What We Missed

The FDA, which recently approved the Gardasil vaccine for use in boys, has also approved and a new HPV vaccine – Cervarix – for girls and women ages 10 to 25.
Amanda takes on the teen oral sex panic in her podcast for RH Reality Check.
Apparently women “hate” thin models because we’re oh-so-ashamed of our fat selves. Uh huh.
The new fabulous blog FWD/Forward highlights a 2008 piece from Hoyden About Town on the barriers women with disabilities face when reporting rape.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

10 Comments

  1. jmcopeland
    Posted October 20, 2009 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    What I don’t understand is why women have to choose between extra cancer protection and protection from having genital warts. If the people who make Cervarix and Gardasil were really concerned about women’s health and well-being, and not just their personal profits, wouldn’t they make some type of cumulative effort to make a drug that would protect against all these things?

  2. jacqueline.allain
    Posted October 20, 2009 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    I can’t wait to hear about how vaccinated boys are now at risk for losing their youthful, virginal innocence, the way vaccinated girls are.

  3. Picaflorita
    Posted October 21, 2009 at 1:21 am | Permalink

    Although Garadasil only claims to protect against 4 strains of HPV, my former gynecologist told me that newer studies were showing it offers some protection against other strains. There’s just not enough research to convince the FDA to approve claims of extra protection.
    If the poorly-researched extra protection includes strain 31, then Cervarix may not be much more beneficial than Gardasil. Note that the article says “Cervarix…offers some protection against another HPV strain [strain 31].” It’s not 100%.

  4. Peter
    Posted October 21, 2009 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Jessica summarizes: “Apparently women “hate” thin models because we’re oh-so-ashamed of our fat selves.
    This captures the spirit of Erin Flaherty’s rather poor overview of Robin Givhan’s original article. But it bears little relation to Givhan’s original piece (which does not talk about “hating” models and hardly singles out women in its discussion of America’s obesity panic).
    Link wherever you wish, but it seems unfair to pass along one critic’s reaction to an article as if it were an adequate presentation of the original. Link to the original or indicate that you are summarizing a summary (“Feisty takes down Robin Givhan…”).
    BTW, I am only three screen inches from an ad on Feministing that tells me to get healthier, with a tape measure wrapped not around a woman’s waist, but around a double-cheeseburger. Who’s hatin’ now?

  5. crushdmb.myopenid.com
    Posted October 21, 2009 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    You’re new, aren’t you? If you contact Feministing about the offensive ads, they will take care of it. This is something they’ve been fighting with for a while now. Many other sites fight with this problem, too.

  6. Lilith Luffles
    Posted October 21, 2009 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    I’m not a fan of how thin models are and would like more diversity, and I am FAR from being “fat.”

  7. Tinnie
    Posted October 21, 2009 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    *IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ALL FEMINIST READERS*
    Srry, I didn’t have time to post this question last night as a post, but in my speech class we have to tell a quick speech about THREE things we would change about the opposite gender (men)
    What would you choose?
    I want to take this opportunity for the feminist cause :)

  8. Judith
    Posted October 21, 2009 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    Well that’s a rather condescending reply.
    Anyway, I agree with this poster. The original Washington Post article takes on much more than just what Frisky posted.

  9. TD
    Posted October 21, 2009 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Because a mutual contract can’t really work out. In many cases there is a simple prisoners dilemma. In others they’ll find a different way of gaming the contract. Regardless of how you structure the contract there would be an opportunity for one, or both, sides to cheat and for a less than optimal result to be reached.
    Further even if they find a way not to compete against each other, it will simply promote a monopolistic pricing scheme which will provide less vaccine, at a higher price.
    Oligopolistic pricing isn’t amazing, but it’s an improvement.

  10. Cesy
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 2:58 am | Permalink

    Why did you pick that article from FWD, when there are so many brilliant new ones, including the introductory one explaining intersectionality?

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

177 queries. 0.846 seconds