsessive-compulsive disorder]… she did not fit the standard definition” (Kramer, 1993, pg 26), but whose mild compulsions disappeared in response to Prozac. Kramer is hesitant to make a full diagnosis in Julia’s case (at least in his book) because of this tension. In combination with increasing the scope of illness, diagnostic bracket creep may also increase the scope of a particular medication by discovering new uses for the drug in question. This is one of the ways that Kramer encourages his colleagues in the psychiatric field to “listen to Prozac”. Either way, diagnostic bracket creep can be criticized for “putting the cart before the horse” in diagnosing and treating illness. In effect, it helps secure the capitalist model of the treatment of illness. This method of diagnosis is highly problematic in that it leaves open the door for drug companies to control the diagnoses of illness in ways that are morally suspect and more related to increasing corporate profits than treating illness properly and safely.

Prozac Feminism and “Superwomanism”
“There is a sense in which antidepressants are feminist drugs, liberating and empowering.” (Kramer, 1993, pg 40)

“Prozac feminism” is a term that Zita uses to describe Kramer’s positioning of Prozac as a “feminist drug”. Kramer does this by contrasting the effects of Prozac on women with medicine’s past history of tranquilizing women to alleviate feelings of depression: “mother’s little helpers… pills [tranquilizers] that were used to keep women in their place, to make them comfortable in a setting that should have been uncomfortable, to encourage them to focus on tasks that did not matter” (Kramer, 1993, pg 39). Prozac is a stimulant, and has the opposite effect, providing women with energy and regulation of emotion. In Kramer’s eyes, Prozac allows women afflicted with depression and other mental illnesses to become bright, spirited, energetic women – women who are capable of keeping up with the pressures of modern life with zest to spare. Kramer thinks this makes Prozac a feminist drug. Kramer’s placement of Prozac positions women, and feminists, as superwomen: “Prozac is marketed to women as a way to keep up with the multiple demands and rapid pace of family, career, sex, and relationships. Kramer’s feminist drug normalizes feminism as superwomanism” (Zita, 1998, pg 63).

Zita refers to Kramer’s conception of Prozac-fuelled feminists as “hyperthymic babes”: “quick, vivacious, and resilient… the kind of woman who is in demand in the contemporary world of work and sex” (Zita, 1998, pg 62). Kramer defines hyperthymic personalities as: “distinct from mania and hypomania, the disorders in which people are grandiose, frenetic, distractible, and flawed in their judgement. Hyperthymics are merely optimistic, decisive, quick of thought, charismatic, energetic, and confident” (Kramer, 1993, pg 17). Kramer goes on to describe how the hyperthymic personality can be an asset in business, and how many of the world’s leading politicians and executives have this type of persona (Kramer, 1993, pg 17). The implication here is that these leaders are male, and that creating a hyperthymic personality in a woman allows her the opportunity to “play with the big boys” – an opportunity she wouldn’t otherwise have. In this construction, men are firmly at the top of the patriarchal capitalist hierarchy, and women are plainly both opposite and inferior to men. As Zita says, Prozac “gives women enough energy to be equal to men” (Zita, 1998, pg 68).

Dr. Kramer’s “Prozac feminism” is spoken in tones of subtle condescension, through his own voice as a white upper class Western male. Zita points out how Kramer co-opts both the language of feminism and a feminine voice in his writing (Zita, 1998, pg 64) to engage female readers and draw them into his vision of Prozac feminism. While Kramer seems sympathetic to the pressures of contemporary society on women, he advocates the use of Prozac in helping women who experience depression enhance their personalities so that they can participate in the new demands society holds for women: “Prozac highlights our culture’s preference for certain personality types… Prozac does not just brighten the mood; it allows a woman with traits we now consider “overly feminine”, in the sense of passivity and a tendency to histrionics, to opt… for a spunkier persona” (Kramer, 1993, pg 270); and again: “We admire and reward quite a different sort of femininity, which… contains attributes traditionally considered masculine: resilience, energy, assertiveness, an enjoyment of give-and-take” (Kramer, 1993, pg 270). These examples clearly depict women as being unequal and subordinate to men, and Kramer claims that Prozac essentially helps women to be more like men. This is a drastic misrepresentation of feminism. Feminism is a struggle against systematic oppression as the result of social structures – not a fight to find ways to be more like men.

Prozac and the Female Body
“Pharmaceutical discipline is an expectation that calls for physical rearrangement of body’s most intimate matter – that of a self that matters” (Zita, 1998, pg 70).

