Posted by Jill—Unnecesarean
August 30, 2010
TRIGGER WARNING
Medical student Hilary Gerber of Mom’s Tinfoil Hat was offered the chance to perform a pelvic exam on an unconscious female patient by an operating room nurse at the local hospital not affiliated with her school. Wrote Gerber:
I participated in a dilation and curettage on a woman who was experiencing an incomplete abortion. I was in the room before the procedure and the OR nurse offered to let me do a pelvic exam on her, since the patient was already anesthetized.
Gerber declined the offer.
Although I was fascinated by the opportunity, and initially was tempted by the learning experience, I didn’t want to do it without her permission, and made myself consider her as a patient and a person, not as a pathology or anatomy in front of me. Yes, I knew she was going to have a pelvic procedure that she already consented to, and I even had the opportunity to introduce myself to her before she was anesthetized, but I knew it wasn’t diagnostic for me to do a pelvic on her in this situation, wouldn’t change the course of her treatment, and questioned the ethics of it.
She is not alone in her unwillingness to perform a pelvic exam on an anesthetized patient without her consent. Dr. Michael Greger, author of Heart Failure: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student, refused to perform nonconsensual pelvic exams on anesthetized patients as a student. This 2003 interview with Michael Greger is archived on the now inactive ShamExam.org website:
Are all women who are put under general anesthesia in a hospital practiced on by students while unconscious?
All women in the OB/GYN department at most teaching hospitals and hospitals affiliated with a medical school are. If you’re anesthetized and you’re in the OB/GYN department, you probably have had students practice pelvic exams on you regardless of what you’re in the hospital for - even if the procedure you need doesn’t require a pelvic exam!
Additionally, while doctors don’t go to other departments — such as general surgery patients, neurosurgery patients or cardiac surgery patients — if your surgeon is an OB/GYN, odds are there’s going to be a team of hungry medical students waiting for you to fall asleep.
When you say a team, how many people do you mean?
That depends. There’s the attending, a few residents, an intern and then as many medical students as they can round up.
However, I’m less concerned about interns and residents. They are doctors that have a role in that patient’s care, so doing a pelvic exam might be useful for them. But for medical students, no one even pretends it’s about the patient. Patients are strictly tools for our education. There’s no thought that there’s any benefit to the individual patient when medical students are just lining up in there.
When you were a medical student, did all your classmates perform non-consensual pelvic exams on women?
Yes, particularly the male students practiced pelvic exams on anesthetized women. As of last year, which was the last time I checked, they still do.
Why are male students more likely to perform non-consensual pelvic exams?
The medical community assumes that women will be less likely to allow male students practice on them if asked. So the male students are quicker to jump at the opportunity to practice on women who are unconscious.
Are there ways for student to learn how to perform pelvic exams other than on non-consenting women?
Yes, there’s a surrogate program that pays volunteers. If you contact a chairperson at an OB/GYN department or medical school they will tell you all about the surrogate program if they have one. What they won’t tell you is that in addition to the surrogate program they still carry out this practice. At [omitted], second year students practiced on a surrogate. That’s how I learned how to do it. But then in my third year on my OB/GYN rotation I performed pelvic exams on unconscious patients. Women would come in for appendicitis or something. Then, once they’re asleep, the crowd gathers, line forms to the left.
If teaching hospitals and medical schools have surrogates offering to consent to pelvic exams, why perform non-consensual ones?
Money. It’s expensive. And takes time while waiting for someone to volunteer. At least that’s what medical schools will say.
Can you explain what happens during these non-consensual pelvic exams?
They are usually “bi-digital” exams. This means students insert two fingers as deeply as they can into the vagina with one hand and use the other hand to feel around the outside of the abdomen for the ovaries. What they’re trying to do is trap the ovaries between their two fingers and their hand and feel for the internal organs from the inside. Sometimes, speculums are also used in the exams.
And what does this teach the student?
Very little in terms of how to do a proper pelvic exam. The art of doing a pelvic exam is how to do it while making the woman feel comfortable. When a patient is unconscious, obviously she can’t tell you what’s uncomfortable, what you’re doing right or wrong, what hurts. And, it feels completely different because the musculature is completely relaxed because of the anesthesia. So it doesn’t feel the same when you do a pelvic exam on a woman who is awake.
So why do the pelvic exams on unconscious women?
Because the student thinks, “Well, the more exams I do, the more spinal taps I do, the better I’ll be at it.” And then he thinks, “Hey, if I have to ask permission, I may not be able to do as many, so I may not be as good at it.” But that’s not really the case.
I often tell this story to illustrate my point:
In my physical diagnosis class at [omitted], students learned how to do rectal exams from a proctologist. I was waiting for my turn to perform a rectal exam.
When I was finally called in, I was shocked to find a poor guy bent over a table with his pants around his ankles. I’d never met the patient or the doctor before and I wondered how the doctor was going to explain to the patient why he was going to get a second exam.
Then the doctor told the patient, “I want to get a second opinion by a specialist.” All of a sudden though I was just a 2nd year medical student, I was not only a doctor but a specialist! I went in there sticking my finger out with no idea what I was doing. Obviously, the proctologist couldn’t tell me anything, either, because I was now the specialist. So, the educational experience for me was absolutely useless.
When you go in as a medical student to do your first procedures like a blood draw, or putting in your first IV, if you’re introduced by the resident as “doctor” — which almost everyone is — and they pretend they know what they’re doing, all the resident can do is stand behind the patient and surreptitiously tug at their ear and make sign language that what you’re doing is wrong.
However, if you respect the patient as a human being and go in there and say. “My name is Michael Greger, I’m a medical student. I’ve never done this procedure before but there’s someone right here that’s going to take me step-by-step through the procedure. Would you mind if I did this?” and actually sit down with them and establish a relationship and rapport, medical students will be surprised at how many people are willing to let us do all sorts of things to themselves and their families. Then the doctor can take you step-by-step because you’re not pretending you’re someone you’re not.
Of course, doctors know they won’t have this problem when the patient is anesthetized, because then you can go step-by-step and you don’t have to respect anything.
What stops students from simply asking the patient for permission?
When I was a student and approached the chairperson of my department and said I was uncomfortable with this, and he said, “I don’t see anything wrong with it.” My response was, “If there’s nothing wrong it, then you won’t mind if I ask permission.” He said I couldn’t do that. He knew that women would be absolutely outraged at the thought, and so, no one would tell them anything.
As a woman, if I just had surgery at a teaching hospital and asked my doctor if students had been practicing pelvic exams on me without my consent while I was unconscious, what would he say?
