Sometimes I imagine a world where writers are forbidden for a year from starting from the premise that women are dumber, more irrational, or more emotional than men. The pages labeled "Fashion," "Style," or "Life" in newspapers would change dramatically. The trend-piece industry would quite possibly not be able to handle the shift in focus, and collapse completely. Sexism is the gasoline that fuels it. Exhibit #1: This condescending article about the pill from Vanessa Grigoriadis of New York magazine.Every hand-wringing article about the pill follows the same formula: Tacit acceptance of the profoundly positive change that reliable contraception has made in women's lives, and then straight to the red meat of worrying that it's not natural, and implying that women, with our wee, silly brains are too full of shopping information to realize that we totally can't have babies on the pill! Wrap it up with a bow of implying that writing the same article that comes out every few months makes you daring, since you're fighting the all-powerful feminist militia, one that's so powerful we can't even get an equal pay bill through Congress. Grigoriadis doesn't veer from the formula one bit. Implying that women are too stupid to realize that delaying pregnancy until your 30s raises your chances of infertility? Check. Implying that infertility is a much bigger problem than it actually is in a country that has a relatively high birth rate for an industrialized nation? Check. Focusing on the complaints of side effects without checking the actual scientific studies on the prevalence? Check. Characterizing the entire female population as being exactly like your free-wheeling fun time friends in their 20s who are the kind of girls who match their pill cases to their shoes, without considering that mothers, the fiercely monogamous, and the totally unfashionable also have a need for the pill? Check. And above all, freaking out about how "unnatural" it is, as if it's somehow more unnatural than every other drug on the market, not to mention air conditioning, latex, television sets, and the wearing of shoes? Check.
If you expanded the ban on sexism to make it a ban on the naturalistic fallacy as well, all that would be left of this article is a recounting of some of Samantha Bee's funnier jokes at the pill's 50th anniversary party. Most of the article involves hand-wringing over how the pill is an "illusion,", as if my belief that I'm totally not pregnant right now is something M.C. Escher came up with, instead of demonstrable reality. Grigoriadis drops terms like "true biological processes" and "rediscovering their bodies," as if going on the pill somehow makes you an Unwoman. (If so, can I get that 25 percent raise and stop shaving my legs?) This sort of thing may sound all fun and crunchy, but it has the unpleasant side effect of implying that women who have hysterectomies, women whose menstruation is so painful it needs to be suppressed, women who used to be men, and women who simply don't like ovulating aren't really women.
The Pill: Unnatural Woman
i don't think it's that it's any more unnatural than any other drug, but it is certainly not a decision that should be taken lightly. For women to take pills for years on end or the shot is probably not good for your body in the long run, like any other pharmaceutical.
i know many women who have adverse reactions to the pill/shot and have decided for health reasons to stay off and opt for condoms or other contraceptives. like anything else, it's a choice you have to make. for some the risk is worth it, for some it's too great.
milo, I am someone who has had adverse reaction to bcp. But at the same time, I'm not going to say that it isn't a massive benefit.
You note that taking the pill "for years on end or the shot is probably not good for your body in the long run". Well, neither is pregnancy over and over. Sure, there are other methods, but the risk/benefit analysis still wins with the pill. The literature is pretty clear, too - it's relatively low-risk as a long-term medication. OTOH, if you have some data as to why, as a blanket statement, it "is probably not good for your body in the long run", please do share it.
Yikes! Milo, read one or two of the articles in the OP again. Your post at #1 is not how I'd like this discussion framed, or how I'd like to see it progress, thanks.
Like Timebandit, I cannot take the pill due to health reactions (extreme migraines). However, I remember my grandmother telling me how amazing she thought this invention was when it first arrived on the market. (She had had three children before the oldest was two!) I think it really depends on the individual woman on whether it is a good choice for her body, however there is no question that the pill has had a HUGE effect on women's freedom. It was basically a revolution.
