Just throwing my personal experience out there in regards to the HPV vaccine to men:

I work at Planned Parenthood and we've started offering the vaccine to males. We, obviously, have to tell them that it's not FDA approved yet, but they are still welcome to get it.

A male patient came into work last week who had already received 2 doses of the vaccine from his private family doctor. So, it looks like even without FDA approval the vaccine is taking off.

omg, that video of the woman being stripped searched and violated drew tears from me. That is such a horrific experience to go through...i can't even say more than that at this point.

the HPV vaccine can also protect men from penile cancer. Although a lot less common than cervical cancer, I'm sure any dude would rank penile cancer in his top 3 list of Worst Diseases Ever...

... especially considering the usual procedure done to cure it.

Jesus Christ, that Ohio sheriff's video is absolutely horrifying.

OK, I have to admit...I don't get the point of the JCPenney commercial. What is supposed to be going on?

While I do think it was rude of the protesters to barge in like they did, reading the Queensland anti-choice statements about why women should not be allowed to choice whether or not they have an abortion is filled with as many lies as it is over here. Especially this:

"All it does is ... put one set of problems to the side and gives the woman a whole heap more, and often they are lifelong problems of grief and suffering when that may be the only child she can ever have," Ms Martin said.

"It may also do a lot of damage to her internally and getting pregnant down the track may be difficult.

The only child she will ever have? I guess this woman can't contemplate a mother who's choosing to have an abortion, or the fact that women can still conceive after they've had one (one that is done properly mind you, it's the back alley and illegal abortions that leave women with infections).

I enjoyed the Slow Sex article. Mind you I was reading it while I was snacking on a leftover piece of chain store pizza, which promptly caused me to pause, look at my food and then put it down. :)

EG, as I interpreted it, the JC Penney commercial is some guy using tacky jewelry to hypnotize his wife/girlfriend/whatever. And at the end, when it mentions "both get what you want," I took that to mean he gets a hypnotized girlfriend and she gets a tacky heart pendant.

re: Strip search video -

Why is Hope's weight relevant in the story?

I've been meaning to email in about the Miss G__ Project in Ontario! Of course the link posted only talks about it in the last half so people who don't read the whole thing might not read about it. The Miss G__ Project is trying to get the option of taking a Women's and Gender Studies course into Ontario high schools. I don't know why the Ministry of Education won't just do it. In grade 11 and 12 students have plenty of room to choose courses and even in the three years since I was in high school my high school at least has added courses such as marketing. So I think I've already done it once but again, I'm going to contact the Ministry of Education and premier of Ontario who seems to care about education more than most politicians.

I just saw another article today that reminded me of sex ed controversies.

Remember how some American high schools don't mention condoms (lest a student's father gets offended) and some Dutch ones don't mention even abstinence (lest a student's father-in-law gets offended)?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3398769.stm

Now I wouldn't be surprised if some British high schools would soon stop mentioning recessive genes (lest someone who's the same student's grandfather and grandfather-in-law at the same time gets offended):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7237663.stm

Stephanie: I think it was supposed to emphasize that she was not a threat to the arresting officers. Two two hundred something pound men against a 120 pound woman without a weapon probably don't have a lot to fear, unless she is trained in Bruce Lee style martial arts.

haha i actually saw that JC Penney commercial on TV. it's ridiculous. yes of course, all women are hypnotized by jewelery, and it's the only real confirmation of love for any of us. gag me.

and i couldn't bring myself to watch the strip-search video. reading the article was awful enough.

I've always wondered who actually buys (and who is the unfortunate recipient of) the shiteous department store v-day jewelry. Now I'm wondering about the target audience of these commercials - hypnotists with poor taste?

The story about the Michigan commissioner acquitted of assault was infuriating. How twisted is our legal system when a jury can't convict a man who *admits* that he assaulted a woman? If shoving someone's face in your crotch doesn't count as using coercive force, what does?

The story about the Michigan commissioner acquitted of assault was infuriating. How twisted is our legal system when a jury can't convict a man who *admits* that he assaulted a woman? If shoving someone's face in your crotch doesn't count as using coercive force, what does?

Unfortunately, I've noticed that it isn't just power couples that have to deal with that dynamic. I've known too many women who were involved in a variety of underground music scenes whose interest in and commitment to that scene was constantly questioned because her male partner introduced her to it, as if the only reason she was interested was to appeal to him somehow, even though she wouldn't have gotten so involved in it in the first place if she didn't subsequently find something worthwhile for herself. I've had to deal with this myself; people often act as if I'm just tagging along with my husband. They don't recognize that not only do I love the little "scene" we're in for my own reasons but I like different parts of it than he does. Oh, and then of top of that, my contributions are constantly dismissed as minor, even though I do just as much as my husband does and everyone is always telling him that they don't know how he does it all - just like I've heard people completely dismissing Hillary's years as a lawyer and the things she did when she was First Lady. I imagine this is true for just about every male-dominated subculture you can find and it drives me nuts.

that jcpenney commercial is beyond creepshow.

I'm from the town in the article about the Michigan commissioner. A comment at the end of the article says it all, that she shouldn't have gotten in the car with him. That's Jackson for you. The time before this when I was home, the letters to the editor were mostly about Right to Life's effective efforts to convince United Way not to give money to Planned Parenthood for a program that was supposed to get teens and their parents talking about (safe) sex, because, you know, that kind of thing would only result in more abortions.
There was a column published in today's paper about the commissioner case: http://blog.mlive.com/bradosphere/2008/02/brown_case_a_lesson_in_working.html#more
The guy who wrote it is always a bit of an ass (or, at least that's how he conveys himself in his writing), so, sadly, this wasn't too surprising...