Particularly in this perceived climate of liability, doctors wouldn’t say anything. Medical ethics literature reveals surveys that say 50% of doctors blatantly falsify patient records and 70% mistreat patients. I had a case in my internship where doctors literally lied about killing a patient. They have so little respect for the autonomy of the patient, or that patients have any say in what they do or how they carry out their practice. Doctors know the right thing to do, but they’ve been socialized to fit in with the team and protect their own.
So, how can a woman prevent non-consensual pelvic exams happening to her?
All you can do is ask and hope that your doctor will honor your request. Once you’re asleep, however, you have no power. And what a powerless thing for women to know this goes on and think, “Well, I’m just going to have to trust my doctor.”
What if you don’t trust your doctor?
Women can write on their bikini line, “I do not give consent for medical students to practice pelvic exams on me” in marker. Then as soon as the clothes come off or the robe is lifted and all the medical students are getting on their latex gloves they can see that message. And that will stop them.
I was inspired to think up this tip because of patient advocates like Bernie Siegel, M.D., who recommend that patients use a magic marker to write “Wrong leg” or “Wrong arm” on their healthy body parts to prevent them their doctor from performing surgery on the wrong limb - a common mistake.
Has any medical governing body, like the American Medical Association, ever commented on non-consensual pelvic exams?
Over and over medical authorities say this practice is egregious. In numerous medical ethics articles this practice is described as an outrageous assault on the dignity and autonomy of the patient.
One quote from these articles reads: “This practice shows a lack of respect to the patient as a person, renewing a moral insensitivity and misuse of power. It is just one of the ways in which physicians abuse their power and have shown themselves unwilling to police themselves in matters of ethics, especially in regards to female patients.”
Since medical authorities are against non-consensual pelvic exams, have they ever tried to ban them?
They talk the talk, but when it comes to changing the culture of medicine, nothing happens. But then there’s that paradox that can be exploited. You can say, “Your own medical ethicists say this is wrong. So how can you continue to do it?”
Do you believe there should be federal legislation banning non-consensual pelvic exams?
Yes, you shouldn’t have to just trust that your doctor isn’t lying to you when he says students didn’t practice pelvic exams on you while under anesthesia. This practice should be outlawed. There should be professional guidelines. There should be federal guidelines.
This practice is already illegal in Massachusetts — although, it still happens there all the time. But it’s all about public knowledge. I believe that’s the primary role of proposing legislation, because articles in the media about the legislation would help spark a national debate and inform the public. And, the most effective thing is public knowledge.
If more people know about this and are outraged, then medical students will be more likely to go to the head of their department and say, “I don’t comfortable doing this.” And if the response to their protest is, “There’s nothing wrong with this,” the students can throw a stack of articles on the desk and say, “What do you mean? People are outraged all over the world!”
Is this practice worldwide?
Yes, and wherever this has come out, public outrage has followed. For instance, in New Zealand, there was outrage across the whole country when this practice was discovered. And that led it to stop.
And just this year [2003], the British Medical Journal had an article about the Royal Society of Medicine taking a stance on this.
How do medical students feel about performing non-consensual pelvic exams?
When I talk about non-consensual pelvic exams during my lectures, the majority of first and second year medical students - both male and female - are just horrified to hear that this goes on. They say, “This will never happen in our school!” But then there’s usually a third or fourth year student who attends the lecture and raises his hand and says, “I did this just last week. Yes, this goes on here.”
How do the attending physicians who require the students to perform non-consensual exams feel about the practice?
The attending physicians are almost without exception supportive of the practice, haven’t even thought about it, or don’t consider anything wrong with it. I’ve seen female just as likely as male attendings support the practice.
In fact, the only people who are fine with not asking permission are doctors. They’re so out of touch with the world and society. This is where they’re weakest.
Why do attending physicians feel this way?
I’ve been told that they don’t see anything wrong with it. They don’t see anything unethical about it at all. They think, “Huh, we just never thought anyone would mind.” In fact, a quote in a recent article in the response written in response to the American Journal of OB/GYN article this month [March 2003] quoted the residency director of Johns Hopkins as saying “I don’t think any of us even think about it. It’s just so standard as to how you train medical students.”
If the majority of first and second year med students are horrified by the practice, then how do they transform into third and fourth-year students who perform the non-consensual pelvic exams? And then into future attending doctors who require other students to perform them?
Good question. Well, one interesting statistic that you don’t hear discussed is that people talk about the ¼ of med students who say it’s “unimportant” to ask consent. And that’s outrageous, obviously. But if you analyze this data, those were students who had completed or who were in the middle of their OB/GYN rotation.
If you ask students before they get to that point, before they do their rotation, before they’re forced into a position where they have to do this kind of thing, the number is significantly lower - 17%.
So what happens to medical students when they’re placed in this situation that they undergo this shift, this eroding of their ethical principal?
In my book, I talk about some of the studies that show, if anything, moral reasoning may be inhibited by medical education, that ethical sensitivity increases during the first and second years of medical school but then decreases throughout the rest of medical school. So 4th year medical students who graduate and get their M.D. are less medically sensitive than when they entered into med school!
Why do you think there’s such a dramatic shift from 1st and 2nd year med students who don’t want to perform non-consensual to 3rd and 4th year students who feel it’s okay?
Medical school has a cult-like atmosphere. You’re all immersed in this one lifestyle, you’re sleep deprived, you’re not eating enough, you’re all dressed the same. So, when you’re presented with something of questionable morality, you have no time to introspect or self-reflect or think about it. You don’t have time to question whether things are right or wrong. Without any kind of outside contact, you just get caught up in it. You go along with the team and go with the culture of medicine.
How can students who oppose this practice convince their schools to ban it?
They need to organize. To get together as a group and approach the chair of their department and say, “We as a group feel uncomfortable with this.” I don’t want anyone to be put in the position I was, this lone person who sticks their neck out and then gets dismissed or worse. But if they stand together as a group, they can come together and say, “We as a class…” or “We five people on this rotation feel uncomfortable with this.” My hope is that medical schools then just can’t ignore it.
Gerber blogged that she hopes to maintain the “ethical sensitivity” mentioned by Greger into her future career in OB-GYN.
I hope that if I do get my career in ob/gyn, I do continue to consider my patients as patients. I know there is a crisis in ob/gyn in which obstetrics is turning more into a game of avoiding liability and “moving meat”, and I hope my switch won’t get flipped to the point where my nameless, faceless patient is just a medicolegal liability or a long labor to be avoided by an unnecessary surgery.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Adopted or abducted?
