Medicine

Two Winona, MN Students Suspended for Wearing Vagina Monologues Buttons

There has been very heated debate over this matter for the past two days. I've been suprised by the lack of support--particularly from people who align themselves with liberal causes.

The buttons have been called pointless, disruptive, vulgar, and a cry for attention. First of all, there is a definite point to the buttons. Women are taught from a young age to fear their vaginas. Women are encouraged by corporations and by society to hide their periods--feminine products keep getting smaller and they are even making the wrappers 'silent' now. Heaven forbid another women in a restroom hear the familiar sound of a tampax wrapper! The point is, having your period and having a vagina is natural. There is nothing gross or disgusting about it. Why are women taught to be uncomfortable about their own genitals?

Perhaps more importantly, why is a button that is counteracting such negative body image being seen as so inappropriate in a high school setting? Relatively recently, mainstream media has paid attention to the fact that teenage girls have low self-esteem and that low self-esteem can cause all kinds of problems. Teenage girls also suffer from body image issues (a direct result of media that shames the female body). Why is a teenage girl letting other teenage girls know that she loves her vagina--perhaps the most controversial and passively despised part of a young girls body--so wrong?

Because it is disruptive? People learn about vaginas in various high school level classes. The fact that women have vaginas shouldn't be a suprise to anyone in high school. People have alleged that such a button is inappropriate in a high school setting because high schools are full of horny boys. The very simple fact is that young women and girls need to deal with the fact that they have vaginas and boys don't need to be out-of-control balls of hormones.

The teenage drive for sex is due, in part, to hormones. Girls go through this too. The fact is that our society teaches young men that being sexually active and showing that you have a libido is masculine--a mark of 'true' manhood. It makes sense, given this knowledge that teenage boys, who are entering or new to manhood, would be driven to prove themselves. That doesn't make it right.

There is nothing vulgar about the word vagina in and of itself. As a matter of fact, there is nothing vulgar about sex, female desire, yeast infections, or menstruation. These are all facts of life. Vagina is not a profane word.

These girls are not treating this incident as a cry for help. Every interview has shown them to be intelligent, eloquent, and genuinely interested in the Vagina Monologues. What gives?

If a button that says "I (heart) my vagina" isn't appropriate in a high-school setting--I think the reasoning behind such a decision warrants explanation.

Granted, I do understand that Supreme Court precedents have said that public schools can control what a student can and cannot wear. Schools have a right to deem certain things obscene and deem other things acceptable. But where is the reasoning? Perhaps if someone would provide a straight-answer about why this is offensive, vulgar, or inappropriate I would be satisfied. Just because a school has the power doesn't mean they are in the right.

I tried to post this response to a great thread on abortion on Pandagon, but I keep getting 404 errors, so I offer it here:

What the women-are-baby-machines-belonging-to-the-state thinkers don't seem to realize is that it works both ways. If the state can step in and force a woman into breeder servitude, then by the same authority it can also prevent a woman from ever breeding. It could even mandate abortions.

How would these folks feel about state-mandated sterilization? How would these folks feel about state-mandated abortion? That is where their logic leads.

What if you want to have a baby, but the state has decided that, no, you are not worthy?Reproductive rights include the right to reproduce, too.

Do we really want to have everyone's family choices up for approval or denial by majority rule?

Given that we find ourselves living in a day and age where pharmacists can, without the benefit of having gone to medical school, practice medicine and decide what medications you can and cannot have, based on their own personal prejudices and judgements about you and the medications prescribed by a real honest-to-God doctor, the links Trish Wilson has posted are worth repeating:

Princeton's Emergency Contraception Website

Princeton's Emergency Contraception Page

Directory of Emergency Contraception providers

FAQs about Emergency Contraception

Princeton's instructions for using combined emergency contraceptive pills

Princeton's instructions for using progestin-only emergency contraceptive pills
NOT-2-LATE table of brands of oral contraceptives that can be used for emergency contraception

A database of emergency contraception literature and documentation

International Consortium for Emergency Contraception

Association of Reproductive Health Professionals

Now, I am no more a doctor than any of the "God fearing" (read: "God-posing") pharmacists out there, so obviously I cannot attest to the quality of the medical recommendations that are made here. I repeat this only for informational purposes. Again, I am not a doctor. If only pharmacists would admit the same. Then much of this would not be necessary. (Of course, there are some radical conservatives who think their self-righteousness trumps medical training and thus qualifies them to tell doctors what kind of medical advice, diagnoses and treatments they can administer.)

