New at Reason
Cheryl Miller questions feminist hostility toward the new drug Lybrel.
Comments to "New at Reason":
joe | April 27, 2007, 12:42pm | #
"But women's nonchalance about Lybrel did not sit well with a few self-appointed arbiters of women's health, who apparently (and ironically) think they know better than individual women when it comes to decisions about their own reproduction."And Cheryl Miller thinks she knows better than those individual women who disapprove of the drug. And thus, the circle of meaningless "elitist" accusations is complete.
I tell ya, I have no idea what the hell feminism means anymore. Somebody needs to write a Dummy's Guide.
damaged justice | April 27, 2007, 12:52pm | #
And once again joe shows that he sees no distinction between the concepts of "knows best for oneself", "knows best for others", and "is willing to put a gun to the heads of others to enforce their idea of best".Lamar | April 27, 2007, 12:54pm | #
Joe,Regardless of what you think of Cheryl Miller, is her argument right?
ed | April 27, 2007, 1:02pm | #
women's nonchalance about Lybrel did not sit well with a few self-appointed arbiters of women's healthWho in the Blog Age isn't a "self-appointed arbiter" of something or another?
Guy Montag | April 27, 2007, 1:03pm | #
If this is not just nuts, I don't know what is:Granola-types, like Anna C. Yang, a holistic nurse and director of the California-based nonprofit Red Web Foundation, hinted at possible harm to women's self-esteem. "The focus of our group is to create positive attitudes toward the menstrual cycle; suppressing it wouldn't be positive," she said. Giovanna Chesler, a media production professor at the University of California, San Diego, was so terrified by Lybrel and its likes that she immediately stopped taking birth control.
Does she also have an English degree?
joe | April 27, 2007, 1:05pm | #
Lamar,Right for whom?
We aren't allowed to suggest that something could be right or wrong, good or bad, apparently.
I certainly wouldn't want to put a gun to anyone's head by suggesting that someone's opinion is, or is not, correct.
joe | April 27, 2007, 1:08pm | #
I mean, what if I were to say that I thought Miller was - gasp - incorrect?That would be elitist of me.
mediageek | April 27, 2007, 1:12pm | #
"I mean, what if I were to say that I thought Miller was - gasp - incorrect?"So you think that these women that Miller criticizes should be allowed to set national policy on whether or not this new drug should be available?
FWIW, I stopped reading the article about 1/3 of the way through.
NeonCat | April 27, 2007, 1:14pm | #
The science fiction writer Connie Willis covered similar ideas in her short story "Even the Queen". The protagonist's daughter wanted to go back to having periods and everyone tried to talk her out of it. Good story.The trouble with the Internet and blogging, it seems to me, is a.)everyone seems to come to a conclusion very quickly and b.)everyone seems to be a closet Manicheanist - I know I am right so you must be evil for disagreeing with me.
joe | April 27, 2007, 1:14pm | #
"So you think that these women that Miller criticizes should be allowed to set national policy on whether or not this new drug should be available?"No, I think that the statement "the use of this drug is bad because of X" has nothing whatsoever to do with elitism.
Guy, seriously--what the fuck is it about you and English degrees? Did an English major break your heart?
oh joe get off it. these fuckfaces aren't worth defending and you know it. (and if you don't i'm going to pretend you do, for your own good)
thoreau | April 27, 2007, 1:18pm | #
You know, the dumb hippie arguments of "Oh, this is natural, so embrace it as a matter of self esteem" are of course dumb. But it could very well be, for all we know, that there will be some side effects due to cumulative use. Nowhere is it written that tinkering with reproductive hormones will be without side effects.Which isn't to say that people shouldn't have the right to decide whether to assume that risk, based on the best information available. But I wouldn't be shocked if somewhere down the line it's learned that use of this drug elevates the risk of some disease by some small (but statistically significant) percentage. Of course, it also wouldn't surprise me if this reduces the risk of some other disease by some other small (but statistically significant) percentage.
In the end, of course, individuals should have the right to decide which risks to take based on their own preferences and the advice of their doctors. But don't be shocked if it turns out that there are indeed some side effects. Yeah, it will mean that the broken clocks of the "Oh, embrace all that is natural for the sake of self esteem" crowd were right (happens twice a day!), but them's the breaks.
dhex | April 27, 2007, 1:18pm | #
jen, i think it's leftover blog rage from that chick who ran a scam on him for some magazine.personally i think he's a catch!
Lamar | April 27, 2007, 1:20pm | #
Joe,I don't buy into the bunk that elitist opinions are inferior to redneck opinions. So let 'er rip. What do you think? Me? I'm frustrated with feminism. I don't see how taking away options empowers women. I don't buy the whole "what kind of message does that send" BS when it comes from the Prez, and I don't buy it when it comes from feminists.
mediageek | April 27, 2007, 1:20pm | #
"No, I think that the statement "the use of this drug is bad because of X" has nothing whatsoever to do with elitism."I suppose it depends on the definition of X.