By Dan Rather | Yahoo! News – Tue, Mar 27, 2012
Most women describe giving birth to a child as a life changing experience – in a word – “challenging”, “joyous”, “miraculous.” But generations of young, unwed women describe their experience of giving birth to a child as a nightmare – and decades later their suffering has yet to end.
From Australia to Spain, Ireland to America, and as recent as 1987, young mothers say they were “coerced”, “manipulated”, and “duped” into handing over their babies for adoption. These women say sometimes their parents forged consent documents, but more often they say these forced adoptions were coordinated by the people their families trusted most...priests, nuns, social workers, nurses or doctors.
Last month, a Dan Rather Reports producer and crew were in Canberra, Australia as Parliament released the findings of an 18-month-long investigation revealing illegal and unethical tactics used to convince young, unmarried mothers to surrender their babies to adoptive homes from the late 1940s to the 1980s. And we interviewed some of the victims -- adoptees and mothers separated at birth.
“One of the happiest days of my life, most proudest achievements, is giving birth and holding my newborn child,” says Senator Rachel Siewert, who oversaw the Australian Senate Committee Report. “These women didn't have that experience. And I can't imagine it.”
Siewert added, “There was a lot of testimony from people that were associated with Catholic institutions. And Catholic Health Services here issued an apology and I understand they're gonna be putting in place some grievance procedures.”
In some cases, mothers in Australia were drugged and forced to sign papers relinquishing custody. In others, women were told their children had died. Single mothers also did not have access to the financial support given to widows or abandoned wives, and many were told by doctors, nurses, and social workers that they were unfit to raise a child. Siewert says, “We heard practices that were either illegal or unethical and downright cruel.”
“It wouldn't surprise me to hear the same thing happened elsewhere,” continues Siewert, “...the U.K., the U.S., Canada and Ireland. So you could, I think, expect that those countries also had these sorts of practices.”
Two weeks ago, a prominent Canadian law firm announced that it would file a class-action lawsuit against Quebec's Catholic Church accusing the Church of kidnapping, fraud and coercion to force unwed mothers to give up their children for adoption.
Attorney Tony Merchant represents several hundred women who claim that when they were in maternity homes in the 1950s and 1960s, social workers, nurses, doctors, and even men and women in the employ of the Catholic Church cooperated with government officials to force or, even coerce, young women to sign away their rights to keep their child never knowing they even had a choice.
Merchant was quoted in the Montreal Gazette as saying, "The beliefs the Catholic Church (in Quebec) had about premarital sex and the judgmental approach the church had, made it particularly aggressive in pressuring women into putting their children up for adoption."
In Spain, an 80-year-old nun, Sister Maria Gómez, became the first person accused of baby snatching in a scandal over the trafficking of 1,500 newborns in Spanish hospitals over four decades until the 1980s. The babies were either stolen, sold or given away by adoption.
Since October, Dan Rather Reports has contacted nearly 100 alleged victims, social workers, researchers, lawyers and authors from around the world to shine a bright light on the issue of forced adoptions. The two most respected books on the subject of “forced adoptions,” Ann Fessler's The Girls Who Went Away and Rickie Solinger's Beggars and Choosers indicate that the tactics used to procure adoptable babies in Australia, Ireland, Canada and Spain were also implemented in the United States.
We have interviewed numerous women in the U.S. who told us that they were sent to maternity homes, denied contact with their families and friends, forced to endure labor with purposely painful procedures and return home without their babies. Single, American mothers were also denied financial support and told that their children would be better off without them.
In some cases, they too were told that their babies had died. Many signed away their rights while drugged and exhausted after childbirth. Others were threatened with substantial medical bills if they didn't surrender or were manipulated through humiliation. According to Fessler, these seemingly unethical practices were used against as many as 1.5 million mothers in the United States.
When we asked these women who say they were victims of “forced adoption” to use one word to describe their experience giving birth…here’s what they told us…
“Sad” states Angie from Colorado, who says at age 19 her pregnancy was kept an absolute secret and that she disappeared before her infant daughter was put up for adoption against her will in 1972. “Sad” also states Chris from Massachusetts, who gave up her firstborn through Catholic Charities in 1969.
“Trauma” states Valerie from Toronto who says in 1970 a Salvation Army matron at the Bethany Home for unwed mothers dropped her off at Grace Hospital in Toronto to labor alone. While crying out in pain during labor, she says a nurse called her a “slut.”
“Barbaric” states Christine, a PhD. candidate at the University of Western Sydney in Australia, who heads the Apology Alliance, made up of individuals and groups from all around Australia who seek an apology for the practices and policies that led to forced adoptions in her country.
“Devastating” states Shawn who was a sophomore in college in 1974 when at age 19 she gave birth to a son she has yet to see in person or touch. During the delivery, she says her doctor forcibly grabbed her foot and said, “I hope this has taught you not to get in trouble again.”
“Horrifying” states Lily who was 17 in 1967 when she says she was “held in slavery for nearly 10 months” in a home for unwed mothers before she says she was forced to give her son up for adoption.
“Traumatic” states Fran from Pennsylvania, who says in 1959 at age 20 she did not give informed consent before her son was placed for adoption. “It was not a choice…it was social policy.”
“Tragic” states Susan, who at age 21 in 1967 says she had to fight just to see her daughter a day after giving birth to her at Miserecordia Hospital in Milwaukee. A supervisor tried to talk her out of it, but she persisted. A few days later, she regrettably agreed to give her daughter up for adoption.
"Torture" states Hanne from British Columbia, Canada, who says at age 16, her baby girl was “stolen...abducted on the delivery table.” “Torture” also states Carlynne from Florida, who says at age 20, she was not able to see, touch or was told the sex of her baby before being forced to put it up for adoption.
“Shattering” states Karen who was living in Virginia in 1966, when at age 18, she says she was “told by Catholic Charities to sign the paper” and give her daughter up for adoption. “I was never told I could visit her in foster care. I didn’t even know she was in foster care. I wasn’t told that I had six months to get her!! To change my mind.. as if I had even made up my own mind. I didn’t...they did.”
“Horrific” states Laura from Virginia, who says at age 16 she was “forced” to give her son up for adoption in 1972. “I was totally coerced from day one.”
