Umm...Hmmm....

The place to go for debate on politics, religion, sex, and other tasty topics!
Post Reply
User avatar
NachtcGleiskette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3173
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 6:45 am
Title: The Ragin' Cajun
Location: NY

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by NachtcGleiskette »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 75_pf.html

So....yeah....

Here's what annoys me about this. Encouraging woman to be healthy is a WONDERFUL idea. Encouraging woman not to smoke, or to be a healthy weight, etc. is FABULOUS. It's great for their OWN health, and yes, should be encouraged.

But reading this article....it's...well, it's chauvenistic, isn't it? I mean, we are free thinking individuals, well capable of making the correct choices for our body. And one of those choices is...whether or NOT we ever want to get pregnant. This article's idea of imagining every woman as a pre-pregnant woman and encouraging all woman to treat themselves that way....well...wow. When did we become vessels? I specifically don't like how they really seem to consider the female body as one thing: the place where babies are made. And notice, the emphasis on health is NOT predominantly for the benefit of the female, but for the benefit of the child which may or may not come from the female. Wait...WHAT? When did MY life start needing to be determined by a kid who hasn't and may never be concieved?

Sound off peeps...
"If you live your life to please everyone else, you will continue to feel frustrated and powerless. This is because what others want may not be good for you. You are not being mean when you say NO to unreasonable demands or when you express your ideas, feelings, and opinions, even if they differ from those of others.â€
fourpawsonthefloor
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 3958
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:49 pm
Title: Executive Administrator

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by fourpawsonthefloor »

Yes, I agree - I find that article highly dismissive of women in general. While its a given that men's health doesn't have as high of an impact as a womans on a fetus, you certainly don't here anything about men needing to be healthier.

I do think that people that may become preganant (ie are off of BC and are fertile) should be prepared to nuture a child, but still...this article to me was taking that a little far.

In general - the whole lean to this article is troublesome to me.

Paws
Image
I'm actually quite pleasant until I'm awake.
Slarti
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5846
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 2:25 pm
Title: Damn Not Given
Nightscrawlearth Character: :icey :phoenix

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by Slarti »

I refuse to take medical advice from anyone named "Merry-K. Moos."
User avatar
NachtcGleiskette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3173
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 6:45 am
Title: The Ragin' Cajun
Location: NY

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by NachtcGleiskette »

I totally agree....the more I think about it..the more the whole thing disturbs me. I mean, I'm not exactly a card carrying feminist, but jesus, women as a whole have come a LONG ass way, and done alot and this article.....it like..takes us back to the dark ages. Women are to make babies. That should be their primary concern, even when they are not in the process of making babies. Like, we have much available to us when it comes to not wanting to have kids. So, with the use of contraceptives, these "unplanned" pregnanices that apparently this article is most concerned with are very very avoidable...in fact, I find it interesting that nothing in this article even mentions ways to avoid pregnancy, and in fact deems is INEVITABLE.....

It's like the whole article completely ignored the last 100 years and is going off some 19th century texts on nutrition and women. Don't forget your cod liver oil!
"If you live your life to please everyone else, you will continue to feel frustrated and powerless. This is because what others want may not be good for you. You are not being mean when you say NO to unreasonable demands or when you express your ideas, feelings, and opinions, even if they differ from those of others.â€
littlebamf
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 8:15 pm
Title: Sometimes the bark isn\'t worse than the bite
Location: the drama studio

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by littlebamf »

Next they'll be rounding us all up and putting us in baby farms.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with being healthy, but I keep myself healthy, don't smoke, etc because I want a career in theatre, not because I intend to produce children.
Angelique
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 2882
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:27 am
Location: sailing under the Jolly Wagner

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by Angelique »

Well, the article was about medical treatment for women, so naturally, the effect of a man's health on sperm quality should be the subject of an entirely different article.

Now it would be chauvinistic if the Washington Post never, ever ran an article about men's health issues, and how smoking, excessive drinking, etc., could affect their offspring.

Really, I think the whole point was that we should keep ourselves healthy, and yes, it is a good idea to think ahead, just in case.

The only total BS I saw was about cat feces. Building an immunity to toxoplasmosis is a good thing.
Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6 ... &ref=share

www.heroesfallenstudiosinc.webs.com

http://hubpages.com/hub/characterdriven
chicory
Butt Monkey
Butt Monkey
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:50 pm

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by chicory »

Does this mean I can't ride the theme rides at the amusement park anymore? Or, I don't smoke, but maybe waitperson's would be uncomfortable seating me in the smoking section because I might potentially be pregnant for all they know. And since that goes for any other women of childbearing years (in some cases - 8-60) I guess smoking and drinking laws should be changed to no child under 18/21 and no woman who is not post-menopause.