Guy Montag | April 27, 2007, 1:20pm | #
Guy, seriously--what the fuck is it about you and English degrees? Did an English major break your heart?Nope. It just seems to be a recurring trait of people who say stuff liek she did.
lamar you're not factoring in the collectivist memeplex at work here. it's like nationalism but limited to women and minorities, and has a quasi-spiritual dimension similar to orthodox hindu views on karma.
dhex | April 27, 2007, 1:22pm | #
"Nope. It just seems to be a recurring trait of people who say stuff liek she did."that's too good not to have been intentional.
steveintheknow | April 27, 2007, 1:24pm | #
What’s interesting (to me) is that who would have guessed that there would be a feminist outcry against this drug? I could expect this kind of thing from the Catholic Church for instance, but feminists? And I am not talking about some individuals not liking it for themselves (that’s expected), but a general feminist concern for all women, and the oppression there of.I would have expected just the opposite. Shows that I am not so up to date on feminism.
Akira MacKenzie | April 27, 2007, 1:24pm | #
I tell ya, I have no idea what the hell feminism means anymore. Somebody needs to write a Dummy's Guide.Well, some right-wing bitch wrote a "Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, And Feminism" which tells us that women are happier at being subservient slaves, living in a Leave-It-To-Beaver America that never was. Of course, this is the same series of books that had get's a Moonie and HIV denier who poses as a scientist to write a book on Evolution, so I doubt you'd want to take much stock in any of them.
Cyndi | April 27, 2007, 1:26pm | #
"Women on the monthly-regimen pill can achieve (and have, for years) the same effect by skipping their placebo pills and starting right away on a new pack. The only real difference between the old Pill and the new extended regimens is the packaging."A friend of mine does this (she suffers from Endometriosis). But she says she still goes through the PMS mood-swings.
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 1:29pm | #
Nope. It just seems to be a recurring trait of people who say stuff liek she did.Oh. So what college discipline explains you?
dhex | April 27, 2007, 1:30pm | #
joe more seriously the "elitism" side of things comes from the "my choices are made with holistic concern and care :: their choices are the result of pharmaceutical company brainwashing"it's the same shit when some big L libertoid gets all "LOLZ MASSES DEMAND KURV" i.e. every third conservatarian post here lately.
joe | April 27, 2007, 1:31pm | #
dhex,I think they've got a point about the anti-bodily-function phobia that exists in our society, and how it gets applied in an even harsher way to women's bodies, but they seem to minimize the prosaic, practical reasons why women would want to avoid the hassle of having monthly periods.
Feminism as a belief system has become extremely academic, so questions that are fraught with ideological meaning are valued over practical questions, all out of proportion to their real-world significance, by a lot self-defined feminists.
That's what I think about their argument.
See, until this came out, I hadn't realized that all the current standard BCPs were marketed as sequentials. I'd thought a large fraction of the marketed products were continuous-estrogen type already, not that women had to game the packages by starting a new one before getting into the fillers of the sequentials. But then, it'd been 30 years since I'd studied obs-gyn.
Eddy Haskel | April 27, 2007, 1:34pm | #
"in a Leave-It-To-Beaver America that never was."Despite claims like this, for some people, it actually was. Maybe not for Puerto Ricans or African-Americans, but for some, yes, that America actually was.
thoreau | April 27, 2007, 1:34pm | #
Jennifer, just filter Guy Montag. You'll be happier.joe | April 27, 2007, 1:35pm | #
mediageek,"I suppose it depends on the definition of X."
I agree. If X = "the little people will get above their station," it's an elitist argument.
Other than that, there is nothing elitist in arguing that your position is more valid than someone else's.
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 1:36pm | #
Melissa McEwan of the now defunct Shakespeare's Sister (and one of the "resigned" Edwards bloggers) frets that these drugs are just another way for women to better accommodate men: "[T]here's a part of me who wonders how much women are getting rid of their periods for their own convenience as opposed to the convenience of male sex partners."Another example of elitism: "These poor bimbos think they're doing this for their own sakes, because they're just too damned stupid to realize they're only doing it for The Men."
ron | April 27, 2007, 1:36pm | #
my gf loves depo because getting rid of her period meant getting rid of horribly painful cramps.Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 1:39pm | #
getting rid of her period meant getting rid of horribly painful cramps.No, no, she should have learned to develop a positive attitude about them instead. The whole "pain avoidance is a virtue" meme is another male plot.
Man Montage | April 27, 2007, 1:42pm | #
Did an English major break your heart?I lost my haert
Too English majors
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 1:42pm | #
More elitism:Andist tisked-tisked the respondents for their readiness to give up their periods, saying "We don't want to confront our bodily functions anymore. We're too busy."