“Decimated” states Elizabeth from Melbourne, Australia, who says in 1963 at age 18 she was rendered unconscious before her daughter was taken from her at birth, even though she was married to the father of her baby 11 months before the adoption was finalized. “Decimated” also states Leslie, who at age 17 was going into labor at a maternity home in Alabama when “Sister Martha, the director of the maternity home drove me to the hospital, pulled into the driveway and let me out. I went in and admitted myself. I labored that night (alone) in one of the hallways” because she says she was told the maternity ward was only for married women. Ironically, the son she says was taken from her was born on Mother’s Day 1966.
Carol, was a college freshman in 1966, when she says a social worker in Pittsburgh betrayed her with promises to help her keep newborn son. After the birth, drugged and disoriented, Carol says she unknowingly signed relinquishment papers presented by that social worker as hospital release forms. She needed two words to answer our question, “soul rape.”
Most women describe giving birth to a child as a life changing experience – in a word – “challenging”, “joyous”, “miraculous.” But generations of young, unwed women describe their experience of giving birth to a child as a nightmare – and decades later their suffering has yet to end.
From Australia to Spain, Ireland to America, and as recent as 1987, young mothers say they were “coerced”, “manipulated”, and “duped” into handing over their babies for adoption. These women say sometimes their parents forged consent documents, but more often they say these forced adoptions were coordinated by the people their families trusted most...priests, nuns, social workers, nurses or doctors.
Last month, a Dan Rather Reports producer and crew were in Canberra, Australia as Parliament released the findings of an 18-month-long investigation revealing illegal and unethical tactics used to convince young, unmarried mothers to surrender their babies to adoptive homes from the late 1940s to the 1980s. And we interviewed some of the victims -- adoptees and mothers separated at birth.
“One of the happiest days of my life, most proudest achievements, is giving birth and holding my newborn child,” says Senator Rachel Siewert, who oversaw the Australian Senate Committee Report. “These women didn't have that experience. And I can't imagine it.”
Siewert added, “There was a lot of testimony from people that were associated with Catholic institutions. And Catholic Health Services here issued an apology and I understand they're gonna be putting in place some grievance procedures.”
In some cases, mothers in Australia were drugged and forced to sign papers relinquishing custody. In others, women were told their children had died. Single mothers also did not have access to the financial support given to widows or abandoned wives, and many were told by doctors, nurses, and social workers that they were unfit to raise a child. Siewert says, “We heard practices that were either illegal or unethical and downright cruel.”
“It wouldn't surprise me to hear the same thing happened elsewhere,” continues Siewert, “...the U.K., the U.S., Canada and Ireland. So you could, I think, expect that those countries also had these sorts of practices.”
Two weeks ago, a prominent Canadian law firm announced that it would file a class-action lawsuit against Quebec's Catholic Church accusing the Church of kidnapping, fraud and coercion to force unwed mothers to give up their children for adoption.
Attorney Tony Merchant represents several hundred women who claim that when they were in maternity homes in the 1950s and 1960s, social workers, nurses, doctors, and even men and women in the employ of the Catholic Church cooperated with government officials to force or, even coerce, young women to sign away their rights to keep their child never knowing they even had a choice.
Merchant was quoted in the Montreal Gazette as saying, "The beliefs the Catholic Church (in Quebec) had about premarital sex and the judgmental approach the church had, made it particularly aggressive in pressuring women into putting their children up for adoption."
In Spain, an 80-year-old nun, Sister Maria Gómez, became the first person accused of baby snatching in a scandal over the trafficking of 1,500 newborns in Spanish hospitals over four decades until the 1980s. The babies were either stolen, sold or given away by adoption.
Since October, Dan Rather Reports has contacted nearly 100 alleged victims, social workers, researchers, lawyers and authors from around the world to shine a bright light on the issue of forced adoptions. The two most respected books on the subject of “forced adoptions,” Ann Fessler's The Girls Who Went Away and Rickie Solinger's Beggars and Choosers indicate that the tactics used to procure adoptable babies in Australia, Ireland, Canada and Spain were also implemented in the United States.
We have interviewed numerous women in the U.S. who told us that they were sent to maternity homes, denied contact with their families and friends, forced to endure labor with purposely painful procedures and return home without their babies. Single, American mothers were also denied financial support and told that their children would be better off without them.
In some cases, they too were told that their babies had died. Many signed away their rights while drugged and exhausted after childbirth. Others were threatened with substantial medical bills if they didn't surrender or were manipulated through humiliation. According to Fessler, these seemingly unethical practices were used against as many as 1.5 million mothers in the United States.
When we asked these women who say they were victims of “forced adoption” to use one word to describe their experience giving birth…here’s what they told us…
“Sad” states Angie from Colorado, who says at age 19 her pregnancy was kept an absolute secret and that she disappeared before her infant daughter was put up for adoption against her will in 1972. “Sad” also states Chris from Massachusetts, who gave up her firstborn through Catholic Charities in 1969.
“Trauma” states Valerie from Toronto who says in 1970 a Salvation Army matron at the Bethany Home for unwed mothers dropped her off at Grace Hospital in Toronto to labor alone. While crying out in pain during labor, she says a nurse called her a “slut.”
“Barbaric” states Christine, a PhD. candidate at the University of Western Sydney in Australia, who heads the Apology Alliance, made up of individuals and groups from all around Australia who seek an apology for the practices and policies that led to forced adoptions in her country.
“Devastating” states Shawn who was a sophomore in college in 1974 when at age 19 she gave birth to a son she has yet to see in person or touch. During the delivery, she says her doctor forcibly grabbed her foot and said, “I hope this has taught you not to get in trouble again.”
“Horrifying” states Lily who was 17 in 1967 when she says she was “held in slavery for nearly 10 months” in a home for unwed mothers before she says she was forced to give her son up for adoption.
“Traumatic” states Fran from Pennsylvania, who says in 1959 at age 20 she did not give informed consent before her son was placed for adoption. “It was not a choice…it was social policy.”
“Tragic” states Susan, who at age 21 in 1967 says she had to fight just to see her daughter a day after giving birth to her at Miserecordia Hospital in Milwaukee. A supervisor tried to talk her out of it, but she persisted. A few days later, she regrettably agreed to give her daughter up for adoption.
"Torture" states Hanne from British Columbia, Canada, who says at age 16, her baby girl was “stolen...abducted on the delivery table.” “Torture” also states Carlynne from Florida, who says at age 20, she was not able to see, touch or was told the sex of her baby before being forced to put it up for adoption.
