Archives for September 2009

I am talking to a class at St. Paul University here in Ottawa tomorrow about the injustice of abortion for women. I see it’s posted here as a public lecture, so feel free to come if you are in the area. (Starts at 5:00 pm in the Saint Paul University Amphitheatre.)

Love this column. All of it. Mythbusting stereotypes on the gender front is important. I like the last line, too:

I don’t know how many women “should” be in top jobs, but it’s possible that there are about as many there as want to be there. Maybe our granddaughters will make different choices. In the meantime, maybe we should be congratulating ourselves for our success.

Why old school feminists won’t celebrate still baffles me–but perhaps that’s because they’d lose their Status of Women jobs. Some women have made a career out of complaining. Too bad.

__________________________

Rebecca adds: Ah, but “old-school feminists” are wedded to belief that gender is a social construct. If you deny the possibility that, at the level of large populations, men and women have different aptitudes, goals, interests and predispositions, then there can be no reason BUT sexism for them to have different career paths; even if we could prove to the Gloria Steinems and Andrea Dworkins that women are represented at the CEO level at about the same proportion that they want to be at that level, why that would simply prove that women are brainwashed by a patriarchal society to want different things. I’m afraid a lot of ideologues have made the small but important hop across falsifiability; there is nothing we could show them that would shake their confidence in their assumptions. Which, per Karl Popper, puts them squarely into dogma and superstition, rather than rationality, but that’s another post …

__________________________

Brigitte doesn’t know a lot about gender theory, but would like to say that as an incorrigible heteronormative kinda gal, I like it when men and women do different things just because they are, you know, different. I wouldn’t want men and women to be just the same. That would be boring and horrible.

This blog on women’s issues isn’t one I agree with a whole lot, but by asking if women are less happy when they wear less clothes, I think they’re on to something. I’m not sure that anorexia, bulimia and low self-esteem exist because models are thinner than a generation ago, though. Sure, there are women thinner and more beautiful than any of us out there (unless, apparently, you’re Megan Fox – but there are people out there who are smarter, richer, healthier, or better at karate than all of us, too, and the fact of their existence doesn’t drive us to despair, let alone mental illness.

The Jewish conception of modesty is, like all things Jewish, complicated, occasionally hard to understand and sometimes downright weird. (Gefilte fish, I’m looking at you.) But the basic concept of physical modesty, which applies to men too, is that we cover our bodies because they are sacred and not for public enjoyment, and is often expressed by the phrase “The glory of the king’s daughter is within.” What this means is that the things that matter – virtue, kindness, honesty, integrity, courage, humility – aren’t what show on the outside; inner beauty, in other words, however trite that phrase has become.

I think what’s really pernicious about our culture’s obsession with mostly naked women, however beautiful or thin they are, is the message that it sends about worth. “You’re worthless unless you’re thin” is the lesson some people take from it, sure, but it’s also a message that we publicly talk about and deconstruct. “Your value and your identity resides in your physical body” is the less obvious but no less pervasive message they convey. And when desirability as a friend or wife is also bound up in prettiness, it reinforces that message. If I had a daughter, I wouldn’t worry so much about magazine covers that say “you should look like Angelina/Kate Moss/Lindsay Lohan” as about the broader message that “all that matters is how you look.”

Certainly, you can dress scrupulously modestly and still be shallow. And you can insist on modest clothing for your chidlren without valuing their character and moral code. But as Wendy Shalit points out, by striving for a certain modesty in our dress and behaviour, we have the opportunity not only to say “I’m not on public display” but also “I will not be judged by your criteria.” Which is actually the sort of subversive, iconoclastic sentiment feminists celebrate. Right?

The average British man or woman has slept with 2.8 million people — albeit indirectly, according to figures released Wednesday to promote awareness of sexual health.

Read the story, here. (Does anyone ever wonder how it is that culturally we make fun of people who promote abstinence?)

I like thoughtful critiques that make me think about the way I think.

This isn’t one of them.

I caught this article as I was reviewing my notes for an upcoming talk on Why Abortion is an Injustice for Women. (I was typing away from behind my hijab, pondering how to please my male masters when someone sent me the link.)

You can disagree–absolutely–but there should at least be some substance to that disagreement.