One thing I will say, is that when I went to the doctor to ask for the pill at age 18...she told me virtually nothing about how the pill works, possible side effects, etc. When I went back at age 22 and finally went off it, I was surprised by all the information I learned then. I could not figure out whey I wasn't given this info when first going on the pill. The pill is amazing, but we have to keep in mind that like every other prescription drug, the pharma companies are encouraging doctors (with "incentives") to prescribe. I think a doctor more interested in her patients (as compared to getting me on a drug) would have looked into my health history and offered a warning of possible effects to look out for, etc.
I have read studies too about the hormones released in the water supply effecting fish etc, but I have not found any reports on this from an adequately trustworthy (objective) source. So...that could be just bullcrap to guilt women. With all the prescription drugs we are injesting these days, I am sure the pill is just a fraction of what is being released into the environment.
And yes, I cannot imagine the effects of being constantly pregnant. My great great uncle was one of 24 children! And his mother died at age 47. I think of women like this and what a huge positive effect the pill would've been on their lives.
i did read the article, and for the most part i agree with it. I just know several women who refuse to take the pill mainly because it is a pill they would be ingesting for (like the article says) 5, 10, 15 years. a friend had a really severe reaction to one of the shots and was really ill for several months because of it...
like ghislaine said, doctors are in some cases not doing their due diligence and exposing people to harm, and i can't help but think if my friend had that information she might not have had to deal with the effects of the shot like that. To me that's the one thing missing from the article. It stresses how safe it is, how it's just like a vitamin, but that's not the case for everyone. Like anything else, it's up to the person to decide if it's the right contraceptive for them...
It's actually a small minority of women who are affected, milo. So you're focusing on a miniscule risk, making it seem like it's so much bigger than it is.
Most women take the pill for quite some time with no ill effects. And then there are those who take the pill and are better for it. And a few, like myself, who react to it. I know about reaction firsthand, but I'm not about to blow it up as something bigger than it is. Neither should you.
I went back on the pill in 2006 for non-bc reasons. The bc part is a side effect, ha. I hadn't been on it for over 15 years at that point, for a number of reasons. 
The low dose ones that I'm on have relatively small side effects for me, and in fact the pill tones down my PMS, which is very helpful.
The reality is, as long as sexuality between men and women is structured in particular ways (heteronormativity, yo), in order to have relatively more control of our bodies (ie not get pregnant until and if we choose to), women who have sex with men will need to use some sort of bc. The pill is the most effective, statistically.
As for "natural", well I like to talk about the non-natural behaviours like brushing our teeth and living past 30. 
There are lots of things we do that aren't natural but are beneficial. Insulin? Vaccination? Not natural, but they save lives.
I have sensitivities to more things than I could name in this short post but I was on the bcp for 15 years with no ill effects to me or my fertility at the beginning, middle or end. Nor any adverse affects from being on the length of time. I did have good doctors who talked to me about the side effects but didn't face any of them.
I also felt like I could explore my womanhood more as I was free to explore myself as a woman without the worry of motherhood before I was ready emotionally, situationally or financially. When 'i was ready I feel I am a much better woman and mother because the baby was not a side effect of this exploration but the next step on this exploration and a part of it.
I think if I lived in the time of sex=pregnancy either I would have wanted to explore sexuality but it would have been with a cloud of but I am not ready for motherhood or I would have waited but not been able to explore my womanhood as separate from my motherhood which I know personally is a very big distinction.
I am apart of the large majority.
reality is, as long as sexuality between men and women is structured in particular ways (heteronormativity, yo), in order to have relatively more control of our bodies (ie not get pregnant until and if we choose to), women who have sex with men will need to use some sort of bc. The pill is the most effective, statistically.
What about IUDs? Wasn't there evidence presented a little while ago that the pill can give you cancer?
Are you sure it's safe? I would hate for on of my woman friends to start growing a third arm or turn bright purple. :)
Well, CMOT, now you're talking about the critique of big pharma.
I don't know what studies there are, but the pill is linked to all sorts of not-great things in terms of long term use. But the choices for women who have sex with men, in this larger sense, are abysmal.
And it might be just me, but IUDs freak me out.
There is an easier option for committed monogamous het couples (snip snip) but that doesn't leave single women with a lot of choices.
I don't know what studies there are, but the pill is linked to all sorts of not-great things in terms of long term use. But the choices for women who have sex with men, in this larger sense, are abysmal.