Yes, wanting to avoid the inconveninece, discomfort and even outright pain That Time provides proves that one is too lazy and frivolous to handle things responsibly. The way Andist does.
Bee | April 27, 2007, 1:46pm | #
Hasn't there been some talk that it is actually healthier for modern women to skip some periods? Because women today have fewer children and also live longer than in the past, they are having more periods than nature perhaps intended. I'm not clear what the medical upside of stopping menstruation would be, though.But I'm all up with joe's practical, prosaic women. Maybe it's not a crisis of female identity, or conscious submission to male patriarchy, or self-loathing....maybe you just want to do something easy and reversible that stops your frigging period.
dhex | April 27, 2007, 1:46pm | #
"I think they've got a point about the anti-bodily-function phobia that exists in our society, and how it gets applied in an even harsher way to women's bodies, but they seem to minimize the prosaic, practical reasons why women would want to avoid the hassle of having monthly periods."i can feel that, joe.
joe | April 27, 2007, 1:48pm | #
Jennifer,Have you ever noticed how fond you are of using words like "only," "proves," and "whole," in response to arguments that contain words like "part of me," "wonders," and "how much?"
SugarFree | April 27, 2007, 1:48pm | #
The dirty little secret* of oral contraceptives? In the case of many women, when they go off them they lose weight and their sex drives take off like NASCAR.*Not really a secret, but it sounded funnier that way...
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 1:52pm | #
Have you ever noticed how fond you are of using words like "only," "proves," and "whole," in response to arguments that contain words like "part of me," "wonders," and "how much?"I have a scratch on the lens of my glasses, which may be why I can't see the words "part of me," "wonders" and "how much" in your first comment here:
And Cheryl Miller thinks she knows better than those individual women who disapprove of the drug. And thus, the circle of meaningless "elitist" accusations is complete.
steveintheknow | April 27, 2007, 1:52pm | #
BeeI have heard that point made, Something like "...back in the day, after her first period, a women would spend the rest of her like nursing or pregnant...and therefore...."
I think it was NPR? The story also discussed the marketing reasons behind why the original pill included the faux period option, and that it wasn't necessary.
Anyway.
Brian E | April 27, 2007, 1:53pm | #
Oh. So what college discipline explains you?Just speaking for myself, I'd say that my double CS / Math major explains me pretty well.
TallDave | April 27, 2007, 1:54pm | #
"[T]here's a part of me who wonders how much women are getting rid of their periods for their own convenience as opposed to the convenience of male sex partners."Right, because men never do anything for the "convenience of female sex partners."
And what about lesbians? Wouldn't eliminating menstruation be particularly attractive when two women are involved in a sexual relationship?
I don't see a problem with the way Big Pharma is acting here. I don't think it has ever been denied that birth control pills carry certain risks, and women are intelligent enough to decide whether to take those risks. While the risks seem real, they also seem small.
Guy Montag | April 27, 2007, 1:56pm | #
Oh. So what college discipline explains you?None, I suppose, but I do have a BS in Finance, was an Army Aviator and worked quite a bit in civilian aviation, Defense Finance and Resourcing, other areas.
The thing is, I don't read people of my background writing/doing crazy stuff like the quoted woman (and several other women quoted in the piece), Cho, or any other of these tortured escapees from the Humanities department that we see on the news on an all too regular basis.
ersatzjoe | April 27, 2007, 1:57pm | #
And Cheryl Miller thinks she knows better than those individual women who disapprove of the drug. And thus, the circle of meaningless "elitist" accusations is complete.There is no point in being joe's troll, when no troll could do better than.
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 1:59pm | #
birth control pills carry certain risks, and women are intelligent enough to decide whether to take those risksI agree, and think it's fucking pathetic that the people insisting women are NOT intelligent enough to make that decision have the gall to call themselves feminists.
joe | April 27, 2007, 1:59pm | #
"The thing is, I don't read people of my background writing/doing crazy stuff like the quoted woman (and several other women quoted in the piece), Cho, or any other of these tortured escapees from the Humanities department that we see on the news on an all too regular basis."Guy Montage hasn't seen Full Metal Jacket, apparently.
"There is no point in being joe's troll, when no troll could do better than."
Yeah, you should totally just shut the fuck up already.
"...insisting women are NOT intelligent enough to make that decision..." = stating the case for deciding against, apparently.
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 2:01pm | #
Jennifer, I was referring to your response to McEwen's comment.Joe, cut the semantic bullshit. You know goddamned well that when McEwen "wondered" how much of the anti-period attitude came from patriarchal blah blah blah, the answer was NOT going to be "None at all! The women who make this choice are making a personal decision that has nothing to do with male oppression!"
ersatzjoe | April 27, 2007, 2:03pm | #
Yeah, you should totally just shut the fuck up already.After you love.
joe | April 27, 2007, 2:05pm | #
It's not semantic.You consistently respond with blind rage and a complete lack of subtlety - not just linguistic, but intellectual - to even the most tentative expression of the thought that there might be a downside for women using a consumer product. You have this Pavlovian response to anything that uses feminist language "patriarchy blah blah blah," and you put out a lot more heat than light.