I urge everyone to repost these links on their own sites, so that women who've been denied EC by pharmacists playing doctor (or just cannot afford to go to their doctor to get the special prescription) have more information on alternatives.

Yes, that's right. According to Karen L. Brauer, President of "Pharmacists for Life," pregnancy is the woman's just desserts for having sex. That's why Brauer opposes pharmacists' filling birth control prescriptions -- that just takes the penalty out of it.

It's really quite ridiculous how they talk about "conscience" when they refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. Conscience about what, exactly?

Is preventing pregnancy evil? Apparently so, according to Brauer.

Riffle has dug up some gems of quotes by Ms. Bauer. This one is my favorite:

For all the NOW gal types who might be lurking.... See what the
Domestic Farm Animal style Birth Control has gotten you? When you get
pregnant, you did it to yourself. The man does not participate. It's
not his fault. That little head works by remote control, and is totally
disconnected from the big head. It's just a whackoff.

It sounds to me like maybe she's been dabbling in some medications herself. (More on Karen L. Bauer and her agenda can be found here.)

Fred Vincy points to a comment in Erin's post by Carolyn:

I can't help but wonder if pharmacists with strong religious beliefs refuse to fill other types of prescriptions as well as BC. Accutane (a popular and very strong acne drug) causes birth defects. Or how about pain killers? Morphine comes to mind, considering that in high doses it can be lethal. Do pharmacists who disagree with euthanasia refuse to sell morphine? I wonder if this also has to do with gender and power. Are these pharmacists standing in the way of a woman's right to control her own body and fertility? Do they refuse to sell condoms too? How about women who are on the pill for medical reasons (and there are a lot of them)?

There doesn't seem to be any question.

If a doctor prescribes, a pharmacist should fill the prescription. Fill it, or find another line of work.

Let's look at it another way. Let's say Pharmacist Jane Q. Public hates the patriarchy esconced and codified in the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. As a matter of "conscience," she finds such people immoral.

Would she be in her rights to refuse to fill their prescriptions "as a matter of conscience"?

What if she were a cop? Would she be in her rights to let armed robbers get away with robbing a parish? If she were a firefighter, would she be in her rights to let the cathedral burn down?

Okay, so be it. Pharmacists are now the last line of "conscience" for prescriptions in medical care. Does that mean that if a prescription they give a woman causes, say a birth defect or a stroke or cancer, she can go and sue the pharmacist?

Without medical degrees, pharmacists have no business meddling in my medical care. Without powers of attorney, they have no business meddling in my private life. This is America, not Communist China. We have this thing called freedom. If you don't like it, quite your job or move away.

I'm thinking that the Florida legislature is simply under the influence of some toxic chemicals or something. Their latest bit of brilliance?

The "shoot first ask questions later" bill. No, we're not talking about police policy -- that would be scary enough -- no, this is to empower the citizens to shoot each other at the slightest provocation.

The potential Florida law would extend people's right to defend themselves not only in their homes but on their porches, in the street or in the car without fear of being charged criminally or civilly.

Just what we need are a bunch of armed self-righteous equalizers going around with shotguns and six-shooters, shouting "Make my day!" before blowing away anyone who looks at them sideways.

What next? Authorized grenade use?

How would these chuckleheads feel about this law if a woman trying to get to Planned Parenthood shot a protester? She'd be within her rights, wouldn't she? Or do these proposed laws come with a political litmus test?

Lawmakers were set to vote on two versions of the bill Wednesday but got bogged down in the development of the Terri Schiavo issue.

Stumbling over their own hubris.