Dr. Kramer discusses his concerns with “treating” what is traditionally seen as conditions of personality with Prozac. His concern is that some patients experience an enhancement of personality while taking Prozac, which seems to indicate that Prozac places personality on a biological plane instead of being subject to social conditions such as emotional trauma. Kramer seems puzzled by this tension between the evidence Prozac seems to provide supporting personality as biological and the traditional psycho-therapeutic approach that treats personality as influenced by social conditions. Ultimately he accepts the empirical evidence Prozac provides by asserting that Prozac is beneficial for women whom are “overly feminine” (Kramer, 1993, pg 270). This seems to discount the possibility that such women may express these traits due to social conditioning rather than a biological tendency.

“Prozac feminism” places emphasis on the individual woman’s body and sees personality as the biological source of the dysfunction, aiming to correct that dysfunction through controlling a woman’s personality and emotional life and creating a superwoman who is energized and can easily manage all the daily tasks of modern life with a smile (Zita, 1998, pg 68, 70, 72-73, 76). In talking about Prozac in this way, Kramer places the problem of womanhood in each individual woman’s body, in the neurochemistry that makes up her personality, and ignores traditional feminism’s historical collective struggle against larger systems of social oppression. “Prozac feminism” places the burden of correcting her personality, located in her body, on the individual woman, separating her from the solidarity and support of other women as a collective body: “In Prozac feminism the problem is in the body; the solution is individual” (Zita, 1998, pg 76). Therefore, Kramer’s Prozac feminism offers an individual solution, based on a capitalist framework, to the systematic oppressive social structure of femininity without addressing the structure or the society.

Kramer’s Prozac feminism also contributes to societal notions of “natural” women not being enough. Great lengths are taken by women to conform to an internalized societal ideal of “woman” in regards to female bodies (Zita, 1998 pg 70). Kramer’s Prozac feminism now says that women’s personalities are not enough either: women must be the kind of woman that men desire (Zita, 1998, pg 70, 72-73), vivacious, spunky, energetic, assertive. This is problematic. As Zita says: “One can foresee a world where women are expected to discipline their bodies and modify their personalities into high-premium hyperthymic “first world babes” (Zita, 1998, pg 70). Personal identity can thus be seen as a biological condition, subject to redesign. With Prozac feminism, Kramer suggests that if a woman’s personality is getting in the way of her self-actualization, she now has the option to “improve” her personality with Prozac in order to gain a better sense of agency and compete in the male-dominated world of capitalism. Are we willing to allow drugs, based on a capitalist model, to define women in our society? Kramer certainly seems to be comfortable with this option.

Prozac Feminism and Heterosexual Institutions
Prozac feminism’s conception of the “hyperthymic babe” simultaneously accomplishes two major moves: first, it positions women as oppositional and inferior to men (as discussed at length above), and second, it positions women as tacitly heterosexual.

The “hyperthymic babe” reinforces the idea of woman as a sexual being in relation to man, ignoring lesbians and bisexual women: “Men now prefer sexually hyperthymic women to the hypothymic personalities of subservience, passivity, and male-dependency” (Zita, 1998, pg 72-73). This new “hyperthymic babe” persona that women are now free to choose on Kramer’s view is still the ideal as defined by men, and women medicated for the purpose of “enhancing” their personalities and controlling their negative emotions are still being subverted by men’s desires and structures. In a society that values heterosexuality and oppresses women, homosexual and bisexual people, is this “choice” really free?

The idea that Prozac “gives women enough energy to be equal to men” (Zita, 1998, pg 68) is a clear reinforcement of men at the top of the oppressive hierarchical structure, as discussed above. It also reinforces dichotomies of man/woman and masculine/feminine, which leads to the reinforcement of heterosexual institutions, that are oppressive not only to women, but also homosexual and bisexual people and differentially sexed and gendered people.

Prozac is used by Kramer to create an idea of modern woman as a privileged superwoman capable of managing the challenges of modern life (Zita, 1998, pg 63). This tacitly assumes that women’s lives involve work, marriage, children, and traditional feminine wifely duties such as being willing and energetic sexual partners for their husbands and taking care of the household work. This is an obvious reinforcement of heterosexual institutions of marriage and family built upon the dichotomy of masculine and feminine, ignoring gay men and lesbians, single women, childless women, bisexual women and men, and differentially sexed and gendered people. Positioning women in this way creates more societal pressure on those who don’t fit into Kramer’s typified categories of man and woman – the sort of pressure that can lead to the very illness he locates in the individual bodies of men and (especially) women as a biological dysfunction! Individual treatment of individual bodies based on a capitalist model is a much easier solution to social problems such as sexism and heterosexism than examining the social structures that enforce them.