It's like John with the Iraq War sometimes.
SugarFree | April 27, 2007, 2:07pm | #
TallDave,The fault in your argument lies in the assumption that lesbian couples have sex.
You can have your period and still go the farmer's market.
(I kid because I love...)
joe | April 27, 2007, 2:07pm | #
"After you love."Nope. I make points.
You just admitted you have none.
Seriously, how useful do you think writing "Ohnoes! joe wrote something I don't like like!" ten times a day is to the readers of this page?
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 2:08pm | #
You consistently respond with blind rage and a complete lack of subtlety - not just linguistic, but intellectual - to even the most tentative expression of the thought that there might be a downside for women using a consumer product.McEwen wasn't wondering if there was a downside to the product; she wondered whether those who would use it really WANTED to, or were being deluded into it by their boyfriends.
Last summer I had a wisdom tooth pulled out because it grew in at an angle and abraded my cheek. But a part of McEwen wonders if I did that for my own convenience, or for that of my male sex partner who wanted me to kiss him again.
joe | April 27, 2007, 2:09pm | #
Jennifer,"the answer was NOT going to be "None at all!'"
Ohnoes! The answer was not going to be an absolute statement that there is no feminist point to make!
I can see why that could be upsetting.
mediageek | April 27, 2007, 2:10pm | #
"I agree. If X = "the little people will get above their station," it's an elitist argument."Actually, I was thinking more along the following lines:
If X = "It has documented side effects that render it unfit for human consumption."
But if X = "because big pharma is sexist, and this is just another way for the male patriarchy to control womanhood."
JasonL | April 27, 2007, 2:11pm | #
joe:You detect no element of elitism in a position premised on restriction of a choice because you don't know what is good for you?
The elitist argument comes up repeatedly here, but the essence is that libertarians view the argument against the availability of a personal choice with personal consequences as essentially elitist.
mediageek | April 27, 2007, 2:11pm | #
"...was an Army Aviator and worked quite a bit in civilian aviation, Defense Finance and Resourcing, other areas."Guy once landed a crippled fighter jet on the top of an 18-wheeler full of avocados.
Didn't squish a one.
/too obscure?
I. Self. Divine. | April 27, 2007, 2:12pm | #
What’s interesting (to me) is that who would have guessed that there would be a feminist outcry against this drug? I could expect this kind of thing from the Catholic Church for instance, but feminists?Ten bucks says that if the Catholic church HAD come out against it, these feminists would have supported it.
ersatzjoe | April 27, 2007, 2:13pm | #
Nope. I make points.You also cheat by misrepresenting outside sources while refusing to provide pointers to those references.
You frequently, and savagely, resort to ad hominem attacks.
And when all else fails, you insult people's mothers.
So in total, you are generally not worth conversing with which is a shame, because you clearly are a bright, well-educated dude who frequently brings valuable insights to a discussion.
My problem is I am just to lazy to figure out how to filter you.
joe | April 27, 2007, 2:13pm | #
"McEwen wasn't wondering if there was a downside to the product; she wondered whether those who would use it really WANTED to, or were being deluded into it by their boyfriends."OK. And your problem is that women don't ever have pressure put on them in their sexual relationships with their boyfriends?
*bing* Lightbulb just went on.
How old was that dude who shtupped you when you were 14? Not that you're defensive about it.
No Jennifer, men never put pressure on women for sex. Women always make decisions without the slightest bit of pressure, and no one had better dare suggest otherwise to you, because they're WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
mediageek | April 27, 2007, 2:15pm | #
"The thing is, I don't read people of my background writing/doing crazy stuff like the quoted woman (and several other women quoted in the piece), Cho, or any other of these tortured escapees from the Humanities department that we see on the news on an all too regular basis."Ted Kaczynski has a PHD in mathematics.
joe | April 27, 2007, 2:17pm | #
JasonL,"You detect no element of elitism in a position premised on restriction of a choice because you don't know what is good for you?"
Sure I do. I also find it rather common for people to desperately over-reach on this site to find arguments "premised on restriction of a choice" or based on "you don't know what's good for you."
"That's a bad idea" does not equal "Doing that should be forbidden."
"Those with resources and power can influence your decisions" does not equal "You don't know what's good for you."
I was just thinking that jets and avocadoes make me throw the heck up.
Guy Montag | April 27, 2007, 2:18pm | #
Ted Kaczynski has a PHD in mathematics.And he wrote like a raving post-modernist.
