| Hey! Guess what???? On Tuesday, June 12th, a district court judge ruled that the company Bartell was guilty of sex discrimination for not including birth control measures in the comprehensive health plan it offers to its employees. Think that's impressive? Are you ready? A flight attendant from American Airlines is having to do the same thing. We are almost halfway through this first year of the new millennium and (for those of you still under the delusion that it started in 2000, again, take a math class), sexual discrimination is still making headlines. In a recent Los Angeles Times article: House Upholds Ban on Aid to Foreign Abortion Groups From Associated Press: “WASHINGTON -- The House voted today to preserve President Bush’s policy of banning aid to foreign organizations that discuss or advocate abortion rights abroad.” …..Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer indicated the president could support the overall bill now that the abortion issue has been resolved "unless there’s something else in there." (WHAT???? Nice thinking there Ari - have you even READ the bill?) “Democrats attacked the policy as detrimental to global family-planning efforts. "The issue here," said Democratic leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri "is do we empower women and families across the globe with the ability to plan for the number of children they will have? Or do we pull the rug out from under these important efforts?" Again, Gephardt starts the thought with "empowering women". Don't get me wrong, I am all for being “empowered”, but by using those words in that way, it again is the WOMAN'S PROBLEM. Then Last week - Jane Martinson of the Guardian UK writes - “Some US health insurance schemes pay for men to improve their sexual performance while refusing to fund the birth control pill. A court victory for a 27-year-old pharmacist this week is likely to change this iniquity. Women's rights campaigners also believe that the ruling against Bartell Drugs, a Seattle-based pharmacy, could help in their increasingly bitter fight against President Bush and his attacks on birth control." Again - Women's Right's campaigners. Bush’s fight against birth control is beyond mind boggling, but there is a larger issue here: How is it possible for any insurance company anywhere, to lawfully discriminate in this way? Not only that, but why would they want to? Childbirth, and all the medical care it entails is far more costly than the cost of all forms of birth control. The decision of any company to deny such care is bad business in the strict economic sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the 21st Century???? How is it then, that we, not only as a country, but a society as a whole, have become so discriminatory when it comes to reproduction? One of Bush’s first actions was to stop funding Planned Parenthood overseas. NEWS FLASH: All women do not suffer from Immaculate Conception. Yes, that is true, and bears repeating. We, as in females as a collective, and as individuals do NOT get pregnant ALONE. Yes, a woman can CHOOSE to get some anonymous sperm, and become a single parent. But as a species the females cannot reproduce by themselves. We are not Earthworms. Perhaps I am overstating the obvious, and if you are wondering where I am going with this, then you have become sucked into the accepted complacency we have adopted as part of Western Culture: What is accepted by the many, must be ok. Shame on you. Now as for reproduction basics, all, or at least, most of us, learned this in biology class. So here is my question: Why have the females been given, allowed, forced to take on 99 percent of the responsibility? Please don't write and whine that you are a man of conscience, and do not think like this. Good for you. But as you must realize, you are out of the ordinary. Let me give just a few examples: - Men do not take any form of Birth Control, chemical or implanted. Why? That is the "WOMAN'S Job". Some men DO wear prophylactics, but most only do at the female's insistence, and many would rather swallow glass, never mind the HIV/AIDS factor. Many chose to get vasectomies, but only after they have had all the children they desire. This is great, but hardly addresses the larger issue of taking control of prevention in the long run, as women are expected to do. - Men do not lobby the medical community for a male contraceptive. What for, when women already take them? - Abortion is largely a Woman's Right's issue. Men do not sue for control over their own bodies or reproductive rights. Why should they really, when they aren't in jeopardy of losing them? Think they might if sterilization become mandatory? A male friend of mine recently made a comment when speaking in general terms on this issue, that he felt it unfair that men had so little control after conception. I asked him why he didn't feel the need to take more control BEFORE conception. I know I do. I have been on the Pill since I was 21, and wouldn't dream of relinquishing my control over such an important issue, especially since I cannot count on men to be responsible, even though I have spent many a year not knowing what the highs and lows of my own natural cycle actually feel like. So why don't men take more control? Why is abortion and reproduction solely a "woman's right's" issue? Are we to believe that men are just out doing their Biblical duty of going forth and multiplying? If men want more control, they need to take more control of their own reproductive rights. If they don't want to get slapped with a paternity suit or childcare payments, then they need to take more responsibility of their sperm. Do you think that abortion would really be the hot subject if men took an equal responsibility toward reproduction? It is shameful that a civilization that believes itself to be so advanced can have such a backward outlook on such a basic principle. |
 |
|
| Reproductive Shame |