Is it chauvenistic? I think it's beyond that. It's straight out of that book we read in class this semester, Margaret Atwood's A Handmaid's Tale. Where women are named according to their status and reproductive life-stage and wear colors accordingly, and are protected - for the sake of the unborn.

People ought to be healthy. They should be able to afford and access regular check-ups and get pre-post natal care when they need it. And since, as the article says, 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, it's healthiest for the growing fetus if a person behaves as if they are forever pregnant, because who knows, you might be or you might someday be. And isn't that's what's best for your future children? (Because the article also assumes all women plan to have children someday - which leads me to believe they're suggesting what else are women for.)

I think it's scary. But, I'm not surprised, considering other laws that exist in Mississippi, Louisiana, and North Dakota. I also think that they are approaching this all wrong. Instead of blaming women for the United States having the highest rate of infant mortality in the industrialized world save for Latveria, maybe they should make sure that women who are pregnant have access to affordable health care since I doubt the insured are suffering from lack of pre-natal, post-natal care. ('Course that means universal health care - or universal Health Care for pre-menupausal women only). They might also want to consider taking sex ed out of the victorian era and making access to contraceptives, BC, and abortions easier. Like they do in the nations where infant mortality is much lower. Obviously they're doing something right in those nations.
For those who believe, no explanation is neccessary. For those who do not, no explanation is possible. ~Gino Dalpiaz
Angelique
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 2882
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:27 am
Location: sailing under the Jolly Wagner

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by Angelique »

Actually, in some cases abortion can increase the risk of infertility or future pregnancy complications, like cervical incontinence and premature birth. And then there's the effect abortion tends to have on those that are aborted. Not healthy at all for the offspring.

I also think the idea that health care is easily affordable to the insured can be a bit farcicle. (We're fully insured, and still paying off a minor surgery I had over a year ago to ensure I could breathe properly.)

Honestly, I think anyone who thinks this article is even suggesting that women are only for having babies is overreacting.

But I could see where treating all women as pregnant or potentially pregnant could create some problems. Because it's not as if every woman has or is planning to have sex.
Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6 ... &ref=share

www.heroesfallenstudiosinc.webs.com

http://hubpages.com/hub/characterdriven
User avatar
NachtcGleiskette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3173
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 6:45 am
Title: The Ragin' Cajun
Location: NY

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by NachtcGleiskette »

Originally posted by Angelique

But I could see where treating all women as pregnant or potentially pregnant could create some problems. Because it's not as if every woman has or is planning to have sex.
Also, not every woman is planning to have children, regardless of whether or not they are having sex. Point is: having children is not the inevitability this article claims it to be. It can be avoided by those who wish to avoid it through contraceptive means. Treating the female body as a means to have children, and thats it, is a gigantic step WAY back in feminism, and how far we've come.

[Edited on 19/5/06 by NachtcGleiskette]
"If you live your life to please everyone else, you will continue to feel frustrated and powerless. This is because what others want may not be good for you. You are not being mean when you say NO to unreasonable demands or when you express your ideas, feelings, and opinions, even if they differ from those of others.â€
Angelique
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 2882
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:27 am
Location: sailing under the Jolly Wagner

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by Angelique »

However, contraception is not 100% effective. Any woman of reproductive age who has sex is taking some chance on getting pregnant. No, it's not inevitable. But total abstinence is the only way to completely avoid pregnancy.
Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6 ... &ref=share

www.heroesfallenstudiosinc.webs.com

http://hubpages.com/hub/characterdriven
HoodedMan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:39 pm
Title: Lord Sarcasmo von Snarkypants

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by HoodedMan »

Haven't we gone over this already? I don't think abstinence has to do with this topic. The topic is: Should every woman be treated as pre-pregnant?

Personally, I would have to agree that it's a big step backwards in treating women as equals. You just can't assume that sort of thing, and to do so is demeaning and insulting.
ACHTUNG! Alles touristen und non-technischen looken peepers! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das rubbernecken sichtseeren keepen das cotten-pickenen hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten.
The Drastic Spastic
Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
Posts: 1846
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 3:01 am
Location: ROK

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by The Drastic Spastic »

If it weren't for the "women are breeders" message the message would be "minority people have got to stop squirting out so many retarded kids". Apparently in America it's better to be sexist than racist. Plus the gov't gets another chance to push its women are chattel/fetal rights agenda. Canada had better stay Canada, that's all I'm saying.

