On doctors and lady parts

Oh oh oh, it's TMI-time, travellers! This post has been brewing and stewing in my brain for a few months now, ever since a fateful day at the walk-in clinic proved to be the third strike against dudely doctors and dudes-who-aspire-to-be-doctors-but-instead-practice-what-is-largely-recognized-as-quacktacular-medicine.

Strike one occurred back in the 1980s when my mom's then-chiropractor responded to her not unreasonable request to examine her 8-year-old daughter's seemingly curved back with "She just has a large behind." Which a) I should be so lucky, b) is creepy and c) is a lazy, gross, patronizing excuse for medical treatment. (For the record, it is not so much the size of behind as the fact that it is constantly parked on the couch that accounts for my still lousy posture. Hey, do I get a pretend medical degree now?)

Strike two was back in the undergrad years, at the university's walk-in clinic:

Me: I'd like to get my pill prescription renewed, please.

Doc: When was your last physical?

Me: I'm a virgin.

Doc: Good for you!

"Good for you!", as if I'd spent the last eight or so years since menstruation fighting off an army of sweaty, shirtless James Masters-lookalikes, instead of being a gangly and self-conscious homebody who spent her spare time reading Stephen King novels and writing terrible poetry about not wanting to be a virgin anymore. "Good for you!" as if virginity was some sort of grand accomplishment and not the inevitable by-product of my particular blend of self-esteem issues, shyness and tendency to dork out to the extreme in front of any boy I liked. "Good for you!" as if 'virginity' is a medical term requiring no follow-up questions and not some sexist and heteronormative social abstract which means different things to different people and exists only in their minds, anyway.

Now that's a rant and a half, but I have saved the rantiest for last! Strike three happened just this summer when I, a grown lady who had spent a good half her life with (to the best of my knowledge) working lady bits, and had yet to cause some sort of international incident or natural disaster with them, went to get my pill prescription renewed yet again. In my mind, I was qualified  to a)make requests as to my reproductive needs, and b)receive medical advice in a professional, objective, and non-douchetastic manner.

BZZZZTTT!!!! WRONG!!! At least according to the douchiest of all dudely doctors, with whom I had an unfortunate encounter at the walk-in clinic I was frequenting while trying to find a family doctor in my new town. (Which I totally have now, and she is also a lady, and she is pretty swell).

This guy was such a douche, he earned his own three strikes within our five-minute appointment, for:

1) Telling me that once every two years wasn't enough for women with multiple partners, after I had just told him that I was in a long-term, monogamous relationship ("Whatever, slut!");

2) Looking so pointedly at my (wedding ring-less) hand the whole time that I finally snapped a "I'm married; we don't wear rings", which I hate because a)marriage is a legal relationship and NOT a medical one and therefore NOT RELEVANT to this particular conversation, dipstick, and b)when I have to pull the marriage card it reminds me just how patriarchal and sucktastic a lot of people want marriage to be and means that I am in the presence of someone who is probably against things like same-sex marriage, women's equality, and kittens. Because he is an asshole.

3) After the marriage admission, writes me a six-month prescription, "Since [you've] been such a good girl."

If ever you needed proof that Angry Floyd still has self-control - I am currently blogging about this instead of serving time for "aggravated assault with various medical implements". So there.

Ladies, gents and every in-between? Any douchestactic doctor experiences?

Decemberween Round-up

Having just handed in my last paper of the term yesterday, I'm now trying to make up for the many weeks (and months) of neglect that most other non-school-related parts of my life have been suffering.  Such as: talking to friends/family; drinking; watching season 5 of Xena; reading for pleasure; catching up on holiday cheer; successfully waging war on Christmas with wishes of 'Happy Holidays' (wishing people to be happy?  Over the holidays? What an evil, oppressive sentiment!  Time to go back to my original saying of "Shove a snowball up your a**!"  Yes, much better.); drinking (the second one's a pre-emptive drink - it's only been one day, give me some time!) and finally, commenting on a few of the awesome and awful things that have been going around:

Item the first: Ironwoman sent me this vid a while back - coincidentally, the day myself and a fellow grad were discussing this exact topic - we laughed our collective asses off and raised our glasses to toast the destruction of the patriarchy (a fine toast if ever there was one).  As much as this particular text is pretty funny, there's still an element of truth there as any woman who's worked in a male-dominated field will probably tell you.  Like, say, being a political assistant who has to deal with smug little boys in expensive suits explain Parliamentary procedure to you incorrectly - and then smile at you smugly when you point out they're incorrect like a bunch of freakin' smugwads...you know, if I just had to pick a random example.

Item the second  - don't know if this made the rounds outside the merry land of Blog, but my current academic institute was a hot topic for December, when the student union voted on a motion to deny support to anti-choice student groups, either through funds or use of space.  Had a lively discussion in my class the next day about how I am ABSOLUTELY 100% SUPPORTIVE of this decision.  FACT: CUSA is not the student government or the university government. FACT: A loss of $250 and a couple of spaces on campus is not an attack on free speech.  FACT: The student union should stand up for the rights of students; groups that want to make 100,000 Canadian women into soulless murderers, groups that think the intelligence, humanity and morality are only carried on the Y chromosome, groups that would lie, threaten and manipulate women out of their rights, these groups have no place being funded or in any way supported by the students' union.  Students shouldn't be supporting groups that then use the money to actively attempt to strip them of their rights; anti-choice groups deserve as much funding as KKK, Nazi or anti-LGBT groups.  If they want to spout their hateful bullshit in the open air, they can pay to photoshop their own "OMG, look at this 8-week aborted fetus, yes, it DOES TOO have fingers and toes and weighs 6 pounds at 8-weeks, you baby-murdering whore!" photos. 

Item the third - Apropos of nothing - Green Christmas this year, much like almost every single year of my child and no year of my adulthood.  Save us Al Gore!

Item the fourth - How to sum up the movie (and, I'm assuming, book) Eragon: "Man, I hate being a teenaged-boy!  I wish I lived in a different place, and was 17 going on 21, and had my own dragon that only served me, and magical powers, and a hot girl who was totally into me, and like, fought sorcerers and stuff...that would be soooo awesome."

That is all - happy holidays to you and yours!

The Choice of a New Generation

Hey y'all,

Like a lot of folks out there, I'm knee-deep in school and sinking fast...Those of you in school know what I mean, those of you being productive citizens will remember what I mean, so blogging has been a distant memeory for the past month.  However, there's a couple of articles that have been stewing in my brain for the past couple of months, and in between bouts of drunken rage at The Man (and also The Man) I've been putting some specific thoughts together on the continued attacks on reproductive rights in the US and around the world.

What's gross and hateful and disgusting is that the fundies hide behind "Won't somebody please think of the innocent blastocysts!" when really, they're not just against that mystical "9 months minus a day" abortion that all women secretly long to have.  They just don't see why should women have any reproductive rights at all.  Not medical abortion, not preventative birth control, not anything.  Because, after all, woman are here for one reason and one reason only - to be passive vessels for manly essence as decided by men who could never get anyone to bear their children voluntarily God.

Hat tip to Courtney who sent me this link which introduced me to that Kah-razy Karacter, Thomas Euteneuer.  Like most self-proeclaimed experts on sex, pregnancy and child-rearing, Thommy has experienced none of those things.  However, in his capacity as a Catholic priest, he does have the red phone to that big guy in the sky, and therefore feels qualified to dismiss contraception as it  "interferes with a woman's duty to produce "a full quiver" of children for God."  That's right ladies!  In God's eyes, we are all his precious children/children factories.   But hey, don't whine to Thommy about it - if God had wanted you to have an autonomous, spiritually-fulfilling life, he would have given you a penis.  Duh!