That strip search... NO FUCKING WAY. That is HORRIBLE! I cried after I saw it. I hope she sues the living shit out of those people, and WINS. That was UNACCEPTABLE! A fucking police state we live in. For real. Those cops in that video, I HATE THEM!

I don't know what to say about that Michigan case. I mean, really, these jurors really couldn't see the forest through the trees if they didn't think what he did was forced or coercive enough to warrant a finding of guilt. That's about the nicest thing I can think of to explain this verdict.

Most likely, at least one of the jurors was looking for a way to get a not guilty verdict, focused on the meaning of the word "forced," confused some of the other jurors enough to get them to vote not guilty, and then guilt-tripped the rest into reaching a verdict, because otherwise they weren't going to go back to work for a while.

I just got my first jury summons ever. My co-workers are half-jokingly telling me ways to get out of it, but I actually want to serve on a jury, because at least then I would know that, in that one case I serve on, this bullsh*t wouldn't happen. I'd love to be the counterbalance to the kind of prick that would argue that pushing a woman's face into one's lap doesn't count as sexual assault. That would just make my week.

BTW, I just saw an article on how Kathryn Martin's addressing an often-overlooked childcare need:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4269572

In relation to the pro-choice rally in Brisbane... It is worth noting that the law about abortion only being legal to preserve the rights of the mother is very loosely applied: a woman is able to access medical abortion if ihaving a child will be detrimental to her physical or mental health, and this does include things like lifestyle factors, such as income, other children, personal circumstances. It is basically abortion on demand as is, and whether or not iit is decriminalised will make no difference to how this operates.

At the same time, discussion is important and I heartily encourage discourse about abortion. The more it is discussed, the less taboo it becomes, and people become better educated on the issues instead of just having emotive responses.

What I find the most interesting is that the pro-lifer has said that women who access abortion run the risk of doing internal damage and potentially losing the right to procreate. In Australia, more women die from complications arising from childbirth than legal abortion.

This probably makes no sense. It is 3am in Spain and today I got robbed. Awesome.

For the Ensler/Crenshaw essay, thanks.

For many of us, feminism is not separate from the struggle against violence, war, racism and economic injustice. Gender hierarchy and race hierarchy are not separate and parallel dynamics. The empowerment of women is contingent upon all these things.

Yeah, that.

In my head, the JC Penny commercial is actually amusing, because to me it is making fun of the way the jewelry industry has brainwashed people to think that a man must buy a woman jewelry for V-Day/Xmas/Birthdays

I just hypnotized my husband with the last slice of pizza. Now we'll both be getting what we want tonight. Thanks JC Penney.

Do the ACOG take any notice of studies, or healthcare in the rest of the world? I can't believe they're still insisting that hospital-based OB/GYN-lead care is the only safe option, when many countries with substantially better maternal and neonatal outcomes than the US are ensuring the majority of babies are born in the sole care of a midwife and in some countries, a substantial proportion of them at home.

I totally understand where the Ensler/Crenshaw article is coming from, but I can't say I 100% agree with it. I've seen many articles defending the feminist reasons to vote for Obama...but all of them still seem to come across to me as saying real feminists vote for Obama, because we're so savvy and can see across the racial lines! Really, it's discounting the votes of women who vote for Clinton in the same way that all of the other media reports discount our votes (or the votes of African Americans for Obama).

Eve Ensler really makes me angry. She presumes to speak for all women and feminists, and she creates this straw-woman feminist to rail against. From everything I've read, feminists have been very thoughtful about this race, and while individuals have chosen their candidate, they have been NO MORE vitriolic in their support of that candidate than ANY OTHER group. Eve Ensler makes self-identified feminists sound like bitches, in the sexist, old-school, patriarchal sense of the word, and she's the enlightened, Obama-supporting new feminists.

Even though she tries to get away from it, her article is simply another example of the "real feminists support Obama" sentiment. And it's dishonest of her to pass if off as something else.

And full disclosure, I caucused for Obama this weekend, but I don't entirely feel good about it. I live in Washington, and it took me MONTHS before I could admit I even liked Hillary; people are rabidly pro-Obama around here.

Did anybody else find this, from the ACOG statement, tremendously patronizing?

"ACOG encourages all pregnant women to get prenatal care and to make a birth plan. The main goal should be a healthy and safe outcome for both mother and baby."

Because if you choose home birth, it means you hate your baby and don't care about its safety, you selfish bitch.

I'm a big fan of good medical care, but not necessarily a huge fan of recommendations made by biased sources, and clearly the ACOG is going to be biased towards hospital births attended by OB/GYNs, yes? It's kind of like taking the beef council as the final word on whether or not red meat is good for you.

If the ACOG wants to sound credible, maybe they should cite some statistics or studies on the safety of home birth vs. hospital birth. Surely, if they're right, those numbers would cut in their favor and support their position, right?

"Jenn breaks down what happened with the Asian American vote on Super Tuesday."

The language used in referring to this article and also within the article itself really irritates me. I understand that many individuals support Obama here but the language used all over this site seems to suggest that people who support Clinton aren't making the right decision - and begs the question of "what happened" to their votes.

Yeah, that Penney's add pissed me off. It's not-so-subtly saying that raping a woman is okay, as long as she gets jewelry.

Yeah, that Penney's add pissed me off. It's not-so-subtly saying that raping a woman is okay, as long as she gets jewelry.

