Reversing a decision I reported here a few weeks ago, the Women’s Health Department will now be fully funded.
Better Logic
The good news is that Louise Slaughter (D, NY) reintroduced the Prevention First Act:
“I am proud to reintroduce this bill which serves as an innovative and comprehensive approach to protecting women’s reproductive health, decreasing the spread of STDs, and reducing the number of unintended pregnancies,” Rep. Slaughter said of the bill in a Senate press release. “If we want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, the methodology is clear — empower women to prevent unintended pregnancies through education and access to contraception.”
Sounds reasonable, but considering yesterday’s news, I’m going to guess it won’t pass. There really are some people in this country who think the only answer is abstinence.
What Logic
More good news during Women’s History Month: the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals just found that Union Pacific’s health insurance plan – which includes no contraception or pregnancy planning coverage – is not discrimination based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on gender.
The logic was that the health insurance plan doesn’t cover condoms, either, so it’s not discriminatory not to cover anything for women.
But, duh, MEN CAN’T GET PREGNANT.
US Judge Kermit Bye, the lone dissenter, objected to this logic because Union Pacific’s contraception policy only affects preventative care for women. Because men cannot become pregnant, it makes sense that the health care plan does not cover pregnancy prevention for men. Therefore, Judge Bye found that while the policy might be “officially gender neutral,” it is still discriminatory, according to the Associated Press.
But here’s the real kicker: the Union Pacific plan does cover Rogaine and Viagra.
So the guys have health insurance for their full heads of hair and hard dicks, because you know, those are important and vital medical concerns, but the women of UP can’t take birth control to prevent pregnancy, because, you know, that’s a minor matter and hardly important to a woman who works for a living.
If this is Women’s History Month, then I suppose we all should have worn orange on St. Patrick’s Day.
Five Questions With… Virginia Erhardt
Virginia Erhardt, Ph.D. is a licensed therapist, a founding member of the American Gender Institute, and the author of Head Over Heels: Wives Who Stay with Crossdressers and Transsexuals. She published her first article concerning the partners of trans people back in 1999 after publishing a workbook for lesbian couples called Journey Toward Intimacy. She is a regular at trans conferences like the upcoming IFGE Conference.
(1) How long did it take you to compile the stories in Head Over Heels? Where did you find partners who were willing to talk about their experiences?
It was about two and a half years from the point at which I began soliciting participation in 2002 and then sent out questionnaires, until the time when I had created “stories” from the SOs’ responses to my questions. During that time I also worked on my substantive, didactic chapters. It took another two years and a few months from the time when I completed the project and signed a contract with The Haworth Press until Head Over Heels was in print.
I put out a Call for Participants to every online listserve and transgender print publication I could think of. I also requested participation from people at trans conferences at which I presented. Continue reading “Five Questions With… Virginia Erhardt”
Women’s Health Budget Cut
The Office of Women’s Health – which researches funding on women’s medical issues such as menopause, birth control, pregnancy & the like – was allocated $4 million. $2.8 million of that is already spent or appropriated, and the final $1.2 million won’t be coming at all.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to withhold 30 percent of the funding allocated for the Office of Women’s Health in 2007, an unnamed, high level official told the Washington Post.
The source isn’t allowed to speak publicly about it and remained unnamed.
Um, isn’t that our money?! As taxpayers? Shouldn’t we at least know who made this decision and why? This type of mumblefuck is exactly why we need more women in government. Sure we’re 51%, but with nothing close to that in terms of representation. I guess this is the way the Feds decided to celebrate Women’s History Month: thanks, guys.
Penultimate Family Values
The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Innocenti Research Center released a report yesterday ranking the well-being of children in the world’s most economically advanced countries. Out of 21 countries, the United States came in second-to-last, at number 20.
The study focused on six areas: material well-being, health, education, relationships with peers and family members, risky behavior, and their own sense of happiness.
And damned embarrassing, too.
Breast Health
If you’re over 40, go get your mammogram. Screening rates are in decline, which means less cancers caught sooner and more likeliness of mortality. Please, just go.
Five Questions With… Mattilda
Mattilda a.k.a. Matt Bernstein Sycamore is an insomniac with dreams. She is the editor, most recently of Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity and an expanded second edition of That’s Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation. She’s also the author of a novel, Pulling Taffy. Mattilda lives for feedback, so contact her or check up on her various projects via her website or her blog.
1) I love the way you use the word “assimilation” – it always reminds me of the Borg episodes of Star Trek – but I wonder how that term plays in different audiences – say a gay male audience as compared to a trans one. How do people respond to your use of that term, and its sinister connotations?
Generally I’m talking about the way an assimilated gay elite has hijacked queer struggle, and positioned their desires as everyone’s needs. In this way, we see the dominant signs of straight conformity reimagined as the ultimate goals of gay (or that fake acronym “LGBT”) success, i.e. marriage, monogamy, adoption, gentrification, military service, etc. We can see this fundamental absurdity where housing and healthcare and fighting police brutality and challenging US imperialism are no longer seen as “LGBT” issues, but access to Tiffany wedding bands and participatory patriarchy is seen as the bedrock.
So when I articulate these politics, it’s generally the people I’m holding accountable — gay men and lesbians with power and privilege — who are the most scared. Most gay men wouldn’t know Feminism 101 if it hit them over the head, so it’s not surprising that they see getting rid of homeless people and people of color and sex workers from the neighborhoods they’ve gentrified as a wonderful service to the “community.”
Generally it’s more marginalized queers, and especially trans, genderqueer and gender defiant freaks and outlaws and misfits — as well as feminists of various formations — who are ready to challenge the cultural erasure that assimilation represents.
Toxic Toys
That handful of dirt we’re all supposed to have swallowed over the course of a lifetime seems quite healthy in comparison to this nasty stuff.
I Always Liked Her, But Now…
… Tyra Banks is up there on my hero’s list. This whole recent brouhaha of her being told she’s fat and not hot anymore has blown my mind, but I’ve been chuffed at her responses.
“If I had a lower self-esteem, I would probably be starving myself right now. That’s exactly what is happening to other women all over this country,” the talk show host said. (You can watch what she said on her show’s website.)
She’s 5’10” and 161 lbs., which means she’s in the “normal” range for BMI. When she was doing the catwalk she was closer to 130 lbs., which is on the low end of the normal range. Tyra Banks is what a healthy, tall woman looks like, and if people think she’s fat, it’s only because our sense of what a normal healthy female body looks like is so fucked up. I really do believe that one of the reasons so many women are overweight in America (aside from all the driving and bad food) is that what’s considered attractive requires near-starvation. If we had healthier images of women’s bodies, that goal might seem a lot more attainable to people.
But the point is: I know I’d happily trade bodies with her, as would most women in America. As if most men would turn her down, too. Puh-leeze.