Advances in medicine and pharmaceuticals must be celebrated for reducing illness, but the ramifications that capitalism has on the medical world have led to morally questionable marketing campaigns that serve to increase the medicalization of members of society, and especially women. This takes the emphasis away from social factors such as oppression and instead emphasizes individual bodies, making those bodies deviant and “other”. In the case of Dr. Kramer and Prozac, women in particular are being targeted as victims of their individual bodies, rather than a marginalized group oppressed by the very structures of society. The solution for this problem is not an easy one. Discourse such as that provided by Zita is a step toward increasing awareness of the problem of medicalizing women’s bodies in the interests of capitalism.


1.Wilkes, Michael S. and Hoffman, Jerome R. (2005)“The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us, and What to Do About It; On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health”, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 293 No. 24, June 22/29, 2005, pg 3107-3108.

2. Rosenthal, Meredith B., Berndt, Ernst R., Donohue, Julie M., Frank, Richard G., and Epstein, Arnold M.(2002) “Promotion of Prescription Drugs to Consumers”, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 346 No. 7, February 14, 2002, pgs 498-505.

3. Kramer, Peter (1993). Listening to Prozac: A Psychiatrist Explores Antidepressant Drugs and the Remaking of the Self. New York: Viking Penguin.

4. Zita, Jacquelyn N. (1998). “Prozac Feminism”, Body Talk: Philosophical Reflections on Sex and Gender. New York: Columbia University Press.

*please note: this paper may not be used in full or in part in any form without the express permission of the author*

Read Full Post »

I just read an interesting article about the financial benefits to women who wait to have children. A young economist recently discovered that women who are in their twenties and decide to have a baby will earn 10% less over their lifetime than women who wait just one year. The wage decrease comes in two parts: first, an immediate drop in earnings, followed by a slower rate of income growth until the day of retirement. Notice this is not compared to women who choose not to have children at all, but to women who wait only one year to begin a family. I wonder what the statistics are for women who choose not to have any children?Anyway, I thought it was quite interesting. The article explains how the economist went about her research, which seems well-planned to me. I wonder if these findings will affect anyone's decisions about having children. Sounds like further confirmation to me of my no-babies plan!

Read Full Post »

well, in a rather shocking turn of events, the identity of the woman whose facial features were used in the recent first-ever face transplant has been unveiled. read about it here.it is absolutely taboo to disclose the identity of organ donors. It is considered important for the family of the deceased to be able to grieve and mourn in peace, without knowing to whom their loved ones' body parts are given. It is a major breach of ethics to disclose the identity of organ donors. Who made the disclosure? it seems to be the donor's brother, who has made the allegation that his family did not give permission for his sister's facial features to be used for transplantation. YIKES! (I highly doubt that this is true; in such a high-profile case, it seems to me that express permission would be required.)

the plot thickens…

Read Full Post »

So, I've been concerned with natural disasters lately. Mostly because it seems like every two days there is something gross happening with the weather or the earth that results in human devestation. Now, I'm not an environmentalist – far from it. I'm a late bloomer in realizing the importance of things like recycling, reducing emissions, etc. But, I'm concerned with people and the way we treat each other. However, it seems to me that, as everything else does these days for me, it is all interlocking and related.OK, so we had Hurricane Katrina this year, and then the other one that hit right after that in the Gulf that I can't remember the name of because it mostly devestated Mexico and world media doesn't seem to care about Mexico. This year, we had the first ever tropical storm touchdown in Europe (Spain). We had mudslides and forest fires in California. There was an earthquake in Pakistan in October, then another one the other day in the area bordering Afghanistan, then one yesterday in northern India. There was an earthquake in the Congo last week, and one in Iran and one in Japan at the end of November. There was an earthquake in Indonesia in March, and a tsunami in Thailand last December. It seems like the earth is trying to shake us of its back.

Disaster relief groups have been working non-stop this year as disaster after disaster strikes. On top of that, we have a war going on in Iraq that has no end in sight, and violence seems to be rising in Afghanistan again. Suicide bombers are hard at work. AIDS is rampant in Africa and South Asia, and the Avian Flu is said to be on its way. Violent crime is still a problem in most cities. Billions of people live in poverty. What the hell are we doing? What are we doing about it?

My point is, it seems like the more we don't give a flying crap about the world on which we live, the more it is going to bite us in the ass, and the more human disasters like poverty, abuse, neglect, war, disease, rape, and slavery will keep on keeping on. More and more, capitalism and greed are killing our natural resources and our humanity. There has to be a better way…. doesn't there?