I have to admit I don't know anything about the ACOG and the politics surrounding midwifes, but the statement itself from the ACOG didn't seem objectionable. It is simply saying that health of mother and child should be primary.

Now, of course, the ACOG might not actually support that in practice, I don't know. But then it is what they do, and not what they say, that should be criticized.

Regarding the JC Penny ad, it was on a ridiculous amount of times recently. My husband and I were watching TV the night before and both thought it was a stupid ad basically playing on the "I bought you something shiny so have sex with me" pitch that jewelry commercials make.

That strip search video was beyond horrific. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

1. Who was video taping?
2. What was the REASON stated for the search?

I am confused as to what took place that caused them to go from cuffing her for questions to forcibly allowing MEN to take off her bra and underwear, and leave her naked and denied medical care in a cell for 6 hours.

WHAT THE FUCK

I agree with exelizabeth's comments.

I also feel like I need to address the way language is used in referring to articles that are pro-Obama under the umbrella of feminism and how they are thoughtful and generally positive vs the negative language when linking to or discussing feminists who claim to support Clinton under the feminist umbrella.

Obviously women and feminists can disagree about who to vote for (just as individuals of various racial groups are able to as well) but I've noticed a large disparity when it comes to discussing the 08 Democratic nomination on this site and that makes me really sad.

I will support Obama if he wins the nomination (just like I would support ANY democrat) but I fervently believe that Hillary Clinton has the experience and the will to make the tough decisions and she is my candidate. She is not my candidate because she is a woman but I identify with her positions on the issues that are important to me and I trust her to uphold them.

Re. the revival of shunning article: while in theory I can understand why a church would want to take a stronger stand against someone disobeying the laws of Moses or Jesus, I really don't like how they're applying this. It sounds like they're basically saying, "If you dare question us in any way, we will cut you off from this important community thing." And revealing confessions made in confidence? That's just scummy.

Wilderthanyou, the language in the ACOG article may have rubbed me the wrong way because I'm currently a pretty heavy consumer of a broad spectrum of OB/GYN care (pregnant, high risk, have probably seen between 20 and 30 OB/GYNs of varying levels of competence in the last 8 months, bla bla bla) and I've noticed that while GOOD doctors cite stats and figures and treat you like a grownup, the BAD doctors always just wave their hands and whip out blanket statements about X being best for the baby, and OMG, DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE BABY? rather than answer your questions or address your concerns.

Seeing the ACOG statement include this phrase "Choosing to deliver a baby at home, however, is to place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby" without citing supporting facts reminds me of the "OMG!" handwaving doctors, who annoy me.

"I have to admit I don't know anything about the ACOG and the politics surrounding midwifes, but the statement itself from the ACOG didn't seem objectionable. It is simply saying that health of mother and child should be primary."

Not only do the doctors in that statement consider themselves the only responsible choice for birthing, they include gems like these:

"Childbirth decisions should not be dictated or influenced by what's fashionable, trendy, or the latest cause célèbre."

"Unless a woman is in a hospital, an accredited freestanding birthing center, or a birthing center within a hospital complex, with physicians ready to intervene quickly if necessary, she puts herself and her baby's health and life at unnecessary risk."

"Choosing to deliver a baby at home, however, is to place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby."

They may not intend it, but their statement is extremely patronizing, essentially calling the decision for a home birth a woman merely following what's trendy, and selfish of the mother to put her choice over the safety of the baby. Tsk, tsk. Young women these days.

What does the shunning churches article have to do with feministing? I get that current feminism includes varying forms of oppression, but this doesn't seem like a particularly relevant article.

"I get that current feminism includes varying forms of oppression, but this doesn't seem like a particularly relevant article."

It just so happens that the oppressed one in that article was a woman, one who had been faithful and generous to the church for 50 years, and this grandmother with double knee and hip replacement arrested and led away in handcuffs when the pastor called the police on her one Sunday; but it reported on a growing, accepted trend that could affect many people nationwide, for daring to question the authority of their clergy, or their church.

What will happen even among these Protestant denominations, if the churches treat "dissenters" the way the Catholic Church excommunicates those who believe in reproductive freedoms or greater authority for women within the Church? My former pastor, from a completely Biblical standpoint, I must add, preached against remarriage after divorce, calling it adultery. What if he starts casting people out for being remarried "adulterers" or simply disagreeing with anything intolerant written in the Bible or what he teaches (or board decisions and church bylaws)? I say feminists would bear much of the brunt of that. Sure, one solution is to give up religion or change one's church affiliation, but faith and fellowship remain important for many.

Hmm... I actually have some questions about the strip search.

I mean, hell, if according to rules only women should be allowed to perform strip searches on women, then what happened was /definitely/ wrong.

I also agree that a strip-search for an arrest on drunken disorderly was unnecessary. Furthermore, if that woman had ever been seriouisly sexually assaulted, I can imagine being handcuffed and strip-searched would be very triggering and scary for that reason.

However, the officers in the video really didn't look like they were using that much force to me. And I can imagine that maybe if the woman was drunk, she /was/ disorderly or maybe said some things she doesn't remember saying. Also in some places police jobs are pretty easy to get -so I can totally imagine some stupid low-ranking officers thinking that they're just following correct protocol...

So of course the strip search shouldn't have happened -especially not like /that/. Without the full context, it's hard for me to know how horrified I should be though...