Anyway, I’ll be speaking about abortion as injustice for women at the deVeber Institute conference on Friday, October 2 in Toronto. The conference title is Reproductive Decisions and Women’s Well-Being: Current Research and Practical Solutions.

Barbara Kay writes a funny column about attempts to legalize euthanasia in the form of a letter to her children:

I do not want to be bumped off. I can’t state the case more unequivocally than that. I don’t care if I am a “burden” to you (you were once to me, that’s how life works); I don’t care how long it takes me to die, and how inconvenient that is to the medical system; and I don’t care how selfless an example other parents are setting in graciously exiting the world for their dependents’ sake before nature intended.

The whole thing is worth reading, if only because it’s not often that one can laugh while reading about euthanasia.

I’m glad that Vancouver’s public library cancelled this:

The Vancouver Public Library has told an Australian group that it can’t use the library’s public meeting rooms to hold a suicide workshop for the terminally ill.

On the other hand, I have a bit of a morbid curiosity (pardon the pun) to know who would have come, if anyone. Probably some of the saddest, most depressed folks around–in which case, if I lived in Vancouver I would have gone, found out their addresses and started some sort of home visitation program. Bring by some fresh flowers, ask about their lives. Infuse a little something to make life worth living.

Who on earth offers “suicide classes” anyway? And there, my post title is less a joke, and more a sardonic statement of reality. Not messengers of hope and decency, these folks.

A fine post by Paul Tuns. Especially this:

The problem is that pregnant women are routinely tested to see if their child has a genetic anomaly for which there is no treatment. Doctors, who can’t stand to do nothing, offer what they can: abortion to get rid of the “problem”. This leads to a vicious cycle; I’ve talked to doctors who are concerned that with fewer Down Syndrome children being born, there is less impetus to do the type of research which could enrich the lives of those who survive the womb for nine months because there isn’t enough demand. Future lack of resources to help parents of Down Syndrome children will only encourage more parents to abort such children in the future.

Testing to see if the child has some “problem” for which there’s no treatment is one of those “illusion of technique” traps – better living through science (except of course for those whose lives are cut short in the name of perfection). Expecting mothers, not all of whom are geneticists, are often made to take those tests as a matter of routine because that’s just what’s expected, especially if you’re an older expecting mother. But those tests that determine (that’s assuming the tests are accurate, not an altogether water-tight assumption) whether a fetus has a condition for which there is no treatment are not medicine.

_____________________

Andrea adds: This breaks my heart.

The Washington Post cites Skotko’s research indicating that 92 percent of women who learn they are carrying a baby with Down syndrome choose to abort the pregnancy. That is more than nine out of ten.

Does anyone know when it comes to ultrasounds then, what is the point? Because I’ve always said I would not have one, period. But are there any conditions that can be viewed in utero for which abortion is not the answer? (As in, if you see something in the fetus early there is a bona fide treatment?)

______________________

Rebecca adds: “Does anyone know when it comes to ultrasounds then, what is the point? Because I’ve always said I would not have one, period. But are there any conditions that can be viewed in utero for which abortion is not the answer? (As in, if you see something in the fetus early there is a bona fide treatment?)”

I maintain that there is good reason to have these tests – maternal blood screening and ultrasound, which are non-invasive for the baby – even for people who would not consider abortion no matter what the result.  The major downside is false positives for problems, but a good obstetrician or radiologist will explain what are the odds of a false positive (and negative) to women being tested.  There are good medical reasons for finding out about problems in utero.  In some cases, babies can have surgery prior to being born, which can repair some otherwise fatal defects.  In others, when parents and doctors are aware of major problems, they can do a C-section and transfer the baby to immediate surgery; I know a healthy teenager who had a severely malformed abdominal wall, and since it was detected in utero, this is what happened.  If he’d gone through a vaginal birth, or not been taken immediately into a prepared operating theatre, he would likely be dead.  Down Syndrome in particular causes a higher risk of heart defects that can prove fatal at or shortly after birth, so it’s good to know if your child has this problem, so you can ensure optimal care at delivery.