“Shattering” states Karen who was living in Virginia in 1966, when at age 18, she says she was “told by Catholic Charities to sign the paper” and give her daughter up for adoption. “I was never told I could visit her in foster care. I didn’t even know she was in foster care. I wasn’t told that I had six months to get her!! To change my mind.. as if I had even made up my own mind. I didn’t...they did.”
“Horrific” states Laura from Virginia, who says at age 16 she was “forced” to give her son up for adoption in 1972. “I was totally coerced from day one.”
“Decimated” states Elizabeth from Melbourne, Australia, who says in 1963 at age 18 she was rendered unconscious before her daughter was taken from her at birth, even though she was married to the father of her baby 11 months before the adoption was finalized. “Decimated” also states Leslie, who at age 17 was going into labor at a maternity home in Alabama when “Sister Martha, the director of the maternity home drove me to the hospital, pulled into the driveway and let me out. I went in and admitted myself. I labored that night (alone) in one of the hallways” because she says she was told the maternity ward was only for married women. Ironically, the son she says was taken from her was born on Mother’s Day 1966.
Carol, was a college freshman in 1966, when she says a social worker in Pittsburgh betrayed her with promises to help her keep newborn son. After the birth, drugged and disoriented, Carol says she unknowingly signed relinquishment papers presented by that social worker as hospital release forms. She needed two words to answer our question, “soul rape.”
The War on Women
EDITORIAL
Published: February 25, 2011
Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families. And this is just the beginning.
The budget bill pushed through the House last Saturday included the defunding of Planned Parenthood and myriad other cuts detrimental to women. It’s not likely to pass unchanged, but the urge to compromise may take a toll on these programs. And once the current skirmishing is over, House Republicans are likely to use any legislative vehicle at hand to continue the attack.
The egregious cuts in the House resolution include the elimination of support for Title X, the federal family planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted diseases. In the absence of Title X’s preventive care, some women would die. The Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health, says a rise in unintended pregnancies would result in some 400,000 more abortions a year.
An amendment offered by Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, would bar any financing of Planned Parenthood. A recent sting operation by an anti-abortion group uncovered an errant employee, who was promptly fired. That hardly warrants taking aim at an irreplaceable network of clinics, which uses no federal dollars in providing needed abortion care. It serves one in five American women at some point in her lifetime.
The House resolution would slash support for international family planning and reproductive health care. And it would reimpose the odious global “gag” rule, which forbids giving federal money to any group that even talks about abortions. That rule badly hampered family planning groups working abroad to prevent infant and maternal deaths before President Obama lifted it.
(Mr. Obama has tried to act responsibly. He has rescinded President George W. Bush’s wildly overreaching decision to grant new protections to health providers who not only will not perform abortions, but also will not offer emergency contraception to rape victims or fill routine prescriptions for contraceptives.)
In negotiations over the health care bill last year, Democrats agreed to a scheme intended to stop insurance companies from offering plans that cover abortions. Two bills in the Republican House would go even further in denying coverage to the 30 percent or so of women who have an abortion during child-bearing years.
One of the bills, offered by Representative Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, has a provision that would allow hospitals receiving federal funds to refuse to terminate a pregnancy even when necessary to save a woman’s life.
Beyond the familiar terrain of abortion or even contraception, House Republicans would inflict harm on low-income women trying to have children or who are already mothers.
Their continuing resolution would cut by 10 percent the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known as WIC, which serves 9.6 million low-income women, new mothers, and infants each month, and has been linked in studies to higher birth weight and lower infant mortality.
The G.O.P. bill also slices $50 million from the block grant supporting programs providing prenatal health care to 2.5 million low-income women and health care to 31 million children annually. President Obama’s budget plan for next year calls for a much more modest cut.
These are treacherous times for women’s reproductive rights and access to essential health care. House Republicans mistakenly believe they have a mandate to drastically scale back both even as abortion warfare is accelerating in the states. To stop them, President Obama’s firm leadership will be crucial. So will the rising voices of alarmed Americans.
A version of this editorial appeared in print on February 26, 2011, on page A18 of the New York edition.
Published: February 25, 2011
Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families. And this is just the beginning.
The budget bill pushed through the House last Saturday included the defunding of Planned Parenthood and myriad other cuts detrimental to women. It’s not likely to pass unchanged, but the urge to compromise may take a toll on these programs. And once the current skirmishing is over, House Republicans are likely to use any legislative vehicle at hand to continue the attack.
The egregious cuts in the House resolution include the elimination of support for Title X, the federal family planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted diseases. In the absence of Title X’s preventive care, some women would die. The Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health, says a rise in unintended pregnancies would result in some 400,000 more abortions a year.
An amendment offered by Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, would bar any financing of Planned Parenthood. A recent sting operation by an anti-abortion group uncovered an errant employee, who was promptly fired. That hardly warrants taking aim at an irreplaceable network of clinics, which uses no federal dollars in providing needed abortion care. It serves one in five American women at some point in her lifetime.
The House resolution would slash support for international family planning and reproductive health care. And it would reimpose the odious global “gag” rule, which forbids giving federal money to any group that even talks about abortions. That rule badly hampered family planning groups working abroad to prevent infant and maternal deaths before President Obama lifted it.
(Mr. Obama has tried to act responsibly. He has rescinded President George W. Bush’s wildly overreaching decision to grant new protections to health providers who not only will not perform abortions, but also will not offer emergency contraception to rape victims or fill routine prescriptions for contraceptives.)
In negotiations over the health care bill last year, Democrats agreed to a scheme intended to stop insurance companies from offering plans that cover abortions. Two bills in the Republican House would go even further in denying coverage to the 30 percent or so of women who have an abortion during child-bearing years.
One of the bills, offered by Representative Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, has a provision that would allow hospitals receiving federal funds to refuse to terminate a pregnancy even when necessary to save a woman’s life.
Beyond the familiar terrain of abortion or even contraception, House Republicans would inflict harm on low-income women trying to have children or who are already mothers.
Their continuing resolution would cut by 10 percent the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known as WIC, which serves 9.6 million low-income women, new mothers, and infants each month, and has been linked in studies to higher birth weight and lower infant mortality.
The G.O.P. bill also slices $50 million from the block grant supporting programs providing prenatal health care to 2.5 million low-income women and health care to 31 million children annually. President Obama’s budget plan for next year calls for a much more modest cut.
These are treacherous times for women’s reproductive rights and access to essential health care. House Republicans mistakenly believe they have a mandate to drastically scale back both even as abortion warfare is accelerating in the states. To stop them, President Obama’s firm leadership will be crucial. So will the rising voices of alarmed Americans.
A version of this editorial appeared in print on February 26, 2011, on page A18 of the New York edition.
