(warning: I am in a rotten mood. I have a splitting headache that won’t go away. I got about 4 hours of sleep. I have been reading Andrea Dworkin. This might be a bit ranty.)
So, last week I went for a pap smear. I know, nobody wants to hear about this stuff. it’s private, it’s about icky girl stuff, whatever. The attitude towards women’s bodies is ridiculous in our society. Women are taught to loathe our own bodies, and knowledge about our bodies is held in a monopoly by a male-dominated elitist field of doctors. I resent that I have to go for a procedure once a year in which my doctor is inspecting my insides. it seems like such a violation of personal space. This is the only thing that genius doctors have come up with to determine whether or not I have abnormal growths on my cervix. Prying open a woman’s vagina with steel instruments, shining a light inside her body, poking her cervix with swabs, putting hands inside her vagina. And all the while, we are told to relax, submit, don’t tense up, just breathe.
I’ve written a bit about how pregnancy and childbirth has been completely taken out of women’s hands and placed into a medical sphere here and here. What was once a matter for women to know and share, what was once a communal event for women to bond together, has become full of beeping machines monitoring this and that, machines that take pictures of women’s uteruses, and surgical procedures that determine primarily fetal health. Lately more women have been undergoing caesarian sections by “choice”. Andrea Dworkin calls this a surgical fuck, penetration of a scalpel as violence against the woman’s deepest privacy, to maintain the intactness of the vagina for the sexual pleasure of men. (I’m not saying I agree, but it’s something to think about.) What used to be women’s knowledge about women’s bodies has become knowledge about women’s bodies held captive by a male-dominated elitist profession and industry, and women have to pay to gain access to that knowledge – incomplete knowledge based on the study of male bodies (and largely male bodies already subjected to discipline through the military or prison systems or concentration camps, and whose presence in these systems has often been subject to determinative social forces such as poverty and racism) that has discredited the traditional knowledge of midwives and doulas and women who practice herbal medicine who were burned at the stake and hung and thrown over cliffs in burlap bags with their hands and feet tied and called witches. The medical profession has been a large proponent of biological essentialism (the idea that men and women are fundamentally different based on biological differences that are largely arbitrary), and yet still they have refused to study women’s bodies specifically in order to properly diagnose and treat ailments and disease in the female patient (thankfully, this has finally partially changed, but only recently: women were excluded from participating in medical reasearch trials by the NIH and FDA until 1994; read about it here). The male body is the standard, the normalized and accepted standard of biological knowledge. Female bodies are deviant from this norm, and are of interest only in how they can be managed and disciplined out of their “natural” and unruly state and into the better service of patriarchy, largely through breeding and sexual service. Women have been treated by the medical field like cattle, of use to breed and work. Use women’s bodies as much as possible before they are of no further use. Keep them from being able to control their own bodies, their own sexuality, their own pregnancy – it is not their bodies, those bodies belong to men; it is not their sexuality, their sexuality is in service of and in relation to male sexuality; it is not their pregnancy, that child belongs to the father, so much so that he (or less desirably, she) will be given his name, but only until she becomes the property of a husband who may own and use her body for his purposes. More recently, the left has encouraged women to control their unruly bodies to avoid pregnancy and to avoid menstruation, so as to be more desirable and fuckable to men- all in the name of freedom, sexual freedom, freedom of expression of desire – but of course women’s sexuality and sexual pleasure is still defined in terms of male sexuality and male sexual pleasure. Witness the overwhelming research into drugs to increase male libido and virility, and the comparative lack of research into increasing female sexual desire and pleasure. This is because the male orgasm is what matters; the female body is submissive, receptive, a vehicle for male sexual pleasure; the female orgasm only exists to cement an emotional bond and endear her partner to her so she will be more receptive and submissive for him. All of this has legitimized male domination.
I work with two plastic surgeons. They are both male. Nice guys, really, both very nice. Not at all like that show. The majority of the patients we see are female. They come to these men for appraisal and revision of their bodies. They come because they are unhappy with their bodies for some reason. I’m going to put it out there and say society, which is male-dominated and has specific requirements regarding women’s bodies and physical appearance, is the reason women are unhappy with their bodies. These men look at the women’s bodies, tell them what they think is wrong with their bodies, and suggest ways of cutting them open (among other things) in order to change what they say is wrong with their bodies. Our clinic has a waiting list of women who are interested in coming to be appraised by these male doctors and cut open to correct their perceived bodily flaws. They pay to be appraised and told what is wrong with their bodies by these male doctors. They pay to have what these male doctors decide is wrong changed by these two men. They are cut open. Flesh is cut away. Fat is sucked out. Implants are put in. They are sewn back up. They sometimes have complications, mostly not. They are given pain medication (the dosage of which is based on scientific studies of mainly male bodies, because women’s bodies screw up study results, what with their freaky hormones and all, and anyway women are unreliable study subjects because they are either mothers or potentially pregnant). They have scars. One of these doctors I know for certain (I don’t know about the other one) has performed surgery to minimize the size of a black person’s nostrils, making the nose appear less “ethnic”. Both doctors I work for are white. Doesn’t this all seem just a bit unbalanced here?
I don’t mean to demonize the doctors I work with, they are both fine people. Their jobs reinforce patriarchy through the physical alteration of women’s bodies so as to adhere more closely to patriarchal standards of feminine beauty. They are handsomely rewarded for this work by the capitalist patriarchy.
Women have been taught by the medical system to find their own bodies repulsive and their bodily processes as both natural and disgusting (or at the least inconvenient). Witness menstruation. Women are taught from day one to hate their period: the curse, it’s called. Periods are a pain in the ass; they are messy and inconvenient and gross, we are taught. We must never touch menstrual fluid, we must never mention menstruation – we should pretend that everything is “normal”. We should use tampons for maximum discretion, and those tampons should be tiny so nobody sees. Tiny tampons, of course, must be changed more frequently, so this keeps women tied to the bathroom. Tampons absorb menstrual fluid right int he vagina, before it ever leaves the body. This is the best thing, we are told, because they we can pretend that our periods don’t really exist. Never mind that tampons leave behind traces of whatever fibre they are made of inside the vagina when they are removed, traces that the body must work harder to cleanse. The vagina is self-cleansing, but cleansing tampon fibres requires more production of vaginal mucous, so this means more vaginal discharge. Tampons are generally bleached to appear white and clean, just to remind you how dirty and red menstrual fluid is. That means traces of bleach is right up against the mucous membrane, which absorbs everything at a quicker rate. Do these chemicals play a part in increasing menstrual flow? It’s hard to tell. For many many women, these chemicals mean increased cramping and head and body aching during use. There is also the risk of toxic shock, a potentially fatal condition. When I was younger, women were encouraged to change tampons frequently to avoid this syndrome. Now, women are encouraged to leave tampons in overnight and up to 8 hours. All of this, and tampons contribute greatly to environmental damage. Tampons are pushed because pads are bulky and messy; you have to look at your menstrual fluid; they aren’t as clean.