Next?
mediageek | April 27, 2007, 2:20pm | #
Joe-Yes, but couldn't that justification be used for any form of birth control?
Guy-
I was just funnin' ya. :-)
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 2:21pm | #
"McEwen wasn't wondering if there was a downside to the product; she wondered whether those who would use it really WANTED to, or were being deluded into it by their boyfriends." OK. And your problem is that women don't ever have pressure put on them in their sexual relationships with their boyfriends?Oh, for fuck's sake. Maybe the people who say you've been evolving into a troll are right. But I'll answer this on the assumption that you're being sincerely dense: medical science now holds out the possibility of granting women escape from something that's been an annoying pain in the ass (or parts nearby) for as long as there have been women. And McEwen's first thought is to wonder if the women REALLY want to escape this for its own sake, or only because they're being pressured into it by their boyfriends. Yes, I view that as a very condescending view to have toward women.
If a man made the same comment he'd be called a condescending sexist fuckwit, and the people who called him thus would be right.
Imagine McEwen when The Pill first came out: "These women who want to take the pill; part of me wonders how much is for their own convenience, and how many of them are being pressured into it by boyfriends who don't want to bother with condoms."
mediageek | April 27, 2007, 2:22pm | #
"And he wrote like a raving post-modernist.Next?"
Actually, he wrote like a raving anarcho-primitivist.
Doesn't change the fact that he isn't an "esacpee from the humanities department" as you asserted earlier.
Anon | April 27, 2007, 2:22pm | #
This thread has already derailed, but I thought I'd still mention that I find it disturbing to think that most feminists don't know that the Pill already allows them to control their menstruation. No, actually, disturbing is the wrong word -- I find it unbelievable, given that every woman I know including my mother and grandmother knows this. I kept waiting for Miller to point to some long-standing feminist literature on this issue. I know this is the wrong forum to ask, but does such literature really not exist?Also, Rachel Sullivan's argument (as abbreviated by Miller) doesn't seem absurd to me. Redefining birth control as period control seems a sensible tack for the pharmaceutical industry to take -- it is certainly the less controversial presentation of the issues -- and I'm sure such a framing of discussion would have consequences. The linked post on Alas is long and I don't have time to read it all, but Sullivan does start her post by emphasizing that she is not making a "natural is better" argument, unlike some of the other folks described in Miller's article.
Anon
Guy Montag | April 27, 2007, 2:23pm | #
I was just funnin' ya. :-)Actually, I meant silly but hit the wrong button before revising.
joe | April 27, 2007, 2:24pm | #
mediageek,For the new car, the Carribbean trip, the diamond ring, and the lifetime supply of Turtle Wax...
What am I justifying?
And that's exactly my point right there; these are legitimate questions that these women raise. (Well, some of them, anyway). People in this society really do get icked out about their bodies, especially female bodies, too easily. The culture at large, and some individual men in particular, do sometimes put undue pressure on women to make themselves sexually available to men.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting people to think about these matters.
Guy Montag | April 27, 2007, 2:24pm | #
Doesn't change the fact that he isn't an "esacpee from the humanities department" as you asserted earlier.There are many exceptions in nature and he was one of them.
joe | April 27, 2007, 2:27pm | #
Jennifer,Between the cursing and the absolutism, you've obviously got your back up. I've seen you like this before, and I know from experience that it isn't going to be worthwhile to continue the conversation.
Have a good one.
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 2:28pm | #
Between the cursing and the absolutism, you've obviously got your back up. I've seen you like this before, and I know from experience that it isn't going to be worthwhile to continue the conversation.What a dishonest little coward you are.
I also notice you never did answer my question on the incandescent-ban thread. Doesn't take much to scare you off, does it?
VM | April 27, 2007, 2:28pm | #
Media - that was Bart Savagewood (didn't hafta look it up.You, Sir, demonstrate yet again why you're one of the bestest posters evar!
thoreau | April 27, 2007, 2:30pm | #
What a dishonest little coward you are.I also notice you never did answer my question on the incandescent-ban thread. Doesn't take much to scare you off, does it?
Careful, Jennifer. You sound like you want to go running on Little Round Top when you say things like that.
*Chuckle*
VM | April 27, 2007, 2:32pm | #
joe - nice counter with Opus, too! And to your most recent comment, I'd like to throw out a line from Captain Renault: "a wise foreign policy"*passes out warm milk to everybody.
**group hug. (no yiffing, tho)
Fluffy | April 27, 2007, 2:33pm | #
Joe, I think ALL arguments that rely on the concept of "false consciousness" are inherently elitist.To believe the arguments referenced in the article, you have to believe that the women who want to take the drug are experiencing a "false consciousness" - they think they want something they don't actually want. To make such an argument, you have to implicitly believe that your own thought processes are reliable, but others experience thoughts that aren't actually their own, but instead are imposed on the thinker by malevolent outside forces.