National Republicans Declare War on Women Over, But State-Level Battles Still Exist
By Susan Kraykowski
Recently, Republican politicians of national stature called for a cease-fire in the GOP War on Women – if not an outright withdrawal. Senator John McCain (R – Ariz.) has acknowledged that this strategy is a loser for the GOP, and Representative Richard Hanna (R – NY) has told his female constituents their rights are under assault and to “contribute your money to people who speak out on your behalf, because the other side — my side — has a lot of it.” You can’t get much more specific than that.
How then is it possible for the very same Republicans to be both on the right and wrong sides of this issue at the very same instant? Put on your waders; these are muddy waters and ‘gators lurk in this swamp.
Exhibit A: Helen Brosnan’s fine article on PolicyMic, which appeared a few weeks ago when the brou-ha-ha over inappropriate language to women came to its inevitable head. Few men, whether R’s or D’s realized that this wasn’t a free speech issue at all. To their credit, the Republican women on PolicyMic knew it immediately.
Exhibit B: Rachel Maddow’s interview with former Surgeon General (to George W. Bush) Richard Carmona. Maddow sets up the interview with about 3 minutes of metaphorical amplification of her thesis that Republicans are muddying the waters around a number of issues, but the point Carmona makes is quite significant. He recognizes an assault on women’s rights and women’s health when he sees one and has switched political parties to run for the Senate in Arizona on the Democratic ticket.
Arizona is one of the states which has passed or is currently working on more restrictive legislation on abortion and other women’s health issues. Very often these bills are similar sounding and mandate unnecessary procedures and/or the reading to women of scripts that contain misinformation regarding the association of breast cancer with abortions. (IRONY ALERT: why are Republicans mandating procedures and protesting the ACA mandate to buy health insurance at the same time? I told you there were ‘gators in the swamp) Other states busily restricting women’s rights and trying to return us to the status of chattel are: Texas, Idaho, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kansas, New Hampshire, Florida, South Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio and Utah.
North Carolina’s state assembly passed the euphemistically titled “Women’s Right to Know” Bill in 2011; mandating that a woman see an ultrasound and hear the fetus’ heartbeat – along with a doctor’s/technician’s scripted description of visible characteristics. The bill was vetoed by Democratic Governor Beverly Perdue, but overridden in a special legislative session. Implementation of the law is suspended pending legal challenge.
Kentucky’s state legislature voted down their version of the ALEC-drafted pre-abortion ultrasound bill.
Answer to the question posed, above: national Republicans can wash their hands of the War on Women because they know that their state and local counterparts are still hard at work; trying to cut women off at the pass.
My solution to this problem is an appeal to all American women across the political spectrum to unite to rid ourselves of these state representatives and state senators who insist upon pursuing legislation inimical to our interests and to our very health and well being (by the way – sympathetic men are invited to join this effort).
This will take thought, research and, definitely, ticket splitting - as is illustrated by the vote on Idaho’s SB1387 ultrasound bill. On March 19, the bill passed on a 23-12 vote but 5 Republicans crossed party lines to vote NAY with the Democrats: James Hammond (R-Couer d’Alene), Shawn Keogh (R-Sandpoint), John Goedde (R-Couer d-Alene), Joyce Broadsword (R-Slagle) and Tim Corder (R-Mountain Home). Thus, for example, if you’re a Democrat in Hammond’s district; you may want to vote for him this time as a reward for his support in trying to defeat the Ultrasound bill. Or, if you’re a Republican and he gets an even more rightwing primary challenger; support Hammond.
Special note to Virginia Democrats: 2 Democrats voted with the Republicans to pass Virginia’s ultrasound bill. We want to get Charles J. Colgen (D-Prince William) and Phillip P. Puckett (D-Russell) out of office, too, if good alternatives present themselves.
Ladies and gentlemen; regardless of your choice for president, please use the 2012 and 2014 election cycles to examine your downballot choices and to replace the paternalistic, authoritarian ilk who are working so hard to return us to the 19th century.
In closing, please read these simple words:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
That is the entirety of the effective language of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution – first introduced in Congress in 1923. Perhaps, if we can weed out our state legislatures, we can finally ratify it.
Recently, Republican politicians of national stature called for a cease-fire in the GOP War on Women – if not an outright withdrawal. Senator John McCain (R – Ariz.) has acknowledged that this strategy is a loser for the GOP, and Representative Richard Hanna (R – NY) has told his female constituents their rights are under assault and to “contribute your money to people who speak out on your behalf, because the other side — my side — has a lot of it.” You can’t get much more specific than that.
How then is it possible for the very same Republicans to be both on the right and wrong sides of this issue at the very same instant? Put on your waders; these are muddy waters and ‘gators lurk in this swamp.
Exhibit A: Helen Brosnan’s fine article on PolicyMic, which appeared a few weeks ago when the brou-ha-ha over inappropriate language to women came to its inevitable head. Few men, whether R’s or D’s realized that this wasn’t a free speech issue at all. To their credit, the Republican women on PolicyMic knew it immediately.
Exhibit B: Rachel Maddow’s interview with former Surgeon General (to George W. Bush) Richard Carmona. Maddow sets up the interview with about 3 minutes of metaphorical amplification of her thesis that Republicans are muddying the waters around a number of issues, but the point Carmona makes is quite significant. He recognizes an assault on women’s rights and women’s health when he sees one and has switched political parties to run for the Senate in Arizona on the Democratic ticket.
Arizona is one of the states which has passed or is currently working on more restrictive legislation on abortion and other women’s health issues. Very often these bills are similar sounding and mandate unnecessary procedures and/or the reading to women of scripts that contain misinformation regarding the association of breast cancer with abortions. (IRONY ALERT: why are Republicans mandating procedures and protesting the ACA mandate to buy health insurance at the same time? I told you there were ‘gators in the swamp) Other states busily restricting women’s rights and trying to return us to the status of chattel are: Texas, Idaho, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kansas, New Hampshire, Florida, South Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio and Utah.
North Carolina’s state assembly passed the euphemistically titled “Women’s Right to Know” Bill in 2011; mandating that a woman see an ultrasound and hear the fetus’ heartbeat – along with a doctor’s/technician’s scripted description of visible characteristics. The bill was vetoed by Democratic Governor Beverly Perdue, but overridden in a special legislative session. Implementation of the law is suspended pending legal challenge.
Kentucky’s state legislature voted down their version of the ALEC-drafted pre-abortion ultrasound bill.