To add to what A male already said, one of the reasons for shunning people that was repeatedly given in that article was "gossip." "Gossip" is considered a strictly female activity in most communities. In fact, three of the four people specifically mentioned as having been shunned in the article were women. When you add on top of that the fact that in the vast majority of churches, men are the only ones allowed to have a position of authority, I think it becomes more clear why this is a feminist issue.

(of course, I think I'm someone who's more likely to someday be arrested for streaking than to be forcibly strip-searched, so nudity /in and of itself/ is probably less traumatic for me than it would be for certain other women)

Wilderthanyou, what's so offensive about the ACOG statement for me is that it has no basis in fact. Many studies, and the experience of many countries outside the US, have shown that homebirth is statistically just as safe, and possibly safer for low-risk pregnancies and births (which, without intervention from the get-go, are about 75-85% by most estimates, and many of the 25-35% that aren't low-risk often go without a problem). The ACOG are essentially using women's fear of the unknown to buy themselves a clientele. Furthermore, they're casting aspersions on the skill level of the midwives and nurse-midwives who are basically in competition with the ACOG, who have all the appropriate skills to attend a normal birth, and know exactly when there is an increased risk and a woman should be transferred to medical care. I find both the ACOG's negation of a woman's right to choice, and the blatant disregard of the available empirical evidence, pretty obscene.

Doh! I mean "15-25% that aren't low-risk", not 25-35%.

That sexual assault story pisses me off to no end.

I don't understand how this guy can ADMIT to raping a woman, and the jury still lets him walk.

One of the jurors made a comment that they both made "stupid mistakes".
The articles states that she knew the guy, so what "mistake" did she make by assuming he could give her a ride? There's nothing stupid about that assumption.

But this guy exposes himself and tries to push her face into his crotch to make her give him oral sex, and that's just a "stupid mistake"? Uh, no. That's assault. He admitted to doing it. He should go to jail for it.

It's as if it's no longer about proving whether or not a rape happened. There's still multiple for why they can find the rape acceptible if it DID happen. Oh, and apparently this guy has a history with his actions because other women he has assaulted started speaking up against him too.

Fuck victim-blaming and making excuses for why sexual assault is somehow acceptible or deserved.

I don't think ACOG is casting aspersions on the skils of midwives-they specifically state that midwives should be trained and accredited. The press release seemed pretty pro-midwife, so long as they were qualified, and they mentioned birthing centres more than once. The only thing they seemed to have a problem with were home births, and unqualified, unaccredited midwives. While I'm sure we disagree on the advisability of home births (my parents are doctors, so I've heard plenty of horror stories), it seems that we should all agree on having midwives who are trained, qualified, and accredited. Hell, hairdressers in Ontario are more regulated than midwives are in some states!

tofutti,

Ya wanna know why? B/c more than half the people on that jury probably thinks it's an acceptable way for a guy to try and get a bj...

Seriously -it's pathetic as hell, but it happens a lot. I've even seen it in mainstream movies and commercials. It happened to me once, basically, w/ a bf (no, I was not totally forced, but I had my head pushed down a few times and then I just decided to go with it) It was, however, unsexy as hell IMO.

The whole idea that men are more sexual than women, and that men have considerable trouble helping themselves, is just WAY WAY too prevalent in American culture. It's not even scientifically founded, and yet I know lots of smart people who buy into it...

Hell, hairdressers in Ontario are more regulated than midwives are in some states!

Didn't we just have this conversation on another thread?

Do you have any examples? Because all RNMs are highly medically trained.

and I've noticed that while GOOD doctors cite stats and figures and treat you like a grownup, the BAD doctors always just wave their hands and whip out blanket statements about X being best for the baby, and OMG, DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE BABY? rather than answer your questions or address your concerns.

Seeing the ACOG statement include this phrase "Choosing to deliver a baby at home, however, is to place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby" without citing supporting facts reminds me of the "OMG!" handwaving doctors, who annoy me.

Yes. Good doctors are always willing to explain what they are doing and their reasons for it. I had a doctor who did not give me drugs after chest pain. His rationale? He had eliminated (via EKG and chest X-ray, and my blood pressure & cholesterol are amazingly good) the big problems, thought it was a stress-related issue, and told me that he didn't want to medicate a lifestyle decision.

That was a great outcome. I did not feel like I was denied urgently needed medical care; I felt like a doctor rationally eliminated sources of problems, left one remaining, and described, in his opinion, the best way to fix it.

OTOH, I've had some pretty horrific experiences with doctors, where a denial of follow-up action is frightening.

---

On to childbirth. Unless the woman is doing something completely off-the-wall (like at-home C-section at 22 weeks), there's no reason to berate her for it. Thankfully, we live in an era when there are a lot of different, safe ways to get the baby out of the mother's body.

Yes, I'm a crazy pro-lifer, but I don't think that the baby is "entitled" to the safest possible method of childbirth, as so deemed by the Physician in Charge of the World, whoops, the Mother-to-be. It is entitled to a birth that reasonably approximates something a civilised society does. The exact mechanism is left up to the woman who is giving birth. Sacrificing it in fire as it comes out of the womb = not kosher; that isn't a remotely reasonable method of delivering a child and violates the idea that we all ought to be free from deliberate aggression.

If you are a woman who has a clinical phobia of giving birth and want a C-section, rock on. If you want an at-home birth because you feel it would be easier for you (and cheaper!), excellent. The fact that either one of those may lead to a marginally increased risk of harm is utterly immaterial. We parse out minute differences in statistics when deciding who gets to be high school valedictorian, not when deciding on a course of medical treatment.

Well, maybe because I'm a pro-lifer, I want to have as many options for childbirth open to women as possible.