The other big reason in my opinion is to prepare yourself psychologically.  Sarah Palin talked about being overjoyed when her son was born; she’d already come to terms with his medical condition, so the birth was a joyful occasion, not mixed with grief as it would be it were also the occasion on which you first learned your childhood had a lifelong disability for the family to cope with.  When major surgery is needed right after birth, it’s a lot easier on the family if it’s not a surprise, if they know what to expect and have made arrangements to help them all get through it.  Coping with a new baby is stressful and exhausting even when everything is perfect; coping with major surgery for your newborn would be a excruciating.  If that could be mitigated by some knowledge in advance of what the risks are and what’s likely to happen, I’m all in favour.

I fully support the choice to refuse prenatal testing if that’s what the mother wants.  But diagnostics themselves are not the problem, it is the mentality of the people within the system and how they use diagnostics.  These tools can certainly be used to mark some unborn children as unworthy of life.  But they can also be used to ensure best outcomes and the smoothest transitions even for babies with severe problems.  There is no inherent contradiction between being pro-life and being in favour of prenatal testing.

(I don’t discuss amnio because that, unlike maternal blood screening and ultrasound, does present a risk to the baby, with between .5% and 2% of amnios causing miscarriage, depending on when, how and where it’s done.  That’s a whole separate set of ethical issues.)

Further,”as commenters point out, there are other reasons that don’t involve defects or disease.  The reality of medicine today is that, while OBs rely less and less on manual palpation to evaluate pregnancies, it is not unheard of for a twin’s existence to go unnoticed until the birth.
Apart from the shock and logistics for the parents, this is medically
risky: for multiple births, it’s desirable to have extra supplies and attendants, as well as the ability to do an emergency C-section.  And less critically, ultrasound can be a great way of making a pregnancy seem real, and start a sort of proto-bonding.  I don’t know anybody who hasn’t teared up the first time they saw their baby on a scan, even if it’s still at the “peanut with a heartbeat” stage (6 or 7 weeks, if I recall correctly.)”

_____________________

Andrea again: Thanks for all the thoughtful comments. I like what Rebecca said about it being the mentality–not the tools. I have two friends who were offered testing in order that they might abort. (It was expressly stated.)

Which is also extraordinarily heart-wrenching. A woman who was implanted with someone else’s embryo is preparing to give birth and hand over the baby to the biological parents. There was no easy way out in this case – how do you justify aborting someone else’s baby? How do you carry and deliver someone else’s baby? I can’t imagine how hard it must be for everyone involved, but I’m glad they chose the option that would let the baby live.

Here’s a fine puzzle for you: What do you tell your child when he comes home confused by a classmate who went from 12-year-old boy to 12-year-old girl over the summer vacation? That you’re pretty confused, too?

A BOY aged 12 turned up at school as a GIRL – after changing sex during the summer holidays.

Teachers called an emergency assembly to order fellow pupils to treat him as female.

The lad, whose parents have changed his name to a girl’s by deed poll, arrived in a dress with long hair in ribboned pigtails. He is preparing for sex-swap surgery.

Angry parents told yesterday how their kids were left tearful and confused after school staff announced the boy pupil was now a girl.

They said the head teacher should have informed them in advance of the “sex change” so they could prepare their sons and daughters and inform them about gender issues.

Three things: 1) While I do not wish to diminish the pain that individuals caught in the wrong gender experience, isn’t 12 a bit early to go ahead with gender reassignment? 2) Why didn’t the school warn other parents? You can’t expect 12-year-olds to accept such concepts without some kind of preparation, and it’s not nice to surprise people that way. And 3) What a stupid thing to do! By not warning the other parents and giving them a chance to prepare their kids so they could deal with their sex-swapping classmate, they made it even harder on said classmate:

[Parents] added that the school’s failure to do so [give them a heads-up] had left the boy to suffer cruel taunts and bullying.

One mum said: “They behaved appallingly by throwing this hand grenade into the room and then leaving the inevitable questions about it for unprepared parents.

“Maybe we could have explained sexual politics and encouraged our kids to be more sensitive if we’d had a chance to be involved.”

So here’s the lesson: If you’re going to let children undergo sex-change operations, you must be prepared to do some work to ensure other children react reasonably well to the change. I do think 12 is way too early for this kind of operation, but that doesn’t mean I’m prepared to treat this kid and other children in his situation badly. Dressing up a 12-year-old boy as a girl and sending him to school with no preparation is dumb and stupid and cruel.