Answer to the question posed, above: national Republicans can wash their hands of the War on Women because they know that their state and local counterparts are still hard at work; trying to cut women off at the pass.
My solution to this problem is an appeal to all American women across the political spectrum to unite to rid ourselves of these state representatives and state senators who insist upon pursuing legislation inimical to our interests and to our very health and well being (by the way – sympathetic men are invited to join this effort).
This will take thought, research and, definitely, ticket splitting - as is illustrated by the vote on Idaho’s SB1387 ultrasound bill. On March 19, the bill passed on a 23-12 vote but 5 Republicans crossed party lines to vote NAY with the Democrats: James Hammond (R-Couer d’Alene), Shawn Keogh (R-Sandpoint), John Goedde (R-Couer d-Alene), Joyce Broadsword (R-Slagle) and Tim Corder (R-Mountain Home). Thus, for example, if you’re a Democrat in Hammond’s district; you may want to vote for him this time as a reward for his support in trying to defeat the Ultrasound bill. Or, if you’re a Republican and he gets an even more rightwing primary challenger; support Hammond.
Special note to Virginia Democrats: 2 Democrats voted with the Republicans to pass Virginia’s ultrasound bill. We want to get Charles J. Colgen (D-Prince William) and Phillip P. Puckett (D-Russell) out of office, too, if good alternatives present themselves.
Ladies and gentlemen; regardless of your choice for president, please use the 2012 and 2014 election cycles to examine your downballot choices and to replace the paternalistic, authoritarian ilk who are working so hard to return us to the 19th century.
In closing, please read these simple words:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
That is the entirety of the effective language of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution – first introduced in Congress in 1923. Perhaps, if we can weed out our state legislatures, we can finally ratify it.
A triumph for the Texas Taliban
Ophelia Benson
March 15, 2012
So there’s this couple in Texas looking forward to their second baby, a brother for their 2-year-old daughter.
Yet now my doctor was looking grim and, with chair pulled close, was speaking of alarming things. “I’m worried about your baby’s head shape,” she said. “I want you to see a specialist—now.”
My husband looked angry, and maybe I did too, but it was astonishment more than anger. Ours was a profound disbelief that something so bad might happen to people who think themselves charmed. We already had one healthy child and had expected good fortune to give us two.
Instead, before I’d even known I was pregnant, a molecular flaw had determined that our son’s brain, spine and legs wouldn’t develop correctly. If he were to make it to term—something our doctor couldn’t guarantee—he’d need a lifetime of medical care. From the moment he was born, my doctor told us, our son would suffer greatly.
And now you’re guessing the rest. You’re no fools; you didn’t miss the deadly “Texas” at the beginning.
Their doctor couldn’t do the abortion, because the hospital she’s affiliated with is Catholic (as so many hospitals, and more all the time, are). They had to go to a clinic. They went straight there.
My counselor said that the law required me to have another ultrasound that day, and that I was legally obligated to hear a doctor describe my baby. I’d then have to wait 24 hours before coming back for the procedure. She said that I could either see the sonogram or listen to the baby’s heartbeat, adding weakly that this choice was mine.
“I don’t want to have to do this at all,” I told her. “I’m doing this to prevent my baby’s suffering. I don’t want another sonogram when I’ve already had two today. I don’t want to hear a description of the life I’m about to end. Please,” I said, “I can’t take any more pain.” I confess that I don’t know why I said that. I knew it was fait accompli. The counselor could no more change the government requirement than I could. Yet here was a superfluous layer of torment piled upon an already horrific day, and I wanted this woman to know it.
But it couldn’t be helped.
“I’m so sorry that I have to do this,” the doctor told us, “but if I don’t, I can lose my license.” Before he could even start to describe our baby, I began to sob until I could barely breathe. Somewhere, a nurse cranked up the volume on a radio, allowing the inane pronouncements of a DJ to dull the doctor’s voice. Still, despite the noise, I heard him. His unwelcome words echoed off sterile walls while I, trapped on a bed, my feet in stirrups, twisted away from his voice.
“Here I see a well-developed diaphragm and here I see four healthy chambers of the heart…”
I closed my eyes and waited for it to end, as one waits for the car to stop rolling at the end of a terrible accident.
When the description was finally over, the doctor held up a script and said he was legally obliged to read me information provided by the state. It was about the health dangers of having an abortion, the risks of infection or hemorrhage, the potential for infertility and my increased chance of getting breast cancer.
March 15, 2012
So there’s this couple in Texas looking forward to their second baby, a brother for their 2-year-old daughter.
Yet now my doctor was looking grim and, with chair pulled close, was speaking of alarming things. “I’m worried about your baby’s head shape,” she said. “I want you to see a specialist—now.”
My husband looked angry, and maybe I did too, but it was astonishment more than anger. Ours was a profound disbelief that something so bad might happen to people who think themselves charmed. We already had one healthy child and had expected good fortune to give us two.
Instead, before I’d even known I was pregnant, a molecular flaw had determined that our son’s brain, spine and legs wouldn’t develop correctly. If he were to make it to term—something our doctor couldn’t guarantee—he’d need a lifetime of medical care. From the moment he was born, my doctor told us, our son would suffer greatly.
And now you’re guessing the rest. You’re no fools; you didn’t miss the deadly “Texas” at the beginning.
Their doctor couldn’t do the abortion, because the hospital she’s affiliated with is Catholic (as so many hospitals, and more all the time, are). They had to go to a clinic. They went straight there.
My counselor said that the law required me to have another ultrasound that day, and that I was legally obligated to hear a doctor describe my baby. I’d then have to wait 24 hours before coming back for the procedure. She said that I could either see the sonogram or listen to the baby’s heartbeat, adding weakly that this choice was mine.
“I don’t want to have to do this at all,” I told her. “I’m doing this to prevent my baby’s suffering. I don’t want another sonogram when I’ve already had two today. I don’t want to hear a description of the life I’m about to end. Please,” I said, “I can’t take any more pain.” I confess that I don’t know why I said that. I knew it was fait accompli. The counselor could no more change the government requirement than I could. Yet here was a superfluous layer of torment piled upon an already horrific day, and I wanted this woman to know it.
But it couldn’t be helped.
“I’m so sorry that I have to do this,” the doctor told us, “but if I don’t, I can lose my license.” Before he could even start to describe our baby, I began to sob until I could barely breathe. Somewhere, a nurse cranked up the volume on a radio, allowing the inane pronouncements of a DJ to dull the doctor’s voice. Still, despite the noise, I heard him. His unwelcome words echoed off sterile walls while I, trapped on a bed, my feet in stirrups, twisted away from his voice.