I think we did have this discussion already...jplum, CPMs are certified, highly trained, and they do homebirths for women who are not high risk (the ones your parents saw were likely emergency births...and have they ever told you about the births that go wrong in hospitals too?). Being a CPM is a helluva a lot harder than being a hairdresser.

Some good info is here:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?opinionid=26564

JPlum, the statement says people have a choice, but they also say this:

"Unless a woman is in a hospital, an accredited freestanding birthing center, or a birthing center within a hospital complex, with PHYSICIANS ready to intervene quickly if necessary, she puts herself and her baby's health and life at unnecessary risk."

That group is physicians. They want physicians present, if not in charge. I like the services hospitals and doctors provide, but I won't scare people who would like to consider other choices, or put down those choices as merely fashionable, unnecessarily risky, or implying women are putting their desire for a more natural, personal birth experience over the safety of the baby.

Re: Strip Search

The police officers asked her if she had thought of hurting herself. She replied "Now, or ever?" and that's when they tackled her. It wasn't done because she was drunk or belligerent. Apparently they assumed from her answer she was suicidal and decided the best way to prevent that would be to have male officers tear her clothes off while she screamed (and probably had flashbacks if she had previous trauma) and then leave her naked in her cell for six hours. She was also taken to booking wearing only a weighted vest.

"Seriously -it's pathetic as hell, but it happens a lot. I've even seen it in mainstream movies and commercials. It happened to me once, basically, w/ a bf (no, I was not totally forced, but I had my head pushed down a few times and then I just decided to go with it) It was, however, unsexy as hell IMO."

No, it sounds like you were raped, and at best, that man learned persistence (or some pushing and holding down) will get him what he wants. That's terrible. I am not blaming you.

strip search -

This is unacceptable. Is there anything we can do to help this woman? phonecalls, letters, donations, etc? I will do anything possible to help her & prevent this from happening again. I'm disgusted. This is a huge deal.

Here's another article on the contraception ban in Manila: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7234291.stm

Here's another article on sexuality among women in France age 50+: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020801607.html

I know certified midwives are highly trained-that was the point I was trying to make. My problem-and that of OCOG, I would assume-is with untrained, unqualified 'midwives' setting up shop in states where there is little regulation.

I'm in Ohio and I am so outraged about what happened to that woman. I watched the video when it first appeared in the news and it made me absolutely sick. I kept thinking of how much pain she must have been in to be held that way with a back injury in addition to the fear and humiliation.

There is absolutely no excuse for what happened to her.

The good news is that she has sued. The Attorney General is also investigating. A sheriff in another county (in the Cleveland area) has also spoken out against it.

However, the Sheriff in the county involved has denied any wrongdoing: "feels comfortable that(my)deputies performed their rather unpleasant tasks in this incident in a professional manner that is consistent with the requirements of the law. However, an outside, objective review of our actions is always welcome and necessary to maintain the public's trust in this office."

Also see this article which includes the story of young teenage girls in Stark County strip searched and harassed by officers on a fucking tour of the building required by a sentence for criminal trespass.

Please write the Ohio Attorney General to encourage their office to consider this pattern of abuse by Stark County police officers.

As someone who has never given birth I may be out of order saying this, but as a medical student who is learning about all the complications that can arise in a seemingly 'normal' pregnancy I cannot see why people have a problem with the idea that a woman giving birth should have a physician within reach should something go wrong. I am not saying that the physician should be in charge, not saying that they should make any of the mother's decisions for her, or rule out home birth if the home is within easy reach of emergency medical sercices. What I do think is important is that, should something go wrong with the birth, there should be access to complete medical care (physicians, and, just as importantly, nurses, and other healthcare professionals) The right to refuse treatment should always be there, of course, but there should at least be access to treatment, to ensure the health of both mother and baby.

My problem-and that of OCOG, I would assume-is with untrained, unqualified 'midwives' setting up shop in states where there is little regulation.

Such as? Where is this a problem?

Evie et al:

Of course doctors and med students and hospital workers have lots of experience with horror stories and complications. Women at risk for dangerous pregnancies and births go to doctors and hospitals. Midwives refer women at risk to doctors and hospitals. Women who end up in trouble are rushed to...doctors and hospitals. Your samples are self-selecting. The vast majority of women who choose midwives do just fine.

From the Ensler/Crenshaw article:

"While denying any intention to square off racism against sexism, the "either/or" feminists nonetheless remind us that the Black (man) got the vote before the (white) woman, that gender barriers are more rigid than racial barriers, that sexism is everywhere and racism is not, that a female Obama wouldn't get nearly as far as a Barack Obama, and that a woman's vote for Clinton is scrutinized while a male vote for Obama is not."

1) That's awesome.
2) As far as Ensler/Crenshaw setting up a straw feminist to tear down is concerned, everything they mention in that quotation can be found almost verbatim in either the Steinem Op-Ed or Morgan's recent piece... I don't think it's at all wrong for them to name and take issue with some of the more troubling political sensibilities that have surfaced in particular pro-Clinton feminist circles. I'm a bad example as an Obama supporter, but I have at least a few feminist identified friends who staunchly back Clinton while simultaneously deploring the sentiments espoused by Crenshaw/Ensler's interlocutors.

Anyway I thought this was a great article; I'm sending it to my friends. My mind's still a little blown that Kimberlee Crenshaw and Eve Ensler wrote a piece together, tho.

Everyone is aware that this Obama vs Clinton garbage is going to be a moot point in a little while, yes?

Re: that arse who was acquitted of sexual assault...

That happened to me, too. My first bf when I was 16 used to like to get me very, very drunk and then "have his way with me", which I thought was normal at the time. One time he was EXTERMELY drunk (I was pretty intoxicated too), and he pulled down his pants and shoved his dick in my face repeatedly, trying to get me to put it in my mouth. I was crying the whole time, but he wouldn't stop until I finally did, and after a few seconds when I pushed him away he fell over on the bed and said, "You did it! I can't believe you finally did it!" and promptly passed out in a drunken stupor. It was the single most horrifying and humiliating sexual experience of my life, and I've never really gotten over it. To this day, if my hubby shoves his wang in my face I get the urge to bite it off. (Don't get me wrong, I like to please my husband just as he loves to please me, but the way he "asks" for it sometimes is a bit of a trigger.)

I wish I could say I am surprised by the court verdict, but I am not. But then I lost my faith in humankind ages ago, and am convinced that this world is going to hell in a handbasket - rapidly - and there's not much I can do but sit back and watch it unfold.

A male,

He didn't hold me down. He pushed like it was more of a suggestion. And then he did it repeatedly. I think it's safe to call it coercion, and in an ideal world it would never happen.

I think most people are not going to think of it as rape though...

But what really irks me, is that like I said I've seen that portrayed in numerous movies and commercials (Scary Movie is just one that comes to mind) thus "normalizing" the behavior.

I know certified midwives are highly trained-that was the point I was trying to make. My problem-and that of OCOG, I would assume-is with untrained, unqualified 'midwives' setting up shop in states where there is little regulation.

JPlum,
I agree, midwives should probably be regulated like all other health professionals, and in most developed countries they are. The problem I see in the US, looking in from the outside, is an enculturation in fear of childbirth. The ACOG, with a near-monopoly on childbirth, have used that fear to maintain power in the field. In other countries, my own included (I'm in New Zealand), trained midwives attend the majority of births. Those midwives may be nurses, but in many, sometimes most cases, their training (and the training I'm about to embark on myself) is 3 or more years of highly specific training in pregnancy, birth, postpartum and their complications. Nurse-midwives and Direct-entry midwives alike are trained to recognise warning signs and know when they need to send a woman to an OB. They are also trained in how to deal with emergency situations. There are many possible complications in birth. Most of them are uncommon, and the majority of them are NOT sudden onset - there are many warning signs. Very few complications that occur do so without warning, and trained midwives learn how to deal with those emergencies for long enough to get a woman to hospital if she's not there to start with. A large part of the reason lay midwives exist in the US is that they cannot get non-nursing-based training. Until the ACOG loosen their stranglehold on the industry, and midwives are able to get regulated direct-entry training, there will continue to be lay midwives.
Many of the ACOG's policies go against the recommendations of many health regulation bodies around the world, and the maternal and neonatal outcomes in the US are worse, not better, for it. This latest proclamation from the ACOG tightens rather than loosens their hold.

Theoretically, most of ACOG's statements regarding midwifery in general and home birth in particular have nothing wrong with them. There's nothing offensive about saying that pregnant women should be making decisions that support rather than harm the health of both themselves and their babies. However, reading ACOG's statements with a knowledge of the facts and research behind home birth and midwife-attended birth reveals the bias, prejudice, and truth-withholding behind the statements.

For women in low-risk pregnancies, being attended by a midwife and birthing at home is every bit as safe as birthing in a hospital with a doctor. The likelihood of "something going wrong" in a low-risk pregnancy/birth is, as the phrase indicates, low. Many of the things that "go wrong" in birth can't be prevented by birthing in a hospital.

A woman who goes to a hospital to give birth is at a higher risk of having interventions performed that may not be necessary or even helpful. It is rare for a woman to be told what the risks of complication resulting from such interventions are. Routine procedures such as mechanical or pharmaceutical induction of labor, pharmaceutical speeding of labor, technological monitoring of labor, the denial of food and fluids to laboring mothers, etc all carry risks and yet are often done out of "procedure" without fully explaining the risks to the woman.

Midwifery isn't just about giving the power of birth back to women. Many opponents of midwifery harp on this goal of natural birth as a way of implying that women who use a midwife or have their babies at home are putting their babies in harm's way out of a selfish feminist desire to be in control. Proponents of midwifery also know that natural birth in low-risk situations is just as safe as birth in a hospital.

Proponents of midwifery also know that natural birth in low-risk situations is just as safe as birth in a hospital.

Or safer. The US has a terrible infant mortality rate for such a developed country--Cuba does better than us. That takes in the first year of life as well as birth, of course, but it does indicate something. Developed countries that rely on midwives have excellent outcomes for both mothers and children.

I wasn't in distress or any danger, and my mother's labor wasn't taking too long at all--it took her six or eight hours. Nonetheless, the doctor shoved forceps in her, cutting my ear in the process and gave her such a vicious episiotomy that she couldn't sit up for six weeks. That's bullshit. It was a low-risk pregnancy with no complications whatsoever. There's no reason why she had to be lying on her back with her legs in the air (a stupid, stupid, stupid position to try to give birth in), unfed, and bleeding.

I tell you one thing: any professional who suggests that I should do major, strenuous physical work that can take up to 36 hours without eating or drinking is going to get a smack, and I'm going to claim labor-induced hormonal changes as a defense. Anesthesiologists deal with unforeseen cases all the time in which people have eaten, and if I decide to go with anesthesia, they can deal with me, too.