[Edited on 20-5-2006 by The Drastic Spastic]
Und die Sonne spricht zu mir
Angelique
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 2882
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:27 am
Location: sailing under the Jolly Wagner

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by Angelique »

As an honest-to-goodness pro-lifer, I can honestly say that the "women are chattel" mentality for the most part does not go together with fetal rights.

What's the matter with encouraging people to take care of themselves for the sake of future generations? And it's not racist to admit there are disparities in infant mortality rate that do indeed reflect economic disparities and the availability of quality health care. The message was not "minorities need to stop having kids," but "we need to address the fact that women of ethnic minorities are not getting adequate health care, as reflected by their infant mortality rates."
Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6 ... &ref=share

www.heroesfallenstudiosinc.webs.com

http://hubpages.com/hub/characterdriven
LadyErin
Butt Monkey
Butt Monkey
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:05 am
Location: Limbo
Contact:

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by LadyErin »

Originally posted by Angelique
However, contraception is not 100% effective. Any woman of reproductive age who has sex is taking some chance on getting pregnant. No, it's not inevitable. But total abstinence is the only way to completely avoid pregnancy.
Ange, honey, that's not true. I'm twenty-two, my girl-friend is 29 - and either of us could go out and have unprotcted sex with men when ever we wanted and never get pregnant. Ever. Not medically possible for either of us.

Anyway, back on topic -

Wasn't there a majo lawsuit over companies not allowing women of child-baring years to work there bcause of risk to fetuses?

What about those women who never ever ever ever want children?

And, telling a women she should be healthy for a future child? Bad idea. Insulting. Makes me very mad.
http://lady_erin.livejournal.com
:magneto
What do you mean, you "don't believe in homosexuality?" It's not like the Easter Bunny, your belief isn't necessary. ~~Lea DeLaria
Want to IM me? U2U me for the screenname.
Angelique
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 2882
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:27 am
Location: sailing under the Jolly Wagner

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by Angelique »

LadyErin, I'm afraid I cannot help if you find scientific facts insulting.

Read any medical book on the subject. They all say that healthy habits for a healthy pregnancy should begin long before conception.
Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6 ... &ref=share

www.heroesfallenstudiosinc.webs.com

http://hubpages.com/hub/characterdriven
LadyErin
Butt Monkey
Butt Monkey
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:05 am
Location: Limbo
Contact:

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by LadyErin »

Originally posted by Angelique
LadyErin, I'm afraid I cannot help if you find scientific facts insulting.

Read any medical book on the subject. They all say that healthy habits for a healthy pregnancy should begin long before conception.
Funny you think to lecture the person who is trying to raise money to get into med school on medicine...

Funnier still how you don't respond to me proving you wrong. (and I didn't even have to bring up women having sex with women!)

Funnest how you missed the frelling point yet again.

Duh - a healthy pregnancy is best started from a healthy woman. But telling a woman that she should be healthy because she might one day have a kid - bad idea. That is insulting. I am more than an incubator-to-be! Telling her she should be heathy because it's good for her? Good idea.

I mean, if women should only be healthy for having chldren, none of my aunts should be healthy - most are still th right age to have kidlets but cannot physically do that. I don't have to be healthy. A few hundred women in this country alone - maybe over a million, don't have to be bcause they are infertile.

So we don't matter I guess.

What's next? Banning women from certain jobs that might expose them to chemicals?
Banning women from drinking? Eating sushi and products with raw eggs?
Sky diving? SCUBA diving?

Cause, you know, they might be pregnant and not know it yet.
Or they might get pregnant really soon after...
http://lady_erin.livejournal.com
:magneto
What do you mean, you "don't believe in homosexuality?" It's not like the Easter Bunny, your belief isn't necessary. ~~Lea DeLaria
Want to IM me? U2U me for the screenname.
Angelique
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 2882
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:27 am
Location: sailing under the Jolly Wagner

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by Angelique »

Again, the whole idea that this is part of some conspiracy to reduce women to baby-making machines is an overreaction. Theoretically speaking, unless you've had all reproductive organs removed, if you have sex with a man, there is a chance, however small, that you could become pregnant.

Telling women they should be healthy because it's good for them is a no-brainer. But for some, the possibility that we could become pregnant serves as added incentive, not because women are only baby-makers, but because our health can directly impact another person's life.

