Feminists annoy me
After following some discussions on other sites about this, I'm reminded exactly what it is about feminists that piss me off. First of all, just to save you the time and headache of reading this ludicrous WaPo piece from this whiny, irresponsible woman, I'll summarize it for you: George W. Bush forced her to have an abortion because she couldn't buy the morning-after pill without a prescription.
Now before I go any further, let me say that I think "Plan B" as it's called should be available over the counter. So should most drugs, in my opinion. For you see, I am a libertarian, and I believe that adult citizens should be given very wide latitude in determining what treatments are appropriate for them, and, absent serious public health risk, we should trust them to make the right decisions for themselves.
I also happen to think it's ridiculous that I need a prescription for Propecia. How am I going to abuse that? By trying to become a lycanthrope? A friend of mine with rosacea needs a doctor's okay to buy medicated lotion with zero abuse potential. And why am I forced to get a permission slip signed by my ophthalmologist every time I want to buy some more contact lenses, even though I know perfectly well what my prescription is? And don't even get me started about being forced to show ID to buy OTC antihistamines, an increasingly common phenomenon.
In short, I think it's ridiculous to put obstacles in the way of obtaining all of these treatments, including Plan B. So why do the feminists bug me on this issue? Presumably, they're not libertarians. They're not campaigning for a general overhaul of the FDA's policies -- they want a special exemption for their own pet drug. It's as if some "men's rights" group wanted to leave the existing prescription system more or less intact, with the exception that Viagra would be freely handed out like Pez.
Well excuse me, but that's just bullshit. "Plan B" is nothing more than a megadose of the very same hormone used in normal oral contraceptives. A prescription is needed for the pill, of course, yet many believe that one should be able to obtain megadoses of the same substance as easily as they supersize a value meal. Once again, just to be clear, I happen to agree with these people. Still, they need to learn that everybody who disagrees with them is not necessarily a right-wing religious fanatic who wants to punish women for having sex. I hate that shit.
Comments
she said
One Thursday evening this past March, we managed to snag some rare couple time and, in a sudden rush of passion, I failed to insert my diaphragm.
Ohh that got my sympathy...not. How is it W's fault that her doctor did not perscribe the meds? Why didn't she call Planned Parenthood? For gosh sakes she's 42 years old!!!!
I wonder why no one complained of this earlier when Clinton was in office? Didn't we have morning-after pills then (I could be wrong)>
It used to be W. deserved the criticism he got, like with Katrina, the selection of Miers and Dubai. But this is ridiculous and goes right back to the demonization of the man. That instantly gets him sympathy, whether he deserves it or not.
I am a pro choice woman and I found this article whiny and short sighted. And I am younger than she is and live in southern VA. Thank you, Barry for not accepting this bull.
Posted by: Rachel | June 7, 2006 09:23 PM
And as far as the drugs (especially those cold meds), I agree with you and "Dana L," but her whining did not promote the cause. I just saw her as a useless idiot
Posted by: Rachel | June 7, 2006 09:25 PM
I think you're a little harsh on your comment that feminists only want "special exemption for their own pet drug". A lot of these reaction are provoked by FDA policies, aren't they? Plus it's not exactly fair to equate Viagra and Plan B, just for the fact that the former actually gets endorsement from the Vatican.
As for the whining bit... Most women, not all, have the tendency to communicate with other women by relating to their own experience and feeling. This article reads like girl talk--- basically a woman whining to her female friend. It's a style maybe men (assuming you're male) are not wired to get ... thus finding it whiny.
Posted by: Laura | June 8, 2006 01:38 AM
I think you're making the mistake of taking the "George W. Bush forced me to have an abortion" bit literally.
This article is meant to be illustrative of the fact that lack of availability of Plan B can result in MORE abortions, not fewer. To focus on a statement made for dramatic effect is, I think, missing the point.
The idea, embraced by the Christofascists, that every fertilized egg; indeed every POTENTIALLY fertilized egg (because there is no assurance at that point that fertilization has taken place) is a fully-formed human being worthy of protection under the law, is just ridiculous. I've talked a great deal over the last few years about women sending their used tampons to the government to make sure no fertilized eggs were passed in their periods, but it's not as ludicrous as it sounds.
Whether you like this article's tone or not, the fact of the matter is that Bush appointees at the FDA have used these pseudoreligious arguments to prevent OTC availability for Plan B. As a result, women who absolutely, positively do not want a child end up having abortions, should they turn out to be pregnant.
Because Plan B acts largely by making the outer surface of the egg impenetrable to sperm, the whole idea that it is an "abortifacient" is ridiculous, and opens the door to legal action against non-barrier methods of contraception (which many of us believe is next on their agenda, and groups such as the American Family Association and others of their ilk have made no secret of their intentions).
That this one article may use a reductio ad absurdum argument to make a point doesn't change the fact that there IS an anti-sex attitude among these Christianist groups, and that their attitude towards women and sex IS punitive.
Posted by: Jill | June 8, 2006 08:04 AM
> That this one article may use a reductio ad absurdum argument to make a point...
I'm not sure what your fancy French words mean, but it's almost like this woman was trying to make a point by being stoopid or something....
Posted by: BNJ | June 8, 2006 08:42 AM
Jill, you should know that the woman admitted, when questioned while blogging, that she didn't think to call Planned Parenthood which could have helped her.
Instead, she decided to produce a jeremiad excoriating Bush and his policies.
What a crock.
She refused to accept responsibilty for her own brain-lock in the article only to admit that, oh yeah, I coulda called PP.a day later on the WaPo blog.
Enough with the BS.
She's 42.
Is she trying to top Peter Pan in never growing up?
Posted by: mal | June 8, 2006 11:08 PM