Frontage?
Oral Sex?
Mutual Masterbation?
Cybersex?
Sex toys?
I have just emailed Rabble Ed. on this topic.
The Christian Right..Women's Dept. ( Bargain basement level) :( have begun to take offense @ contraception. No longer are they prepared to debate "When Life Commences", now they are prepared to say that "Life Commences, Before it actually commences."
http://50yearsofthepill.eventbrite.com/
What they are saying is that the number of children we have or do not have is preordained by God, & we have no business 'messing with that' by using contrception.
I guess they gave up trying to win their original argument about 'when life is life'?
I have heard a number of U.S. media types, usually women ask Palin, & others of the Christian Candidate types, how they felt about contraception. The answer that they usually got after much fudging was, "It's better than abortion."
I was pretty sure that once the Right got in a position of greater power, & got the ear of popular mass media, that this would start up. We Know Where they want us. ....Back in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant, for the next 25 years, if possible.
The pill doesn't cause cancer, though if you have a tumour that is positive for hormone receptors, it would encourage its growth. In fact the pill reduces the incidence of ovarian cancer.
IUDs increase the risk of tubal pregnancies and are not as effective as the pill.
I think the pill's been around for long enough now that we know most, if not all, of the nasties about it, like increases in blood clotting resulting in strokes, and benign liver tumours. Hope I'm right...
There is an easier option for committed monogamous het couples (snip snip)
When the kids are done, I am definitely in favour of the snip snip! Women have to go though childbirth, so a little snip only seems fair ;)
What about IUDs?
For me IUD's are not as safe as the pill, because I have auto immune problems in my family they are not recommended for me as I could have a very serious reaction.
I have just emailed Rabble Ed. on this topic.
The Christian Right..Women's Dept. ( Bargain basement level) :( have begun to take offense @ contraception. No longer are they prepared to debate "When Life Commences", now they are prepared to say that "Life Commences, Before it actually commences."
http://50yearsofthepill.eventbrite.com/
What they are saying is that the number of children we have or do not have is preordained by God, & we have no business 'messing with that' by using contrception.
I guess they gave up trying to win their original argument about 'when life is life'?
I have heard a number of U.S. media types, usually women ask Palin, & others of the Christian Candidate types, how they felt about contraception. The answer that they usually got after much fudging was, "It's better than abortion."
I was pretty sure that once the Right got in a position of greater power, & got the ear of popular mass media, that this would start up. We Know Where they want us. ....Back in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant, for the next 25 years, if possible.
O-kay... So, the number of kids are preordained by god, but god isn't tough enough to overcome a little old pill? C'mon, if he was any sort of god at all, it wouldn't matter...
There is an easier option for committed monogamous het couples (snip snip)
When the kids are done, I am definitely in favour of the snip snip! Women have to go though childbirth, so a little snip only seems fair ;)
In a committed relationship I think that the combination of monogamy and a vasectomy enhance the couples sex life. That comes from a man who came of age in a post pill - pre-AIDS universe. The vasectomy only felt like a kick in the balls for about a day and a half in my case, short term pain for long term peace of mind.
O-kay... So, the number of kids are preordained by god, but god isn't tough enough to overcome a little old pill? C'mon, if he was any sort of god at all, it wouldn't matter...
And then there is the chicken and the egg argument. If God didn't want the birth control pill why did he invent it? Or is it that all the good that has come from it is the devil's fault?
Remind I think you know that if religion made any sense you wouldn't need faith to believe it.
O-kay... So, the number of kids are preordained by god, but god isn't tough enough to overcome a little old pill? C'mon, if he was any sort of god at all, it wouldn't matter...
And then there is the chicken and the egg argument. If God didn't want the birth control pill why did he invent it? Or is it that all the good that has come from it is the devil's fault?
Devil, schmevil! You're telling me this so-called "almighty" god can impregnate a virgin, but can't pull the goalie from the net when you're taking the pill? Come on, that should be a piece of cake!
So much for omnipotence...
For a moment I thought you had typed "impotence", Timebandit.
Oh, maybe that's his trouble... 
