“Emerging Adulthood” or What’s the Matter with Kids Today?

Posted on by
Reply

via Historiann who criticizes yesterday’s the New York Times magazine story bemoaning “failure to launch” and “boomerang kids,” who take longer to reach adulthood than generations past. [ “What Is It About 20-Somethings?”]

Historiann reminds of the work of  Stephanie Coontz, who shows that the low average age of first marriage during the 1950s was an aberration compared to the rest of American history, and much lower than among free people in colonial America, where the average age at first marriage was mid-20s for women and later 20s for most men.

Even during the heyday of early marriage — the period following the Second World War — experts in marriage and family life warned, “Wed Before Twenty, Trouble Aplenty” (this is the title of an article on sex education from the American Journal of Public Health).  Young people who married as teenagers were more likely to have severe marital problems and had higher rates of divorce.

Experts during the 1930s worried about young people whose journey into adulthood was during the Great Depression — but they blamed this on the terrible job opportunities of the era, not on some vague new life stage called “emerging adulthood.”

I’m sure there are many young people who would gladly “get a life” if someone would offer them a decent job that would provide a salary adequate to live independently.

Of course, I may be biased, since my selfish refusal to fulfill my biological destiny child-free by choice status means I have failed to achieve one of the “five milestones” of adulthood listed in the Times article.

Mommy wars and children’s rights

Posted on by
2

via Kittywampus

This is an excellent commentary on the latest cat fight to erupt in the feminist blogosphere, prompted by guestblogger Mai’a at Feministe

Mai’a writes:

“you do not have a right to child free spaces.

there is this weird thing in western culture, especially n american culture, where people/adults seem to believe that they have a right to discriminate against children.
recently, i was hanging out at a bar, when a friend called and invited me to come hang out for a few drinks and chill time as the sun came up. cool. then, i heard a bit of whispers in the background and the question posed to me: is aza with you?
ummm…what? why? does that matter? . .

im not a feminist ( yeah, i said it…shrug). but i dont understand people who claim to be feminist on one hand, and on the other hand think that children should be designated to certain public and private spaces, not mixing in ‘normal’ public areas, such as restaurants, stores, airplanes, etc. cause in us culture, when you create little reservations for children, you are really creating little reservations for mothers. it is the mother who will be sent away to take care of the child. and how is that supporting all women and girls?”

I’ll set aside for a moment the irony of someone who says she’s not a feminist being invited to guest post at a blog called “Feministe” and get to the heart of the matter: this woman seems to have a rather narrow vision of children’s rights. As someone who works in childhood/youth studies I acknowledge that children deserve the same human rights as adults (e.g. free speech, due process, bodily autonomy), but their rights also include being cared for in a manner appropriate for their developmental stage.   At the risk of sounding anti-Mom (I’m one of those “selfish” childfree women after all), bringing your child to a bar and keeping her up to the wee hours while you drink the night away is, as both Kittywampus and Karmithia at Alas sagely pointed out just plain irresponsible.

On the other hand, I cringe at the anti-child and anti-mommy snark in the comments on this post at Jezebel.  Can’t we all just get along?  I don’t mind if you and a few of your mommy friends bring your little ones along to the pub for a early evening cocktail, as long you make sure the little darlings don’t wreck havoc on the waitstaff and the other patrons.

So, back to question of  why this “not a feminist” post is on a feminist blog — well, here’s the conspiracy theory I offered at Kittywampus’ blog:

” It makes me wonder whether there is a male chauvinist puppet-master behind these blogs who likes to create and then watch cat fights!”

Abortion after IVF and the economics of choice

Posted on by
1

via  XX Factor.  In this article Amanda Marcotte comments on  the alarm raised over a small number of women who decide to have an abortion following IVF.  I agree entirely with Marcotte’s criticism of people who argue “that the women who have abortions after IVF are bad people, too fickle to deserve rights.”  If we really trust women, we should respect all choices.

That said, I need to observe the problem with this article  is that it only addresses a tiny percentage of women in the United States who are privileged enough to have health insurance that will pay for IVF and abortion  (in fact, the story grew out of cases in Great Britain, where both IVF and abortion are covered by the National Health Insurance).