Because obviously women aren't supposed to make reproductive decisions.  I mean, when they do, look what happens (hat tip to Christine for the article):  the crime rate goes down, thereby robbing fundamentalists of their "oh noes, society is crumbling!!11!1" arguments.  And really, anyone who is actually surprised by the fact that women making their own choices is a good thing deserves the heart attack they get when it turns out that those walking sperm-incubators actually have the capacity to make moral decisions.

I mean, really - is this so controversial?  Are we really all that surprised that when women can choose when to have children, said children are generally better cared for and less likely to wind up on the hopeless path of crime?   And to those fundie groups that wave the strawman of adoption around, let me just point out three things: 1)Yes, there are plenty of families out there looking to adopt - healthy white babies.  Which poor, non-white women don't tend to give birth to; 2)There are far more children without families than families looking to adopt; and 3)Denying reproductive control to women in order to turn them into broodmares for middle-class, white, Christian families is a terrifying and inhuman idea.

Anyway - just needed to get that off my chest.  Next time I come up for air, I hope to deal with the issue of anti-contracpetion crusaders and how what they really need is a terrific lay with the consenting adult of their choice.   

Random old guys, second only to God in terms of moral judgement

A friend of mine recently went back to work after a year off battling breast cancer, just in time for to hear all about this wonderful example of humanity spout off about how women aren't capable about making their own decisions regarding their bodies.  At a "welcome back" lunch, we got into a discussion about abortion regulation, and the random old guys who wander around with signs just across the street, and who the hell they think they are to tell women about the morality of her decision. 

See, said friend is pretty young for a breast cancer survivor - 27 - and one of the main issues she's dealing with now is sex and reproduction, post-cancer.   To help prevent a reoccurence, she a) cannot take any hormonal forms of birth control, and b) is on a series of drugs that ARE NOT compatible with healthy fetal development.  She asked her doctor point blank what that would mean if she got pregnant - to which her doctor replied that it was her decision, but he would advise her to have an abortion.

Now sure - random old guys on the street, because they  are "Christian" men and therefore possessing far superior moral judgement to a young woman (or a medical doctor) as far as the issue of pregnancy is concerned - would simply tell her that she shouldn't be having sex anyway, because there's nothing in this world more EVIL than non-married adults engaging in consensual sexual behavior.

BUT!  Here's the sticky point - she IS getting married.  And, seeing as this story is taking place in Canada, I should clarify that she is getting married to a man. 

So it's a very real possibility that some day in the next five years, she might have to walk past random old guys to get to the clinic, and they will wish they lived in a society where, sinless as they are, they could cast all sorts of stones at her (magic stones that hurt the murdering whore without touching the precious angel growing inside her).

Now, some may say that, to be fair, I should accept the possibility that the random old guys would probably understand if she explained her situation to them.  They would probably accept her decision, and feel compassion that she was faced with so many challenges and such a young age.

But to anyone who says that, I say: SO FREAKIN' WHAT?    Oh, would they understand?  Would they be compassionate?  Would they tell her she's not making Jesus cry - this time?  Wow, what a couple of saints!  What truly phenomenal human beings they are - a woman made a personal decision affecting her body and her body alone - and after a detailed explanation, they considered it justified!  STOP THE PRESSES - here are the wisest, most noble of men!  Yes, there!  Hiding behind the "I'm a child, not a choice" signs!

ARRRRRGGGHHH.

Here's the thing about being pro-choice - it means that no woman, ever, anywhere, under any circumstances, needs to justify her decision to ANYONE BUT HERSELF.   Not to her friends, not to her family, and certainly not to complete strangers who spend their whole day protesting abortions while thousands of children in this city alone go hungry. 

It is her body, it is her business, and I am so goddamn TIRED of people who think that they should have the right to decide what are "good" and "bad" reasons for abortions.  There is only one good reason for an abortion - that she wants one.  There is only one bad reason for abortion - that someone else is forcing her to get one. 