Of course, the same things goes for men, too. And every so often, I do see articles on how when men are exposed to hazardous chemicles, etc., their ability to help conceive healthy children is affected.
Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6 ... &ref=share

www.heroesfallenstudiosinc.webs.com

http://hubpages.com/hub/characterdriven
LadyErin
Butt Monkey
Butt Monkey
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:05 am
Location: Limbo
Contact:

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by LadyErin »

Originally posted by Angelique
Again, the whole idea that this is part of some conspiracy to reduce women to baby-making machines is an overreaction. Theoretically speaking, unless you've had all reproductive organs removed, if you have sex with a man, there is a chance, however small, that you could become pregnant.
That is so not true. I have all of my bits - but I do not ovulate. I can say 100% there is no chance what so ever of my getting pregnant without massive amount of fetility drugs.

And, yes, maybe an overreaction, but it can certainly go the route.
Telling women they should be healthy because it's good for them is a no-brainer. But for some, the possibility that we could become pregnant serves as added incentive, not because women are only baby-makers, but because our health can directly impact another person's life.
Only for those who care about having children or ar mature enough to understand it. Many people won't.
Of course, the same things goes for men, too. And every so often, I do see articles on how when men are exposed to hazardous chemicles, etc., their ability to help conceive healthy children is affected.
But no one says they should be treated as if they may have sex and that will result in a child at any moment - nor should their medical care be central to that idea.
http://lady_erin.livejournal.com
:magneto
What do you mean, you "don't believe in homosexuality?" It's not like the Easter Bunny, your belief isn't necessary. ~~Lea DeLaria
Want to IM me? U2U me for the screenname.
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by Bamfette »

I'm in the same boat as LadyErin. i have all my 'bits' but I (and several of my aunts on my fathers side) will never become pregnant unless i actively try to by taking fertility drugs to force ovulation. I'm infertile, I don't ovulate. so saying that it is inevetable that I will beocme pregnant is silly. Now, I went on birth control pills when i used Accutaine and continued after that (until I got TIA's and was forbidden by my doctor from taking them again) because Accutaine can cause severe birth defects, and I used condoms during and after that. Just incase that one month my body for some inexplicable reason decided to produce an egg when it normally does not (and STD's in the condoms case, of course). To be quite frank, infertility happened to the right person in my case, I don't want children. Better me that's infirtile than my sister, who did want children. (and did have 2 of them) Maybe because of the infertility I am lacking adequate hormonal levels that instill the maternal instinct, I dunno. But if I get prgnant no matter how hard I try to avoid it, you know what? I'll have an abortion. I know it's not a popular decision, but that's what I will do. I will do it as early as possible, and It is a situation I would rather not be in, I'd like to avoid that it all costs, but I don't want to give birth to a child that wasn't wanted. So to be treated as a baby factoy is very insulting, and not at all accurate in my case. The chance of me becoming pregnant without the aid of fertility drugs, espeially since I use birth control despite not ovulating, is probably one in a billion, and if it should happen despite those odds, I will terminate it.



[Edited on 26/5/06 by Bamfette]
Angelique
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 2882
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:27 am
Location: sailing under the Jolly Wagner

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by Angelique »

But on the other hand, as I think was really the point of the article, treating women as if assuming pregnancy or the possibility of a future pregnancy isn't part of the equation tends to result in a higher instance of complications for mothers and babies and infant mortality- which I'm sure no woman in her right mind wants, whether she intends to have children or not.

I read it as more about improving health care for women, particularly poor women, rather than about treating women as "baby factories."

The fact that women in general, at least theoretically speaking, can have babies, just serves and an obvious additional incentive to make improvements.
Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6 ... &ref=share

www.heroesfallenstudiosinc.webs.com

http://hubpages.com/hub/characterdriven
bluefooted
Butt Monkey
Butt Monkey
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:22 pm
Location: the OC
Contact:

Umm...Hmmm....

Post by bluefooted »

I'm sorry, but as a scientist (and a woman ;) ) I do find it insulting. It's not the facts - obviously healthier people are more likely to have healthier babies - it's the timing of the report, itself. And the message.

These are facts we've known for a long while. There's nothing new contributed by this reccommendation nor is there any new research that it's based on. It's not even the reccommendation alon, that's insulting, but the timing. Along with a general attitude of the government at the moment (including the current bias in research funding), I find it very condescending and backwards.
Post Reply