Sexism and contraception: Are women getting shortchanged?

[prolesunited]

Recently, the FDA was poised to make emergency contraception, which prevents pregnancy 89 percent of the time, available over the counter. Basically, it's a prepackaged quadruple helping of birth control pills. It is best taken within 24 hours of unprotected sex and only pharmacists in California and Washington can dispense it directly.

One would think this measure would be approved because it is estimated that it already prevents 51,000 abortions a year. However, 44 Congressional Republicans spoke out against it. Helms even called it an abortifacient." Now it's stalled because FDA head Mark McClellan (Scott's brother) postponed the decision because he is leaving.


This is the latest in a long list of assaults on women's rights, reproductive and otherwise. A good summary can be found here:

George W. Bush's War on Women: A Pernicious Web

By Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America
This is a critical time for reproductive rights, a time in which the efforts of the Bush administration must be examined at every turn. ...
In reviewing the chronology of events, we admit to being baffled by George W. Bush's seemingly single-minded determination to strip women of reproductive rights and access to the panoply of reproductive health services - not just abortion but even family planning and real sex education.

Bush's anti-woman agenda is bolstered by an anti-choice Congress that is now, with Bush's support, in full frontal attack on reproductive freedom, bill by bill, with an array of anti-choice legislation

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/030114_waronwomen.html


So, not only are they going after abortion, but now there is an assault on contraception as well as they seek to define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization rather than implantation. Not that I agree, but I can see the moral and religious reasons for why people are opposed to abortion, but reducing access to contraception?!?!? What is the real goal here?


A portion of this post is based on information contained in "Toothpaste, Cough Drops, Aspirin, Contraception," by Katha Pollitt, published in the March 15 issue of The Nation.

As she states, "Contraception has always been attacked as promoting loose morals among women (curiously, 'schoolchildren' excepted, one hears less about the fact that condoms promote loose morals among men — why not make them available by prescription as well?"

Ponder that last last point for a minute. Do your ever imagine they would make condoms available by prescription to limit men's control over their sexual health?

One could argue that birth control has more side effects, but then how does that explain the differences between the attitudes and health insurance coverage of birth control and viagra?

Here's an interesting article on the discrepancies here:

To Guccione, Viagra promises to cure not only impotence but women's uppity behavior, as well. "Feminism has emasculated the American male, and that emasculation has led to physical problems. This pill will take the pressure off men. It will... undercut the feminist agenda," Guccione said, most likely with his fingers crossed.
<snip>

And, as always, there’s the money. Viagra costs roughly $10 per single dose. Oral contraceptives cost women approximately $30 for a full month. Every public dollar spent on contraceptive services prevents $4 in public expenditures on unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. Every dose of Viagra subsidized by private or governmental insurers saves men from sexual frustration and… drumroll, please… the embarrassment of hearing their wives and girlfriends say, "That’s OK, honey, it happens to every guy, once in a while." In short, Viagra is a costly, potentially risky drug which allows impotent men more sexual pleasure in their personal lives, while oral contraception offers a generally safe, cost-effective, socially beneficial solution to America’s unintended pregnancy rate (which, at 60%, doubles that of other developed nations).

Yet despite these contrasts, nearly half of approximately 300,000 men who seek renewed sexual vigor via Viagra each week are being fully or partially reimbursed by their health insurers.

http://www.fwhc.org/health/viagra.htm



OK, lots of information to digest here and many paths this discussion can follow. It would be great to hear from both women and men.

Please play nice. :-)

[slinkerwink]

1. yes, we're getting shortchanged when it comes to contraception

[Nikia]

2. Yes

"Bad" women are suppose to pay for their sins by having to raise a child, the evidence of their sin. Otherwise, we have "bad" women pretnding to be good women.
Married women are suppose to keep having babies throughout their reproductive life so they have to stay home Nothing against women who choose to stay at home but having a baby every year or two sort of forces the situation.
It keeps women in their place and limits control over our sexuality. It also shows their real agenda. If reducing abortion were really the goal, contraception would be free or at least for those who would have difficulty in paying for it.

[SharonAnn]

3. Yes, we're getting shortchanged in every area. Bush and his

cohorts want to bring us to some sort of feudalism where women are the property of men and can only do what men allow them to do.

It's nothing new. It started the day he took office when he issues the Executive Order about the "gag" rule that has caused women across the world to lose access to birth control and reproductive health care becasue of the Fundamentalists belief that somewhere, somebody might talk about having an abortion.

[stldemocrat]

5. Definitely

All of these Evangelical Christians have declared Jihad on women. The South is kind of like Afghanistan, except instead of that dead goat game, they have NASCAR.

[prolesunited]

9. LOL!

Laughing at your comments, not the situation. Just a heads up: You may get some hostility here from perceived "South bashing."

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[stldemocrat]

13. DU/The South

Thanks for the welcome. DU is great, a lot of good progressive around here to counter the corporate news machine. :headbang:

As far as "South bashing", I guess I should qualify my other post by saying that while the culture of God, Guns, and Opressing Women reigns in the South, there are some good people who come from there (MLK!). The others just need to be re-educated (or maybe just educated).

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. Oppressing women is the most effective method of controlling society

ever devised. It has been employed throughout history, in every corner of the globe, and it is time-tested and true.

Literate women teach their children to read. A woman who controls her body is one step closer to economic empowerment, and women who are economically empowered are more likely to spend their earnings on things that will benefit their kids and their community than their brothers, who are more likely to spend their earnings on things that will benefit the king (usually weapons).

[meow2u3]

18. Why doesn't anyone mention this?

I can't understand why men can't -- or won't -- control themselves, instead of trying to control women. If men controled themselves, there wouldn't be the need for contraception and/or abortion.

[Vladimir]

20. some of us

can control ourselves perfectly well, thanks very much. :)

Besides, its so much easier not to have to think and leave problems and laundry for other people.

V

[Vittorio]

21. So...you say men can't control themselves...

but yet...doesn't it take two to tango? Think about that.

[outinforce]

23. Not TOO Sexist a Statement

just a tad stereotypical:

"women who are economically empowered are more likely to spend their earnings on things that will benefit their kids and their community than their brothers, who are more likely to spend their earnings on things that will benefit the king (usually weapons)."

Gee, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were saying that there are certain things that men always do and certain things women always do. I'd think you'd be saying that men are agressive, warlike louts, and women are nurturing, caring, community-building creatures.

Of course, we progressives reject such nonsense.

We want our little girls to be just like the little boys -- agressive, competitive in sports. And we want our little girls, when they grow up, to be just as agressive and mean and nasty as the men, so that the women can rise to the top of the corporate latter, breaking through the glass ceiling.

[iverglas]

25. such confusion

outinforce, you do so often - and by your own say-so, I would note - seem to suffer from it.

women who are economically empowered are more likely to spend their earnings on things that will benefit their kids and their community than their brothers, who are more likely to spend their earnings on things that will benefit the king (usually weapons).

Gee, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were saying that there are certain things that men always do and certain things women always do. I'd think you'd be saying that men are agressive, warlike louts, and women are nurturing, caring, community-building creatures.

I just don't know, though, how someone can apparently be so consistently confused that he thinks it is possible for anyone to mistake a statement of one fact for a statement of a completely different fact, even if he, cleverboots that he is, knows better.

How he can think that ... or why he would say it ... or whatever.

If you dispute the fact that DuctapeFatwa has advanced, why don't you, like, dispute it? Gee, if I didn't know any better, I'd think that you couldn't. Of course, I do know better, and I do know that you can't -- because it is indeed a true statement of fact. Not an opinion, not a value judgment, but a true statement of fact, good, bad or indifferent as it might be in anyone's opinion.

We want our little girls to be just like the little boys -- agressive, competitive in sports. And we want our little girls, when they grow up, to be just as agressive and mean and nasty as the men, so that the women can rise to the top of the corporate latter, breaking through the glass ceiling.

My goodness!!

Weren't YOU just telling someone in another thread that she should "speak for <her>self"???

Whom, precisely, are you speaking for here??

Damn, I'd be taking my own advice, if I were you. You never know, it might avoid some of this confusion you seem to experience between yourself and other people, and perhaps even the confusion you seem to experience between some of those other people and others of those other people, when you seem to think that the first are saying things said by the second ... and maybe even some of the confusion that people experience in trying to figure out just what you're saying. (I mean, I know better, I'm not confused. But some of it is just so confusing, doncha think?)

Of course, we progressives reject such nonsense.
<"that there are certain things that men always do and certain things women always do ... that men are agressive, warlike louts, and women are nurturing, caring, community-building creatures">

Now I'm reeaaallly confused.

WHO spoke this "nonsense" of yours?

I don't see anybody but you speaking it. I didn't see anybody but you saying that there are certain things that men ALWAYS do and certain things that women ALWAYS do, or that men are ANYTHING or women are ANYTHING.

So if you're the one saying it, and you are one of those "we progressives" -- well, I have to say that it seems as if you are indeed very confused.

Saying that and being progressive are mutually exclusive, I'd think.

Of course, there are lots of things and being progressive that are mutually exclusive, aren't there now?

.

[cally]

26. Great point!

If you educate women not just about birth control, then birth rates go down. If women have economic opportunity, then birth rates go down and quality of life for the entire community increases. If you keep women down, then the "king" can maintain power.
One of my favorite UN programs is one that gives small grants to women around the world. They found that women would start a small business and then spend the money on their families and the community. Men tended to spend money on themselves.

[outinforce]

27. Got A Link?

I'd like to see any study done by the UN showing that women spend money on their families and the community and men spenmd money on themselves.

[Vittorio]

28. I have never once spent money on myself.

I have made sure that my family comes first. I'd also like to see the link to this study...or else I may think that the comment made is sexist in itself.

[cally]

34. I'll look for it

but it is a UN program called something like "small loans". Basically, they support banks lending money to startup small businesses in developing countries. After awhile, they found that women were lower risk so they did some research. I heard this on the radio about 4 years ago and read the study then. I'm not sure I can find the link.

But you make the leap that because one study says that women were lower risk and helped the family more, than all men do that. I never said that and never would. It is also not implied by the study.

I have seen in my travels around the world, many cultures where men congregate in public places and women congregate at home with family and children. The culture is that men buy stuff and women are at home. I'm not saying all cultures or American culture, but many are like that.

[iverglas]

45. the UNDP's MicroStart program

http://www.uncdf.org/english/microfinance/microstart/programme.html

This is a development assistance program. Funds are being spent. Funds donated by donor partners in the program:

MicroStart's principles of operation are methodology neutral. Worldwide, microfinance institutions have been successful in reaching the very poor by lending to solidarity groups, through village or community banks and directly to individuals. MicroStart works with a variety of institutions to establish or strengthen microfinance operations, including specialized NGOs, credit unions, banks, and multi-purpose institutions. When an organization provides other services, the microfinance services are separated from other operations and are treated as a separate cost center.

Financial support to MicroStart has come from a number of sources. UNDP country programmes initially started based on a 'buy-in' from UNDP Country Office funds. More recently, financial support has come a number of additional sources. Investors include Citicorp Foundation, UNDP's regional bureaus (UNDP Africa and Arab States), the United Nations Foundation, the Netherlands Government, the Canadian Government, the African Development Bank, the Finnish Government, the Australian Government, the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) and the host governments where MicroStart operates. In June 2002, accumulated resources mobilized total US$48,515,121.

The aim of the program is

to build a new generation of MFIs <microfinance institutions> that have transparent track records and solid institutional and financial performance, which enable them to reach poor clients while operating on a sustainable basis.

The aim of microfinance is of course to improve the welfare of the very poorest people and communities on the globe, by enabling them to break out of the cycle of poverty.

For instance, people who make craft items that they have always sold to a profiteering middleperson, to whom they are permanently in debt for the materials s/he provides, are able to use tiny loans to get out of debt and buy their first stock of materials, and perhaps organize collectives to sell their products directly to market instead of through the middleperson, thus earning what their labour is worth. And thus being able to afford school fees for their children, for instance.

When handing out other people's money in the form of loans, an agency such as the UNDP has to ascertain the most effective ways of achieving the objectives for which it is lending money, and the ways that are least likely to result in the money being lost. It can't just hand out money to whoever looks needy and deserving. It has to target the money to people who are most likely to use it effectively for the intended purposes -- and to pay back the loan.

It conducts studies to evaluate the various elements of the ways that money is lent. And it has determined, based on its experience, that lending money to very poor women is both the most effective way of achieving its objectives and the most secure way of ensuring that its loans are paid back (and the money can be re-lent).

Targetting women is not *only* a function of their tendency to use the money effectively and pay it back; it is also a function of women's relative poverty in the communities and societies in question. Women are already poorer than men, so it makes sense to target women if the aim is the development of the community and society as a whole, and not the preservation and exacerbation of men's existing economic advantage. Damn that affirmative action shit.

But essentially, while there is of course an element of "affirmative action" in favour of disadvantaged women, that is partly because doing so benefits the collective, which is a main purpose of affirmative action anywhere; and the main point is that lending tiny amounts of money to women has proved to be, on average, the most cost-effective way of improving the community's/society's collective welfare.

And that is NOT a stereotype, it is a conclusion reached by some very expert people who set out to identify the most cost-effective way of spending other people's money. Which is generally regarded as what such people should be concerned about.

.

[noiretextatique]

84. ever heard of "deadbeat dads?"

i know several of them personally, and clearly you aren't one of them. does that mean they don't exist? does that mean the problems faced by women raising children without the support of their fathers is also non-existent? i won't leave out single fathers with deadbeat ex-wives...i actually know a couple of them also.
i just know far more women who are taking up the slack for husbands and ex-husbands.

[DuctapeFatwa]

32. here's a better link www.grameen-info.org

[iverglas]

36. here's a start

It's amazing what google will find you when you ask it for, oh, women development spend families "united nations". But somebody else will have to tell outinforce, 'cause, he says, he doesn't read my posts.

http://www.undp.org/dpa/frontpagearchive/2001/august/24aug01/

MicroStart, a global programme promoting small loans to poor entrepreneurs, is helping women in Yemen build brighter futures for themselves and their families.

The project is targeting women because surveys have found that households in Yemen headed by women are the hardest hit by poverty. The estimated average annual income of men in Yemen is $1,272 while women earn only $345 a year, according to the UNDP Human Development Report 2001.

There is also evidence that women are reliable in repaying loans. In fact, data from micro-lending institutions worldwide show that poor entrepreneurs have a repayment rate of 98 per cent, higher than that of clients of commercial banks.

Experience has also shown that women clients spend the extra income generated by loans to help their families. This indicates that providing loans to small businesses run by women can have a strong impact in helping to lift families and communities out of poverty.

Now, one wouldn't necessarily want to infer from this that women spend (proportionately or absolutely) more of their money in this way than men, or that more women than men spend their money this way ... but one might wonder why the report mentions what women tend to do with their money if it weren't different from what men tend to do with their money.

I have absolutely no doubt that men also spend money on their families; none at all. The point seems to be that more women spend their money that way, or that women spend more money that way.

And once again, that's no opinion, and it's no value judgment. It's simply a known fact.

And the only conclusion that it is proposed should be drawn from it is that it is a good thing, for a society, for women to have money.

Damn, who would actually dispute that?

.

[LeahMira]

75. Women nurture and sustain...

I'd like to see any study done by the UN showing that women spend money on their families and the community and men spend money on themselves.

Just yesterday, three students reported about their study abroad experiences in Sri Lanka. Women there have formed networks in assist one another with producing vegetables for market, providing child care and education for their children, and marketing fabrics they weave themselves. They have improved the economic condition of their families and their small communities. Many of the men were more interested in working for someone else (like on tea plantations), while the women were more entrepreneurs.

Women nurture one another also, and don't waste time with competition. When one is successful, everyone else is happy for her and she shares her successes with the others. Find a man doing that!

[outinforce]

83. "Find A Man Doing That"

"When one is successful, everyone else is happy for her and she shares her successes with the others. Find a man doing that!"

Ever hear of sports teams?

On every team I have ever participated on with other men, when one is successful, everyone else is happy for him and share his success with others.

[cally]

88. You're bringing up sports teams to compare

to economic development and elevating a community from poverty. Huh...

Go do a google search. I'm sure there are many examples of male community members banding together for the greater good. And no, that is not sarcastic. I know of many but I don't want to find the references now. But sports teams...:eyes:

[outinforce]

98. No.

"You're bringing up sports teams to compare to economic development and elevating a community from poverty."

No. That was not my point at all.

I was responding to something another poster had said. It was something I considered to be way too generalized, and, frankly, demeaning to men.

Here is what the other poster said: "Women nurture one another also, and don't waste time with competition. When one is successful, everyone else is happy for her and she shares her successes with the others. Find a man doing that!"

Find a man doing that?

Sure thing.

That is what I posted.

Sorry if it wasn't clear.

[iverglas]

90. it must be that collective noun problem again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1178443&mesg_id=1192892&page=


Ever hear of sports teams?

On every team I have ever participated on with other men, when one is successful, everyone else is happy for him and share his success with others.

What a funny dog's breakfast of pronouns.

How is "one" successful on a team. The success is the team's, not the individual's. The others aren't "happy for him" and "sharing his success" -- it is its success -- the team's success -- to which he has contributed and in which all its members share.

That just isn't quite the same as what the poster being replied to was saying. Not the same thing at all, really. Not that I'm adopting what the other poster said, or disavowing it, or saying anything at all about it -- except that this "sports team" business isn't remotely relevant to it.

So one might hope, if someone were wanting to demolish what the previous poster said, that somebody could come up with a better illustration of an exception that makes the rule stated untrue.

I don't doubt that there are all sorts of exceptions ... but then the question would be whether it was all that worth while to try to disprove a statement of a rule that was pretty obviously hyperbole in the first place.

.

[FizzFuzz]

96. athletes and rape statistics

From The National College Women Sexual Victimization (NCWSV) study, a 1996 survey of 4,446 women sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice: Gang rapes on campus are most often perpetrated by men who participate in intensive male peer groups that foster rape-supportive behaviors and attitudes. One study of 24 alleged gang rapes found that in 22 of the 24 cases, the perpetrators were members of fraternities or intercollegiate athletics teams.5 Involvement in these types of groups may help some men quell doubts about the inappropriateness of their behavior, particularly when their team or fraternity holds prestige on campus.

book: Public Heroes, Private Felons: Athletes and Crimes Against Women
by Jeff Benedict:
from Library Journal review: Benedict, former research director, Center for the Study of Sport in Society, offers a controversial documentary chronicling recent cases of women sexually abused and battered by professional and college athletes. Assigned to collect data to refute the growing perception that athletes commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes against women, Benedict instead found evidence that male athletes actually are more likely to commit such crimes. The sudden status accorded an American sports hero, his inflated income, the protection provided by coaches and agents, and the adulation of groupies all help to insulate violent athletes, whom young men often emulate, ironically, as role models

our motto: "Why click Google when you can get everyone else to do it for you?"

[outinforce]

99. What Has This To Do With What I Posted?

I'm sorry, but I am having difficulty understanding the connection between what I posted -- an example of how men can celebrate the accomplishments of each other, and what you posted, which is that frat boys and college jocks. And about professional jocks as well.

I'm not sure what it is, exactly, that you are suggesting here. Perhaps it is that all male sports activities take place only on college campuses or within the context of professional sports.

That is most certainly not true.

And if you are trying to suggest that there is something about sports teams that have men on them that always gives rise to gang rapes and sexual abuse against women, then I'm afraid I do not think you have made your case.

I could just as easily say, I suppose, that because some maile film celebrities abuse their wives, that there is something inherent in the film industry that gives rise to males abusing women.

By the way, I so hope you don't mind me saying that I think that your motto is a bit odd. Speaking only for myself, I seldom ask others to click on google (or any other search engine, for that matter). I do expect, though, that if someone is going to post something as fact (as opposed to their own opinion) that they at least be prepared to back up their own assertion with a link ot two.

[Mandate My Ass]

30. Thanks for the reminder cally

The rise of the micro-finance movement over the last twenty years has been justifiably applauded as a tremendously important vehicle for allowing many women, traditionally denied access to affordable financial services, a means to realize more fully their income-generating capacity in order to step out of poverty. This is done through various models of business training, small loans, conditional grants, savings mobilization, market development and other services. Women tend to do better than men in investing earned profits in their children's nutrition, health and education.

In Rwanda and Guatemala where I travelled recently, women-headed households show more investment in home improvement than their male counterparts. Women tend to save more and spend primarily on their families rather than on themselves. Other benefits exist beyond the more obvious: many African women supported by Trickle Up state that they have more control over their choice of sexual partner when they are financially independent; thus, there may be a direct relationship between economic independence and stemming the spread of AIDS.

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2003/issue3/0303p77.asp

[cally]

42. Thanks for the links Iverglas and Monica_L

I had to actually work and did not get a chance to look.

I don't think I'm stereotyping. I was reporting the findings of the UN in this program. I actually do not believe that the findings apply in all cultures. Some, yes, but not all.

[pmbryant]

35. I think we should be careful of such stereotypes

They found that women would start a small business and then spend the money on their families and the community. Men tended to spend money on themselves.

I think we should guard against promoting stereotypes like these. This implies "men are selfish; women are not," and I'm not sure I see any evidence to support that, even as simply a general tendency.

For instance, even if this statement above were true, there is a big difference between "family" and "community". "Family" is an extension of self, and so I'm not sure there's a major distinction between spending on one's family and spending on one's self.

Also, we don't want to add to the backlash. If we're trying to win more men over to the side of supporting "feminism", then we should try to avoid negative characterizations, even if there's a grain of truth to them. :-)

Peter

[iverglas]

37. this is NOT a "stereotype"

It is a statement of fact based on experience.

This implies "men are selfish; women are not," and I'm not sure I see any evidence to support that, even as simply a general tendency.

No, it does NOT imply any such thing. No wonder you see no evidence to support it. No one has said it, so why would anyone offer evidence to support it?

The general tendency that is KNOWN is what men and women DO, **NOT** what they ARE.

There can be a gazillion reasons for the things people DO. I have seen no one here advancing any reasons at all, let alone the ones you suggest have been implied.

Even the very first statement -- that men tend to give their money to the king -- can be read as a positive statement about men in this context: giving money to the king can be essential for one's family's welfare. That's one possible motivation for giving one's money to the king, and the effectiveness of doing that, for achieving the goal of protecting one's family, and whether in any case that is the actual motivation, can be debated. The statement of fact in question does not convey a conclusion on any of those points.

For instance, even if this statement above were true, there is a big difference between "family" and "community". "Family" is an extension of self, and so I'm not sure there's a major distinction between spending on one's family and spending on one's self.

You know how tempting it is to say that only a man would say that? ;) Or perhaps only a USAmerican ...

Gimme a break. "Spending on one's family" means buying food and fuel, and paying for school fees and medical care. (Yes, in the developing world, most families have to pay fees for children to attend school and receive medical care.)

A healthy community is one in which people, especially children, are healthy: not starving, and not sick. A developed community is one in which individuals are literate and thus have the tools they need to participate effectively in the collective activities of the community.

I know that this sort of thing -- individual welfare as "infrastructure" for the community and the society -- is not a popular notion in the US. It is pretty generally accepted in the rest of the world.

Women tend to spend their money on basic welfare goods and services -- food, education, etc. -- for their families, thus enabling their families to contribute to the community/society. Not on Nintendos and happy meals, for cripes' sake.

Also, we don't want to add to the backlash. If we're trying to win more men over to the side of supporting "feminism", then we should try to avoid negative characterizations, even if there's a grain of truth to them.

And I'd say that we should very definitely avoid negatively characterizing people, and the things they say, by representing them as something other than what they are when there's no grain of truth to the representation. I can't think of what might better "add to the backlash" than portraying sincere presentations of fact by people concerned about the welfare of women and their families and communities as stereotyping.

If somebody wants to dispute the facts that have been presented about how women vs. men tend to spend extra income, s/he might want to do so. If somebody wants to present explanations for those facts, s/he might want to do so. If somebody wants to characterize those facts as a bad thing, s/he might want to do so.

Portraying that fact as a "stereotype" is not accurate or helpful.

.

[pmbryant]

44. Extremely little evidence for this 'fact' has been presented

All I see from your earlier post is the anecdotal experience of one organization in a few cities in Yemen. And even then it makes no direct comparison of the spending habits of men vs women. (Not to mention that the clients of this organization may not even be close to typical of residents of those cities in that country, much less the world as a whole.)

So yes, I feel this is a stereotype and not a 'fact'.

--Peter

[iverglas]

46. www.google.com

It's a pretty easy way of answering questions one might have about something. Not as easy as telling someone else s/he hasn't presented evidence and demanding she present it, but what the heck.

I've posted some more information for you. When will you have enough, do you think? Perhaps you can be more specific about what information you would like, and I'll see what I can find.

I suspect that unless we were to present a breakdown of how every individual in the world spends his/her income, we might not succeed in the task that is apparently ours.

I'm afraid there is probably very little I can do about how you "feel", but how you feel just doesn't have much bearing on how things are.

.

[pmbryant]

50. Please don't misrepresent my posts any more.

I have not demanded any information. A claim was made and some evidence was presented. I pointed out that that evidence was weak. If you disagree, you are free to make your case yourself. Asking me to make your case for you is a bit unconventional, to say the least.

--Peter

[iverglas]

57. I shall be eagerly looking forward

... to the instruction not to misrepresent other people's posts being given to others among us, some of whom have done precisely that in this precise thread. (Assuming that you, in some capacity, would object to the misrepresentation of other people's posts generally, and not just to the misrepresentation of your own. I certainly do.)

A claim was made and some evidence was presented. I pointed out that that evidence was weak.

Here is the sum total of the claim that was made:

Oppressing women is the most effective method of controlling society

ever devised. It has been employed throughout history, in every corner of the globe, and it is time-tested and true.

Literate women teach their children to read. A woman who controls her body is one step closer to economic empowerment, and women who are economically empowered are more likely to spend their earnings on things that will benefit their kids and their community than their brothers, who are more likely to spend their earnings on things that will benefit the king (usually weapons).

There has been a lot of interpreting of that statement going on that I haven't seen supported by a plausible analysis of it.

And there has been characterization of it that I have seen no sound basis presented for. Like I said, "feelings" aren't fact, or argument.

And there has in fact now been considerable evidence presented for the fact that women who are economically empowered are more likely than men to spend their earnings on things that will benefit their kids and communities.

In the studies that have been done, women had been immediately and significantly economically empowered by being lent money to use to create or expand a source of income. They are therefore good subjects for evaluating the accuracy of hypotheses about what women will do when they are economically empowered vs. what the situation was when they were economically powerless. The women in question were starting from incomes a fraction of their male counterparts'. When their incomes increased slightly, their spending on their families increased.

There are all sorts of factors that might be involved. Many of the women are sole-support mothers. Are there male "comparables"? Perhaps not. Some of the women's male partners are deceased. What of the others? What are they spending their (on average, several times higher) incomes on?

This is, indeed, a particular population we are studying. Would the generalization hold true in an economically much more developed society? Shall we compare spending by separated/divorced parents in the US?

What exactly is it that you think needs to be proved? And I'll ask again -- the question was quite sincere, and absolutely reasonable -- what is it that you would like to see evidence of for that purpose?

Asking me to make your case for you is a bit unconventional, to say the least.

Representing me as having asked you to make anyone's case for him/her is, well, unconventional isn't quite the word I'd use.

I expected that you genuinely wanted information and understanding. That's what I expect about people in a place like this. After all, you weren't saying that the statement that had been made was false ... were you?

I didn't ask you to make anyone's case. I said:

It's a pretty easy way of answering questions one might have about something.

I, personally, don't see that as "asking <you> to make <my> case for <me>". I see it as an invitation to acquire knowledge about and understanding of the issue under discussion, for the benefit of all participants, including myself. Who knows what I might learn from someone who did that?

If you dispute a statement, then of course you can demand substantiation for it. My own tendency is not to take someone's "feelings" about a statement as a serious dispute of it that requires the production of evidence and the time and effort that such production would take. Otherwise, I'd spend my time responding to people's "feeling" that the moon was made of green cheese. I do expect that if someone disputes a statement, s/he will offer some basis for the dispute -- not conclusive fact/argument against it, but some tiny indication that there is actually a basis for disputing it.

Calling the statement names is *not* disputing it.

.

[prolesunited]

53. I think you've missed Peter's point

and this whole thread seems to be getting sidetracked.

If I read what he originally stated correctly, broad stereotypes can be dangerous. Also, if men feel the under "attack," particularly ones who are willing to join us in this struggle, they will be less willing to listen, understand and work with us toward shared goals.

Peter's really not the enemy here. He's on our side.

[iverglas]

61. "stereotypes"

stereotype
1. a person or thing that conforms to an unjustifiably fixed, usu. standardized, mental picture
2. such an impression or attitude

A statement that African-Americans tend to have darker skin than European-Americans IS NOT a stereotype. The portrayal of African-Americans is indeed a "fixed, standardized, mental picture" -- but that picture is not unjustifiably fixed or standardized. It is a generalization based on verifiable fact.

A statement that men tend to be nicer than women IS a stereotype. It an unjustified generalization. It is not based on verifiable fact, and in fact is to large extent a matter of opinion.

If I read what he originally stated correctly, broad stereotypes can be dangerous.

Indeed they can. What he incorrectly stated, in my ever so humble opinion based on the available evidence, was that the statement made was a stereotype. What was said was NOT "an unjustifiably fixed, standardized mental picture" -- it was a generalization based on fact, and completely devoid of anything but fact. If someone chooses to interpret the behaviours that the generalization accurately ascribes to men and women as "good" or "bad", that's entirely his/her prerogative, and his/her own problem.

Also, if men feel the under "attack," particularly ones who are willing to join us in this struggle, they will be less willing to listen, understand and work with us toward shared goals.

And as I've said, no one is responsible for, or can control, how anyone else "feels". How anyone feels is his/her choice. If someone chose to listen first and then feel, I'd find that gratifying and somewhat novel.

If someone feels threatened by an accurate generalization of fact, I can't help it. If someone takes an accurate generalization of fact as a statement of opinion about that fact, I can't help it. If someone chooses to represent an accurate generalization of fact as a statement that was not made, I can't help it. (And note that I am *not* referring to any particular individual(s) here, just as your statement that I am responding to did not.)

Surely to dog it is worth knowing facts. If it is a fact that women have a stronger tendency to spend additional income on family in a way that benefits community, why the hell would we not want to know this? The FACT does not mean "let's hate men", or "let's take men's money away", or "let's set up all-women communities". We might decide that our choices about how to target aid money might reasonably be targeted at poor women -- and since women are already the poorest of the poor, and their families and communities do suffer as a result, what the hell is wrong with that??

But we don't HAVE to decide that. We can just look at the fact, say "huh, imagine that", and move along. Nobody has to get all defensive about facts, after all.

.

[iverglas]

63. facts

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/amerfath/chapter2.html

In 1989, about two-thirds of ever-divorced mothers were granted child support awards requiring nonresident fathers to pay child support (Bureau of the Census, 1991). Among poor divorced mothers, the proportion is smaller--just 43 percent. Only 24 percent of unmarried mothers are granted child support awards (Committee on Ways and Means, 1992). Of the divorced fathers, one-half do not pay the full amount of the award, and one-quarter of them never pay anything. As a consequence, about one-half of divorced mothers receive no formal child support payments from nonresident fathers (Seltzer, 1993). Comparable statistics for unmarried fathers are not available.

Child support awards tend to be low: they typically represent only about 19 percent of the total income of a single mother's household. The average annual payment to those who receive support is about $3,000 (Bureau of the Census, 1993). Of divorced fathers who do not have court-ordered child support payments, estimates are that one-quarter of them make informal contributions to their children. The median annual amount of these informal contributions is about $1,200 (J. A. Seltzer, unpublished data). The average annual payment to poor mothers is less than $1,900 (Bureau of the Census, 1993).

Average child support payments are 19% of a single mother's household. We wouldn't want to put too fine a point on the point, but women earn, on average, just over 3/4 of what men earn in the US.

It surely does seem that these women tend to spend more of their income on their families than their former partners do. Unless the women are only matching that 19% with another 19% of their own, leaving over 60% that they're spending on themselves ...

... or giving to the king. Which is, of course, what the original statement in this whole stupid non-argument was. NOT that men are selfish beasts who spend their incomes on themselves, but that

women who are economically empowered are more likely to spend their earnings on things that will benefit their kids and their community than their brothers, who are more likely to spend their earnings on things that will benefit the king (usually weapons).

One might indeed fast-forward that statement to the present and suggest that men are more likely to spend their earnings on things that will benefit the corporate controllers of the society by earning them profits, like expensive consumer goods and all sorts of other things that are not necessary for their families' welfare.

And then one might offer all sorts of explanations for this -- like the fact that men are socialized and subjected to all sorts of pressure to be good cogs in the wheel of corporate capitalism, as both workers and consumers. Perhaps, given choices, women would do the same. Women don't have the same level of disposable income, and women more often have primary or sole responsibility for their families, and so they don't have the same choices. And so once again, the facts are just the facts. And once again, if we really want to improve individuals' health and welfare, and develop their communities and society, enhancing women's economic power is probably a good idea, as long as women have less economic power than men, which so far is the situation everywhere in the world.

Some day, maybe we'll have an "all other things being equal" situation in which we can compare women's and men's behaviour -- women will have all the opportunities men have, will have equal earning power, and will be primary- or sole-support parents only half the time. And then we could consider looking at which sex tends to spend more on family than on enriching the society's controllers.

We could do that, IF we were trying to figure out which sex was naughtier and which was nicer, but as far as I can tell that was never the subject of this branch of the discussion.

The subject was the reasons why women's control over their lives and bodies was a favourite target for the right wing -- and the reason advanced was that this was one of the most effective ways for those who hold power over the society to maintain that power, at the expense of the people they govern.

And I am just damned if I can figure out why anyone would either dispute the truth of or question the motivation for that statement.

.

[cally]

51. Another link

The entire paper is interesting, but here's the relevant paragraph:

Although microlenders do face several problems, such as lack or inability of guarantors to back up borrowers and a general need for more capital in order to satisfy increasing demands, females seem to actually have greater access to microloans than men. Females make up the overwhelming majority of microborrowers assisted by organizations like Grameen Bank (http://www.rdc.com.au/grameen/home.html). According to The Economist, microlenders prefer lending to women because they are likely to use additional income to feed and clothe their children, thus improving community well-being, whereas men are more prone to use the money for entertainment or alcohol ("Africa's Women Go to Work," 2001).

http://www.celcee.edu/publications/digest/Dig01-04.html

[pmbryant]

52. Thanks cally

No hard evidence there, unfortunately. Perhaps this is true in certain places and amongst certain groups, but extrapolating a general trend from anecdotal evidence focusing exclusively on people in poverty is dangerous, I think.

--Peter

[cally]

56. Maybe

If I was designing a lending program like this, I would certainly look at the culture and this information. Some cultures this would not be true, but in others it is.

[pmbryant]

59. A scenario that could explain the anecdotal evidence

Here's my hypothesis that could explain this anecdotal evidence even with no distinction at all in how responsibly men and women spend money to better their communities.

Say, of a population, 95% of both men and women are responsible with their money (by the definition above); and 5% fritter it away on entertainment, alcohol, etc.

To oversimplify (but not so much as to ruin the scenario, I assert), let's assume that being irresponsible with money condemns one to poverty automatically. But, of course, being responsible with money does not guarantee avoiding poverty.

In the society we are considering, women are second-class citizens and are not fully welcomed, or even shunned from, the public sphere. Say half of all women are thus in poverty. Of the women in poverty, then, 90% will be "responsible".

In this society, men are the rulers, they make a lot more money than women, and so much fewer men than women are in poverty. Say 20% of the men are in poverty. Of the population of men in poverty, then, only 75% will be "responsible".

So an organization that goes looking for those in poverty to lend money to will find women to be a much safer bet. (Only a 10% default rate, rather than 25%.)

I suspect a dynamic much like this (with different percentages, of course, as mine are just for argument purposes) could explain what these microlending organizations are describing in the reports that have been posted here.

--Peter

[cally]

65. A few more links:

This is not just anecdotal evidence, but accepted practice for those involve in microloans.



Investing in women and enabling them to choose a better life for their families is a sure way to contribute to a region's economic growth and stability. As Kofi Annan, secretary general of the United Nations notes: "Study after study has shown that there is no effective development strategy in which women do not play a central role. When women are fully involved, the benefits can be seen immediately: families are healthier; they are better fed; their income, savings and reinvestment go up. And what is true of families is true of communities and, eventually, of whole countries."

http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/appeals.nsf/stable/wilfund_medi...


And another link I found through AID

There are good reasons to target women. Gender equality turns out to be good for everybody. The World Bank reports that societies that discriminate on the basis of gender have greater poverty, slower economic growth, weaker governance, and a lower standard of living. Women are poorer and more disadvantaged than men. UNDP’s oft-quoted 1995 Human Development Report found that 70% of the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1 a day are women. Studies in Latin America, and elsewhere, show that men typically contribute 50 to 68% of their salaries to the collective household fund, whereas women “tend to keep nothing back for themselves.” Because “women contribute decisively to the well-being of their families,” investing in women brings about a multiplier effect. Finally, every microfinance institution has stories of women who not only are better off economically as a result of access to financial services, but who are empowered as well. Simply getting cash into the hands of women (by way of working capital) can lead to increased self-esteem, control and empowerment by helping them achieve greater economic independence and security, which in turn gives them the chance to contribute financially to their households and communities.

Yet while cash-in-hand can have these impacts, it doesn’t always. Empowerment is about change, choice and power. It is a process of change by which individuals and groups with little or no power gain the power and ability to make choices that affect their lives. The ability of a woman to transform her life through access to financial services depends on many factors—some of them linked to her individual situation and abilities, and others dependent upon her environment and the status of women as a group. Microfinance programs can have tremendous impact on the empowerment process if their products and services take these circumstances into account.

While many microfinance institutions seek to empower women as an implicit or explicit goal, others believe they cannot afford to focus on empowerment because it is incompatible with financial sustainability or because it detracts from the core business of providing financial services. We recognize that there are trade-offs when providing a range of services. Yet our research also shows ample evidence of efficient, sustainable microfinance institutions whose programs are intentionally empowering. In some cases, it is through a commitment to excellent customer service, including people at all levels of the organization treating clients with respect. In other cases, “soft” services such as health education, literacy training or business training can be packaged with financial services in a way that creates “economies of scope” and powerful synergies, and can even help reduce client exit and arrears. It is worth looking at several institutions that are both focused on empowerment and are financially self-sufficient, such as Working Women’s Forum (WWF) in India, which organizes women to achieve better wages and working conditions; ADOPEM in the Dominican Republic, which provides business training and training on democratic processes and civil society; and OMB in the Philippines, whose commitment to holistic transformation includes leadership training, personal development, and business training.

For this paper we surveyed 60 microfinance institutions and Opportunity International’s 42 partners, as well as doing in-depth research with our partner
http://www.microcreditsummit.org/papers/+5cheston_kuhn.doc

[pmbryant]

71. I still think this is likely due to a selection bias

Thanks for the links. I have no doubt that this is indeed accepted practice. The scenario I described would justify focusing attention on women even if there were no difference between spending patterns of men and women as a whole. All that is required is that women be disproportionally affected by poverty than men.

(I'm kind of proud of the scenario I laid out above, so if anyone thinks it is invalid or mistaken in some way, please let me know. :-) )

I'm just trying to dispel unneccessary stereotypes, not argue against this policy for the microlending institutions of focusing on women.

Studies in Latin America, and elsewhere, show that men typically contribute 50 to 68% of their salaries to the collective household fund, whereas women “tend to keep nothing back for themselves.”

I looked for the report that conducted this study on the web, but only found the abstract, so it's hard to comment. But since men (presumably) make significantly more money than women in these locations, could this difference be due merely to the availability of discretionary income for (richer) men, but not for (poorer) women?

--Peter

[iverglas]

76. you could always try

... reading and addressing the facts and analysis I offered in my post "facts". I mean, if you ask for them, shouldn't you acknowledge them?

Especially if you're going to keep representing someone's statement about an observed tendency -- which is observed in a situation in which all other facts are not equal and which is a valid statement about that situation, that situation being whatcha might call "reality" -- as a "stereotype".

Lemme ask you. If someone said that women had a greater tendency than men to spend their money on lipstick, would you call that a "stereotype"?

Would you infer, and state, that the person who made the statement was expressing a bias against women?

Or might you just take it as a simple and accurate statement of fact?

What investment could anyone possibly have in representing a statement of fact about how men and women spend their money as a "stereotype" when it is demonstrably true? The REASONS WHY it is true have nothing to do with its truth. The reasons why women have a greater tendency than men to spend their money on lipstick has nothing to do with the truth of that statement, right?

The statement about how women and men tend to spend their money was made to explain why the right wing attempts to control women's reproductive choices. It was NOT made to support a claim that women are nice and men are nasty.

Why can't you seem to get past this apparent misunderstanding?

premise: Women who cannot make their own reproductive choices can never have economic power equal to men's in their societies.

premise: When women improve their economic power, they spend their money on things that are disadvantageous to the ruling classes, like producing healthy, educated children.

premise: Men tend to spend their money on things that are more advantageous to the ruling classes.

conclusion: It is therefore entirely rational for the ruling classes to try to control women's reproductive choices.

I give up. Can you think of other, better explanations for why the ruling classes try to control women's reproductive choices? If you can't, is it possible that the obvious explanation -- that women who can make their own reproductive choices improve their economic power and use it against the interests of the ruling classes more often than men do -- might just be correct?

CERTAINLY women may tend to do that more than men precisely because women are more often responsible for child-rearing when a family has only one parent/earner (because vastly more women than men are that parent/earner).

CERTAINLY women may tend to do that more than men precisely because their families are in so much greater need as a result of being headed by a woman (because women are vastly poorer than men).

Those are OBVIOUSLY REASONS why the different spending tendencies exist. Nobody is denying that. They are NOT a negation of the different spending tendencies. NOBODY claimed that women and men spend differently because men and women are inherently different!!! or because women are more selfless and virtuous than men. Women may well have to spend their money on their families, because they are solely responsible for them and because their families are so poor, and they might well prefer to be out spending it on booze and fast cars. Nobody's saying otherwise. You are simply continuing to dispute a point that was never advanced in the first place.

I would never say "but men are socialized not to wear lipstick" as a rebuttal of the statement that women have a greater tendency to spend their money on lipstick than men do. That would be really silly.

.

[DuctapeFatwa]

38. LOL I don't think it is because men are selfish. What happens in war?

the men go off to fight. The women are left caring for the children.

Damn right they spend money on their kids and community, because even if their man survives, and survives intact, for the time he is gone the kids get hungry.

War fades into war and the kids grow. They need schools. They need a road to get to the school. A printing press to print books. And so on.

Before you know it, you've got a village full of educated kids who are against the king, and when daddy comes hopping home on his remaining leg and the king calls the oldest son, oldest son is quite likely to tell the king to put it where the sun don't shine.

Which could have been avoided very simply by not letting the mom learn to read or earn money in the first place.

[sweetheart]

48. The War on Women is not talked about enough

The hatred of feminism is the core psychosis of the republican fuckers.

They hate their own mothers, daughters and the feeling of being
out of control during sex... they hate feeling that they are not
in absolute control of the reproductive adgenda of the woman they're
fucking. Its a form of bondage.

These republican perverts should go fuck each other. Wouldn't it be
a riot, if god switched the controls for a week, and half the
republican men in congress got pregnant. I wonder how long they'd
be against abortion as their political careers were suddenly called
in to question. Bush probably would not get pregnant, as he's
really gay, and he fucks the male interns at the WH. He hates
condoms, cuz he hopes to catch AIDS and pass it on to his hoe.

Fuck republicans, fuck'em... this issue gets me hot!

[NicoleM]

6. this stuff pisses me off

I live in the Fargo, ND, region. One of the two hospitals in town is being purchased by Catholic Health Initiatives. Once the purchase is complete, they will no longer be providing "reproductive services"--no tubals or vasectomies, no prescription BC. They didn't mention this on the news last night, but I would be willing to bet large sums of money that they won't be offering the MAP to rape victims either. If you're raped and you happen to be taken to/go to one hospital, you are advised of all your options. But if you go to the other one, you're only advised of the options they want you to know about. That makes me very angry. I would love for somebody to explain to me how or why they have the right to do that.

[iverglas]

10. privatized medicine

I would love for somebody to explain to me how
or why they have the right to do that.

'Cause they own the hospitals. The hospital is a private enterprise, and it can do whatever it bloody well wants.

And the insurance companies or HMOs that a woman is covered by can contract with whatever hospitals they want -- with the result, as more and more non-denominational hospitals in the US "merge" with RC hospitals and become governed by those hospitals' owners, that more and more women are being denied access to reproductive health services.

Unfortunately, we have a bit of this problem in Canada. All new hospitals must be publicly operated, but there are a few hospitals still around that were grandfathered when the universal health plan was implemented, and that are either private or private-religious. Those religious hospitals, too, do not provide reproductive health services.

In a big city like Toronto, this isn't a problem; lots of hospitals, and no one is restricted (by insurance coverage, e.g.) in her choice of hospitals; we can all just go to whatever hospital is convenient for emergency services.

But in a couple of small towns in Ontario, it became a problem when the right-wing Tory government started closing hospitals a decade ago. In Pembroke, for instance, a city of maybe 30,000 that previously had both a public and an RC hospital, the public hospital was inexplicably the one shut down. Of course the local doctors have admitting privileges at hospitals in a large city 90 minutes away, so no surgical services are actually unavailable, they are available only at extra expense and inconvenience; and emergency contraception, as far as I know, is not available.

Here's a 2000 article from Mother Jones on the problem in the US:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/06/hospitals.html

UPDATE: In response to pressure originating from the California Medical Association's concern over the Gilroy case outlined below, the AMA passed a compromise resolution on June 15, calling for preservation of services while simultaneously affirming that doctors and hospitals shouldn't be forced to violate religious or moral principles. That statement marks the first stand the organization has taken on the question of religious hospital mergers.

Merger Watch is also worth visiting:
http://www.mergerwatch.org/

Across the United States, hospital executives are negotiating away their patients' access to reproductive health care in order to complete mergers with religious institutions. In some communities, consumers have lost ready access to all or some of these services: tubal ligations, vasectomies, abortions, contraception, emergency contraception, condom distribution, in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. Also threatened are patients' ability to make end-of-life care choices that are disapproved by church doctrine.

MergerWatch monitors the threats to reproductive health care from mergers and other health care industry transactions through which restrictive religious rules are imposed on previously secular health care providers and services are banned.

We study religious/secular hospital affiliations, the purchase of doctors' practices and clinics by religious affiliated hospitals and the growing power of religiously-sponsored managed care plans.

.

[LeahMira]

16. You'll have two hospitals...

Generally when there is a Catholic takeover there will be an independent clinic of some sort established as a women's health care clinic so that these services are available. You say that there are two hospitals in your city, so it sounds like you're covered, but I believe there are laws or policies that work to prevent a monopoly such as the Catholic hospital, if it were the only hospital available, would have. Reproductive services have to be available in the same way as heart care or cancer care services, for example. Of course the Catholics won't tell you about the women's health care clinics, but they should be out there.

[pansypoo53219]

7. if you see a W stands for woman bumpersticker

follow them and when they stop, be sure to explain to them that it surely doesn't. that, or give them the bird.

[iverglas]

8. the morning after pill as "abortifacient"

The intended purpose of the morning-after pill -- and the way it is KNOWN to work -- is to prevent release of an egg from the ovaries. Exactly the same as the intended purpose of The Pill, and the way it is known to work.

If a woman has had unprotected sex, sperm in her body will be viable for a period of time after intercourse. If an egg has not yet been released, taking the pill can prevent it from being released. No egg, no fertilization, no pregnancy.

It is also THEORIZED that The Pill, and hence the morning-after pill, can have an alternative effect. That is: to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterus. The pill makes the lining of the uterus "hostile" to implantation; changes its characteristics so that implantation is more difficult.

Although it seems common for advocates of reproductive choice to "admit" that this is an effect of these pills, I have never seen evidence that they actually perform this way. Their intended purpose, and the way they are known to perform, and the reason they are prescribed, is still to prevent release of an ovum.

Is it reasonable to deny access to a medication that is prescribed and taken for a precise purpose because of a hypothetical other effect it may have? Not by me, it isn't. And I can't think of any other medication that would be restricted for that reason.

Although, if the anti-choicers got their way, I can think of a whole lot of things that women could be prevented from doing, not just taking medications, because the effect of those things could be to terminate their pregnancies. Denying access to the morning-after pill on that ground seems like a very dangerous precedent to me. Of course, they won't say that this is their objection (they'll rely on "women's health" concerns) -- and even if they did, it wouldn't be a sufficient objection ... legally; politically, who knows ...

Even if an ovum were released and fertilized, if it has not implanted there is no pregnancy. Pregnancy begins at implantation, not fertilization. Failure to implant is quite common, pill or no pill.

If someone objects to the morning-after pill on the ground that it (hypothetically) prevents implantation, s/he MUST object to The Pill, and presumably any hormonal contraception -- and to IUDs, based on what is understood of how they work -- on the same basis.

And surprise surprise -- they mostly do object. They just don't make quite as much noise about it, because a lot more women would be likely to get up in arms about a threat to their everyday contraception than they would to a denial of easy access to morning-after pills.

(Now, as to why they aren't objecting just as loudly to in vitro fertilization ... who knows, eh?)

There are some legitimate concerns about over-the-counter dispensing. There are risks associated with hormonal contraception that are higher for some women than others, and that in fact contra-indicate it rather strongly for some women. These are the things that doctors investigate before prescribing. Pharmacists can also do some of that investigation, and in fact may, in exercising their professional ethics, refuse to dispense a medication they believe is dangerous to the patient. That kind of investigation by a pharmacist in a retail drug store might feel a little intrusive, but it is in the patient's best interests.

It's a matter of weighing risks and potential benefits. The effectiveness of the morning-after pill decreases hour by hour from the time of intercourse. A woman who had unprotected intercourse in the night or evening -- and let's not forget that many women, particularly young women, do this under considerable pressure -- would have access to this method of trying to avoid pregnancy immediately, without having to wait to see a physician some time the next day, 12 or more hours after intercourse. The reasonable expectation is that many more women would be able to prevent pregnancy, since many more would take the pill before the time when the probability of its being effective had not fallen off.

Pregnancy, of course, carries lots of risks with it as well -- and there is considerable overlap between women at risk from pregnancy and women at risk from hormonal contraception, I'd think. (E.g. the risk of stroke for women with hypertension.) And, since abortion involves surgery, it too has risks.

So once again, this is about choice -- a woman being able to choose which set of risks she wishes to assume. Nothing in life is without risk. A woman who has had unprotected intercourse is already facing the risk of pregnancy. She doesn't have a "no risk" option.

She did take a risk -- unprotected intercourse, for whatever reasons it occurred -- but that can't be undone. Preventing her from choosing the option she prefers, in terms of what risks she now wishes to assume, for whatever reasons she has, is simply punitive.

Of course, it's also meant to do what many other forms of punishment, like criminal sentences, are meant to do -- deter other people from engaging in the behaviour in question. Make it known to *all* women that they won't be able to just sail into the local drug store and pick up the means they need to fix the problem they created for themselves. They made their bed, and all that. Choice is not for them now.

Quelle surprise.

[Nikia]

12. Health issues were my main concern when origanially heard of this

I took emergency contraception once and had some not so pleasnat side effects and was concerned that they would be making this available over the counter. I have been told though that the specific medication is safer than what I was given (an overdose of birth control pills). Like all OTC drugs though, it would have warning and side effect information on it. There are common OTC drugs which also can have nasty, even life threatening side effects.
Being able to get to a doctor soon after unprotected intercourse can be a problem, which makes it impractical in some instances. My doctor and all those covered by my HMO do not see patients on the weekends, which is probably when many women do end up having unplanned sex. It may also be inconvient the next morning to take off work or school to see a doctor and pay a fee, espcially if they are not insured.

[outinforce]

11. I Checked WIth My Health Insurance Carrier

and I was told that Viagra was not covered.

Why does this charge continue to crop up?

[Mandate My Ass]

14. So sorry to hear about your problem

I hope that clears up real soon. :)

[outinforce]

15. What A Demeaning Post!

For your information, Monica_L, I have no "problem" that needs to clear up.

You may have thought you were simply making a joke, but let me assure you, your comment was demeaning and not welcome.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pmbryant]

24. Perhaps..

there are some companies that do cover viagra and not oral contraception.

:shrug:

It would be nice to have an up-to-date list of these companies (or simply the ones that do not cover oral contraception, leaving viagra out of the mix entirely) so we could go to work on pressuring them to change their policies.

Does anyone know if someone or some group has compiled such a list?

Thanks,
Peter

[noiretextatique]

68. if you check out the second article

this quote speaks to your question:
"According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 33 million American women are in need of contraceptive services and supplies, yet most women using birth control pay for it themselves. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) notes that two-thirds of U.S. women of childbearing age rely on private, employer-related plans for their health coverage. While 90% of these health plans cover prescription drugs and devices, a large majority exclude prescription contraceptives from coverage. Only 33 percent of large group health plans cover the birth control pill. Other contraceptive methods are even less financially accessible. Is it any wonder that women of childbearing age pay 68% more in out-of-pocket medical expenses than their male counterparts?"

it doesn't mention specific insurers, but our clever friend outinforce also failed to mention if his insurer covers birth control.

[pmbryant]

74. Thanks for pointing that out

Perhaps those of us fortunate to have health insurance can do the research ourselves and post here whether our insurer covers prescription contraceptives or not.

Then we can team up on those that do not. :evilgrin:

--Peter

[noiretextatique]

67. did you even read the article?

there is quite a bit of information in there that you can use to research this issue for yourself. or if you prefer, you can keep your head in the sand.

[oldcoot]

70. My parents' insurance carrier stopped covering Viagra

Why? The company stopped covering Viagra because the company was told that it would have to cover birth control pills if it covered Viagra. The management of this company was so opposed to covering birth control pills that they decided to drop Viagra.

Frankly, I cannot understand why any insurance carrier would oppose covering birth control pills or any other form of contraception. It is certainly cheaper to provide a woman with birth control pills than it is to cover her prenatal care and her kid's medical needs.

[noiretextatique]

72. maybe this compnay is also oif's insurance carrier also

since he failed to mention if his carrier covers birth control.

[supernova]

17. Because women are bad and need to be controlled

It was all Eve's fault!

Women are not inherently capable of making decisions and should not be placed in that position in the first place. Better to stay home and make babies, what they were made for. Women were much better off when they were their husbands' chattel.

</scarcasm>

*sigh* I don't know where to start or what makes me madder: That it's still, STILL an assumption that women don't have decision-making capabilities in their own right about something so basic as whether to get pregnant or not; or that some women assist in promoting that idiotic and dangerous meme; or that there are still, STILL some men who think it is their God-given right to poke it anywhere and whenever they see fit without thought, without consequence to them personally.

I think the insurance discrepancy will work its way out eventually because the sheer numbers of women in the workforce will demand coverage for BC. I've had the great good fortune to have worked in places where the insurance covered BC. I know others don't have that luxury. If you work for some offshoot of Catholic charities, then you, female staffer, have a different problem. Private charities that promote a specific worldview don't have to play nice EEOC standards.

OTOH, it does my heart good to realize that most men on DU (in the Lounge, specifically) said they would take the male pill when/if it becomes available.

There's as much work to do now as there was when Margaret Sanger was alive. Against this backdrop, burning bras is trivial.

[alarimer]

54. There is coverage for many

but with the rising copayments, it is like having no coverage at all. While my insurance does cover birth control pills, the copayments for non-generics are up to $25 a month, so for 3 months worth I pay $75 while the insurance covers $16. It would be better if more of these drugs were generic, instead of name-brand. As far as I know, few birth control pills are generic. Most are costly, name-brand medications. I have no idea how long the patents last on these so maybe more will become available as generics soon.

[pmbryant]

79. California Supreme Court ruled on this a few days ago

I've had the great good fortune to have worked in places where the insurance covered BC. I know others don't have that luxury. If you work for some offshoot of Catholic charities, then you, female staffer, have a different problem. Private charities that promote a specific worldview don't have to play nice EEOC standards.

Interestingly, the California Supreme Court ruled very recently (a few days ago) that a Catholic charity must cover birth control.

Here's an LA Times article from Tuesday:

Catholic Group Must Cover Birth Control

In a case watched nationwide, state high court says a religious charity must include contraceptives in its employee drug plan.

By Maura Dolan
Times Staff Writer
March 2, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO — Catholic Charities must include contraceptives in its employee prescription drug coverage, even though the church believes birth control is sinful, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 6-1 ruling came in a case that has been watched around the country as a contest between advocates of making contraceptives widely available to women and religious groups that have sought broad exemptions based on their faiths.

California is one of 20 states that require employers offering prescription drug benefits to also provide coverage for contraceptives. The state's law requiring coverage, passed in 1999, exempts churches. Catholic Charities argued that as an arm of the Roman Catholic Church, it should be exempt as well. The justices rejected that claim in a ruling that is expected to affect other religious employers, including hospitals and colleges, and influence courts in other states.

The law does not affect "internal church governance" Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the majority. Rather, it affects "a nonprofit public benefit corporation and its employees, many of whom do not belong to the Catholic Church."

Justice Janice Rogers Brown was the sole dissenter, arguing that California's law defined religious employers too narrowly. The law exempts religious employers only if they primarily employ and serve people of their own faith and try to inculcate religious values.

(snip)

[skippysmom]

19. More proof that the pro-life movement

isn't very pro-life. If they were serious about preventing unwanted pregnancies and subsequent abortions, they'd be advocating for safer, more accessible birth control. Instead, they're ranting and raving about the MAP.

Because God forbid a woman may take control of if and/or when she becomes a mother!

(p.s. thanks, prolesunited, for bringing up these important issues)

[prolesunited]

39. According to the article I read

it is estimated that it already prevents 51,000 abortions a year. Think how many more it would prevent if it were more readily available and women were more aware of its availability.

It's not about abortion. It's about controlling our sexuality. In fact, look at some of the dystopian novels that have been written and you'll get the idea of a woman's place in the world that they want to inhabit. In Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, the fertile women were "breeders" that were passed from one household to another.

In Orwell's 1984, look how tightly sex and relationships were controlled. Take a look at this passage:

The aim of the Party was not merely to prevent men and women from forming loyalties which it might not be able to control. Its real, undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act. Not love so much as eroticism was the enemy, inside marriage as well as outside it. All marriages between Party members had to be approved by a committee appointed for the purpose, and -- though the principle was never clearly stated -- permission was always refused if the couple concerned gave the impression of being physically attracted to one another. The only recognized purpose of marriage was to beget children for the service of the Party. Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema. This again was never put into plain words, but in an indirect way it was rubbed into every Party member from childhood onwards. There were even organizations such as the Junior Anti-Sex League, which advocated complete celibacy for both sexes. All children were to be begotten by artificial insemination (artsem, it was called in Newspeak) and brought up in public institutions. This, Winston was aware, was not meant altogether seriously, but somehow it fitted in with the general ideology of the Party. The Party was trying to kill the sex instinct, or, if it could not be killed, then to distort it and dirty it. He did not know why this was so, but it seemed natural that it should be so. And as far as the women were concerned, the Party's efforts were largely successful.

http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/1984/6?term=sex

[pmbryant]

22. Do you have a link about the 'emergency contraception' story?

I've not heard of that and would like to read more about it.

I really know very little about these issues overall. Concerning what health insurance covers and does not cover, that seems to be an issue to take directly to the companies involved. Alas, that is not really a public policy issue until we get universal health care in this country. :-(

--Peter

EDIT: Never mind. I did a google search and found that 'emergency contraception' is the same thing as the 'morning-after pill', which I have heard of.

Here's a link to news stories about this issue: http://ec.princeton.edu/news/index.html

[Nobody]

29. Not only is emergency contraception being less available

But my state has this also: The Super Gag Rule. This is intended to prevent doctors from even mentioning that abortion is an option. If you want state funds - and most clinics need them to keep open - you have to adhere to the governor's agenda.

http://www.prochoiceminnesota.org/s06factsheets/200311102.shtml

The point of emergency contraception is just that: It's an emergency. No one ever plans on being raped. You might not have planned for that condom to break. And what if you discover after the fact that your diaphragm has a crack in it?

To hear the most rabid foamers at the mouth talk about it, one would assume that no woman is responsible, and that all women will have sex with anyone at any time with no protection, and that all women would abort if given half a chance.

First, women ARE VERY MUCH responsible human beings. We are not perfect. We try to plan but plans are not always adhered to. Same as with men. Can all men guarantee that they NEVER EVER have sex without planning ahead? Of course not. Men are human, just as women are human. In the case of teens, abstinence is ideal, but a Plan B needs to exist.

Second: Women are a lot more judicial than characters in Hollywood movies about who they will have sex with. It is a felony to force anyone, man or woman, to have sex, this is what rape is. It exists and far too many victims are demonized while the rapist walks away. Even if a virgin has sex for the very first time with her fiancee, a pregnancy can occur, even though it is the first time. I have heard the myth that the first time never causes pregnancy. WRONG. And birth control methods do have failure rates greater than zero. A backup plan is needed.

Third: If a woman is pregnant, the vast majority are thrilled. But those of us who are not thrilled deserve to make these very life-changing decisions for ourselves and in a timely manner.

You can be assured that due to the amount of discussion abortion, contraception, and similar issues, it is unlikely that a woman HASN'T already given this issue serious thought.

Imagine that: A woman giving something serious thought and making an informed decision. How frightening that is for those with the foamiest mouths. This is why they do everything they can to make sure that information isn't there so the woman CAN'T make an informed decision.

[prolesunited]

33. Well, in their minds (fundies, not men in general)

Us wimmen folk shouldn't be worryin' our pretty little heads over such matters. :eyes:

Our bodies, our lives, our decisions.

Can you imagine if women were suddenly in control and we started to regulate and control their sexual behavior?

[Nobody]

43. You got it!

There are many arguments dating back to the 1800s before women were allowed to own property in England, before women had the right to vote in many countries, the main argument against was always a variation on women's ignorance.

They opposed women's education on the grounds that it would dry up her uterus and make her sterile.

They opposed allowing women to vote on the grounds that women were ignorant. These are the same people opposing education for women. Nice closed circle here, isn't it.

That circle is reappearing today in the form of various gag rules. The foaming at the mouth rabid right says: We won't give you information on contraception. You must remain abstinent. We will still scorn you and spit on your reputation if you ever get raped, since we all know "nice girls don't get raped". We will not let you know of the various options that are out there, so when you seek a back alley abortion, we'll just sit back and say tsk tsk while you bleed to death.

In order to make any informed decision, ALL of the information has to be available AND it has to be accurate information.

I am embarrassed by the MN Health and Human Services information. They bypassed the AMA and put out a bunch of propaganda to be handed any woman considering abortion. She has to read this and come back in 24 hours.

This is insulting. It assumes that the vast majority of women HAVEN'T given this a lot of serious thought having discovered that they are pregnant. Some women haven't, we're not perfect, but to assume that all women need to be patronized and propagandized is very demeaning.

[cally]

31. Over the counter

emergency contraception is desperately needed. If you are against abortions, then this is the best way to reduce the need for abortions. It also protects women's health because most of heard of the home remedies. I would much prefer the safer alternatives.

I think much of this debate over abortion and birth control is men uncomfortable with women's sexuality. Many still don't accept that women are sexual and want to repress them. Look at the church teachings that sex should only be for procreation. For many years, it was OK for men to have affairs but not women. Women are sluts if thy have multiple partners but men are studs. It's insane.

[Sabriel]

40. And while they're at it...

...how about some chemical contraception for men? Why is it that only women have to take hormones to suppress/regulate their reproduction? My partner is not willing to take the final (vasectomy) step, but he's all in favor of taking a pill or getting a shot that would influence sperm production or viability.

[veganwitch]

55. actually they are working on one...

ill have to find the story but they are already doing clinical trials.

edit: her'go

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...h_schering_dc_2
FRANKFURT (Reuters) - German drugmaker Schering AG said Wednesday it and Dutch firm Organon had started mid-stage trials on a contraceptive injection for men that could be the next step toward the elusive "male pill."

Schering said trials of the drug, which is a combination of an implant and an injection, would be conducted on 350 men at 14 centers across Europe, and would be completed by December 2005.

Analysts said Schering and Organon, the drugs unit of Akzo Nobel, needed to counter global attitudes toward contraception, still seen largely as the responsibility of women.

A spokesman for Berlin-headquartered Schering, the world's top producer of hormone drugs by volume, said it was too early to estimate peak sales for the drug, but that first results of the trial should be available in early 2006.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/954083.asp?

For the first time, a safe, effective and reversible hormonal male contraceptive appears to be within reach. Several formulations are expected to become commercially available within the near future. Men may soon have the options of a daily pill to be taken orally, a patch or gel to be applied to the skin, an injection given every three months or an implant placed under the skin every 12 months, according to Seattle researchers.

“It largely depends on how funding continues. The technology is there. We know how it would work,” says Dr. Andrea Coviello, who is helping to test several male contraceptives at the Population Center for Research in Reproduction at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Coviello and her colleagues have found that a male contraceptive that releases testosterone over three months is potentially a safe and practical method of contraception. The Seattle researchers have been testing a sustained-released, testosterone micro-capsule, which consists of a thick liquid administered by injection under the skin.

“I never had any real noticeable side effects. I didn’t notice any mood changes. I may have put on a little weight,” says Larry Setlow, a 39-year-old computer programmer with a small software company in Seattle. He has taken part in three male hormonal contraceptive clinical trials at the University of Washington and has received both pills and injections.

[NickB79]

66. Testosterone supplement question

Question: when bodybuilders take steriods to bulk up, they lose a little "something" downstairs in terms of size. Are any of those same side-effects found with testosterone injections used for male birth control? The idea of a hormonal male BC is very appealling.

[veganwitch]

81. im going to post the whole articles

because the links are old and dont work anymore

from msnbc.com

Forty-year-old Scott Hardin says he’s glad that men may soon have a new choice when it comes to birth control. But, he adds, he would not even consider taking a male hormonal contraceptive. Hardin is like many men who are pleased to hear they may have a new option but are wary of taking any type of hormones.

“I WOULD rather rely on a solution that doesn’t involving medicating myself and the problems women have had with hormone therapy doesn’t make me anxious to want to sign on to taking a hormone-type therapy,” says Hardin, who is single and a college administrator.

For the first time, a safe, effective and reversible hormonal male contraceptive appears to be within reach. Several formulations are expected to become commercially available within the near future. Men may soon have the options of a daily pill to be taken orally, a patch or gel to be applied to the skin, an injection given every three months or an implant placed under the skin every 12 months, according to Seattle researchers.

“It largely depends on how funding continues. The technology is there. We know how it would work,” says Dr. Andrea Coviello, who is helping to test several male contraceptives at the Population Center for Research in Reproduction at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Coviello and her colleagues have found that a male contraceptive that releases testosterone over three months is potentially a safe and practical method of contraception. The Seattle researchers have been testing a sustained-released, testosterone micro-capsule, which consists of a thick liquid administered by injection under the skin.

“I never had any real noticeable side effects. I didn’t notice any mood changes. I may have put on a little weight,” says Larry Setlow, a 39-year-old computer programmer with a small software company in Seattle. He has taken part in three male hormonal contraceptive clinical trials at the University of Washington and has received both pills and injections.

“They all worked really well and I was able to look at my lab results and see my sperm count drop to zero,” says Setlow.

FINALLY, IT IS THE MAN’S TURN
Women have had the option of a safe, effective and reversible form of contraception since the development of the female oral contraceptive pill in the 1960s.

Female contraceptives use hormones, estrogens and progestins, to shut off the release of eggs to prevent pregnancy. Male hormonal contraceptives work pretty much the same way: hormones, such as testosterone and progestins, are used to turn off sperm production.

“It seemed like I was getting headaches and then there were times when I woke up sweating at night and I had to change my shirt. Other than that, I didn’t have any side effects,” says 45-year-old Quentin Brown, who lives in Los Angeles and has been a volunteer in a study of MHCs at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, Calif.

Brown has been taking hormonal contraceptives for more than a year. He reports no problems with weight gain or acne, two side effects that occurred in earlier versions of MHCs tested in the 1990s.

Brown, who is married and has three children, hopes his kids will one day be able to benefit from the new technology. His would like his son, who is now 17, to one day have the option of taking a male birth control pill. Brown believes many men will see “their pill” as a good idea and will want to use it.

“It is time for men to have some control. I think it would empower men and deter some women out there from their nefarious plans,” says Brown. “Some women are out there to use men to get pregnant. This could deter women from doing this. An athlete or a singer is someone who could be a target and they could put a stop to that.”

Studies conducted by the World Health Organization show that men from many countries around the world would welcome MHCs. The WHO has tested MHCs in hundreds of volunteers in various countries around the world and have not found it difficult to recruit volunteers for their studies. Researchers say many men are very willing to become involved in the studies and are anxious to see a male birth control pill on the market.

A RANGE OF CHOICES
Over the past 5 years, researchers around the world have had a great deal of success with male contraceptive pills, patches, implants and creams that deliver various amounts of hormones. It is now believed that an MHC in the form of a daily pill could be available on the market within 5 to 7 years and implants could arrive even sooner.

“An injectible or an implant (similar to Norplant for women) will be the first to be approved. The big studies are now under way,” says Dr. Christina Wang, who is heading up the clinical trials of MHCs at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.

She and her colleagues have found that a combination of progestin and androgen implants are safe, effective, inexpensive and entirely reversible.

The California researchers have tested several different products in hundreds of men and are also collaborating with investigators in China. A Chinese clinical trial is now under way at 10 different sites across China and includes 1,000 men. The Phase III trial involves a single injection given once every month. Wang hopes to start a similar trial in the United States within the next 2 years.

“We are trying to find the best combination with the least amount of side effects and then the least amount of medication that may be required to get the maximum effects,” says Wang.

Wang adds that in some countries, a low-cost, reversible and long-acting form of an MHC could become commercially available within the next 3 years. However, she says it will probably be at least 5 years before one is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Interestingly, Wang says there is now greater interest in this technology than there ever was in the past and there is now more funding available worldwide than ever before.

But will men take it? Some say yes, some say only if their partners make them, and other say they would never even consider it.


from yahoo.com

Wed Jan 21, 6:16 AM ET Add Health - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Sitaraman Shankar

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - German drugmaker Schering AG said Wednesday it and Dutch firm Organon had started mid-stage trials on a contraceptive injection for men that could be the next step toward the elusive "male pill."

Schering said trials of the drug, which is a combination of an implant and an injection, would be conducted on 350 men at 14 centers across Europe, and would be completed by December 2005.

Analysts said Schering and Organon, the drugs unit of Akzo Nobel, needed to counter global attitudes toward contraception, still seen largely as the responsibility of women.

A spokesman for Berlin-headquartered Schering, the world's top producer of hormone drugs by volume, said it was too early to estimate peak sales for the drug, but that first results of the trial should be available in early 2006.

The spokesman said it could be on the market in five to seven years.

Analysts said the drug was interesting, but it was too early to include it in their revenue models.

"This is an interesting development from the scientific point of view. From a commercial standpoint, the market still needs to be developed," said Bankgesellschaft Berlin analyst Meng Si.

"It remains to be seen how long it takes for market acceptance, as the traditional view has been that women are responsible for contraception," she said.

MALE PILL STILL ELUSIVE

Guenter Stock, Schering's board member responsible for research, said in a statement that the joint study represented the next big step forward in the development of the first hormonal fertility control for men, which had the potential to be sold worldwide.

Schering and Organon signed a collaboration to develop a male contraceptive in late 2002, and believe they are ahead of rivals. Australian researchers said in October they had successfully suppressed sperm production in a study of 55 couples using two hormones.

Most efforts to make a male pill target testosterone, a hormone made in the testes that stimulates sperm production. But suppressing the amount of testosterone in the body leads to a loss of libido, mood swings and loss of muscle strength.

So any contraceptive that shuts down testosterone production has to be accompanied by a method of retaining adequate levels in the bloodstream.

Schering said that in its trials, the progestogen etonogestrel reduced sperm concentrations, while long-acting testosterone undecanoate maintained testosterone levels within the normal range.

Etonogestrel, a hormone developed by Organon, will be given to patients in implant form, and long-acting testosterone undecanoate, developed by Schering, would be injected into them.

Testosterone injections would be given every 10 or 12 weeks, the spokesman said.

The male pill has been a difficult proposition because progestins and testosterone are not effective in pill form, and so have to be given as a patch, implant or injection.

Developing an effective male pill has also proved elusive in the past because fertile men have more than 20 million sperm in every milliliter of semen, and concentrations of 300-400 million sperm per milliliter are not uncommon.

Surveys in the past have indicated that men, given the choice, would rather not take hormonal contraceptives.

Schering shares were up 0.88 percent at 43.47 euros at 5:06 a.m. EST, while Akzo was 0.32 percent up at 31.61 euros.

[Moderator]

89. Links provided ...

Male birth control pill soon a reality
Male pill trials advance

Please do not violate DU rules ...
COPYRIGHT ISSUES AND BANDWIDTH THEFT

Don't post entire copyrighted articles. If you wish to reference an article, provide a brief excerpt and include a link to the original source. Generally, excerpts should not exceed three or four paragraphs.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[prolesunited]

49. What's amazing?

:shrug:

[hippiechick]

58. Why is it that MEN get Viagra like it's candy ...

... but women can't get birth control, sex ed, or family planning options/abortions ??

They just keep digging a deeper hole for us - now we gotta worry about 90 year old geezers with woodies chasing us fertile women around because they found the magic pill !!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


:hippie:

[outinforce]

85. Women Can't Get Abortions??!!

Surely you jest!

[hippiechick]

100. yes, for NOW we can .... with alot of grief in many cases ....

how many protesters line up outside pharmacies clucking at Viagra- buying men for being selfish whores ?? they're cheered for being able to be 'macho studs' while the result of their macho-studism gets us knocked up ...

give the fundies another term & Roe v. Wade will likley be gone.



:hippie:

[outinforce]

101. What Is It You Would WIsh To Outlaw?

Your post has left me a bit baffled.

What is it that you would wish to outlaw?

Men?

Viagra?

People who cheer men who by viagra?

Men who "knock up" women?

[hippiechick]

102. I don't recall suggesting ANYTHING be outlawed ...

... and I'll pass on your efforts to goad me into a pissing contest, thank you. Find someone else to argue with.

Have a nice weekend.


:hippie:

[Mandate My Ass]

60. All hope is not lost

Evidently the Bush admin hasn't yet stacked the FDA with faux scientists and anti-choice zealots. The delay was made because it was likely going to be favorable to the pro-choice crowd. I don' think this ploy will fly if people have the facts about EC.

Two expert advisory panels convened by the FDA recommended 23-4 to allow Plan B to be sold over the counter in a December meeting. EC can prevent pregnancy for up to 72 hours after unprotected sex, failed contraception, or rape. It is safer than aspirin, meets all of the FDA's requirements for over the counter status, and is up to 95% effective if used within the first 24 hours. EC has the potential to prevent 800,000 abortions in the United States annually.

http://www.feministcampus.org/know/news/newstory.asp?ID=8282

There's also an action alert here:

http://www.feministcampus.org/know/news/newstory.asp?ID=8282

[pmbryant]

64. That's very good news

This seems only a matter of time. Certainly if we elect Kerry in November, there is no reason to think the FDA will not then act on this recommendation.

Even if Bush manages to postpone it in the meanwhile.

--Peter

[bleedingheart]

62. Once again when women think and act in their own best interests

there are lawmakers (loads of them old wrinkly white men) who think its a scandal.

[mopinko]

69. no, no, sexism is dead

only feminazis are still arguing about this. it was decided here on du, just the other day, remember. it was another 200 post thread about women's rights.

sarcasm off

[prolesunited]

82. Oh, I think I vaguely recall that one

;-)

Thanks for fighting the good fight. That's what these threads are all about.

BTW, are you going to be there Sunday?

[mopinko]

86. planning on it

ya just never know around here what is gonna happen next, but that is the plan.

[LeahMira]

73. Women need to tell their stories...

We who are grandmothers, born in the 1930s and 1940s need to tell our daughters and grand-daughters how it was for women back before the pill. We need to tell our own mothers' stories as we remember them also.

The generation of women growing up today, and even my own daughter who is an adult with a child of her own, has no memory of a time when a woman had to bring her marriage certificate to her doctor in order to get a diaphragm. They have no recollection of a time when there was no pill and when a woman didn't hear about "the birds and the bees" until the night before her wedding... if she was lucky. They can scarcely believe that their own aunts and mothers performed abortions on themselves... and how painful and bloody it was, and how frightened and alone they were... because they had no other options.

Speaking from experience, I know it's difficult to talk about these things. When most of us speak to our children we have only our own sexual history to draw from and sometimes we hesitate to tell our children quite that much about ourselves and what we did or did not do. Still, our daughters need to know, and truly our sons need to know also.

I've found that when they understand how we feared for ourselves, how one incident could change the course of a young girl's life, how difficult it was for us to make necessary changes happen, and how we were called all sorts of names when we demanded the right to control our own bodies... and when they understand just how bad it could get again... perhaps they will pay more attention to the efforts to whittle away at women's rights.

I know that I'm not a spring chicken any more, but really... it wasn't all that long ago. We shouldn't have forgotten so soon.

If I've tried to tell my children anything, it's that you can never think that you won the battle. Those who want to keep you under their control will keep coming back and coming back, trying to retake control. The battle never ends. Those of us who finally got the pill and won Roe v. Wade never imagined that we would be fighting the same fight again as grandmothers... but here we are.

Women need to tell their stories to the next generation and the next one, and over and over, for as long as there are people who hate women in the world. An added bonus is that once in a while you'll hear, "Mom, I never knew. You're really something. Damn! I come from good people!"

:-)

[oldcoot]

77. Stories about the "good old days"

My husband's grandmother was a teacher during the Great Depression. One of her colleagues got married but did not tell anyone because she would lose her job (it was common to fire married women then) and she could not afford to lose this job. She then became pregnant (no birth control) and was in real trouble. If the school district found out that she was pregnant, she would be fired for being a "slut" so she decided to get an (illegal) abortion. Fortunately, she survived the procedure.

It might also be a good idea to remind women and girls that contraception was illegal in many states for a long time. In Connecticut, birth control was illegal until 1965 when the United States Supreme Court ruled that Connecticut's law was unconstitutional (Griswold v. Connecticut).

[bleedingheart]

78. My mom lost her job at Alcoa when she got married

because the thinking was that "her husband will support her"...

[FizzFuzz]

97. thank you for this post LeahMira

powerful stuff.

There are many books that tell women's stories...would be great if women shared them with their kids and grandkids

When I read "Backlash", the chapter on reproductive rights made me cry. It was very painful to read the real life stories

[JetCityLiberal]

80. Birth Control with no prescription

Here is a trial that is going on here in Washington about getting regular birth control pills while only talking to a pharmacist.

http://www.komotv.com/news/story.asp?ID=29933

Birth control pills should have always been over the counter. Women should have the right to control their own bodies. Completely.

As far as how women are treated with all medicine, they lag behind men. For years studies on such things as heart disease have been conducted on mostly male subjects and information extrapolated for females.

JetCityLiberal

[prolesunited]

87. Thanks for the link!

And it is so true that medical research has tended to leave women out, and clearly our hormonal influxes and genetic make-up would create many differences, particularly when it comes to pharmaceuticals.

Welcome to DU and hope you continue adding your voice to threads like this one. :hi:

[JetCityLiberal]

91. Thanks for the welcome

And thanks for the original thread.

Issues like these have to keep being discussed and kept on the front burner.

Attention to this is long overdue.

DU is a great place to discuss and find facts.

Thanks again prolesunited, glad to be here. :hi:


JetCityLiberal

[Maine Mary]

92. Last week Maine passed OTC legislation for the morning after pill.

A licensed pharmacist must sign for it but at least the measure cuts out a doctor visit which could be crucial on a weekend- (after a date-rape situation for example)... One step in the right direction but we still have a LONG way to go.

The Pill/Viagra issue never fails to piss me off. :grr:

[prolesunited]

93. That's wonderful news!

Thanks for all of your hard work, MaineMary.

[FizzFuzz]

94. Thanks!!

Great Post!!!!!!!

Wow, I'm depressed now....

Just two comments (and I haven't read any of the responses yet so sorry if I'm redundant)

>I read on the planned Parenthood site that Whitehouse websites have removed birthcontrol information including condom info.

>Other comment is a question: That quote from Guccione--Guiccione who? The only Guccione that I can think of is Bob Guccione, publisher of Penthouse. (But I always thought penthouse had a really hateful attitude to women, so maybe it is a quote from him)

[populistmom]

95. Yes

And it's hardest of all for the poorest of women. I have run into fundie nuts who won't take the pill because they do look at it like abortion. "What if by chance the egg was fertilized and it didn't implant? God will strike me down for being a sinner!"

Frequently, impotence is caused by blood pressure medications. Maybe these men should have eaten better and gotten off their butts to avoid the high blood pressure. (Now I know sometimes it's genetic and I used to be heavy and I know it's hard, but how many medications are people going to have to take and how much money are pharmeceutical companies going to make off Americans and their lousy health habits?)