Sorry, that's elitist.
Cheryl's not doing anything of the kind. She is just calling people dumbasses. That may be elitist too, but not in the manner under discussion here.
joe | April 27, 2007, 2:34pm | #
Jennifer,Believe it or not, deciding it's not fun to be shreiked at by you can have other motivations than fear at the overwhelming intellect evident in your last three profanity-laden diatribes.
joe | April 27, 2007, 2:38pm | #
Fluffy,I don't actually think the author was being elitist. I was just demonstrating the silliness behind her lazy reach for that argument.
And let me tell you, I have walked with watering mouth into too many McDonald's, only to remember ten minutes later, "Oh, yeah, this food sucks," to be swayed by the politicized assertion that people can't ever be mistaken about what they want.
thoreau | April 27, 2007, 2:40pm | #
And let me tell you, I have walked with watering mouth into too many McDonald's, only to remember ten minutes later, "Oh, yeah, this food sucks," to be swayed by the politicized assertion that people can't ever be mistaken about what they want.That's never happened to me with McDonald's, but it happens to me all the time with movie theater popcorn. It smells so damn good, but the taste is almost always underwhelming.
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 2:41pm | #
deciding it's not fun to be shreiked at by you can have other motivations than fear at the overwhelming intellect evident in your last three profanity-laden diatribes.No doubt. And what's been motivating you of late to make all these coy comments full of implications which you later insist you had no intention of making?
Fluffy | April 27, 2007, 2:48pm | #
Joe -"I would tend to consider that 'changing your mind' or 'deciding in haste and repenting at leisure'," - but if you want to invalidate your consciousness during the time when you were enjoying a quarter pounder with cheese, I guess that's your business.
But if someone met you at the door of McDonald's on your way in, and sneeringly told you that you didn't really want to go there, would you consider their behavior condescending?
joe | April 27, 2007, 2:49pm | #
thoreau,Popcorn? Have you seen the box office for "Rising Sun?"
Jennifer,
Worry less about "implications," and more about the words on the screen.
joe | April 27, 2007, 2:51pm | #
Fluffy,I might have that emotional reaction.
But you know what? He'd probably be right.
It's not a bad thing to stop and think, and it's not a bad thing for writers to give us something to think about.
Still missing your answer on the bulb thread, Joe. And if I recall correctly, I didn't use scary words like "fuck" so you can't even claim avoidance due to protecting your delicate little sensibilities.
JasonL | April 27, 2007, 2:59pm | #
"And let me tell you, I have walked with watering mouth into too many McDonald's, only to remember ten minutes later, "Oh, yeah, this food sucks," to be swayed by the politicized assertion that people can't ever be mistaken about what they want."It isn't that no one can ever be mistaken about what they want, it is more that in areas with a certain quality of subjectivity and personal nature, there is an amount of ego involved in someone else telling you that nobody should be eating a 1/4 pounder.
Even if we aren't talking about a call for a government ban on the pill, there is the bold claim that nobody should take the option - that the demand sustained by many women arriving separately at the choice to alter this very personal aspect of their lives is invalid. You'd better follow up that kind of claim with a compelling argument about harm or rational self interest or something.
mediageek | April 27, 2007, 3:02pm | #
"And that's exactly my point right there; these are legitimate questions that these women raise. (Well, some of them, anyway). People in this society really do get icked out about their bodies, especially female bodies, too easily. The culture at large, and some individual men in particular, do sometimes put undue pressure on women to make themselves sexually available to men."That's what you're trying to justify.
As I stated above, if these critics are pointing out that there are valid medical concerns about this medicine, then yes, you have a point.
But from what I gathered, these feminists want to restrict the access of other women to this drug not based on provable medical concern, but on statements based around womanhood, body perception, etc.
And I find the claim that a woman can be coerced by her boyfriend into using this particular birth control pill to be a red herring. After all, the same argument can be used for any form of birth control.
joe | April 27, 2007, 3:04pm | #
Jennifer,Go back to the thread. I answered you, and answered you again.
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 3:07pm | #
I answered you, and answered you again.No, you did not. You said the ban wasn't necessarily useless or wrongheaded, I asked what was useful or rightheaded about it, and you never made another post after that.
joe | April 27, 2007, 3:08pm | #
JasonL,I can agree that it is better to raise concerns like this as questions than as answers. Eh, people with political beliefs outside the mainstream go off the deep end and write in absolutes. The "English majors" Guy is always going on about really did raise some good issues about textualism and authorial intent during the 20th century, even if they did tend to phrase them in overly-certain absolutes like "there is not author, there is no text."
Maybe I just have more tolerance for that sort of thing. I am, after all, a liberal who reads Reason.
tlxtftrf | April 27, 2007, 3:08pm | #
As a once man, now ugly lesbo woman once said"I don't trust anything that bleeds for seven days and doesn't die."