There are wonderful alternatives available to pads and tampons. The Diva Cup and the Keeper are menstrual caps that sit just inside the vaginal opening and collect menstrual fluid. They can stay in for 12 hours. Once you get used to them, they don’t leak. They are made from either latex or silicone, so no weird chemicals are leaching into the blood stream and causing aches and pains. These are great options that are resusable so better for the environment, and are convenient and easy to use. Many women find these methods gross because they actually have to insert their fingers into their vaginas to insert and remove the caps, which means touching both the vagina and menstrual fluid itself. Both are deemed dirty and icky and gross by our society, and so this psychological barrier keeps many women from using these alternatives, despite the fact that they are so much better. This period-aversion has also led to the use of birth control hormones to prevent menstruation, as I mentioned earlier. Rachel at Alas did a couple posts about this earlier this year. If you’re interested, go read the debates there.
what do you think about the monopolization of knowledge of women’s bodies by the medical field?
I’m becoming convinced…It’s all about hormones.
Periods are about hormones. The change of life is about hormones. Male dominance is about hormones. Birth & birth control is about hormones. Arrrgh! Between a rock & a hard place we are.
Hello,
Yeah, a wee rant, TG ~ but a goodie!
Worthy of a rant because women’s own bodily relationships are very twisted up indeed. It pains me. And I hear that you are angery about it, and I ancourage your rage, because it is a violent thing to keep any human from self knowledge.
I feel in the dark ages on the matter of body ownership by women, for women, with women. I ask “What of the evolution of body awareness, not body image, from when I was a young young woman?” And the answer is, Nothing.
Nothing has evolved in mainstream life on the matter of female health and wellbeing. Actually, women know less because they are more indoctrinated by the wrong info and wrong health message than they were when I was a teen.
A long time ago I decided that I had to go it alone and not rely on anything that the ‘world’ (aka patriarchy) was telling me about my body. Actually, The Beauty Myth started the journey for me, then it was my complete personality change while taking oral birth control and then finally, the rage began when I fell pregnant accidentally and the father of the guy handed him a cheque over the dinner table to pay for the termination, in front of the entire family. I raged, then I changed.
What I found, within the change, as LT mentions, is that it’s all about the hormones.
To elaborate, and I could elaborate all night long, I tell ya: one of the sad and dangerous (physically and mentally) side effects of seperating us from our menstral cycles (just as one example of the many valid and tangled issues that you have raised) is that it removes our power. What power? The fundamental power that we have to control our own happenings. How so? Hmmm.
[I don’t believe in body mind seperation. I believe that they both inform eachother. I believe in corporeal intelligence. I love the effect of female hormones, they are legible and informative. This informs the next comment.]
I’ll give an example: menstral cycle as a mode of telling a woman about her overall physical and mental health, ie., if one’s menstral cycle is consistent and unintrusive (clean red blood, smells good, same style of blood flow each cycle, cycle duration, no wicked mood swings, managable cramps), then there is a BIG chance that she is generally well. If suddenly there is a change to one of these attributes, then it is a signal to sit and listen to the body and find our her needs and then provide them .
Providing one’s body with what it needs in order to be happy and healthy is only possible with a sound knowledge of one’s own menstral cycle. This is my first and most important autonomy.
Another example: I used to keep a hormone calendar when I was a director of a big project. I did the calendar because I’d noticed that I was not good at making big decisions while I was ovulating. I noted that my cycle had 4 primary changes, not 2. I noted, over time, that my personality exhibited consistent traits during each of the 4 cycles, ie., a need to withdraw socially, incapacity to focus, strong hyper focus skills, stuff like this.
You see, I was in charge of a lot of people and we worked in tight physical space (Japan), so I had to rethink how I/my personality/brain/body/ego/emotions worked.
It was very revealing and liberating to use my body and a professional tool.
They key, I’ve found is: look more often at your menstral cycle than you look at your body in the mirror, do non-competative exercise often, don’t eat anything with a hormone in it, then perhaps your body will eventually, with time and practice, tell you all you need to know.
Call it preventative medicine.
I use it so much and so well that when a friend speaks of ‘this reoccuring emotional problem’ and that reoccuring work conflict, I always ask “Where in your cycle are you when this continues to happen?”
It’s power because it’s knowledge of our potential behaviour. It requires intuition, so therefore, to me, is is very very powerful to listen to your cycle.
And before I completely overwhealm your poor old blog with more of my own rant, in agreement with you, one more thing: when I applied the same practice/theory to my pregnant and childbaring and breast feeding body, the results were incredible … it gave me peace, because a childbaring body is in some ways at war with itself on account of the complete and total hormone change, that changes who you are, at the core. You come back, but it’s no fluke.
(refering to a past blog chat: This is why those women at the baby shower are talking like idiots about chaffed nipples and insideout pelvic floors. They are utterly dislocated in body and mind and they know no other way to handle it other than talking to the point of distraction about their’s and their babies’ bodies.)
Shit!!
So,
TG: “what do you think about the monopolization of knowledge of women’s bodies by the medical field?”
ME: it’s an ethical crime.
Is it Friday already?
D
Well, now that we are all ranting…
One thing that i’ve always had to deal with is(& really pisses me off, BTW) people (men & women) blaming the reasoning behind my moods on menstral cycles or now…lack of.
When I try to talk to my mother about my current dissatisfaction with my life, she completely invalidates my logic & reasoning by saying,
“Oh, you prob. are just going through the change.”
Thanks mom.
& if I get angry at my husband, he says, “What’s the matter with you? Are you on your period?”
Again, invalidating any legitimate reasoning on my part.
Ironic isn’t it, that the two people that should be able to understand (the two I have the most intimate relationships with)dismiss my feelings by accusing me of being under the influence of my hormones.
What daniela said about childbearing… I always chose to go natural the whole way (against the wishes of alot of people)& it was always the right choice. Because that way, your body knows what to do to get itself on track.
thanks ladies, I appreciate your comments. And I totally agree!
D: I think you are absolutely right that a woman’s period tells a great deal about her general health. I remember specifically the month I had a bad car accident, my period was late. I was convinced I was pregnant, and was completely stressed out about that. When my period came, it was not normal, but it was there. It was the first time I was happy to have my period! Since then I’ve made mental notes about my period, and I do notice changes when I eat better, when I am under stress, when I am exercising regularly, when I am sick. I must try the hormonal calendar thing, that is a great idea! It might help me find the times I can concentrate best for getting assignments done.
L>T: I know what you mean about everything always being blamed on hormones. Hormones do play a role, as we’ve been discussing, but that doesn’t mean that they ALWAYS are the ONLY reason for women to be upset!!! Others use female hormones to excuse their own bad behaviour, to make women feel they are out of control and crazy, to avoid responsibility for being assholes, to encourage women to continue playing the role they want them to play. It’s not fair.
Something I wanted to add, but didn’t because the post was already getting very long, is the way in which breast cancer is treated by the medical field. Breast cancer is terrible, to be sure. But why such an overemphasis on breast cancer research in comparison to, say, cervical cancers, ovarian cancers, heart disease (the number one cause of death in women)? Why the emphasis on reconstructive surgery post-mastectomy? Because it has to do with breasts, symbolically a woman’s true identity, that which proves she is a woman, that which shows her femininity for all the world to see! And, let’s make everything to do with breast cancer PINK and FEMININE! Just to remind women who are going through chemo and radiation and having their bodies cut open and part of them removed and stitched back up again that their number one priority is still being feminine, being a “woman”, being a wife and mother and nurturer! And with all the research money committed to breast cancer, you’d think they’d have found something out by now. For god’s sake, they now know that HPV causes cervical cancer! why hasn’t more headway been made into what is probably the number one funded cancer research program?
well, i really have no comment about the post. i’m smart enough to know when i’m outside my knowledge sphere and keep my mouth shut…
however, i must say, i like the new look of the blog – i feel much more confident in commenting on web design…
mike, I think you are a brave man for just showing up on this post :)
thinking girl; i like this format. Being a book lover I was attracted to the picture of the books of course.
My good friend who started this
foundation felt there wasn’t anough actual emotional support for women with breast cancer at the time her daughter was diagnosed(misdiagnosed at first, I believe because she was ‘too young’ to have breast cancer).
I’m trying to think of any support systems in place for ovarian or cervical cancer.? they don’t even have a ribbon.
One thing my friend did that was interesting was introduce a blue strip into the pink ribbon to represent all the men who get breast cancer. many more men then we ever hear about.
So do a breast exam on yourself, Mike, if you haven’t.
Whew! Long post & comments … lots to agree and disagree with.
I agree that our culture has gone too far in embracing the scientific, reductionist view of ‘body as machine’ as the ‘only’ valid way to view corporeal existence (even to the ridiculously unreflective extent of saying things like, “The brain produces thought just like the kidneys produce urine,” an actual quote from a neuroscientist). While the ‘body as machine’ perspective has unquestionably led to tremendous advances in our ability to lead healthier and happier lives, it also reinforces an artificial mind/body split that can do violence to our experience, as daniela alludes to. The additional burdens such a perspective places on women when the research has historically been dominated by men is unsurprising.
I question how much ‘menstruation hatred’ is purely a product of the ‘patriarchy’ (not saying it didn’t contribute). Both Majikthise and Amanda Marcotte embraced the idea of being able to use period-skipping pills, and I don’t think anyone could accuse either of being a tool of the patriarchy!
My biggest beef, though, is with the idea of breaking humanity down into teams, ‘women’s knowledge about women’s bodies,’ etc. I think it’s great that one of the best books about male circumcision was written by a woman (Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma by Rosemary Romberg). When I was in college, I wrote a column in response to a Parade article at the time on the topic of motherhood. The article mentioned that it was not unusual for women to feel discomfort during sex for months after giving birth. I questioned whether it was birth, or the American way of birth — which incorporated episiotomies 60% of the time — which was the real culprit in the matter. (The book Silent Knife pointed out that Scandinavian countries only used episiotomies 20% of the time, and the procedure’s prevalence in America seemed more related to issues of doctors’ time than patients’ needs, an issue wholly neglected by the Parade article.) Some women thought it strange that a guy would write about such a topic, but I thought their reaction was, frankly, a little offensive. I strongly believe that sharing some body or skin type is NOT a prerequisite for empathy, insight, or fellowship.
(Just to be clear: I absolutely agree that the male body should be ‘denormalized,’ medically speaking, and that we would benefit from more diverse medical institutions.)
Hey TG: I posted a (400 word) comment here a couple of hours ago and it’s still ‘awaiting moderation’, while my subsequent briefer comments on your ‘new skin’ thread went through with no problem.
Please let me know if I should repost my comment to this thread, or if there was something objectionable about its length or content.
Hello,
What’s HPV ?
d
Human papillomavirus, and the rest can be gleaned from wikipedia
ballgame
thanks for the comments. I think your earlier comment got held up in moderation because of the links you provided. sometimes the spamulator doesn’t know what to do when it recognizes a username and email but there are also links, which is a main indicator for spam comments. I would have moderated earlier, but, I was at the ROLLING STONES CONCERT!!!! Boy, did I have a fun time in the rain and mud with Mick and Ron and Charlie and Keith! Oh, and KANYE WEST!!!!!
Anyway, good comment. I think the polarization is a problem, indeed. Yet, there is an innate knowledge one has about one’s own body, and it seems as though even that has been hijacked by the medical profession – which is male-dominated. That’s the problem as I see it. Experts are deemed the only ones with knowledge about bodies, while the people in those bodies are not heard or considered to have knowledge because they are not experts. While this happens to men as well, it is, I think, a bigger problem for women because of the “male body as standard” problem.
I also agree that mind-body should not be such a separation. they each inform the other. I took a whole class on the mind-body problem last year, and it was a bit tough to get around. It is a philosophical problem that intrigues me very much.
Daniela
HPV is Human Papilloma Virus. There are hundreds of strains, only a few of which cause abnormal growths, such as genital warts and/or cervical cancer. 75% of north americans will have one HPV infection in their lives. There is now a vaccine available, but it’s a bit tricky, because there are so many strains out there.
L>T
thanks for the comments! You are right, there is no ribbon or anything for cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, etc. I guess those aren’t sexy enough to warrant a ribbon or special fundraising campaign that has coloured stuffed animals.
i just wrote a somewhat related post. :D as to science and the mind-body separation, there’s lots of feminist theory critiquing science and epistemology as we know them, which are based on the cartesian tradition: here’s a bit about that (with some of this as background, maybe). thing is, all of this is very gendered and tied in with patriarchal issues and structures – that’s the whole point, so of course it has to be addressed from that direction. i don’t see how women choosing to skip periods contradicts a critique of how menstruation and women’s health in general are being controlled by “higher powers” in society; it’s not about “hating” having a period or not – i don’t think anybody likes bleeding, in and of itself, it’s how menstruation is viewed, the connotations it automatically takes on, and especially the fact that we don’t really talk about it.
and that’s what my post is about. :) [sorry for the links]
Ruxandra
don’t worry about the links. I don’t mind, I love getting links to read. Just don’t be surprised if the spamulator catched them up. I better update the discussion page to include that.
I agree. in the period wars posts over at Alas and subsequent discussions elsewhere ( and ballgame I’m talking to you too) I just think so much got lost there. I’ll refer back to my post about false consciousness – just because someone who is a feminist does something that “the patriarchy” wants and encourages her to do, doesn’t mean that she isn’t a feminist or a patriarchy fighter (or blamer) any less than any other person. It just means that it is nearly impossible as a woman to not do SOMETHING that the patriarchy deems less valuable or feminine or required for women or whatever. Also, their self-proclaimed (because that’s all we CAN be) feminist status doesn’t mean that these women are not going along with patriarchy, or aren’t “tools of the patriarchy”. Most women do things that support patriarchy in some way – whether or not the REASONS they do so are “because patriarchy says so.” For some women, it’s that they get married, or have children. For some women, it’s that they wear makeup and high heels and skirts. For some women, it’s that they cook and bake. For some women, it’s that they want to avoid their periods. Doesn’t make them less feminist than other women. Doesn’t make them non-tools of the patriarchy, either. It’s not appropriate to blame the women for their decisions to support the patriarchy. It’s fully appropriate to blame the patriarchy.
Once again and all together: “Feminism is not about making women into men.”
ovarian cancer research foundation, australia
http://www.ocrf.com.au/
thanks daniela, that is helpful! Silver ribbon for ovarian cancer!
You didn’t take your laptop with you to the concert, TG??
;)
I think I pretty much agree with all of your 12:57 a.m. comment, TG.
I think I disagree with much of the underlying assumption behind your 7:01 a.m. comment, though. ‘The patriarchy’ does not really exist, of course, it’s a social fantasy/construct, presumably in the same sense as Zillah Eisenstein sees ‘the state’ as a social fantasy/construct, though ‘the patriarchy’ has far less explicit institutional structure. I think it would be most accurate to see ‘the patriarchy’ as a shorthand reference to deeply ingrained gender expectations we have as a culture, expectations which incorporate privilege for men and women.
Therefore, I think it’s frequently misleading to attribute agency or ‘desires’ to ‘the patriarchy’, at least not in any literal sense. Menstruation is a messy bodily function, and like other messy bodily functions (shitting, pissing, sweating) requires adaptive behaviors to reconcile with the bourgeois industrial/corporate culture in which we exist (especially one as cleanliness-obsessed as what we have in North America). The more extended nature of menstruation (you can’t just go to the bathroom and be done with it) renders it particularly problematic from this perspective, and requires more extended adaptive behaviors. When some women say they find the whole thing to be a pain in the ass, I see no reason or analytic benefit to assert that they’ve been induced to feel this way by ‘the patriarchy,’ or that they’re ‘supporting the patriarchy’ when they do so. Really, the notion that Amanda Marcotte ‘supports the patriarchy’ is pretty funny.
I also think it’s critically important to narrow the definition of ‘patriarchy’ to unjust gender expectations. Otherwise, the concept is so broad it becomes useless, other than serving as a vague and handy whipping boy to scapegoat for every dissatisfaction one may have with life in our culture. When you say things like ‘women getting married and having kids supports the patriarchy,’ it makes me roll my eyes.
It is always fully appropriate to criticize unjust gender expectations. When the concept of ‘patriarchy’ is so broad and overarching that it encompasses getting married and having children, then ‘blaming the patriarchy’ is just an exercise in self-indulgence.
well, ballgame, think what you want. I’m trying to bust this shit apart, and you’re telling me to further categorize and define it all. No thanks.
Sure, the patriarchy is a constructed idea, just like sex and gender and sexuality, and perhaps even bodies, and nations and race and disability and religion and age and time and the universe and numbers and language and money and marriage and death. all ideas that have been constructed, all ideas that are very real in terms of the effects they have on people’s lives. So, the patriarchy may be an invention, but it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have a significant impact on every aspect of people’s lives, because it is indeed an overarching concept that informs everything we do. I don’t think that patriarchy has a “far less instiutionalized structure” than these other things, not at all. In fact, many of these other ideas are constructed to support patriarchy. I see patriarchy as one of the principle overarching concepts of society; of course other things support it, other things have been constructed IN ORDER TO support it. And I see ALL gender expectations as unjust. so yeah, a lot of things we do, including get married and have children and the attitudes we have towards our bodies, are informed by patriarchy. In a way, every single thing we do supports patriarchy simply by either being supportive of it, or by recognizing its authority as the order of the day and reacting against it, which still affirms its place as the ruling system. All of us support patriarchy in various ways. Society is constructed so that we have to! I think we need to get off our high horses about it and acknowledge it, accept it and move on. We can either try to live our lives completely outside of patriarchy, or we can work from within patriarchy to reconceptualize what power means. I say, it’s impossible to live your life completely outside of patriarchy. Just like it’s impossible to live outside of racial categories. Patriarchy is what defines gender roles. Racism is what defines race. As far as I can see, we’re stuck with these definitions, but we can decide whether to let these definitions DEFINE us. I say, screw the definitions. We need to get inside what it is to be a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ or ‘black’ or ‘white’ or ‘hispanic’ or ‘gay’ or ‘straight’ or ‘disabled’ or whatever, and bust those definitions apart, and part of that will be by BEING partly the definitions and partly not the definitions, at the same time; being partly powerless and partly powerful; being singular and binary together.
Maybe this is senseless, but this is what I’m thinking about lately. I mean, nobody is just one thing, or just a collection of labels. I am more than “white” and “woman” and “straight” and “abled” etc. I am not simply a sum of my parts. So, part of what I am (a woman) supports patriarchy, and I accept that, but patriarchy is the problem, not me. Part of what I am (my white skin) supports white supremacy, but white supremacy is the problem, not me. Part of what I am supports heteronormativity (my attraction to the opposite sex), but heteronormativity is the problem, not me. None of this means that I am sexist, racist, or homophobic. It just means that I can’t avoid being part of and supporting these socially constructed concepts because I am defined in relation to them. In fact, I think the best – the only – way to fight these oppressions is to BE inside them just as I am: a person who is trying to break them apart just by BEING ME.
I like being a woman, because a woman is what I am, and I like being me. I like being white, because white is what I am, and I like being me. I like being straight, because straight is what I am, and I like being me. ETC. you see? I just don’t think the negative connotations associated with some of what I am, and what others are, are necessary. That’s what makes me angry. That’s what makes me feminist, and anti-racism, and anti-poverty, and pro-gay/lesbian rights, and pro-disability rights, etc. That’s what makes me write. I want to be free to be just who I am, without having to justify why I wear makeup and high heels to anyone else – including other radical feminists, or men, who question my commitment to gender equity/equality, and without the wearing of makeup and high heels marking me as an inferior class of person or an easy target for male sexual violence. I want to be as soft as I want to be, and as hard as I want to be, without being called a pseudo-masculine woman. I want to love who I want to love, without it being a problem for anyone else – or for me. The concepts are the problem… not me. I exist in relation to them. They were here long before me. They inform my identity. They will not DEFINE me.
well it’s funny that just a couple of comments ago the problem was “polarization” when now it seems you can either be “for” menstruation or “against” it, and nothing in between. :) apparently, you can’t both find menstruation a “pain in the ass” (uhmmm) *and* critique the fact that it’s one of those concrete things still used to keep women in their place in some way or another – ashamed, disgusted, mistrusting of and uninformed about their own bodies. what can i say, i *love* this total allegiance to binary thinking. why do people need to hang on to it? i don’t understand. it’s so easy to see that nothing is binary, in reality. nothing. which is what you keep saying, thinking girl, and i completely feel ya! i’m just as angry as you about it.
of course, it can’t possibly be that dichotomizing and polarizing holds a special place within patriarchal order (which relies on keeping everything relegated to its predetermined category in some hierarchy, whether it be gender, race etc.) and that’s why we learn to resort to these tactics so much, and learn it well; patriarchal order doesn’t actually exist, you see, it’s just a figment of our collective imagination.
right.
… oh, and even more broadly speaking, another tactic that i’ve found to be very common and i consider to be a clear application of patriarchal rules is the tendency to want to get to decide what is ultimately a “legitimate” or “appropriate” issue and what isn’t – to trivialize concerns and dismiss them because they don’t fit in with your perspective or otherwise upset/displease/inconvenience you in some way. *especially* when this gets called “seeing the bigger picture” or some such… and the same goes for denying the systemic or institutional nature of discrimination/inequity/injustice, which also works to dismiss particular concerns as trivial and irrelevant – even “self-indulgent,” when in reality a lot of the time the basis for arguing these kinds of things is precisely the adoption of an egocentric and self-indulgent position. *but this is what’s always supported status quos.* and i’m speaking of more than just some of the comments here, it really is one of the most common reactions to people speaking up about discrimination and injustice. that’s why i’m not at all surprised when it surfaces again and again – i’m just sad/angry, especially when the tactic totally contradicts the gist of the rhetoric, in which case it’s actually the worst because it confuses things the most and reinforces existing problems the most (insidiously).
ruxandra:
I never said anything of the kind. My only point was: finding menstruation to be a hassle does not mean you’re somehow being a stooge of ‘the patriarchy’.
Once again, I said nothing of the kind. My point was that it was ‘self-indulgent’ to reference patriarchy as something so nebulous that the mere act of getting married and having kids could somehow be construed as ‘propping it up’. Perhaps ‘self indulgent’ was the wrong term to have used; I probably should have used something like ‘obscurantist’ or ‘mystifying’. I certainly wasn’t focusing on character (and if that’s what came across, I apologize, TG), I was focusing on the inevitable lack of clarity which would result by using such a broad concept of ‘patriarchy’.
Your 8:28 comment, ruxandra, frankly epitomizes the precise problem I’m referring to. Despite the fact that I’m pro-choice; pro-gay marriage; pro-equal pay for equal work; adamantly in favor of minimizing or eliminating gender expectations (i.e. that men work outside the home and women inside, that men be hard and women soft, etc.) so that instead women and men can be their authentic, playful, loving, creative selves; despite all of that, you still see fit to imply that I’m somehow acting as an ‘insidious agent of the patriarchy’ solely on the basis of my pointing out that a critical gender concept is being used in an overbroad and analytically vague manner.
Ruxandra
thanks for feeling me. I appreciate that someone gets where I’m coming from and can decipher my ramblings.
Ballgame
you didn’t make comment to my response. do you understand what I’m talking about? I think it’s great that you are supportive of anti-oppression movements – so am I, and so we have much to align about. But do you get my point, that we can’t help but support patriarchy (and other oppressive systems) because that’s how they have been constructed, even when we don’t want those constructions to continue?
Ballgame, I really don’t think that’s what Thinking Girl is saying. It’s not like people are inadvertently “advertising” patriarchy’s view of society. I think the idea was, and correct me if I’m wrong tg, was that everybody should be free to be their own person, and not to worry if they’re in the minority or they can’t live up to society’s demands. Feminism, as I see it, wants women to break free having to be the perfect, gorgeous, submissive supermodel and/or housewife the patriarchy expects them to be. Tolerance and respect for all kinds of people is what I’d really like. That includes those who are in “favored” positions, but people outside those expectations should be treated equally, neither less nor more.
And people who want to date the opposite sex, get married, wear makeup, etc., should be free to do so as well, without guilt because they’re “supporting the patriarchy”, correct?
yes, exactly. I think that all of those things do indeed support patriarchy – because I think it’s really jsut about impossible NOT to support patriarchy, considering that almost every other social structure I can think of – maybe except race, and that has gendered complications as well – is based on supporting patriarchy! It’s patriarchy that deems these things meaningful and either valued or disvalued – the acts themselves don’t have meaning apart from what we give them.
well, ballgame, i think that nothing in thinking girl’s post and the following comments in support of it is either “obscure” or “vague.” it’s very clear: the point is that menstruation and other things that have to do with women’s bodies and health have been used as tools for oppression – and, yes, institutionally and systemically so (just think of women’s status within most religions around, what’s been used to justify and enforce that status, and the impact of this on so many cultures). it’s not vague and it’s not self-indulgent or mystifying. it’s the opposite of all those things, really. it’s useful to talk about if we want to change anything.
you see, when your response to this critique is that no, no, that’s not true or “appropriate,” because even some women don’t like menstruation (btw, my post that i linked above is about how much i hate menstruation because for me it’s a VERY traumatic experience), it’s frankly a bit… mystifying. it’s you who are saying that “finding menstruation to be a hassle” might “mean you’re somehow being a stooge of the patriarchy” at all – thinking girl is certainly saying the opposite, and so your point as you summarize it seems to be part of a different argument. again, pointing out that there’s systematic contempt and condemnation of and oppression based on women’s biology doesn’t mean you can’t find menstruation a hassle or you don’t think it’s valid to find menstruation a hassle. not at all. as to “tools of the patriarchy” – only tools of the patriarchy are tools of the patriarchy: people are them only when they’re arguing for not changing the patriarchal status quo.
and as i said above, i think your tack in this discussion is an example of some of the most common tactics used to prop up the patriarchal status quo. but i don’t think this discussion is about you – somehow i managed to personally offend you and it’s becoming all about you and your status within the patriarchy. again. even though this post is about menstruation.
anyway, to show you that i’m not just referring to you (and not “implying” anything, just saying what i mean to say), here’s another example: recently, i criticized someone’s racist comments in a context where they were actually trying to make a show of their “tolerance” and how much they gave a damn about helping those in need. and yet they were making remarks about how the bad conditions that people live in don’t actually indicate any discrimination or injustice because those people choose to live in squalor and filth and don’t want to do honest work etc.etc.. yes, they were really saying that. and because i criticized them when they were so completely blameless i got called all kinds of things, including “an extremist no different than those who bomb places” and a “cunt.” heh. and then to top it off they brought in the old “joke” about how you can’t trust or listen to anyone who bleeds every month and doesn’t die as a result. it must be mentioned that at the same time they were doing a lot of eye-rolling, of trivializing every relevant issue and blaming me for caring about “unimportant and irrelevant things” (such as the fact that one of the many examples of institutional racism is the practice of forced sterilization, which half the population is in support of!)… well, this is how a lot of people really think. this is the kind of authentic stuff that we’re up against. and yes, i find the tactic itself of people trivializing anything that doesn’t fall within their radar or rubs them the wrong way for some reason pretty similar to calling “blaming the patriarchy” in the present context an “exercise in self-indulgence.” the common thread that i see running through all such reactions is simply that people don’t want it said that there’s systemic injustices unless they personally recognize them as legitimate issues. which is patriarchal.
thing is, you have to do more than say you’re “pro” and “against” some things: you also have to show it when it comes down to it, in difficult, complex, non-binary contexts.
Nothing to add to the debate (compelling arguments), but have you seen this ad from1948, in which Lysol is being marketed as a douche? I guess that’s not so much the medical field as ad agencies, though.
Also, anyone bothered by the fact that they still have douches for sale in the supermarkets, despite the fact that they don’t work, they cause or exacerbate bacterial vaginosis, and the U.S. Health dept. actually has warnings about their use? I don’t see any man-douches for sale.
Hi. I recently read an article by Rosemarie Garland-Thomson regarding feminism and disability, and it goes a step farther to discuss society’s and the medical industry’s views about disabled women’s bodies vs. the norm. Enjoy.
Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory by Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, from NWSA Journal Volume 14, Number 3.
karenology
well, they aren’t exactly separate these days, if you know what I mean. Thankfully, here in Canada we have laws prohibiting the advertisement of perscription drugs. Since most Canadian cities get satellite feeds from the US, we are still subjected to this practice, as well as through magazines, but I can imagine what it would be like otherwise!
Yes, douches do bother me. I don’t know what the FDA still allows douche products to be sold when we all know they are harmful. IBTP (I Blame the Patriarchy!)
ras
thanks, I’ll check that out. Feminism and disability studies go so nicely hand in hand together.
So I have a question about the patriarchy: if it is men’s fault that some women are unhappy, is it the fault of women when men are unhappy? Any man who said women caused him to do something stupid would be not be taken seriously.
Also, while there is a grain of truth in the idea that modern medical advances have dehumanized women, or something to that effect, for the most part it is a silly, silly idea. I’m sure woman in the past that you idealize would have loved to have the medical care we have today.
Example: my wife had a cyst in 1989 at the beginning of her first pregnancy. I’m not sure exactly when medical knowledge advanced to the point where it was simple procedure to take care of the cyst, but through most of history she never would have lived. Also, my youngest son was born at 30 weeks, 2+ pounds, and today he is a healthy 9-year-old. Again, until the last couple of decades, he never would have made it.
I just saw a show on PBS about great scientists, and there was a French women famed for her skill (and libertarian lifestyle). She died from getting pregnant when she was in her 40s. Yeah, doctors suck, but the alternative is worse.
bond,
what a ridiculous comment. I rarely say anything remotely like that because I invite discussion on this blog, but really, this comment is ridiculous. And while I enjoy a good bit of sarcasm every now and then, I do not at all appreciate it being used to deride what are serious issues for women.
I’ll break it down for you. Once. Pay close attention.
First of all, nobody is saying that it is “men’s” fault that “women” are unhappy. When feminists discuss “the patriarchy”, we’re not picturing a group of sinister men sitting around a big table plotting exactly how to perpetuate women’s inferior status in society, and nor do we believe that all men are sinisterly active in female oppression. Patriarchy is a socially constructed system that has taken thousands of years to develop into what we see today. It’s not a bunch of schemers. It has been worse, and it affects different women differently, and it combines with other systems of oppression in important ways to create complex webs of oppression for many types of people. Patriarchal power is not a top-down model of monolithic domination. However, patriarchy does set up social structures that favour men and disadvantage women. women have gained a lot more social power, but that has been relatively recent historically, and there is still a long way to go. It would be a lot easier of one person or group of people was directly responsible for patriarchy. unfortunately that isn’t the case – there is nobody to blame but the patriarchy, and of course its individual purponents who actively deny its very existence while working very hard to prop it up. so, stop being one of them by asking derisive and disingenuous questions.
In the day-to-day scheme of things, yes, individual men and women make one another miserable in various ways. that does not in any way challenge patriarchy, or detract from feminist critiques of patriarchy.
your second point, about the wonders of modern medicine, and it being a “silly, silly idea” to criticize the ways it has a damaging effect on women: seriously. Women were dehumanized, as you put it, long before the advancement of modern medicine. Modern medicine has merely kept that system going by privileging the male body and all its functions over the female body and all its “deviances” from the male body.
These critiques do not at all detract from the benefits that modern medicine has been able to provide. And the benefits of modern medicine do not at all provide a reason for treating medicine as an untouchable, uncritiquable, perfect field of knowledge. the fact remains that medicine is still male-dominated, and still treats the female body as deviant from the androcentric norm.
“Yeah, doctors suck, but the alternative is worse.” the point of this post is to say that medical knowledge doesn’t have to be, and in fact shouldn’t be, set up in this either-or sort of way. what is wrong with saying that? Just because something IS a certain way doesn’t mean to say that is the only way it COULD or SHOULD be. I’m saying, we need to stop gendering medicine and keeping medical knowledge inaccessible to the very people to whom it is most relevant.
oh, and Ruxandra – you ROCK!
Jess & TG: As far as goals are concerned, yes, I think we’re all on the same page.
TG (12:28 a.m.): I read your comment, and as noted, definitely agree with a lot of what you say, goal-wise. But I stand by my reservations about the excessively broad way you (and many others) seem to use the concept of ‘patriarchy’. I thought at first that maybe I was being too literal in understanding your phrase, ‘support the patriarchy;’ that maybe you meant more ‘in compliance with patriarchal expectations’ than ‘reinforces patriarchal oppression’ (when you implied that getting married and having kids ‘supports the patriarchy’). But when I reread what you wrote, I’m inclined to believe you actually DO mean, ‘reinforces patriarchal oppression.’ Please correct me if I’m wrong about that.
Cultural anthropologist Marvin Harris wrote about the importance of two critical concepts in researching and understanding human culture: falsifiability and operationalizing. Basically, to be persuasive, an assertion about a particular culture needs to be operationalized, that is, there needs to be some objective criteria by which the statement could at least theoretically be shown to be either true or false. An important part of that is that an assertion needs to be falsifiable, that is, must be capable of being shown to be false. One important example of an assertion which is not falsifiable is Biblical creationism, when its proponents reject carbon-14 and fossil evidence about the age of the Earth by claiming that God created the evidence to make it appear the Earth was older than it actually is. Under that assumption, there would clearly be no way to disprove the idea that God created the Earth a couple of thousand years ago, and so the theory is not falsifiable. Such theories are generally given much less credence than competing ideas which are falsifiable.
Sorry about the philosophical detour, but those important ideas underpin my skepticism about the overbroad usage of the concept of patriarchy. For example, I do not believe that a woman getting married and having kids ‘reinforces patriarchal oppression,’ unless she was taken against her will or indoctrinated her children to believe that women and men were unequal and women’s role was to serve men. In fact, I would go so far as to say that an egalitarian marriage undermines patriarchal oppression. But it’s not clear how I could persuade you on that point, because I can’t determine how you operationalize your concept of patriarchy, or if your concept is even falsifiable. (Admittedly I am only going by what I’ve read of your recent postings.)
so many of here absolutely rock! :) i apologise if none of this makes sense..
the thing that bugs me most, at the moment, is how women’s bodies are medicalised when it’s convenient for the medical profession to do so, yet moralised when such it’s controversial. the example that comes to mind here is abortion. like you say, tg, the way modern medicine treats pregnancy is along the lines of “body as machine,” under the guise of providing objective advice and the best medical “care.” yet, when it comes to abortions and birth control, this falls under the umbrella of some kind of ridiculous morality. needing an abortion is certainly a medical necessity in many cases (particularly if we recognise stress as a mental illness, which many disability policies do) – so, why aren’t doctors obligated to provide objective information when it comes to this? i can’t think of any other drug a pharmacist can legally refuse to give, other than those related to preventing pregnancy. (there’s a bit of an expose on pregnancy centres in alberta here. the findings obviously pissed me off. why don’t we ever get to decide when our bodies are in need of medical attention? if the medical profession were to be consistent with its treatment of pregnancy, shit like this would be so ridiculously illegal… but no, this falls under the rubric of morality).
Just want to chime in that I love my keeper. In fact I’m inspired to write more about it back at my place.
ballgame
I don’t think that right now, I can be any more clear about my thoughts about certain things reinforcing patriarchy, regardless of the intention behind the actions. my comment of Sept 24 4:23 is about the best I can do right now. But I agree with you, I don’t think that the only way to subvert patriarchy is to reject it. And again, I don’t think that feminism is about making women into men. I think that feminism is about respecting women and removing the negative implications of doing things that, to the outsider, simply are patriarchy-reinforcing acts. society needs redefining. the acts we perform need to be deconstructed, and new meanings attached to them. But, I don’t think that the “simple” act of having an egalitarian marriage undermines patriarchy, when the institution of marriage IS a patriarchal construct that oppresses women and homosexual and bisexual people.
sorry, that’s the best I can do right now as I work through these relatively new-to-me ideas about reconciling acts that the patriarchy deems inferior with my new Foucauldian understanding of power relations.
pragya
thanks for your comment, nice to see you. Yes, actually I was thinking about abortion and its complicated relationship to morality on my drive home from work today. It’s just another excuse to allow women’s bodies to become the sites for the expression of patriarchy and its “morality” – and turns women’s bodies, once again, into objects to be argued and bartered over, as if what happened to those bodies have no effect on the women who inhabit them. Ridiculous.
thanks for the link. I’d read about some of these crisis clinics in the US. I have a friend who lives here whose doctor told her she wouldn’t be able to be scheduled for the abortion she asked for until some 12 weeks later – and past the 19 week cutoff for pregnancy termination – which was complete BS.
Sage
Yay for the Keeper and the Diva Cup! For me, the Keeper was no good, but the Diva Cup is wonderful! But, the Keeper now offers a silicone version. I think it was the gum rubber that didn’t work for me. I’ll be over to read at your place.
This is a great post.
Just one quick comment: I bought a DivaCup a few years ago and overall love it. It was a bit of a pain (literally) getting it in and out at first, but after some trial and error my only problem has been that sometimes the suction doesn’t work quite properly and I get some leakage. I know they make a bigger size, so I may try that.
However, it should be noted that not all women can use menstrual cups. My friend heard me raving about the DivaCup, but when she tried using it she got a yeast infection. After looking into it online, she found that other women had experienced similar problems. I’m not entirely sure what percentage of women experience that, but she was really upset that she couldn’t use it.
On that note, another option is reusable pads. The companies I know of that make them are Glad Rags and Luna Pads. A women’s sexual health shop I used to frequent in Vancouver also sold some (locally made, I believe). I haven’t purchased them myself (though it’s something I’m considering for “light” days), but I’ve heard good things about them being a viable alternative to disposable pads. Probably healthier for you, too.
hey tekanji,
welcome, and thanks for your comment!
Ah, too bad about your friend not being able to use the Diva Cup. too bad! I wonder why some women get yeast infections with them… I’ve never had one, so I guess I’m not prone, lucky me.
yes, reusable pads are a great option, I had totally forgotten about them! We have a local shop that sells them as well, both kinds you mention.
By the way, if any of you haven’t visited tekanji’s site, go right now, there are some really great articles there. Which reminds me to add you to my blogroll…. :)
Patriarchy, smatriarchy. I have been hearing this baloney for years and it makes me so mad I could chew glass.
” Patriarchy is a socially constructed system that has taken thousands of years to develop into what we see today. It’s not a bunch of schemers. It has been worse, and it affects different women differently, and it combines with other systems of oppression in important ways to create complex webs of oppression for many types of people. Patriarchal power is not a top-down model of monolithic domination. However, patriarchy does set up social structures that favour men and disadvantage women. “
Men and women are different, and no amount of social engineering can change that fact. Brains are different, bodies are different, methods of communication are different, and methods of interpreting the world around us are different.
Men and Women are not interchangeable pieces in any society, and the society that we have reflects that. Of course, there are things that can be done better, and conditions have changed drastically in the past 30 years or so.
I would suggest that it is a “bunch of schemers” that do most of the oppressing, and it’s not a male vs. female issue, but more of an “entrenched wealth and power base” (if you will) that oppresses anyone who threatens that power structure (male or female).
I happen to be a white male, raised in the Midwest to respect Women and my Elders, and the “Patriarchy” never did anything for me. I have had some mighty struggles in my life (more than some folks, less than others), but I can surely say that I never got anything simply because I am a Man.
If our society could get beyond identity politics and the culture of glorifying victimhood and move into a culture of personal responsibility, rewards due to merit, and accountability for each person’s actions and choices, it would be a much better place. Simply saying “I blame the Patriarchy” does not help solve the basic problem that “you” may be facing.
Shoulung – well, here it seems is where we diverge.
Perhaps I can explain my position a bit more clearly. I support social construction theory, which basically says that there are either no biological differences between members of social groups, or the differences are so insignificant that they cannot explain the widespread nature of social oppression of certain groups.
I don’t deny that there are differences between men and women. However, I do deny that these differences are so vast and important that they account for the system of gender in our society that assigns roles that are completely different to m en and women. In fact, there are whole groups of people who are left out of this false dichotomy – we have forced people into one of two categories, when more than two are evidenced by biology (I’m talking about intersexed people, who are born with a combination of both male and female sex organs). So the inconsistency there points to the social constructedness of gender. Same goes for race, disability, sexuality. All socially constructed. So when you say that men and women have different ways of communicating and different ways of interpreting the world, that is socially constructed – not based on biology. For more detail, check out: Social constructionism.
I think you’re wrong when you say that men and women are not interchangeable in society. Evidence from different cultural contexts than the west show that in many societies, women do things that men do in the west (like build houses and hunt), and men do things that women do in the west (like take care of children). Even in our society, we have lots of examples of women and men switching gender roles. There is nothing stable about the roles that society has assigned – what is ‘man’s’ or ‘women’s’ is arbitrary.
As for not getting anything in life because you’re a man, I have to say, it’s a little more complicated than that I think. I wrote a post about Men and Feminism a while back, check it out. Masculinity is jsut as constructed as femininity. Also of interest are these discussions” False Consciousness and More Thoughts on False Consciousness from a couple months back. Be sure to check out the link to the Male Privilege Checklist. You’ve likely experienced some of these privileges, even if you don’t realize them to be such – meaning you likely have received some things simply because you’re a man (more so because you’re a white man).
Yeah, maybe it is a bunch of schemers that keep power structures like patriarchy in place. I’m open to that possibility. But it seems to me that it’s more people like you who are responsible. I don’t mean that in an insulting way at all, just that sometimes people are unwilling to consider the possibility that the things we do are socially based rather than biologically based. We have to be willing to see things in a different way in order for thigns to change – and the idea of gender is seriously embedded in society. It hasn’t always been the way it is now, and it isn’t this way in other societies, so doesn’t that mean we’ve created it to be what it is, and it’s not based on a set of biological characteristics?
I’m all for personal responsiblity, but I think we absolutely need to recognize the way social structures that we create continue to oppress people based on arbitrary characteristics like vaginas and skin colour. I think we do live in a meritocracy, and I think it’s failing a whole lot of people. I think recognizing that is what would make the world a much better place.
Is alternative medicine like chinese traditional medicine a bane for conventional western medicine?
So, I have a burning issue that is seriously bothering me. Why is it that it is so prevalent to make physical exams and pap smears a requirement in order to obtain birth control? I’ve done extensive web searches and I know all about the hpv and cervical cancer, and how testing could prevent/treat sooner. But am I the only one that is bothered by the fact that most doctors require you to have it done? Sure I dont want to die from cancer, thats why I dont smoke, but if I wanted to smoke I could. I could very well cause myself to get cancer, which granted isn’t a good thing but its an option. Yet if I wanted to get birth control I dont have a choice on whether or not I want to have the test done to see if I have cancer. I know that the bc has hormones that could increase the risk, well thats great, why dont they screen for skin cancer everytime some wants to get a tan.
I personally am outraged by this, it seems that this is either a way for gyn to get paid or a way to deter/make it difficult for women to get bc.
I personally see this as being made to have the choice of getting a test for cancer or get pregnant.
Why is it that I or very few people out there seemed to be bothered by this control over the reproduction of women. Is it just something that people accept as just being as it is?
oh, poor Joel! I didn’t get around to responding to your comment!
I don’t know. I would likely say that it’s more the opposite – western medicine seems to be a problem for traditional medicines.
sorry!
m squared – great comment. I don’t know why this practice is sustained. I think you’re right that it might have something to do with punishing women for being sexually active. Why isn’t there a blood test we can take instead? I mean, I’m pretty sure that you can get tested for HPV via a blood test… as well as gonorrhea and HIV and Hep C and clamydia… what other STIs can be checked with a blood test? Why isn’t this done instead of an invasive pelvic exam?
Someone with some medical knowledge wanna spill here and help me out with this????
I’ve written the article about pap smear test in Thailand. We do know that there is only one vaccine to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts called Gardasil. But we would like to know if there is other vaccine which has better quality than Gardasil, can anyone tell us the name of the vaccine?
[…] whether by religious dogma or popular "wisdom" or everything in between. – read -thinking girl's "medicine and women's bodies" [one of my favorite blogs lately]- see -Museum of Menstruation and Women’s Health and Our […]
[…] “Medicine and Women’s Bodies”, “the personal IS political” and “Social Constructionism” by Thinking […]
[…] Interesting perspective on this subject from a female who works in medicine here. […]