Read Full Post »

I am happy to report that I am finished school for the year! I finished my last paper today, and handed in all my assignments. All the rest of the day, I had an anxious feeling, like there was something I had forgotten about, but it's passed now. I am officially free until January 4th! I'm so excited, I can hardly stand it! My life the past few weeks has been so boring, so isolated – all I've been doing is slaving away at schoolwork. I can't wait to get out and have some fun, see my friends, drink some wine, cook some meals, see some movies, get back into the swing of things… and it's the best time of year for all of that, too, with everyone in festive spirits! So, eat, drink and be merry!Yippee!

Read Full Post »

The list of this year's Nobel Prize winners has been announced, and the prizes have been awarded. Each winner has given their speech, their thanks, and headed home to carry on their life's work that has led them to this place in history, this place that has honoured them for making a difference.This year, two winners have been causing a bit of a stir. The first, Harold Pinter, won the Nobel Prize for Literature for his work as a playwright. His speech was a rather scathing criticism of US foreign politics, and the penchant of that country's government for concealing truth and promoting its own brand of "democracy", which I like to call "anti-communist democracy at any cost". Read his speech here; it is long, but very interesting, if only for Pinter's description of how he goes about writing his plays. His words are powerful; evidence of why he was awarded the highest achievement for literature.

The second controversial winner this year won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in global nuclear disarmament. Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency is a chief nuclear facilities inspector for the United Nations, and his speech highlights how nuclear technology can be used for good as well as destruction. Read his speech here. ElBaradei is a controversial winner because the US has a grudge against him; her refused to support US claims of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq prior to the US-led war there in 2003, and refuses to back US claims of such weapons in Iran – the US's next oil-rich war-target. Read about US opposition to the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER here. It seems incredible to me that the US could find fault with a man whose life work is promoting peace adn non-violence. Then again, war is big business for the US, and as Bush so famously declared in 2001 after Sept 11 attacks on the WTC: "You're either with us or against us".

join me in celebrating this year's Nobel Prize winners!

Read Full Post »

so, I made some yummy soup today. I love soup in the winter! I also love to experiment in the kitchen, and disasters are getting much less frequent. This recipe worked really well, so I wrote it down and thought I’d share. I know, two recipes in a week… but hey, at least I’m willing to share them! one of my friends’ mother-in-law won’t share her chocolate chip cookie recipe – but she’ll make you batter. Ridiculous, I say!Here you go – it’s so easy and fast. Even my kitty liked it!

Curried Squash and Sweet Potato Soup

This soup has it all – lots of beta-carotene, a little sweetness, and a bit of spice!


  • 4-5 sweet potatoes
  • 1 acorn squash
  • 1 small onion
  • 1-2 garlic buds
  • 1 TBSP ginger root
  • 2 cans of coconut milk
  • 1 cup of applesauce
  • 1 TSP salt
  • 1 TBSP honey
  • 2 TSP generic curry powder
  • Fresh ground black pepper (to taste)


  1. Peel the sweet potatoes and boil until soft.
  2. Cut the squash in half, and boil in a separate pot until flesh is soft. (This step can be done in the microwave: in a microwave-safe bowl, place about 1 cup of water and the squash. Cover with plastic wrap and cook on high for approximately 5 minutes.)
  3. Chop onion into tiny bits. With about ½ TBSP of cooking oil, sauté on medium-low heat until soft and transparent – do not brown. Stir in pressed garlic when onions are halfway finished.
  4. When squash is finished cooking, scrape the flesh from the peel, and place one can of coconut milk, half the applesauce and the flesh into a blender. Puree until smooth. Place in a large saucepan.
  5. When sweet potatoes are finished cooking, place them in a bowl and mash slightly. Transfer to the blender with the other can of coconut milk and the rest of the applesauce. Puree until smooth. Place in the saucepan with the squash mixture.
  6. Bring the soup to a gentle boil, adding honey, salt, pepper and curry powder. Using garlic press, squeeze the juice of the ginger into the mixture. Place the rest of the ginger in the mixture for extra flavour.
  7. Cook until mixture is smooth and well-blended.
  8. ENJOY!