What about the millions of women who are denied access to abortion because it’s not covered by Medicaid (and under the new “health reform” package will not be covered by private health insurance either)?  Or the millions of women whose choices to reproduce are constrained by economic circumstances, or if they do find the resources to reproduce, are condemned as being “selfish”?

This isn’t the only article at XX Factor that bugs me — it seems this column is aimed almost entirely at privileged women who have the money and leisure to worry about things like Snooki and denim-colored diapers.

Seriously, is this sort of writing really advancing rights for all women? Or is this type of women’s blogging simply feeding into a larger addiction to snark?  Maybe I’m expecting too much. . .

President Obama’s remarks about the ADA 20th anniversary

Posted on by
Reply

via Media dis&dat

“THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Good evening, everybody. (Applause.) Thank you so much. Well, we have a gorgeous day to celebrate an extraordinary event in the life of this nation. Welcome, all of you, to our White House. And thank you, Robert, for the wonderful introduction. It is a pleasure and honor to be with all of you on the 20th anniversary of one of the most comprehensive civil rights bills in the history of this country — the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Applause.)

I see so many champions of this law here today. I wish I had time to acknowledge each and every one of you. I want to thank all of you. But I also want to thank our Cabinet Secretaries and the members of my administration here today who are working to advance the goals of the ADA so that it is not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law, that’s being applied all across this country. (Applause.)

I want to thank the members of Congress in attendance who fought to make ADA possible and to keep improving it throughout the years. (Applause.) I want to acknowledge Dick Thornburgh, who worked hard to make this happen as Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush. (Applause.)

And by the way, I had a chance to speak to President Bush before I came out here, and he sends heartfelt regards to all of you. And it’s — he’s extraordinarily proud of the law that was passed. He was very humble about his own role, but I think it’s worth acknowledging the great work that he did. (Applause.)

We also remember those we’ve lost who helped make this law possible — like our old friend, Ted Kennedy. (Applause.) And I see Patrick here. And Justin Dart, Jr., a man folks call the father of the ADA — whose wife Yoshiko, is here. (Applause.) Yoshiko, so nice to see you. (Applause.)

I also notice that Elizabeth Dole is here, and I had a chance to speak to Bob Dole, as well, and thank him for the extraordinary role that he played in advancing this legislation. (Applause.)

Let me also say that Congressman Jim Langevin wanted to be here today, but he’s currently presiding over the House chamber — the first time in our history somebody using a wheelchair has done so. (Applause.)

Today, as we commemorate what the ADA accomplished, we celebrate who the ADA was all about. It was about the young girl in Washington State who just wanted to see a movie at her hometown theater, but was turned away because she had cerebral palsy; or the young man in Indiana who showed up at a worksite, able to do the work, excited for the opportunity, but was turned away and called a cripple because of a minor disability he had already trained himself to work with; or the student in California who was eager and able to attend the college of his dreams, and refused to let the iron grip of polio keep him from the classroom — each of whom became integral to this cause.

And it was about all of you. You understand these stories because you or someone you loved lived them. And that sparked a movement. It began when Americans no longer saw their own disabilities as a barrier to their success, and set out to tear down the physical and social barriers that were. It grew when you realized you weren’t alone. It became a massive wave of bottom-up change that swept across the country as you refused to accept the world as it was. And when you were told, no, don’t try, you can’the — you responded with that age-old American creed: Yes, we can. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we can!

Sit-ins in San Francisco. Demonstrations in Denver. Protests in Washington, D.C., at Gallaudet, and before Congress. People marched, and organized, and testified. And laws changed, and minds changed, and progress was won. (Applause.)

Now, that’s not to say it was easy. You didn’t always have folks in Washington to fight on your behalf. And when you did, they weren’t as powerful, as well-connected, as well-funded as the lobbyists who lined up to kill any attempt at change. And at first, you might have thought, what does anyone in Washington know or care about my battle? But what you knew from your own experience is that disability touches us all. If one in six Americans has a disability, then odds are the rest of us love somebody with a disability.

I was telling a story to a group that was in the Oval Office before I came out here about Michelle’s father who had MS. By the time I met him, he had to use two canes just to walk. He was stricken with MS when he was 30 years old, but he never missed a day of work; had to wake up an hour early to get dressed —

AUDIENCE MEMBER: So what.