People who have had to deal with me when I'm food-deprived will agree.

as a soon to be OB-GYN, and a committed abortion provider, I was astounded at the way people spoke about physicians and ACOG. If you think OB-GYNs do anything for money you are sorely mistaken. It is a field with more work, more hours and less pay than most in medicine. I fight for the rights of women every day - and for the safety of my patients. We bear the burden of seeing the awful tragedies that can happen during delivery, while the lay public only can see statistics. Just like anti-choicers don't have to see a 16 year old's septic uterus removed after an illegal abortion, most people don't see a baby who died because of an unforseen complication during delivery or a woman who hemorrhaged to death. We SEE these things firsthand and experience the horror.... which is why we as medical professionals are so focused on safety.

as an addendum, OB-GYNS are mired in debt and malpractice insurance - none of us are going into the field to make money. I hope that people realize that there are physicians out there who fight for women's rights professionally and personally.

PPS the whole squatting debate for delivering - it increases the chance of tearing (ie tearing from vagina through the rectum) due to increasing the speed of the last stage of labor.

I was talking to my mum and sis a couple of weeks ago about childbirth, and asked my mum "Did they really insist on shaving and giving an enema to every woman giving birth?" The shaving was thought to prevent infection (turns out it made no difference), and mum thinks it's silly. But when I expressed horror at being given an enema, my sister (who has a 1-year-old) said she would have been glad of one-she was afraid that she'd poop with all the pushing, and was mortified at the thought! So, maybe that's part of the rationale behind the no-food thing, so you don't shit yourself. And just because anaesthesia is safe-ish when you've eaten, it's still safer when you haven't!

I really don't get the distrust of doctors that seems so prevalent on feminist sites. Maybe it's because I grew up with doctors, and assume that most are like my parents, knowledgeable, and with the best interests of their patients in mind. So it gets up my nose a bit when laypeople, or nurses, think they know more about medicine than doctors. Because those are my parents that you're talking about, when you seem to be tarring all doctors with the same brush. Part of it is also that I'm not afraid of or intimidated by doctors, and I forget that not everyone has that experience.

The way my dad put it is this: 99 times out of 100, if a person comes in showing the classic signs of appendicitis, an experienced nurse can make the diagnosis. The reason to have a doctor looking over the nurse's shoulder is for that one case out of 100, where it isn't appendicitis, and it takes doctor's greater knowledge to recognize that.

I really don't get the distrust of doctors that seems so prevalent on feminist sites. Maybe it's because I grew up with doctors, and assume that most are like my parents, knowledgeable, and with the best interests of their patients in mind.

JPlum, please don't suppose I distrust doctors. As a general rule, I don't, and I do believe that most doctors truly want to do the best by their patients. What I DO distrust is the degree of power the ACOG hold within the birth industry in the US, and I distrust that because I live in a country where there is much greater balance of power between OB/GYNs and midwives. When I complete my midwifery training, I hope I will ALWAYS know when I need to refer a woman to an OB/GYN - my training will teach me. That doesn't change the fact that complete medicalisation of childbirth is neither necessary nor beneficial, and women should have the right to choose an alternative without being ostracised or chided for it, which is what the ACOG is doing

Betherone:
PPS the whole squatting debate for delivering - it increases the chance of tearing (ie tearing from vagina through the rectum) due to increasing the speed of the last stage of labor.

Perhaps so. Nevertheless, there are very different risks to lying on one's back to give birth - women should have the right to choose which of those risks matter more for them.

I agree with exelizabeth and moriath about the Crenshaw/Ensler article.

Their approach to act as if voters are horrible warmongers for choosing Clinton is no different an approach than the one they argue against. (...The approach taken by the angry, pushy "either/or feminists.") And using a 9/11 narrative as a comparison to try and make their point was just tacky.

The following part of the article assumes a lot in addition to containing a classic form of sexism itself (Obama's running for president isn't power-hungry, but hers is??):

"It is about the candidate who works to dismantle the bomb, rather than drop it; the candidate who works to abolish the old paradigm of power, rather than covet and rise to its highest point; the candidate who seeks solutions and dialogue rather than retaliation and punishment.

They probably could have had a better effect by just using their good names to say they support and are enthusiastic about Obama. I'm 29 years-old and they didn't represent me, even if they did invoke "young feminists".

So far as the debate over home birth vs. hospital, I think that people distrust the special interest group that represents the doctors, not the doctors themselves.

Any such group is going to promote their way as the best way - such as the tobacco lobby claiming that smoking was good for your health right up until it was declared otherwise by the Surgeon General. We need to see a large body of research about the safety of home vs. hospital births, done by independent researchers, and then have someone like the Dept. of Health and Human Services publish a conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence. I mean, we're talking about a profession that only admitted in the last decade that episiotomies are not necessary in every single birth. It's also a profession that is still over-prescribing c-sections, despite their own findings about it.

PS the whole squatting debate for delivering - it increases the chance of tearing (ie tearing from vagina through the rectum) due to increasing the speed of the last stage of labor.

There are a wide variety of positions for giving birth--squatting and lying on one's back are only two. Significantly, however, you actually can't push lying flat on your back--in order to do so, you have to haul your upper body up. Add that to the fact not one culture has ever developed the lying-on-your-back position as a delivery position before its introduction by modern physicians, and I think you have some pretty good indications that lying on your back sucks.

But when I expressed horror at being given an enema, my sister (who has a 1-year-old) said she would have been glad of one-she was afraid that she'd poop with all the pushing, and was mortified at the thought! So, maybe that's part of the rationale behind the no-food thing, so you don't shit yourself.