That is why it's "pro-choice", NOT "pro-abortion", and if people are so thick-skulled they can't understand that, then they have no place making moral decisions for THEMSELVES, let alone anyone else. 

Who really makes that baby?

Content note from 2021: Edited to remove transphobic, gender essentialist language.

I'm a frequent lurker on the Fark forums, which provide some of the funniest, most hilarious, most irreverent-and-not-for-the-easily-offended comments on all the Internet tubes.

However, it also provides an outlet for some of the most mind-numbingly asinine asshats to spout their stupidity, an example of which I came across recently in response to an article about anti-abortion groups buying out abortion clinics' leases to shut them down.  A self-proclaimed atheist pro-lifer was arguing against abortion based on his own misguided version of property rights:

Pro choice = pro destruction of shared property. Its half the fathers DNA too, making it not "part of her body". It is "part of her body" in the sense that when you deposit money into the bank it is "part of the bank".

 Sure, the bank is housing your money like the woman is housing your uterus. Sure the bank adds its own money onto yours as the woman adds her own DNA to the child. The fact that it happens to be temporarily residing in one place should not give the right to unilateral destruction.

Now there's a thoughtful, egalitarian and realistic view of reproduction:  A uterus is like an like an ATM!  You put in $100!  A month later, you take out $100.05!  And that's how babies are made! It's a fun update on the "Magic Sperm" view of gestation.  If you've never heard of that one before, it's kind of like the belief that each sperm is a mini-baby, kind of like a pack of "magic grow" sponges.  Stick one in a uterus/put them in a bowl of water, and poof! Dinosaurs!  Er, or babies, depending on the package.

This view - that people with uteruses are passive baby containers - is at the heart of many anti-abortion arguments.  And, like many other views at the heart of anti-abortion arguments, it is entirely false. The two genetic parents do not contribute equally to the creation of a child.  One party contributes 1 (one) (uno) (ein) sperm.  That is it - one sex cell.  That is it.  That is all.  The human body has anywhere from 10-100 TRILLION cells.  At birth, you have anywhere between 5-10% of that (based on size), and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CAME FROM THE PERSON WHO BIRTHED YOU. They came from the food they ate, what they drank, the contents of they blood, the air they breathed, the substances that permeated their skin.

Forget about that "magic sperm" of yours, buddy - you didn't make a deposit in a bank.  Making a baby is like building a house. You dropped off half of the design plans, and your partner supplied the other half, as well as the concrete, the bricks, the mortar, the steel girders, the 2x4s, the nuts and bolts, the drywall, the shingles, the paint, the curtains, the major appliances, a couple of nice throw rugs, etc.  Congratulations - you have viable gametes.  But you didn't "make" a baby, any more than Trump made any of those buildings with his name on them. 

And if you have a uterus - be wary of misogynists who hide behind atheism - anti-abortion arguments are anti-women, and religion (or lack thereof) is just a convenient smokescreen for people who really just want those sluts to get what they deserve.

Sure, you can have a cigarette, right after you pee on this stick

The uterus-coveting, woman-hating, fetus-worshippers down south must really be doing a happy dance, if such a thing weren't so terribly sinful.  States like Arkansas and Utah are moving closer and closer to their ideal world of poor women having the same legal status as brood mares from menstruation to menopause.  This article (and bless them for using quotation marks properly) deals with the issue of states passing "fetal rights" laws, including one that would make it illegal for pregnant women to smoke.

Now, before anyone accuses me of encouraging pregnant women to smoke, that is obviously not the case.   (Furthermore, that's not even relevant - am I a freakin' doctor? Who cares about my recommendations for pregnancy?)  The issue here is that, if these raving fundies have their way, all of us will have countless inalienable rights as little cell clusters in the womb, and none when we're actual living, breathing human beings.