THE PRESIDENT: — to get to the job, but that was his attitude — so what. He could do it. Didn’t miss a dance recital. Did not miss a ball game of his son. Everybody has got a story like that somewhere in their family.

And that’s how you rallied an unlikely assortment of leaders in Congress and in the White House to the cause. Congressmen like Steny Hoyer, who knew his wife Judy’s battle with epilepsy; and Tony Coehlo, who waged his own; and Jim Sensenbrenner, whose wife, Cheryl, is a tremendous leader and advocate for the community. And they’re both here today. (Applause.)

Senators like Tom Harkin, who’s here today, and who signed — (applause) — who signed part of a speech on the ADA so his deaf brother, Frank, would understand. And Ted Kennedy, whose sister had a severe intellectual disability and whose son lost a leg to cancer. And Bob Dole, who was wounded serving heroically in World War II. Senior officials in the White House, and even the President himself.

They understood this injustice from the depths of their own experience. They also understood that by allowing this injustice to stand, we were depriving of our nation — we were depriving our nation and our economy of the full talents and contributions of tens of millions of Americans with disabilities.

That is how the ADA came to be, when, to his enduring credit, President George H.W. Bush signed it into law, on this lawn, on this day, 20 years ago. That’s how you changed America. (Applause.)

Equal access — to the classroom, the workplace, and the transportation required to get there. Equal opportunity — to live full and independent lives the way we choose. Not dependence — but independence. That’s what the ADA was all about. (Applause.)

But while it was a historic milestone in the journey to equality, it wasn’t the end. There was, and is, more to do. And that’s why today I’m announcing one of the most important updates to the ADA since its original enactment in 1991.

Today, the Department of Justice is publishing two new rules protecting disability-based discrimination — or prohibiting disability-based discrimination by more than 80,000 state and local government entities, and 7 million private businesses. (Applause.) And beginning 18 months from now, all new buildings must be constructed in a way that’s compliant with the new 2010 standards for the design of doors and windows and elevators and bathrooms — (applause) — buildings like stores and restaurants and schools and stadiums and hospitals and hotels and theaters. (Applause.)

My predecessor’s administration proposed these rules six years ago. And in those six years, they’ve been improved upon with more than 4,000 comments from the public. We’ve heard from all sides. And that’s allowed us to do this in a way that makes sense economically and allows appropriate flexibility while ensuring Americans with disabilities full participation in our society.

And for the very first time, these rules will cover recreational facilities like amusement parks and marinas and gyms and golf facilities and swimming pools — (applause) — and municipal facilities like courtrooms and prisons. (Applause.) From now on, businesses must follow practices that allow individuals with disabilities an equal chance to purchase tickets for accessible seating at sporting events and concerts. (Applause.)

And our work goes on. Even as we speak, Attorney General Eric Holder is preparing new rules to ensure accessibility of websites. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Yes, we can.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we can.

We’re also placing a new focus on hiring Americans with disabilities across the federal government. (Applause.) Today, only 5 percent of the federal workforce is made up of Americans with disabilities — far below the proportion of Americans with disabilities in the general population. In a few moments, I’ll sign an executive order that will establish the federal government as a model employer of individuals with disabilities. (Applause.) So we’re going to boost recruitment, we’re going to boost training, we’re going to boost retention. We’ll better train hiring managers. Each agency will have a senior official who’s accountable for achieving the goals we’ve set. And I expect regular reports. And we’re going to post our progress online so that you can hold us accountable, too. (Applause.)

And these new steps build on the progress my administration has already made.

To see it that no one who signs up to fight for our country is ever excluded from its promise, we’ve made major investments in improving the care and treatment for our wounded warriors. (Applause.) To ensure full access to participation in our democracy and our economy, we’re working to make all government websites accessible to persons with disabilities. (Applause.)

We’re expanding broadband Internet access to Americans who are deaf and hard of hearing. We’ve followed through with a promise I made to create three new disability offices at the State Department and Department of Transportation and at FEMA.

And to promote equal rights across the globe, the United States of America joined 140 other nations in signing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — the first new human rights convention of the 21st century. (Applause.)

America was the first nation on Earth to comprehensively declare equality for its citizens with disabilities. We should join the rest of the world to declare it again — and when I submit our ratification package to Congress, I expect passage to be swift. (Applause.)

And to advance the right to live independently, I launched the Year of Community Living, on the 10th anniversary of the Olmstead decision — a decision that declared the involuntary institutional isolation of people with disabilities unlawful discrimination under the ADA. (Applause.)

So HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan have worked together to improve access to affordable housing and community supports and independent living arrangements for people with disabilities. And we continued a program that successfully helps people with disabilities transition to the community of their choice. (Applause.) And I’m proud of the work that the Department of Justice is doing to enforce Olmstead across the country.

And we’ve finally broken down one discriminatory barrier that the ADA left in place. Because for too long, our health care system denied coverage to tens of millions of Americans with preexisting conditions — including Americans with disabilities. It was time to change that. And we did. Yes, we did. (Applause.)

So the Affordable Care Act I signed into law four months ago will give every American more control over their health care -– and it will do more to give Americans with disabilities control over their own lives than any legislation since the ADA. I know many of you know the frustration of fighting with an insurance company. That’s why this law finally shifts the balance of power from them to you and to other consumers. (Applause.)

No more denying coverage to children based on a preexisting condition or disability. No more lifetime limits on coverage. No more dropping your coverage when you get sick and need it the most because your insurance company found an unintentional error in your paperwork. (Applause.) And because Americans with disabilities are living longer and more independently, this law will establish better long-term care choices for Americans with disabilities as a consequence of the CLASS Act, an idea Ted Kennedy championed for years. (Applause.)

Equal access. Equal opportunity. The freedom to make our lives what we will. These aren’t principles that belong to any one group or any one political party. They are common principles. They are American principles. No matter who we are — young, old, rich, poor, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled or not — these are the principles we cherish as citizens of the United States of America. (Applause.)

They were guaranteed to us in our founding documents. One of the signers of those documents was a man named Stephen Hopkins. He was a patriot, a scholar, a nine-time governor of Rhode Island. It’s also said he had a form of palsy. And on July 4, 1776, as he grasped his pen to sign his name to the Declaration of Independence, he said, “My hand trembles. But my heart does not.” My hand trembles. But my heart does not.

Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Words that began our never-ending journey to form a more perfect union. To look out for one another. To advance opportunity and prosperity for all of our people. To constantly expand the meaning of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. To move America forward. That’s what we did with the ADA. That is what we do today. And that’s what we’re going to do tomorrow — together.

So, thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. Let me sign this order.”

Shirley we’re (not) beyond race and gender

Posted on by
Reply

via Historiann

who links to a post on the Shirely Sherrod affair by  Tenured Radical.

Historiann picks up on my comment to TR’s post,

“speaking of Shirley, “surely” we are beyond gender too? Seriously, I can’t help thinking that it was easy to treat this employee as expendable because she’s female.”

[note:  if you don’t get the surely/Shirley thing, go back and watch “Airplane” for an explanation].

Historiann agrees, saying it’s easy “to demonize women, especially women of color (like those who speak just once hypothetically about wise Latinas, f’rinstance), and discredit them as authority figures, whether they’re merely self-published writers or members of the current Presidential administration.  Somehow it’s all too easy to believe that a woman needs to be disciplined or even humiliated for shooting her mouth off again, and it’s all too difficult to believe that she’s deserving of due process, a fair hearing, or even of a complete reading of her professional opinions and accomplishments.  Van Jones was canned last summer without delay, and he was a dude.  But, Tenured Radical reminded us today about how easy it was during Bill Clinton’s presidency for the Administration to throw an African American woman appointee or would-be appointee under the bus (Lani Guinier and Dr. Jocelyn Elders, for example), especially if and when they dare to write or speak frankly about race or sexuality.”

Right on, and thanks for the link love, Historiann!

Americans With Disabilities Act Approaches 20th anniversary, but Persons with Disabilities Still not Free

Posted on by
Reply

From ADAPT’s Facebook page:

Sisters and Brothers in the Disability Community:

As the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act draws near, we approach the milestone with mixed emotions. Securing national civil rights legislation, protecting the rights of people with disabilities, was truly historic. It is important that we recognize the incredible nature of this accomplishment and the hard work of those that made this happen, but 20 years after President George H. W. Bush signed this civil rights legislation into law and as our community is preparing for the celebrations, we pause in disappointment that the promise of freedom has still not reached our sisters and brothers in nursing facilities and other institutions.

