The war on women
~E~
You know, it's often these little things that go unnoticed that snowball into making life dangerous for certain groups of people. In this case, it's women. Apparently some doctors in Canada are refusing to provide pap smears to unmarried women, presumably because if you aren't married, you should not be having sex, and so would not contract a sexually transmitted disease which might ultimately lead to cervical cancer.
Ergo, if you ARE having sex, you deserve to die (if you are female; no word on if unmarried men are denied testing and treatment for STDs). You must suffer the consequences, much like the belief that if you have sex, you should not be allowed birth control or abortion because everyone has to pay the price for HER behavior - pregnancy.
(link)
I contacted Peggy to learn more about what was going on with the doctors refusing to perform pap smears and she responded by saying that in one case it is actually the doctor's receptionist who won't allow her young unmarried friend to make an appointment for a pap smear saying that she is too young and doesn't need one (she was 19 at the time of the incident). The second instance deals with a couple who are doctors, whom run a practice together. Known for their religious and anti-choice beliefs, these doctors will not prescribe contraception. The doctor whom refused to perform the pap smear works in the same practice.
So when did a test that is used to screen for disease and cancer suddenly become a procedure which doctors can “object” to do? Am I naïve in thinking that pap smears are a medically necessary part of a women’s yearly physical? I wonder if the same doctors refuse men prostate exams on religious grounds, or does morality only apply to women?
I'll answer her last question: it applies only to women. There seems to be an upwelling of misogyny recently, and an awful lot of support for it from a lot of people. I honestly believe it's gotten worse because of the Bush administration and their woman-unfriendly policies. They have even gone so far as to remove helpful information from government websites, information that goes against fundamentalist religious beliefs.
How do we fight this sort of thing when it's backed by the government? One way is to vote. It DOES matter who is running the country, as the last eight years have shown graphically. We also have to be aware of these thing. That can be a difficult one, as women who have been victimized may feel isolated or embarrassed and may not tell anyone. I don't blame them for keeping it to themselves, women are often vulnerable in situations like that, but this sort of thing has to be brought out into the sunlight and these people exposed for what they are.
You know, it's often these little things that go unnoticed that snowball into making life dangerous for certain groups of people. In this case, it's women. Apparently some doctors in Canada are refusing to provide pap smears to unmarried women, presumably because if you aren't married, you should not be having sex, and so would not contract a sexually transmitted disease which might ultimately lead to cervical cancer.
Ergo, if you ARE having sex, you deserve to die (if you are female; no word on if unmarried men are denied testing and treatment for STDs). You must suffer the consequences, much like the belief that if you have sex, you should not be allowed birth control or abortion because everyone has to pay the price for HER behavior - pregnancy.
(link)
I contacted Peggy to learn more about what was going on with the doctors refusing to perform pap smears and she responded by saying that in one case it is actually the doctor's receptionist who won't allow her young unmarried friend to make an appointment for a pap smear saying that she is too young and doesn't need one (she was 19 at the time of the incident). The second instance deals with a couple who are doctors, whom run a practice together. Known for their religious and anti-choice beliefs, these doctors will not prescribe contraception. The doctor whom refused to perform the pap smear works in the same practice.
So when did a test that is used to screen for disease and cancer suddenly become a procedure which doctors can “object” to do? Am I naïve in thinking that pap smears are a medically necessary part of a women’s yearly physical? I wonder if the same doctors refuse men prostate exams on religious grounds, or does morality only apply to women?
I'll answer her last question: it applies only to women. There seems to be an upwelling of misogyny recently, and an awful lot of support for it from a lot of people. I honestly believe it's gotten worse because of the Bush administration and their woman-unfriendly policies. They have even gone so far as to remove helpful information from government websites, information that goes against fundamentalist religious beliefs.
How do we fight this sort of thing when it's backed by the government? One way is to vote. It DOES matter who is running the country, as the last eight years have shown graphically. We also have to be aware of these thing. That can be a difficult one, as women who have been victimized may feel isolated or embarrassed and may not tell anyone. I don't blame them for keeping it to themselves, women are often vulnerable in situations like that, but this sort of thing has to be brought out into the sunlight and these people exposed for what they are.
Comments
Also, I don't know much about the Canadian healthcare system-- are women being forced to see this particular doctor couple? Is the Canadian government aware of this behavior and do they condone it? Those are some questions that I'd like to answer before declaring this an international emergency.
That said, I agree on the growing misogyny. I don't have data on this, but it seems like maybe it's a backlash to all of the amazing advancements that we've made over the last few decades as women. I do think that some men (and some women!) feel threatened by that. I see it a lot in the incredible amount of Hillary-bashing that goes on. I didn't vote for Clinton in the primaries, but I can't help but seeing a lot of this Clinton-bashing as thinly veiled women-bashing. I'm not saying that all of it is, but I do think a lot of it is.
Whether I agree with all of it or not, I appreciate you bringing these issues to light. I think it's important to have these discussions.
p.s. I know it's a little confusing to call her 'Clinton' but it's honestly not that confusing. I think it's kind of insulting that everyone calls her by her first name, but all the men are referred to by their last names. If we're talking about the 2008 election and you say "Clinton" I am under no misapprehension that you mean "Bill" (or, for that matter, "George").
Right now it may be just a few weirdos refusing to do paps, but how did this mass movement of refusing birth control and emergency birth control start? There has to be a reason why these things are always directed at women.
I had one single moment last year where a newscaster mentioned Clinton running for president and I was confused. That lasted for about 3 seconds and then I thought, "oh yeah! Hillary Clinton. Cool" and that was it. You're right, unless you're a right wing jerk and are doing it on purpose, you really can't at this point mistake Clinton the presidential candidate for Bill Clinton.
I'm sorry to beat a dead horse with this, I just feel like there are enough women's issues to get riled up about it without devoting time to something that seems as petty as this. I worry that when we get up in arms over something and then it turns out to not even be true, it just makes the whole movement look like a waste of time. I mean, what are your feelings on that?
My thinking is that somewhere, one day in the past, 2 or 3 pharmacists decided they couldn't give BC to an unmarried woman, or to any woman, because they think it causes abortion or something. Then a few more doctors heard about it and thought, yeah...that makes sense, I'm not going to either. Now it's everywhere.
My point isn't that doctors are refusing paps to women all over the world but that we need to stamp these things down as they happen so it doesn't spread.
I agree that there are huge issues to worry about, but I'm going to keep my eye on the smaller things to see what happenes with them. If it turns out that it begins and ends with these people, then yay, I'm happy.
I do still think there is a nasty rising tide of misogyny out there.
***
This is where I got the mass movement part:
"Right now it may be just a few weirdos refusing to do paps, but how did this mass movement of refusing birth control and emergency birth control start?"
I misread what you said and thought you were saying that refusing pap smears was a mass movement, but that isn't what you were saying.
This whole thing makes more sense to me now-- you're not saying that a few doctors refusing pap smears might is an epidemic. You're saying that it might lead to more doctors doing it. That makes sense. Although I'm still not sure that I would leap to that from one isolated incident (I have a hard time considering the receptionist discouraging her friend from getting a pap smear as being the same thing as a doctor systematically refusing to do them).
Also, I think Ms. Blizzard summed up well her purpose in bringing this story to light when she wrote: "You know, it's often these little things that go unnoticed that snowball into making life dangerous for certain groups of people."
Thanks for the info, E, much appreciated.