Read Full Post »

happy holidays or merry christmas?the debate goes on, louder and stronger than ever. this year, in my town, christians had their panties in a twist because the tree we send to Boston every year for their commons (this is a tradition started several years ago to thank Bostonians for the help they provided during the Halifax Explosion of December 1917) was going to be called a "holiday tree" rather than a "christmas tree" to be inclusive of Boston's multicultural communities. People had enough humbuggery in their veins to say we should stop sending our trees if they aren't going to call them christmas trees! the guy who donated the tree even said he would rather they feed the tree to a wood chipper than have it called a "holiday tree"!

christians are all pissed off that all the "immigrants" to north america want to change "our" holiday season to include "their" weird traditions. the jews have their hannukah, the muslims have their ramadan, the black folks have kwanzaa – whatever the heck that is…. soon we'll be celebrating rastafarian holidays and native holidays, they say. oh, wait a second… natives? weren't they here BEFORE "us"? doesn't that make us "immigrants" too? well, that's beside the point. this is a christian country, and it's christmas, for christ sake – let us call it christmas!

so, problems with this argument from the whining christians?

well, holiday is non-specific, non-denominational, and all-inclusive for those who do celebrate religious traditions at this time of year. who the hell does it hurt to say "happy holidays", to be inclusive of everyone? also, saying "happy holidays" doesn't mean you suddenly aren't celebrating christmas and you are celebrating hannukah or participating in ramadan in some sneaky way without even knowing it. saying "happy holidays" doesn't make you less christian, or detract from the "sacredness" of your traditions! what the hell are you so threatened and insecure about?

christians dominate north american culture, this is true. however, this has gone on long enough! Two of our national holidays in Canada are christian – good Friday and christmas – and none reflect the religions of any other group. in Canada, we embrace cultural diversity in ways our US neighbours do not – cultural mosaic rather than melting pot, right? so why should it be so hard for us to say "happy holidays"!

a couple of years ago, I was making out holiday cards for my favourite clients. I was careful to choose ones that did not denote any particular religion, but featured wintery scenes and a message like "celebrate the joys of the holiday season". but, when I filled one of them out, I automatically wrote "Merry Christmas!" and I realized it when I was handing it to the client it was intended for – a Jewish lady! I said to her, "I hope you're not offended, but I think I wrote Merry Christmas in your card," to which she replied, "oh that's alright, Happy Hannukah to you! and Merry Christmas too!" Another of my clients wished me both a Merry Christmas and a Happy Ramadan that year. Neither were offended that I celebrate christmas (loosely, meaning I exchange gifts with my friends and family, not meaning I celebrate the birth of christ the saviour – I am an atheist after all), and both expressed to me the sentiments of their own celebrations. It was nice – I felt like they were extending some of the benevolence of their special traditions to me. I felt included, in a small way.

I think that's the point. By saying "merry christmas", we are not necessarily offending people – although in some cases we are. more importantly, we are excluding them, and not acknowledging their own beautiful and special traditions. we are making them invisible. that's not exactly a nice feeling. and that is why I wish people "happy holidays".

Read Full Post »

ok, that title might possibly have been in poor taste. I'm referring of course to the recent Face Transplant that took place in Lyon. I had a lecture about this type of medical intervention earlier this year in one of my bioethics classes, by one of the profs in the department here at Dal who was doing quite a bit of research into the possible ramifications of such a surgery, mostly surrounding personal identity. It was a very interesting lecture, and since the first transplant has now taken place, there is much discussion about it all. the article linked above provided a decent analysis of the issues.One of the key issues that has been raised is the psychological state of the recipient, who had the surgery because she was disfigured after a dog mauling incident. She admitted in a press conference to having attempted suicide before she was able to receive the surgery. The question is, whether she should have been considered a good candidate in light of her mental health status, and that perhaps the surgical team was less than ethical in choosing their candidate in order to win the race to be the first to perform such a medical intervention. My initial thought is that it is understandable that this woman had psychological trouble after the lower part of her face was torn off by a manic dog, and it is possible that without the surgery, she would not be able to make a pscyhological recovery.

Another key issue has to do with personal identity, and how a patient might understand him/herself after such a surgery – especially a full-face transplantation (the one done in Lyon was a partial-face transplant). What would it be like to wake up in the mirror and have a new face – not jsut a new one, but one that recently belonged to someone else? Of course, candidates for this surgery may have already gone through a drastic revision in personal identity, as the patient in Lyon had, from a disfiguring accident. But what if you had lived all your life with one type of face – an unusual face, perhaps due to a congential defect? What would it be like to have an unusual face, and then suddenly have one that is entirely different? Would a donor, who agrees to donate their tissue, really agree to donating their face – which is so tied to their personal identity? I am an organ donor, but I would have to give great thought to whether I would want to donate my FACE.

This type of case is most similar to hand transplantation – also first done in France, if memory serves me. There have been reports of patients rejecting their new hand because it didn't feel right, or look right, to them after all – and undergoing amputation to have the new hand removed. What if this happened with a face transplant, where identity is so closely knit together with facial appearance? It's not like they could walk around without a face – they would need another transplant in this case. Do we keep trying until they get one they are happy with?

so, what do you guys think?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »