Some Conservative wingnuts at the House of Commons want to restrict our right to choose whether and when to have children through the back door.
Bill C-484, which will be debated at the House of Commons this Friday, February 29th, aims at amending the Criminal Code so as to criminalize as murder the fact of causing the death of a foetus, notwithstanding its stage of development, upon hurting or killing pregnant woman.
These amendments - also known as "The Unborn Victims of Crime Act" - have been presented under the guise of "preventing violence against pregnant women" or even "protecting a woman's *cough* choice to bring her pregnancy to term."
The Bill would even characterize the foetus, no matter its stage of development, as a full-fledged person, which is the first step towards recriminalizing abortion.
So let's say no to this hypocrisy. Contact your MP. Spread the word among your friends, family and coworkers.
This Bill must not be enacted into law.
***
For more information about the issues regarding Bill C-484, and recent attacks on our freedom of choice, visit the folks at Birth Pangs.
***
If you own a blog, please take part in the One Person, One Body, One Count to oppose Bill C-484, hosted at Rose's Place.
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Monday, February 25, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
On painful periods and sucking it up...
I just came across an interesting post at The Curvature, on the pros and cons (but especially the pros) of the suppression of menstruation through the continuous use of birth control.
It also addresses the so-called debate about the "end" of menstruation and the myth that our monthly bleeding is a grand, spiritual, reassuring experience of female-bonding - or some hippie bullshit like that.
But what struck me the most was this comment to that post, which I thought accurately summed up the issues that most women encounter when it comes to their periods.
Before I went on continuous BCPs sometime around the late 90’s or early 00’s, my periods were consistantly so shitty that I had to take major painkillers and whatnot. Of course, in my case, it was because I have Endometriosis, and Superbad Periods are a symptom/result.
When I first started getting my period, I thought it was a tremendous pain in the ass (or uterus, as the case may be) and mentioned this to my mother. “This is annoying. At what point do you get used to this?” I asked. “I’ll let you know,” she said. “I never have.”
Frankly, the kumbaya/Have A Happy Period/women in tampax commercials prancing around in white pants approach to menstruation has always felt quite alienating to me, rather than being a source of bonding and camraderie, because it just made me feel like my superbad periods were all the more freakish.
I certainly wouldn’t want to deny a period to anyone who wants one, but at the same time, I think being a woman is about more than just whether or not you get a period every month and/or think it’s fun.
Menstruation is not exactly a spotted owl. It’s not like it’s being endangered by continuous birth control pills and must therefore be protected.
Another thing I appreciated about this comment is that it mentions endometriosis. Although it is a chronic condition that plagues approximately one woman out of ten and can ultimately cause infertility, endometriosis is rarely acknowledged or even spoken of.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that girls and women are conditioned to readily accept the idea that periods are supposed to be extremely painful and uncomfortable, or that sex is not that enjoyable after all, or simply that we really have nothing to complain of.
But why, in those modern times of wondrous medical advances, should women suffer debilitating symptoms every month? Why should women accept that their reproductive system should disturb their activities and dictate their schedule?
In my humble opinion, we should not. As a matter of fact, we women should, as a class of human beings, vindicate our right to not to be treated as cattle when it comes to our health.
It also addresses the so-called debate about the "end" of menstruation and the myth that our monthly bleeding is a grand, spiritual, reassuring experience of female-bonding - or some hippie bullshit like that.
But what struck me the most was this comment to that post, which I thought accurately summed up the issues that most women encounter when it comes to their periods.
Before I went on continuous BCPs sometime around the late 90’s or early 00’s, my periods were consistantly so shitty that I had to take major painkillers and whatnot. Of course, in my case, it was because I have Endometriosis, and Superbad Periods are a symptom/result.
When I first started getting my period, I thought it was a tremendous pain in the ass (or uterus, as the case may be) and mentioned this to my mother. “This is annoying. At what point do you get used to this?” I asked. “I’ll let you know,” she said. “I never have.”
Frankly, the kumbaya/Have A Happy Period/women in tampax commercials prancing around in white pants approach to menstruation has always felt quite alienating to me, rather than being a source of bonding and camraderie, because it just made me feel like my superbad periods were all the more freakish.
I certainly wouldn’t want to deny a period to anyone who wants one, but at the same time, I think being a woman is about more than just whether or not you get a period every month and/or think it’s fun.
Menstruation is not exactly a spotted owl. It’s not like it’s being endangered by continuous birth control pills and must therefore be protected.
Another thing I appreciated about this comment is that it mentions endometriosis. Although it is a chronic condition that plagues approximately one woman out of ten and can ultimately cause infertility, endometriosis is rarely acknowledged or even spoken of.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that girls and women are conditioned to readily accept the idea that periods are supposed to be extremely painful and uncomfortable, or that sex is not that enjoyable after all, or simply that we really have nothing to complain of.
But why, in those modern times of wondrous medical advances, should women suffer debilitating symptoms every month? Why should women accept that their reproductive system should disturb their activities and dictate their schedule?
In my humble opinion, we should not. As a matter of fact, we women should, as a class of human beings, vindicate our right to not to be treated as cattle when it comes to our health.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
A very good reason not to support the Ottawa Senators
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
"The Greatest Medical Discovery Ever Known" - Curing women from being women
When I came across this vintage ad a few days ago, I thought it was absolutely hilarious.
I can't help but think that the device in question must have been invented by some uptight victorian physicians who had had enough of "cure" hysterical or frigid women by manipulating them to orgasm. I can just picture the utterly awkward and uncomfortable look on their prudish faces: "Gross! Women experiencing sexual pleasure! Eeeeew!"
It seems unreal that, back in the early 20th century, physicians and psychiatrists genuine believed that women were either hysterical or frigid, depending on whether they enjoyed sex too much or not enough. (And by "enjoying sex," what they really meant was the ability to have a so-called vaginal orgasm.)
A woman's lack of ability to enjoy sex on exclusivity male terms, i.e. via penetration alone, was then, as evidence by the ad above, a "disease" that had to be "cured."
Such attitudes were mistakenly and largely based on androcentric perspectives on sexuality and the female body, and fueled, namely, by Freud's psycho-analytic theories.
The problem is that they still persist today. It still seems to me that, to a certain extent, women are inherently abnormal. As a matter of fact, women are constantly being reminded that, at their natural, basic state, they necessarily either (1) grossly depart from the acceptable model of womanhood and femininity, or (2) constitute abnormal variants of the normal human, i.e. the human male.
Many people still refer to women who don't/can't experience "vaginal" orgasms as being frigid, or as being plagued by arousal problems. Hence drugs that can supposedly enhance a woman's abnormally low sexual desires, or procedures purported to enhance a woman's elusive "G-spot" so as to increase the probabilities that she will reach orgasm during penetrative sex.
Would such remedies exist at all if our society adopted a female perspective of sexuality, or at the very least, if we collectively acknowledged once and for all that sex is something that is physically and physiologically experienced differently in men and women?
Imagine if society adopted a female outlook on sexuality. Would men who don't/can't reach climax solely by manipulating their female's partner's clitoris deemed "frigid"? Would male orgasms obtained via vaginal penetration considered inferior or "immature" by medical and psychiatric literature?
I can't help but think that the device in question must have been invented by some uptight victorian physicians who had had enough of "cure" hysterical or frigid women by manipulating them to orgasm. I can just picture the utterly awkward and uncomfortable look on their prudish faces: "Gross! Women experiencing sexual pleasure! Eeeeew!"
It seems unreal that, back in the early 20th century, physicians and psychiatrists genuine believed that women were either hysterical or frigid, depending on whether they enjoyed sex too much or not enough. (And by "enjoying sex," what they really meant was the ability to have a so-called vaginal orgasm.)
A woman's lack of ability to enjoy sex on exclusivity male terms, i.e. via penetration alone, was then, as evidence by the ad above, a "disease" that had to be "cured."
Such attitudes were mistakenly and largely based on androcentric perspectives on sexuality and the female body, and fueled, namely, by Freud's psycho-analytic theories.
The problem is that they still persist today. It still seems to me that, to a certain extent, women are inherently abnormal. As a matter of fact, women are constantly being reminded that, at their natural, basic state, they necessarily either (1) grossly depart from the acceptable model of womanhood and femininity, or (2) constitute abnormal variants of the normal human, i.e. the human male.
Many people still refer to women who don't/can't experience "vaginal" orgasms as being frigid, or as being plagued by arousal problems. Hence drugs that can supposedly enhance a woman's abnormally low sexual desires, or procedures purported to enhance a woman's elusive "G-spot" so as to increase the probabilities that she will reach orgasm during penetrative sex.
Would such remedies exist at all if our society adopted a female perspective of sexuality, or at the very least, if we collectively acknowledged once and for all that sex is something that is physically and physiologically experienced differently in men and women?
Imagine if society adopted a female outlook on sexuality. Would men who don't/can't reach climax solely by manipulating their female's partner's clitoris deemed "frigid"? Would male orgasms obtained via vaginal penetration considered inferior or "immature" by medical and psychiatric literature?
***
The idea that women, simply because they are women, need to be cured of some form of inherent and congenital female disease related to one's femaleness, often takes a psychiatric twist.
Not only are women physically deficient, but there's also apparently something wrong with the way we're wired.
For years, medical textbooks and publications aimed at a female audience have urged women to seek psychiatric attention and/or treatment should they experience feelings of uneasiness, discomfort or frustration towards their bodies, marriage, men, sex, pregnancy, and whatever else was traditionally expected from women.
The following is an excerpt from a book aimed at a female teenaged audience:
Au temps de l'ovulation, quelques jours avant ou après la menstruation, certaines adolescentes sentent un besoin sexuel intense qui les rend excessivement nerveuses. Ces jeunes filles ont beaucoup de difficultés à contrôler leurs sens, durant ces courtes périodes.
Vous connaissez bien vos jours de faiblesse? Alors, n'allez pas vous exposer ces jours-là! Si vous devenez trop tendues, certains tranquilisants vous aideraient à adoucir ces orages.
- Lionel Gendron, L'adolescente veut savoir (Éditions de l'Homme: Montréal, 1964), at 51.
Dr Gendron also recommends that young girls take sedatives and tranquilizers to treat "nervous" symptoms related to menstruation, fatigue, headaches, lack of self-confidence, not feeling appreciated by your husband, and love.
As if, women needed constant medical attention. As if the mere fact of being female required medical intervention.
Vous pratiquerez ce test de fécondité pendant au moins dix mois consécutifs. Avec ce tableau, vous verrez votre médecin au moment de votre mariage et il établira avec vous votre calendrier sexuel conjugal.
- Ibid., at 103.
Seriously.
***
This is still going on today. A little while ago, I saw an ad on an American TV channel (I forgot which) for a new oral contraceptive, Yaz, that also purports to "treat" or "suppress" the psychological symptoms associated with menstruations.
On the one hand, I think it's great that there is finally an alternative to "hard" medications, such as anti-depressants, for women who experience regular bouts of anxiety and depression-like symptoms at some point of their menstrual cycle.
On the other hand however, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of "treating" menstruation as if it were a disease. It's not. It's unpleasant for many, but it's not a disease.
***
On a related topic, many women's rights groups in Québec - including la Fédération québécoise pour le planning des naissances - have required a moratorium on the mass vaccination of teenaged girls against HPV, on the ground that there are still many things we don't know about how safe the Gardasil vaccine actually is, and have raised questions about the adequacy of suppressing menstruation via various contraceptive medications.
As much as I loathe the systematic "medicalization" of women and of conditions associated with being one, I don't think it's appropriate to ban a technology or a medically approved practiced for fear that it be unnecessary or that it become systematically imposed on women.
Whether a woman should be vaccinated against HPV, or whether she should opt for a medical contraceptive that will - temporarily - stop her menstruations, is matter of personal choice. Find an OB-GYN who is knowledgeable in those areas and whom you trust, discuss these issues and make a choice that suits your beliefs and your personal needs.
Campaign against female genital mutilation
The new ads for Amnesty International's campaign are beautiful and horrible at the same time, as they show with great sensitivity and aesthetics - and yet, quite graphically - exactly what female genital mutilation entails.
Here is one of them:
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Give the taxman a hug...
... because he deserves it for not taking this anti-choice bullshit.
"November 10, 2007
"Fredericton -- A New Brunswick man who refuses to file tax returns as a protest against abortion has been found guilty and ordered to file the returns and pay $3,000 in fines.
"David Little, 62, of Fredericton says he won't comply with the order because he maintains the religious belief that abortion is murder and the federal government funds abortions.
"Judge Leslie Jackson has given Mr. Little until March 31 to file his tax returns and must return to court April 4 if he hasn't paid the fines."
Of course, the CRA just really enjoys collecting our hard-earned money, but I'm relieved that nobody is buying into this guy's civil disobedience argument.
I also hope that the next guy this guy shows up in an emergency room, or takes his kids to school, somebody will kindly (or not) remind him that individual taxpayers can't pick and choose where our tax dollars go.
It's called society...
***
More comments on this case from the Unrepentant Old Hippie and Feministe.
***
More information on the difficulties of access to abortion services in New Brunswick.
"November 10, 2007
"Fredericton -- A New Brunswick man who refuses to file tax returns as a protest against abortion has been found guilty and ordered to file the returns and pay $3,000 in fines.
"David Little, 62, of Fredericton says he won't comply with the order because he maintains the religious belief that abortion is murder and the federal government funds abortions.
"Judge Leslie Jackson has given Mr. Little until March 31 to file his tax returns and must return to court April 4 if he hasn't paid the fines."
Of course, the CRA just really enjoys collecting our hard-earned money, but I'm relieved that nobody is buying into this guy's civil disobedience argument.
I also hope that the next guy this guy shows up in an emergency room, or takes his kids to school, somebody will kindly (or not) remind him that individual taxpayers can't pick and choose where our tax dollars go.
It's called society...
***
More comments on this case from the Unrepentant Old Hippie and Feministe.
***
More information on the difficulties of access to abortion services in New Brunswick.
Friday, November 2, 2007
A very romantic bloodbath
Lately, there has been much comment on this Russian promotional article about hymenoplasty, that is, the surgical procedure by which a woman's virginity can be "restored". The procedure basically involves sewing back together the remaining pieces of a woman's hymen. Since is it performed with absorbable ("melting") sutures, it necessarily implies that the patient will "lose" her virginity, once again, within approximately 2 weeks.
The article lists 5 reasons why a non-virgin would like to go through (1) a surgery and (2) the wholesome fun of being in pain and covered in blood once again in her life. They range from "you can deceived your husband on your wedding night" to "men will pay more to have sex with you if you're a virgin" to the heinous "it's the nicest thing a girl can do for her emotionally-challenged boyfriend":
"Hymen repair surgery aims to enable a patient’s sexual partner to have “that thrilling conquest” normally associated with the wedding night. As a rule, patients are warned straightaway that they are likely to bleed more and feel greater pain during the subsequent intercourse, compared to blood loss and pain caused by the original act of deflowering.
"Indeed, Marina’s second “wedding” night was a rather painful experience for her. On the contrary, her boyfriend enjoyed every minute if it."
[Emphasis added]
Yuck. I find this whole thing really disturbing, not to mention extremely physically hazardous.
As Lauredhel puts it:
"Say, is anyone making virgin-porn? Cos you could just shove a pint-bag of pig-blood up there and have at it. The special effects guys could have a ball.
"'Though the risks of infection and fever are minimal, a patient must pay special attention to personal hygiene for at least two weeks after the operation. She must refrain from having a bath, visiting a sauna. Swimming is under a temporary ban too, especially in the outdoor bodies of water or a swimming pool.'
"But feel free to have some rape-deprived asshat ejaculate all over it."
***
What sort of psycho gets off on seeing his "loved" one suffer like this? What sort of psycho gets off in circumstances where he is aware that his partner is in pain and definitely not enjoying herself?
Surely not someone who cares about his partner's sexual and bodily integrity. I think Cara has it right when she suggests a link between this very literal form of parthenophilia and the rape culture:
"This is absolutely one of those things that we can file under rape culture. Not because a woman losing her virginity to a man is akin to rape, or because purposely breaking a hymen is the same as rape. First penetrative sex can certainly be painful (whether or not you have a hymen in tact, which in fact many if not most women these days do not). But your sexual partner (in this case, your husband, of course) is supposed to care when you’re in pain, slow down, be gentle, ask if you’re okay, ask if you want to continue, and STOP if you don’t. He is not supposed to see that you’re in pain and then pound it in harder, or get off on the fact that his oh-so-impressive erection is making you bleed. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to have sex with such a man, and I don’t want to.
...
"What the fuck? I don’t care what kind of kinky fetish you’re into, getting off on the fact that you are actually hurting your girlfriend during sex is wrong. This is, in fact about rape. It’s our rape culture that tells us women feeling pain during sex isn’t something to avoid, it’s something to get off on. It’s rape culture telling men that they have a right to the bodies of their female significant others — apparently extending to the right to cause her physical pain. It’s the rape culture that tells us men’s sexual pleasure comes first, at the expense of female sexual pleasure, in spite of female sexual pain and the expense of the female right to sexual autonomy — and that a “good” woman will accept this happily. Without rape culture, the kinds of views espoused in this article (as though they’re benign!) would not even exist.
"Encouraging men to look forward to breaking their sexual partner’s hymen, not only in spite of her pain, but in fact very much because of it, is promoting violence against women. Period."
[Emphasis added]
I couldn't agree more. If you're a male whose kink is to painfully and bloodily tear up one's hymen, then you're a sexual psychopath. On the other hand, if you're a male with a virgin fetish who limits himself to (fake) virgin porn or who likes to pretend play with his (non-virgin) female partners, then you're a budding pedophile.
Quite a charming picture.
***
Some of the people who have posted comments here and there about that promotional article have rightly pointed out that the mere fact of having an intact hymen does not in itself make you a virgin.
For a thorough discussion on how to define virginity and on the medical and cultural treatment of virgins and virginity through the ages, I encourage you to read Virgin - The Untouched History, by Hanne Blank.
It covers just about you ever wanted to know about virginity, from centuries-old methods to fake it, to season 2 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
The article lists 5 reasons why a non-virgin would like to go through (1) a surgery and (2) the wholesome fun of being in pain and covered in blood once again in her life. They range from "you can deceived your husband on your wedding night" to "men will pay more to have sex with you if you're a virgin" to the heinous "it's the nicest thing a girl can do for her emotionally-challenged boyfriend":
"Hymen repair surgery aims to enable a patient’s sexual partner to have “that thrilling conquest” normally associated with the wedding night. As a rule, patients are warned straightaway that they are likely to bleed more and feel greater pain during the subsequent intercourse, compared to blood loss and pain caused by the original act of deflowering.
"Indeed, Marina’s second “wedding” night was a rather painful experience for her. On the contrary, her boyfriend enjoyed every minute if it."
[Emphasis added]
Yuck. I find this whole thing really disturbing, not to mention extremely physically hazardous.
As Lauredhel puts it:
"Say, is anyone making virgin-porn? Cos you could just shove a pint-bag of pig-blood up there and have at it. The special effects guys could have a ball.
"'Though the risks of infection and fever are minimal, a patient must pay special attention to personal hygiene for at least two weeks after the operation. She must refrain from having a bath, visiting a sauna. Swimming is under a temporary ban too, especially in the outdoor bodies of water or a swimming pool.'
"But feel free to have some rape-deprived asshat ejaculate all over it."
***
What sort of psycho gets off on seeing his "loved" one suffer like this? What sort of psycho gets off in circumstances where he is aware that his partner is in pain and definitely not enjoying herself?
Surely not someone who cares about his partner's sexual and bodily integrity. I think Cara has it right when she suggests a link between this very literal form of parthenophilia and the rape culture:
"This is absolutely one of those things that we can file under rape culture. Not because a woman losing her virginity to a man is akin to rape, or because purposely breaking a hymen is the same as rape. First penetrative sex can certainly be painful (whether or not you have a hymen in tact, which in fact many if not most women these days do not). But your sexual partner (in this case, your husband, of course) is supposed to care when you’re in pain, slow down, be gentle, ask if you’re okay, ask if you want to continue, and STOP if you don’t. He is not supposed to see that you’re in pain and then pound it in harder, or get off on the fact that his oh-so-impressive erection is making you bleed. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to have sex with such a man, and I don’t want to.
...
"What the fuck? I don’t care what kind of kinky fetish you’re into, getting off on the fact that you are actually hurting your girlfriend during sex is wrong. This is, in fact about rape. It’s our rape culture that tells us women feeling pain during sex isn’t something to avoid, it’s something to get off on. It’s rape culture telling men that they have a right to the bodies of their female significant others — apparently extending to the right to cause her physical pain. It’s the rape culture that tells us men’s sexual pleasure comes first, at the expense of female sexual pleasure, in spite of female sexual pain and the expense of the female right to sexual autonomy — and that a “good” woman will accept this happily. Without rape culture, the kinds of views espoused in this article (as though they’re benign!) would not even exist.
"Encouraging men to look forward to breaking their sexual partner’s hymen, not only in spite of her pain, but in fact very much because of it, is promoting violence against women. Period."
[Emphasis added]
I couldn't agree more. If you're a male whose kink is to painfully and bloodily tear up one's hymen, then you're a sexual psychopath. On the other hand, if you're a male with a virgin fetish who limits himself to (fake) virgin porn or who likes to pretend play with his (non-virgin) female partners, then you're a budding pedophile.
Quite a charming picture.
***
Some of the people who have posted comments here and there about that promotional article have rightly pointed out that the mere fact of having an intact hymen does not in itself make you a virgin.
For a thorough discussion on how to define virginity and on the medical and cultural treatment of virgins and virginity through the ages, I encourage you to read Virgin - The Untouched History, by Hanne Blank.
It covers just about you ever wanted to know about virginity, from centuries-old methods to fake it, to season 2 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Uteri can be cute!
And cuddly. And fashionable.
Well, that's what some people seem to think. I might not actually want to wear some of that stuff, but I certainly acknowledge the effort to make our wombs more loveable.
Knitted womb (pattern by Knitty)
Uteri stuffed toys
Check out this link for more - cute!- uteri-related fashion...
***
Some people, on the other hand, apparently hate our guts - literally. Or they at least seem to think that "uterus" is a dirty word... *sigh*
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Québec urges millions of previously chaste underaged girls to engage in wanton acts of wild, extra-marital sex
Or so some fundamentalist wackos out there seem to think...
The good news is that the government of Québec has decided to offer the HPV vaccine Gardasil to girls from Grade 4 and up, as part of an initiative to fight cancer. The immunization campaign is schedule to start next September.
This is great because the fact that it is will be covered by public health care will encourage more girls and women to be vaccinated early enough for the product to be fully effective, as many women hesitated because of the high cost of the vaccine.
***
Hopefully, there hasn't been much debate in Québec (or in the ROC, for that matter) concerning the so-called "moral aspects" of HPV vaccination of young girls.
Of course, there has been some distasteful articles published in various newspapers (namely, a piece from the Globe and Mail in which the author ponders whether parents should get their daughters vaccinated, given that they might thereby be encouraged to have sex).
Overall though, there has not been the same type of excessive, alarmist reaction than in the US, probably on account of the fact that religious groups have not as much invaded the political and public sphere at large.
However, some religious groups have publicly opposed the decision of provincial governments to offer the vaccine to young girls and women. A telling example occurred in Newfoundland, where the Right to Life Association of Newfoundland protested that HPV vaccination was a mistake carrying public health and morals consequences, as it would - du-uh! - give teenages girls the "green light" to become "promiscuous".
Unimportant though as it seems, this example is extremely interesting, from a feminist point of view, in that it reveals the true colours of so-called "pro-lifers".
Breaking news, folks : Just in cases you didn't know, pro-lifers are idiotic, retrograde bigots.
'Cause we all know that a human being’s right to life does not extend to (real, actual, living) women. Those folks would rather like women to forgo a life-saving technology (you know, “life-saving”, as in, you’d think “pro-life”) rather than remotely seem to acknowledge a state of affairs in which female sexuality – gasp! – exists outside the patriarchical, male-oriented institution of marriage.
Those people interchangeably use the word “promiscuity” for sex of the extra-marital kind, thereby implying that unmarried sex is sinful, wrong or socially unacceptable. Seriously, what kind of people would say or even imply such things?
The kind of people who are not even remotely interested in saving women’s lives, and improving our health conditions. Let's not be blind about it. The efforts of such people are really about controlling women’s sexuality, and maintaining men’s patriarchical authority over them. They simply want to make sure that a woman’s sexual desire, sexual organs and reproductive capacity remain the property of a single, identifiable male, as measurable and marketable assets.
The good news is that the government of Québec has decided to offer the HPV vaccine Gardasil to girls from Grade 4 and up, as part of an initiative to fight cancer. The immunization campaign is schedule to start next September.
This is great because the fact that it is will be covered by public health care will encourage more girls and women to be vaccinated early enough for the product to be fully effective, as many women hesitated because of the high cost of the vaccine.
***
Hopefully, there hasn't been much debate in Québec (or in the ROC, for that matter) concerning the so-called "moral aspects" of HPV vaccination of young girls.
Of course, there has been some distasteful articles published in various newspapers (namely, a piece from the Globe and Mail in which the author ponders whether parents should get their daughters vaccinated, given that they might thereby be encouraged to have sex).
Overall though, there has not been the same type of excessive, alarmist reaction than in the US, probably on account of the fact that religious groups have not as much invaded the political and public sphere at large.
However, some religious groups have publicly opposed the decision of provincial governments to offer the vaccine to young girls and women. A telling example occurred in Newfoundland, where the Right to Life Association of Newfoundland protested that HPV vaccination was a mistake carrying public health and morals consequences, as it would - du-uh! - give teenages girls the "green light" to become "promiscuous".
Unimportant though as it seems, this example is extremely interesting, from a feminist point of view, in that it reveals the true colours of so-called "pro-lifers".
Breaking news, folks : Just in cases you didn't know, pro-lifers are idiotic, retrograde bigots.
'Cause we all know that a human being’s right to life does not extend to (real, actual, living) women. Those folks would rather like women to forgo a life-saving technology (you know, “life-saving”, as in, you’d think “pro-life”) rather than remotely seem to acknowledge a state of affairs in which female sexuality – gasp! – exists outside the patriarchical, male-oriented institution of marriage.
Those people interchangeably use the word “promiscuity” for sex of the extra-marital kind, thereby implying that unmarried sex is sinful, wrong or socially unacceptable. Seriously, what kind of people would say or even imply such things?
The kind of people who are not even remotely interested in saving women’s lives, and improving our health conditions. Let's not be blind about it. The efforts of such people are really about controlling women’s sexuality, and maintaining men’s patriarchical authority over them. They simply want to make sure that a woman’s sexual desire, sexual organs and reproductive capacity remain the property of a single, identifiable male, as measurable and marketable assets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