Our sisters and brothers remain locked away, unseen and unheard. For them, the act is just words on paper. They are not given the opportunity to exercise their civil rights under this law because they still do not have the basic freedoms that other Americans enjoy.

As the Anniversary date draws closer, they may hear about the progress our community has made over the past 20 years, but knowing that you are protected against discrimination in employment means nothing when the hub of your life is a bedroom you share with a stranger. Knowing that buildings and public accommodations are accessible means nothing when the facility staff won’t let you leave; and even having access to lifts on buses – as dear to our hearts as that is – means nothing when you cannot afford to go anywhere on the allowance that is left over after the institution has taken its share of your money.

When we gather together as a community, we must remember that our sisters and brothers in institutions will not be toasting those that authored or advocated for the Act. They will not be celebrating independent living, either as a movement or personal achievement, and they certainly won’t share in the power or pride of the disability community. For them, July 26th will be the same as every other day in the institution.

Recently, ADAPT has been criticized by some of the provider-based advocates in our community because we are publicly demanding that Speaker Pelosi sign onto the Community Choice Act and agree to eliminate the institutional bias once and for all. They tell us that publicly questioning “our friends” is inappropriate. We are told we should be grateful for the efforts that have been made so far, and that we must be patient because change takes time.

We will not apologize for our impatience. We do this because our brothers and sisters have waited long enough for their freedom. We cannot sit by, patiently and quietly waiting for our government to give our people the freedom which should be our birthright.

We had great hopes for President Obama and this Congress. Many of us believed that his promise for change included the promise of freedom. When President Obama was taking the oath of office with his hand on Lincoln’s bible, it seemed like fate was telling us that he would free our people. When the President and Congress took up health care reform, we were sure that they would finally eliminate the institutional bias, and we hoped that this historic anniversary in the disability community would be celebrated with historic change. Unfortunately, the President and Congress did not have the political will to make this happen. While we recognize that some gains were made, unlike any other class of Americans, our freedom remains a state option.

It is, indeed, true that one of the tools we are using to help people leave institutions and move into the community is the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision, which is based on the requirements of the ADA, and it is true that President Obama’s administration has demonstrated an unprecedented commitment to enforcing the Olmstead decision. But such efforts are transitory. We have seen, during the last 20 years, that new administrations have their own priorities, and although there may now be a commitment to enforce the Olmstead decision, the pendulum will ultimately swing back in the other direction. We also know that the gains we may make in the courts are hard-fought, slow, and constantly subject to attack. Even right now, as many in the disability community commemorate the ADA’s anniversary, the Attorney General in Connecticut is coordinating legal efforts by the states to fight against some of the recent gains we have made in court which will allow more of our people to live in freedom. Ironically, the deadline for states to join the effort is just one day after the anniversary, July 27th.

In America, freedom shouldn’t ever be optional, but – in fact – for us it is.

While federal Medicaid rules require states to pay for institutional placement, community-based alternatives are state options and continually subject to elimination in state budget cuts. It is ironic that as we celebrate a civil rights victory that is 20 years old, our freedom is becoming even more precarious and the situation becoming more dire. States, facing record budget shortfalls, are cutting the services that support community living options for seniors and persons with disabilities. These budget cuts force people into unwanted placement, stealing from them much of what is most precious: their homes, their families and their freedom.

Some people have moved across the country to a different state to get supports and services to live outside of the institution. There, they have been able to share in the promise of the ADA, but many people don’t know about the services available in other states or simply might not be able to make the journey on this modern underground railroad.

But as long as community services are only an option, those who have escaped to freedom cannot escape the fear. No place is safe because their freedom can easily disappear at the whim of state policy makers. They will be called upon to help solve their state’s budget crisis by sacrificing their freedom, home and lives.

We all need to recognize that through personal circumstance or state policy change any of us can lose our freedom. No one in our community is exempt. No one is safe. No one in our community can afford to be comfortable, but it is also our hope that – from this discomfort – the disability community will be mobilized to take action and, together, we will build on a 20-year legacy to address this injustice. Our movement isn’t about the civil rights for some of us; it is about the freedom of all of us.

We cannot wait any longer. ADAPT asks you, during this ADA 20th anniversary celebration, to recommit your energy to ending the institutional bias during the next Congress. The time is now to end the institutional bias and FREE OUR PEOPLE!

Sincerely,

The ADAPT Community

Speaking of Feminist Woo

Posted on by
Reply

via  Bitch Magazine, which reviews Hot Pantz: Do It Yourself Gynecology

In addition to promoting dubious “natural remedies” (e.g. douching with herbs to treat STIs), the review makes several erroneous statements.  For example:

“Herbs predate history; women have been using herbs to treat cramps and bring on their menses for a long time. It’s no secret that natural medicine has been swept under the rug because of the pharmaceutical industry (Read a bit about the suppression of natural remedies in the US here). While medical advancements have certainly provided more access to birth control and hormone therapy than ever before, I have a hard time believing the multi-billion dollar industry that creates these hormonal drugs is super concerned about women’s health. While we have access to these drugs, we do not have control over what goes into them, and pharmaceutical companies are not required to tell us.”

First off, it’s not true that drug companies are not required to tell us what’s in their products — they not only have list active and inactive ingredients, they have to include a patient package insert that lists all the possible side effects and contraindications. Can the same be said of natural remedies? Not likely — they aren’t subject to FDA law because they’re considered dietary supplements, not drugs.

If proponents of alternative medicine want to gain legitimacy, they should apply to the RFPs from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and find solid scientific evidence to back up their claims.

The link to  natural remedies above describes naturopaths from the 19th century who treated tuberculosis using water therapy and herbs.  Well, since I know something about the history of medicine, these folks did not “cure” TB — they simply sent the illness into remission.  Today we have antibiotics that, when used appropriately, can cure most cases of TB.  The reason we have multiple antibiotic resistant strains are that patients don’t always follow the full course of treatment (which takes up to a year of daily pills) and/or have HIV AIDs.

As a historian of medicine and public health, I know all too well what used to happen in the “good old days” before antibiotics. Part of the reason the death rate was so high during the 1918-19 influenza pandemic was that many died not from flu per se but from secondary infections such as pneumonia. Millions more died from tuberculosis and syphilis.

Yes, some people are allergic to some antibiotics — for example, I’m allergic to amoxicyllin, but I can take other antibiotics.

Everyone knocks FDA but they aren’t in the pocket of Big Pharma — in fact, the agency is quite rigorous (e.g. the recent rejection of the so-called “pink Viagra“).  As I said earlier, there is no regulatory oversight over natural remedies to ensure they are both safe and effective.

Vague phrases like “herbs predate history” are annoying to those of us who actually look at the primary sources written by and for women instead of making shit up speculating about what women did in the past without any solid evidence to back it up.  For an excellent analysis of the medieval European period, see Monica Green’s book Making Women’s Medicine Masculine and Katherine Park’s Welch award winning Secrets of Women.  For examples from early America, see Laural Thatcher Ulrich’s Pulitzer prize winning book A Midwife’s Tale, and Susan E. Klepp, Revolutionary Conceptions: Women, Fertility, & Family Limitation in America.

As to the advice in Hot Pantz — don’t try this at home, or if you do, caveat emptor!

Could we have some civility in the feminist blogosphere, please?

Posted on by
1

via Bitch Magazine, which summarizes the feminist blogosphere’s response to the hiring Olivia Munn as the latest “correspondent” at “The Daily Show.”  I’m arriving really late in the game so I’m not going to comment on Munn (also I only have very basic cable so no longer watch TDS).  Instead, I’m going to focus on an observation made by one of the commentators to Emily Gould’s article in Slate:

“Thank you. I also have been trying for a while to get on board with Jezebel, but I have been deeply turned off by the “more correctly feminist than thou” tone, both in the articles and in the increasingly ridiculous comments section where I have had 22 year olds quote women’s studies textbooks at me about the definition of feminism. Seriously? It’s like a parody male fantasy of what ball-breaking feminazis are like, the irony being that all this venom is directed at other women posters as well as female subjects of articles.”

Now, I agree with many of the Slate commentators that much of Gould’s article is the pot calling the kettle black.  Yet, I’ve encountered this “more feminist than thou” perspective in my exchange with Amanda Marcotte at RH Reality Check.  Here is her reply to my post:

“Someone’s right to have “diverse experiences”, and certainly anyone can go off the pill if she likes. But Eldridge goes way beyond that. She hides behind “just asking questions” to spread paranoia about the pill, and then when called on it, denies that’s what she’s doing. It’s really irresponsible, and not based in science. For instance, this all came up in the context of a discussion about means to expand access by making the pill over the counter, which you were against. It’s really bad faith to suggest that you’re on the “it’s all good team” when you pop up only to argue against any measure that would make it easier for women to use the pill if they choose.”

Off course, that’s not what I said. Here is my reply to her comment:

“‘I’m not suggesting banning anything.  I also think that the argument in favor of an OTC switch has merit (which I said in my first comment on Amanda’s original article).  My point — which may have been lost in the harsh language of my post above — is that there are multiple issues at work here, not just a battle between science and conservative politics.  For example, how will the OTC switch affect the cost of oral contraceptives?  Using the case of the OTC switch for emergency contraception (which I strongly support), the cost went up considerably and because it was an OTC product, was not included in prescription drug coverage.  Although I agree that some people (conservatives especially) exaggerate the dangers of oral contraceptives, there are also some serious risks for some women that should not be ignored. ”

[Dear readers:  as further proof of my position, see my endorsement of the Oral Contraceptive Over-the-Counter Working Group].

Will Marcotte be satisfied with this, or will she continue to see me as part of the anti-science “feminist woo” crowd?  We’ll see.

Think You Know Your Herstory?

Posted on by
Reply

via Ms Magazine Blog.

Well, as a matter of fact, I do!  And while I’m being a smarty pants, I might as well point out that before the National Women’s History Project held their Summer Institute in 1979, the Berkshire Conference on the History of Women was already well established.  Cheers to NWHP for taking women’s history out of higher education and bringing it to the K-12 curriculum.

The Pill: Can We Expand Access While Respecting Diverse Experiences?

Posted on by
Reply

x-post from RHRealityCheck.org.

I’m writing in reply to Amanda Marcotte’s article, “The Pill: A Counter to ‘Over-the-Counter.’” As I observed on my own blog, this is not the first time that the Pill has been considered for a switch from prescription only (Rx) to over-the-counter (OTC). The first time this issue was raised was in the early 1990s.  Historically, the arguments in favor of OTC status for oral contraceptives have tended to come from public health experts who, like Marcotte, see the prescription as paternalistic and an unnecessary barrier to timely access. While I think this is a legitimate point, I also think it’s unfair to characterize the work of Laura Eldrige as simply “freaking out about the pill.” I also think that Marcotte’s claim that complaints of side effects and criticisms of the Pill itself are due to our culture’s “sex panic” is a simplistic analysis of the situation and overlooks a long history of feminist activism on behalf of women consumers.

For example, the work of Barbara Seaman and the National Women’s Health Network in the 1970s and 1980s exposed serious ethical lapses in human subjects research involving women, especially women of color, and that the possible health risks of various forms of contraception — including the Pill, the Dalkon shield IUD, Depo Provera, and Norplant, were underplayed at the expense of women’s health.

In my opinion, Marcotte’s claim that women’s symptoms while on oral contraceptives are merely the result of “sex panic-driven fears” is just as paternalistic as saying women need a prescription for the Pill.   This same argument was made in the 1960s when the first serious side effects from the Pill were reported, i.e. that women who reported problems were just “hysterical” and subconsciously felt guilty about taking the Pill.

I think Laura Eldridge follows in the same tradition as her mentor Barbara Seaman and other founding members of the feminist health movement such as the authors of Our Bodies, Ourselves.  In my opinion, providing women with accurate information about the benefits AND risks of various contraceptive methods is an important way to empower women to make their own reproductive health choices.  We can have a balanced discussion about this without feeding into “right-wing misinformation.” Indeed, I think a nuanced evaluation of the historical and scientific arguments in favor and against various methods of contraception can help combat conservative opposition.  I also think we should respect women’s choices about contraceptive methods, even if they aren’t what we would choose for ourselves.

P.S. Speaking of choices — here’s a top ten list of contraceptive options from Ms. Magazine Blog.