A pregnant woman has just as much right to smoke as anyone else.  She has just as much a right to not smoke, or be exposed to smoke, as anyone else.  She is still a person, she is still a FREAKIN' HUMAN BEING, and she is fully entitled to make the decision whether or not to smoke, or drink, or eat sushi, or play sports, or ride a bicycle, or have crazy hot sex.  She also has the right to be presented with accurate, unbiased, scientifically-proven information regarding fetal development, so that she can have the tools to make the best decisions possible.

The logical progression of this type of thinking - that is, the "protect the fetus from all potential harms, real or imaginary" - is truly terrifying.  I mean, so this law prevents pregnant women from smoking, and we get others that force them to adhere to a specific diet, specific activities, specific thoughts, etc.  But what about other people?  We could pass anti-smoking laws everywhere a pregnant woman might go, which would cover - well, everywhere.  Probably just easier to ban pregnant women from these places.  Easiest, in fact, to round them all up in one place where all these various laws regulating their activities can be enforced.  Sure, lady, you're giving up all personal autonomy and living like a prisoner for commiting the heinous crime of fertility, but it's for THE GOOD OF THE FETUS.  You must live your life for THE GOOD OF THE FETUS otherwise you are a terrible person.  Of course, you're probably a terrible person anyway, because God made you woman.

This quotation almost hits the nail on the head, but then misses the point at the last second:

Even Mathis, the Arkansas legislator, harbors doubts about the state's ability to enforce an anti-smoking law. "The more I think about it... you might end up with a fat lip" if police approach a smoker who is overweight but not pregnant, he said.

Which, dude - yes, you are likely to get a fat lip, but I'd say more so from the pregnant woman who's been dealing with nausea, diarrhea, headaches, swollen ankles, food cravings, strangers fondling her belly, being defined by her condition, judgmental glares and holier-than-thou stares, people glancing down at her hands looking for a ring, and such, who decides that she just needs ONE GODDAMN CIGARETTE to try and get through the last month of this shit, and next thing she knows some rando's all up in her face about how that makes her a criminal. 

Fat lip?  Hell, if it was my mom, that person would have been off solid food for weeks. 

An Open Letter to Paul Steckle

Dear Honourable Member for Huron-Bruce,

First and foremost, allow me to congratulate you on becoming the first MP to take advantage of the first (albeit minority) Conservative government in office for 13 years to introduce a Private Member's Bill restricting abortion access[link to follow].  My own pick for this dubious honour was a certain Maurice Vellacott, but this is hardly the first time he has disappointed someone with his actions, or lack thereof. 

However, while I missed the "who" I do want to assure you that I was bang-on in the "what" - as in, what kind of legislation would be introduced.  As has been the case in the US, the fundamentalist-anti-abortion-legislation-wedge of choice seems to be what they charmingly refer to as "partial-birth abortions" (which, as long as we are completely making up supposed medical terms, I prefer to refer to as "red herrings distracting people from the erosion of bodily autonomy").  And in that regard, you have come through, with your law restricting abortion access after 20 weeks.

Now some people may wonder why you believe a woman's ability to make a conscious moral decision somehow mysteriously dissolves at 20 weeks of pregnancy.  At first, I simply assumed that you do not trust women's judgment, which seemed a tad bit ironic coming from the man who used, as his official House of Commons Christmas card, this photo of him and member of his family, in camouflage and bearing arms, inscribed with "Glory to God in the highest, And on Earth peace, good will toward men."  (As far as celebrating Our Lord and Saviour's birth in such a manner, I can only imagine that my copy of the Bible is missing the passage where Jesus and the disciples bag some deer.  Of course, it also appears to be missing the passages where He says "Abortions make Me cry" and "I hate gays", so I suppose that's par for the course.)

Fortunately, you have an answer to that - it's not that you don't trust women's judgment, it's that the poor fragile creatures simply aren't capable of handling the consequences of making their own choices:

If a woman is so ambivalent about having an abortion that she cannot make the decision until after she is in her 20th week, then a choice to terminate the pregnancy at this point is likely to be even more traumatic for her.