Yep. Without an enema, everything gets flattened out during delivery, and you do shit. Big fucking deal. Your sister would have been mortified. That's a reason to do it pro forma to every woman giving birth? That's a reason not to explain what would happen and give women the option or not, as they so choose?

And just because anaesthesia is safe-ish when you've eaten, it's still safer when you haven't!

And why should hospitals be making that decision for me, or any other woman? What you have to do is compare the risks of eating if a woman then decides she wants or needs anesthesia to the risks of compelling a woman to do strenuous physical labor for upwards of 24 hours without any food or drink. That places a tremendous stress on the body; do you really expect me to believe that such stress has no effect on the birthing process?

I really don't get the distrust of doctors that seems so prevalent on feminist sites....it gets up my nose a bit when laypeople, or nurses, think they know more about medicine than doctors....Part of it is also that I'm not afraid of or intimidated by doctors, and I forget that not everyone has that experience.

I don't understand why you insist on dismissing the very real expertise and training of midwives. Do you distrust them? Are you afraid of or intimidated by them? Your description of the very real reasons why many women prefer to give birth with a midwife rather than a doctor as fuzzy emotional reactions--distrust, fear--is condescending and obnoxious. Look at first-world countries that use midwives--they're not in a crisis of neonatal mortality. These are facts.

The way my dad put it is this: 99 times out of 100, if a person comes in showing the classic signs of appendicitis, an experienced nurse can make the diagnosis. The reason to have a doctor looking over the nurse's shoulder is for that one case out of 100, where it isn't appendicitis, and it takes doctor's greater knowledge to recognize that.

We're not talking about appendicitis, which is invariably urgently fatal when not caught immediately. We're talking about childbirth, which is routinely very successful with midwives, medical professionals who are specifically trained in childbirth.

EG: "Add that to the fact not one culture has ever developed the lying-on-your-back position as a delivery position before its introduction by modern physicians, and I think you have some pretty good indications that lying on your back sucks."

That kinda proves my point about the distrust of doctors often found on feminist sites.

My example of my sister was as a possible explanation for the no-food rule. Did I miss the part where I said I felt it was a good rule, or that women shouldn't have their options explained to them? Because I don't recall making those points.

And EG, I agree with you that midwives can be good-I just disagree with the dismissive attitude I see towards the expertise of doctors. I think you're projecting-your obvious distrust and hatred of doctors is making you see hatred of midwives where there isn't any. I'm just saying it's good to have a doctor around if something goes wrong-because what if you're that one case in 100 where the midwife sees something simple, but it takes a doctor to know that it's something else entirely. (See what I did there? Applied the appendicitis example to a birthing situation. Just because my dad happened to say 'appendicitis' instead of 'childbirth' or 'strep throat' doesn't make the example less valid. I believe it's called an 'analogy').

I'm just saying it's good to have a doctor around if something goes wrong-because what if you're that one case in 100 where the midwife sees something simple, but it takes a doctor to know that it's something else entirely.

JPlum, I just don't really understand why you're so convinced that midwives will miss warning signs. By the time I've done my midwifery course, I'll have spent as much time learning about, witnessing, and clinically practicing care of pregnant, birthing and postpartum women as the time a doctor spends learning the relevant specialised material to become an OB. I'll know just as much about physiologically normal pregnancy and birth - possibly more. What I won't know is how to fix illness or injury, but I'll be taught to recognise it, and send a woman to someone who can if and when it becomes necessary.

You're using an invented statistic (1/100) to make the point, and yet I see no evidence for a statistic anywhere near that high - midwives are taught to watch for the same symptoms, suggest the same tests, and refer to a doctor if there is any reason for concern, or tests they can't refer for. OB/GYNs don't have a sixth sense, or x-ray vision that allows them to see problems before symptoms show up. They're using the same symptoms, the same diagnositic tests.

Midwives aren't out there performing illegal c-sections. They're not trying to prescribe drugs for illnesses of pregnancy. They're not using voodoo to diagnose problems. They're simply doing what they're trained to do - attending to and supporting women through normal pregnancy and birth, and referring them on if pregnancy or birth deviate from the norm in a way that could be problematic. At least, that's how it works in a place where midwife and OB/GYN care are integrated, and given New Zealand's maternal and neonatal outcomes have improved since that integration happened in the early 1990s, I struggle to see any evidence that it's dangerous.

Pregnancy and birth are not automatically medical conditions - they can cause medical conditions, but they are neither disease or disfunction. We don't expect people to have a doctor on hand every time they eat, even though they could potentially choke. Why should we insist on their having a doctor on hand for something that is just as much a normal process, albeit a somewhat more dramatic one? A midwife knows when birth is deviating from the normal process, and acts accordingly, but is an expert in the very wide variety of 'normal'.

Here are a couple more articles on forced marriage, one that also addresses recessive genes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.htm

and one that mentions a shelter for male victims:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7223743.stm

Here's an article on the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh (India's biggest state), Mayawati Kumari:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7239315.stm

She's not stopping there but aiming for Delhi too...

JCPenny ad...

I just want to say, I have seen this commercial on TV one too many times in the past few days, and it really pisses me off and makes me sick. I plan to e-mail them and let them know. If anyone else feels so inclined, this is a link to their "e-mail us" page.

http://www.jcpenney.com/jcp/emailus.aspx?VID=&Email=

apparently advertising is a part of the "general inquiries" section.

Here's an article on a county segregating its public schools:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/02/14/gaschools_0215.html

Does anyone expect the female high school and the male high school to stay equal while separate...?