This pill is a scientific breakthrough.
By the way, did you know that reason did an interview with Trey and Matt Stone?
joe | April 27, 2007, 3:11pm | #
Jennifer,Ah. I didn't see that comment, because I'd gone onto other threads by then.
Anyway, I already answered that question, upthread: such a ban makes the development of better technologies immediately lucrative, and thus motivates the private sector to bring bulbs that are both more efficient and warmer to market.
I think my "just became lucrative" statement was in my first or second comment.
Now stop insulting me and using foul language, you castrating bitch!
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 3:11pm | #
How old was that dude who shtupped you when you were 14? Not that you're defensive about it.Wow, Joe, you're a classy dude. Why discuss the topic at hand when you can instead talk about when I lost my virginity in such a way that implies it has something to do with the topic of this thread?
Tell me, Joe: how different do you think my posts here would read if my first time had been at age 16? What if I had waited until age 20; would that make a difference, do you think?
Surely you must have good answers for these questions. The only other option is that you're engaging in cheap ad hominems. Surely you'd never do that, would you?
van | April 27, 2007, 3:11pm | #
Jennifer:"Another example of elitism: 'These poor bimbos think they're doing this for their own sakes, because they're just too damned stupid to realize they're only doing it for The Men.'"
Yeah -- a reflection of the hard core lefty reliance on discrediting opposing opinions whenever possible by characterizing them as products of "false consciousness."
We can thank Marx for that very tired concept.
edna | April 27, 2007, 3:16pm | #
What a dishonest little coward you are.uh-oh, that time of month again?
van | April 27, 2007, 3:18pm | #
TallDave:"And what about lesbians? Wouldn't eliminating menstruation be particularly attractive when two women are involved in a sexual relationship?"
Could weaken a substantial barrier for me. Dealing with my own is enough.
SugarFree:
"The fault in your argument lies in the assumption that lesbian couples have sex."
Oh no you didn't!
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 3:19pm | #
Yeah -- a reflection of the hard core lefty reliance on discrediting opposing opinions whenever possible by characterizing them as products of "false consciousness."I'm pretty left-wing and used to be far more so, but I never thought any such thing.
carrick | April 27, 2007, 3:20pm | #
Now stop insulting me and using foul language, you castrating bitch!Wow joe. You must be really proud of that one.
joe | April 27, 2007, 3:34pm | #
"Wow, Joe, you're a classy dude." Oh, suddenly your delicate sensibilities require that we play by Marquis of Queensbury Rules? Tell you what, Jennifer, if want a certain tone, then set one. "fucking pathetic," "cut the semantic bullshit," "know goddamn well." I wouldn't have expected the wounded little girl shtick from you."Why discuss the topic at hand when you can instead talk about when I lost my virginity in such a way that implies it has something to do with the topic of this thread?"
Because the topic you and I were discussing when I wrote that was the emotionalism and defensiveness that you bring to any suggestion that women can be subject to pressure to conform to men's desires. In case you don't remember, you brought up that topic in a previoius thread about age of consent laws, and then should that I'd better not DARE to suggest that there could possibly be any reason to find that episode questionable. As a matter of fact, I wasn't planning to suggest any such thing on that thread. Though you still felt the need to warn me that I'd better not DARE say it was inappropriate.
"Tell me, Joe: how different do you think my posts here would read if my first time had been at age 16? What if I had waited until age 20; would that make a difference, do you think?" I have no idea if you'd still be so full of irrational rage about the subject.
joe | April 27, 2007, 3:37pm | #
"Wow joe. You must be really proud of that one."Yes, I am. See, the way I told her not to be foul mouthed and insulting, in the same sentence as I called her a "castrating bitch," is a pretty good use of irony to achieve a humourous effect. You see, "bitch" is a vulgar good, and "castrating bitch" is an insult. Get it?
I actually wondered whether it would be necessary to add a smiley emoticon to make sure everyone got that joke, but I decided, "Nah, these people are smart. They'll get it."
Tell you what, carrick, I'll start dumbing it down for you when you're active on the thread.
carrick | April 27, 2007, 3:41pm | #
castrating bitchSorry joe, I just can't see the humor in that one. And a smiley face just doesn't cut it either.
Tell you what, carrick, I'll start dumbing it down for you when you're active on the thread.
No need. I don't want to be smart enough or hip enough to see that calling a women a castrating bitch can be funny in any context.
van | April 27, 2007, 3:43pm | #
"I'm pretty left-wing and used to be far more so, but I never thought any such thing."I see it underlying arguments about race, feminism, and homosexuality -- basically anytime a member of an "oppressed" group holds an opinion that contradicts leftist/progressive prescriptions for liberating their group. Calling a black Republican an "Uncle Tom," for example.