“Here I see a well-developed diaphragm and here I see four healthy chambers of the heart…”
I closed my eyes and waited for it to end, as one waits for the car to stop rolling at the end of a terrible accident.
When the description was finally over, the doctor held up a script and said he was legally obliged to read me information provided by the state. It was about the health dangers of having an abortion, the risks of infection or hemorrhage, the potential for infertility and my increased chance of getting breast cancer.
If Men had Periods...
by Gloria Steinem
Since history was recorded, male human beings have built whole cultures around the idea that penis-envy is "natural" to women - though having such an unprotected organ might be said to make men more vulnerable, and the power to give birth makes womb-envy at least logical. In short, logic has nothing to do with it. What would happen, for instance, if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not? The answer is clear - menstruation would become an enviable, boast-worthy, masculine event:
- Men would brag about how long and how much.
- Boys would mark the onset of menses, that longed-for proof of manhood, with religious ritual and stag parties.
- The US Congress would fund a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea to help stamp out monthly discomforts.
- Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. (Of course, some men would still pay for the prestige of commercial brands such as John Wayne Tampons, Muhammed Ali's Rope-a-dope Pads, Joe Namath Jock Shields - "For Those Light Bachelor Days," and Robert "Baretta" Blake Maxi-Pads.)
- Military men, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation ("MENstruation") as proof that only men could serve in the army ("You have to give blood to take blood"), occupy political office ("Can women be aggresive without that steadfast cycle governed by the planet Mars?"), be priests and ministers ("how could a woman give her blood for our sins"), or rabbis ("Without the monthly loss of impurities, women remain unclean")
- Male radicals, left-wing politicians, and mystics, however, would insist that women are equal, just different; and that any woman could enter their ranks if only she were willing to self-inflict a major wound every month ("You must give blood for the revolution"), recognize the preeminence of menstrual issues, or subordinate her selfness to all men in their Cycle of Enlightenment.
- Street guys would brag ("I'm a three-pad man") or answer praise from a buddy (" Man, you are lookin' good") by giving fives and saying, "Yeah, man, I'm on the rag!"
- TV shows would treat the subject at length. ("Happy Days": Richie and Potsie try to convince Fonzie that he is still "The Fonz," though he has missed two periods in a row.)
- So would newspapers. (JUDGE CITES MONTHLY STRESS IN PARDONING RAPIST.)
- And movies. (Newman and Redford in "Blood Brothers"!)
- Men would convince women that intercourse was more pleasurable at "that time of the month." Lesbians would be said to fear blood and therefore life itself - though probably only because they needed a good menstruating man.
- Of course, male intellectuals would offer the most moral and logical arguements. How could a woman master any discipline that demanded a sense of time, space, mathematics, or measurement, for instance, without that in-built gift for measuring the cycles of the moon and planets - and thus for measuring anything at all? In the rarefied fields of philosophy and religion, could women compensate for missing the rhythm of the universe? Or for their lack of symbolic death-and-resurrection every month?
Since history was recorded, male human beings have built whole cultures around the idea that penis-envy is "natural" to women - though having such an unprotected organ might be said to make men more vulnerable, and the power to give birth makes womb-envy at least logical. In short, logic has nothing to do with it. What would happen, for instance, if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not? The answer is clear - menstruation would become an enviable, boast-worthy, masculine event:
- Men would brag about how long and how much.
- Boys would mark the onset of menses, that longed-for proof of manhood, with religious ritual and stag parties.
- The US Congress would fund a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea to help stamp out monthly discomforts.
- Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. (Of course, some men would still pay for the prestige of commercial brands such as John Wayne Tampons, Muhammed Ali's Rope-a-dope Pads, Joe Namath Jock Shields - "For Those Light Bachelor Days," and Robert "Baretta" Blake Maxi-Pads.)
- Military men, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation ("MENstruation") as proof that only men could serve in the army ("You have to give blood to take blood"), occupy political office ("Can women be aggresive without that steadfast cycle governed by the planet Mars?"), be priests and ministers ("how could a woman give her blood for our sins"), or rabbis ("Without the monthly loss of impurities, women remain unclean")
- Male radicals, left-wing politicians, and mystics, however, would insist that women are equal, just different; and that any woman could enter their ranks if only she were willing to self-inflict a major wound every month ("You must give blood for the revolution"), recognize the preeminence of menstrual issues, or subordinate her selfness to all men in their Cycle of Enlightenment.
- Street guys would brag ("I'm a three-pad man") or answer praise from a buddy (" Man, you are lookin' good") by giving fives and saying, "Yeah, man, I'm on the rag!"
- TV shows would treat the subject at length. ("Happy Days": Richie and Potsie try to convince Fonzie that he is still "The Fonz," though he has missed two periods in a row.)
- So would newspapers. (JUDGE CITES MONTHLY STRESS IN PARDONING RAPIST.)
- And movies. (Newman and Redford in "Blood Brothers"!)
- Men would convince women that intercourse was more pleasurable at "that time of the month." Lesbians would be said to fear blood and therefore life itself - though probably only because they needed a good menstruating man.
- Of course, male intellectuals would offer the most moral and logical arguements. How could a woman master any discipline that demanded a sense of time, space, mathematics, or measurement, for instance, without that in-built gift for measuring the cycles of the moon and planets - and thus for measuring anything at all? In the rarefied fields of philosophy and religion, could women compensate for missing the rhythm of the universe? Or for their lack of symbolic death-and-resurrection every month?
Gaslighting
[Definition:] A form of intimidation or psychological abuse, sometimes called Ambient Abuse where false information is presented to the victim, making them doubt their own memory, perception and quite often, their sanity.
The classic example of gaslighting is to switch something around on someone that you know they're sure to notice, but then deny knowing anything about it, and to explain that they "must be imagining things" when they challenge these changes.
It works in part because it feeds off hundreds, probably thousands of years of minimizing women’s real concerns by accusing them of being hysterical, or of making mountains out of molehills. Women have been told that we’re hysterical if we say that rape is traumatizing even when the rapist is an acquaintance. Even today, women are told that they’re blowing it out of proportion even when suffering violence at the hands of a spouse. Women are told we’re just imagining the wage gap or the pressure to support men’s ambitions over our own, and told that actually these inequities are a result of our own “choices.” Every step of the way, we’re told that our reactions to injustice are more about our inferiority as women, that women have an inability to perceive reality, and that things aren’t what they seem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)