How terribly thoughtful of you to try and protect these women from the terrible, terrible situation of having to make and live with their own decisions!  You are not only on a quest to save these helpless unborn babies, but also to save their hopeless mothers from being full human beings!  It is so unbearably noble, I almost hesitate to point out that some women may, perhaps, feel perfectly qualified to make their own choices at whatever stage of the pregnancy they're in.  And I am certainly even more hesitant to point out that some of the more hysterical ones may question even your qualifications to rule on the emotional consequences of a decision which you yourself could not, under any conceivable circumstance, face. 

Yet I doubt that will persuade you.  You have, in the face of epidemic poverty, rampant illness, international epidemics of child (and here I must distinguish between "living, breathing" child and "still technically a part of a woman's body" child) abuse and exploitation, chosen to devote yourself to bringing unwanted children into this world.  I'm sure that the currently-endangered children completely understand your choice to ignore their needs in favour of the unborn, and are likely happy to rot away, alone and abandoned, if it means that you are doing your utmost to usher in their replacements.  And if that isn't a morally sound decision, I suppose you don't really know what is.

Sincerely,

Floyd

PS. Get your own damn uterus.

Why anti-abortionists are anti-women

Couple of great links - first, to Alas, a Blog and the terrific table done up there that shows anti-abortion policies and analyzes whether said policy is consistent with the belief that abortion is murder. I'd summarize it here, but it's terrific on its own already. Check it out.

And a post from from Amanda at Pandagon, who is currently my hands-down favourite non-friend blogger, looking at how fundies aren't really worried about the poor innocent sex cells zygotes embryos fetuses babies as much as they are about making sure the wimminfolk aren't out there exercising their own autonomy. Basically, if an embryo fails to implant because God so willed it/it was touched by His Noodly Appendage, that's okay - but if a woman makes a conscious decision to prevent pregnancy on her own, that's eeeeeevil.

I Wish I Hadn't Done it; Therefore, No One Else Should Have That Option, and other sad moments from The March for Life

They're probably the only anti-abortion group that gets to me: average women, sombre faces, black signs with white writing that proclaim "I Regret My Abortion".

And my first thought is: Dude, that sucks.

And my second thought is: That's not a valid argument.

And my third thought is: Why have you gone to the dark side?

Let's deal with those thoughts one at a time, shall we?

First of all - that really, really sucks. I can't imagine how much stress, depression, insomnia, and wordless rage that kind of regret must generate. Every day, every smiling family, every child, every parent, must provoke a numb hollowness that is unbearable.

BUT - and this brings us to thought number two - that is not a valid argument. You made one of the most difficult decisions any person will ever be faced with, and now you regret your choice. You have my sympathy. But you don't know better than I do what's right for me and my body. I'm sorry that you regret your abortion, and I'm interested in your story, but you don't get to make that choice for me.

Laws don't exist to protect me from making decision I might regret (hello, grade six perm), they exist to protect my fundamental human rights and freedoms. They exist to create a society in which fully autonomous citizens are informed and aware and capable of excercising free will.

Which leads me to my final point - these woman have(unwittingly, I like to think) gone over to the dark side by endorsing the same social factors which likely contributed to their regrettable decision in the first place: the systemic devaluation of women, their intellect, their contributions to society, and their intrinsic worth.

Did these women abort because of pressures from their partners, parents or peers? Were they made to feel selfish for considering what was best for them and not the interests of others? Were they threatened with financial abandonment, physical violence, or moral judgment?

Abortion wasn't, and isn't, the problem - it's a society which consistently undermine women's rights. And that is why, when I look at these women, I want to extend my arms and invite them over to this side of the fence, where they belong, where every woman can choose what is right for her and her alone and not fear retribution for daring to presume to act like a full human being with the rights and privileges thereby accorded.

The Onion Gets It

Today's lead article at The Onion is fan-TASTIC. I wonder how many uterus-covetors are nodding their heads in vigorous agreement.