I don't know what studies there are, but the pill is linked to all sorts of not-great things in terms of long term use. But the choices for women who have sex with men, in this larger sense, are abysmal.
Your right. All of the options I mentioned in my last post are entirely dependant on whether the man agrees to put his penis aside while having sex.
The problem is that in a society that doesn't like condoms, worships penatration and dismises almost all non penatrative sexual acts as immature, can a woman trust a man to do that without complaining and putting a strain on their relationship? Possibly, but since this society tends to kill sexual imagination, it might be very difficult for him to think outside the box.
In peniscentric sexual culture, is it reasonable to assume that forty years after the sexual revolution, Lesbians (and those women lucky enough to be married to a left leaning, babble posting man over 30) are the only ones likely to have happy and healthy sex lives?
Damn what a depressing thought.:(
I'm off to bed now, good night.
Hee hee Timebandit @21.
And CMOT. Don't be depressed over this, friend.
Now, we're way into thread drift territory, but I guess I need to say, and there's no pun-free way to say this, I ain't knockin' the manly bits. Not at all. They have their own charms that I dig, dude. My point is that as long as heteronormativity prevails, and the ways that reproduction and procreation are looked at in this society, pre-menopausal women who have sex with men, of whatever political stripe, have to deal with the issue of effective bc.
No, it doesn't have to be this way. But the sexual revolution only covered one part of the issue. The burden and "owning" of the issue of delaying or avoiding conception, in man/woman sexuality, under patriarchy, still falls to women. It's not about biology, it's about socialization. Pills, like elsewhere in our fucked up world, are an easy fix. Changing gendered behaviour, not so easy.
And don't assume that lefty men are more likely to be flexible (sorry ) about sexuality and sexual relations.
But this could be an entirely new thread topic.
Remind I think you know that if religion made any sense you wouldn't need faith to believe it.
Ummmm.....I have not participated in this thread.
Kropotkin meant Refuge.
O-kay... So, the number of kids are preordained by god, but god isn't tough enough to overcome a little old pill? C'mon, if he was any sort of god at all, it wouldn't matter...
And then there is the chicken and the egg argument. If God didn't want the birth control pill why did he invent it? Or is it that all the good that has come from it is the devil's fault?
Indeed Refuge not Remind
I once mixed up KenS and Ken Burch. it happens.
I thought this would be a relevant place to post this after listening to “Choice and Childbirth”. Cesarean birth figured large, and it brought to mind a PhD thesis section “Oral contraceptive use in adolescence” where although this was not the main purpose of her thesis, the author's findings showed that in her sample for women with a late menarche and who reported use of oral contraceptives before age 20, there was a significant increase in percent of cesarean deliveries. Estrogen is know to inhibit skeletal growth and low doses have been reported to achieve height inhibition in tall girls. The last bit about using estrogen to limit the height of tall girls is interesting by itself in several ways!
From an earlier era - “(t)he effects of such (contraceptive) medication on adolescents whose growth has not ceased are still unknown. This should be borne in mind when when prescribing oral contraceptives for adolescent girls (World Health Organization 1971).”
The question of the possible effect of oral contraceptives on skeletal grown and therefore possible increased need for cesarean delivery does not seem to have been taken up in the pharmaceutical and medical communities. A current PubMed search of “oral contraceptive and adolescents” does bring up some interesting reading and additional concerns but a search for “oral contraceptives and skeletal growth in adolescence” you get only a few hits, “tall girls” and “bone density”.
Current warnings about oral contraceptive use for adolescents do not seem to be common, if available at all.
Just one quick note, for those who fret over the thrombosis numbers for HRT/birth control, 1 in 5000 patients suffer a thrombosis which has a fatality rate slightly higher than 20%... assuming, say, ten years per patient (which is a deliberate under-estimate) There is one death every 250,000 patient years.
Low-dose Aspirin, on the other hand, has a 5%-10% fatal gastric event (We'll say 5%) every 1000 patient years... that's one death every 20,000 patient years.
I don't like people telling me to be afraid of taking a medicine that, quite frankly has saved my life and is safer to take per year than is running a marathon. (and is doubling as birth-control to boot. 
)