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 3:44pm | #
Because the topic you and I were discussing when I wrote that was the emotionalism and defensiveness that you bring to any suggestion that women can be subject to pressure to conform to men's desires.No, Joe, I don't deny that women can be pressured into things by men, and vice-versa too. But I damned sure find it condescending when an alleged feminist assumes that a woman who disagrees with her is probably just being pressured by a man.
I wouldn't have expected the wounded little girl shtick from you.
Who said anything about a wounded little girl? I'm asking you what my sex life as a teenager has to do with my current annoyance with alleged feminists who think that a woman who disagrees with them must be suffering from faulty thinking.
thoreau | April 27, 2007, 3:45pm | #
Uh, joe, something seems off with you today.joe | April 27, 2007, 3:46pm | #
"No need. I don't want to be smart enough or hip enough to see that calling a women a castrating bitch can be funny in any context."I didn't realize you were posting from the Womyn's Center.
Oread | April 27, 2007, 3:46pm | #
I just don't get what the big deal is about periods. It's there for, what, a week, and is a minor nuisance. If you want that week to define you as a person, cool. Kvetch. Take synthetic hormones that leak into the water supply via potties and produce asexual frogs for all I care.Or you could grow a pair (of tits, ha) and get over it. Maybe find something worthwhile to bitch about.
Oh, and I'm one of those period-having things. Before anyone rags (oh PUN) me for being unsympathetic.
joshua corning | April 27, 2007, 3:48pm | #
And Cheryl Miller thinks she knows better than those individual women who disapprove of the drug. And thus, the circle of meaningless "elitist" accusations is complete.I think it comes down to what extent you are willing to use the power of the state to prevent someone doing something you don't like.
Not allowing someone to do something to enforce your version of what you like or don't like I think falls squarely into the realm of elitism.
This is about motivating feminist PACs into putting money towards a political campaign to outlaw the use the Pill right?
That said Jennifer was way to easy at a way to early age, and i have no plans to write essays to secure PAC funds to stop young versions of Jennifer from acting as she she did in her youth.
Fluffy | April 27, 2007, 3:49pm | #
"Because the topic you and I were discussing when I wrote that was the emotionalism and defensiveness that you bring to any suggestion that women can be subject to pressure to conform to men's desires."So what if they are? Assuming we aren't talking about violence being brought to bear, that is.
"I want to obtain a product that will make me more attractive to 'male group X'," is a perfectly reasonable calculation for someone to make.
Joe is really getting into the multiple levels at which the objections being raised to this drug are offensive and condescending.
joe | April 27, 2007, 3:50pm | #
thoreau,"Uh, joe, something seems off with you today."
You're right.
When you roll around in the mud with the pigs, you get muddy. I made a temperate point, Jennifer hurled invective at me, and I took the bait. I should know better by now.
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 3:54pm | #
That said Jennifer was way to easy at a way to early ageWow. "Easy?" My boyfriends would beg to differ.
joe | April 27, 2007, 3:55pm | #
joshua corning,"This is about motivating feminist PACs into putting money towards a political campaign to outlaw the use the Pill right?"
Holy Assumption, Batman!
Fluffy,
'"I want to obtain a product that will make me more attractive to 'male group X'," is a perfectly reasonable calculation for someone to make.'
Sure it is; or at least, it can be. On the other hand, it can also be the behavior of someone who isn't giving the matter enough thought, or is allowing herself to be manipulated. As each individual woman makes up her mind about what she wants, it is better for her to think about the motivations and implications than not to think about them.
How can it possibly be bad to put out ideas for people to take into account as they make decisions?
joe | April 27, 2007, 3:57pm | #
She never said she was bopping around, joshua.She wrote about having a serious, long-term relationship with some guy who'd been buying beer for a few years, when she was a freshman.
And don't you DARE say there's anything untoward about that.
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 3:58pm | #
'"I want to obtain a product that will make me more attractive to 'male group X'," is a perfectly reasonable calculation for someone to make.' Sure it is; or at least, it can be. On the other hand, it can also be the behavior of someone who isn't giving the matter enough thought, or is allowing herself to be manipulated. As each individual woman makes up her mind about what she wants, it is better for her to think about the motivations and implications than not to think about them.Ditto for the men who take Viagra or get hair transplants or toupees. Is this desire to recapture the appearance and ability of youth something the guys want for their own sakes, or are they being manipulated into it by women who find potent guys with a full head of hair more attractive than flaccid baldies?
carrick | April 27, 2007, 3:59pm | #
I didn't realize you were posting from the Womyn's Center.That pretty well sums everything there is to like about joe.
And for the record joe. I am 50, have been married to the same woman for 30 years, have 2 adult children, and 4 grand children.
I don't think that calling a woman a castrating bitch is a bad thing because I have been subordinated by the feminist cause. I have always believed that it is wrong to insult women with that kind of language.
I am neither dumb nor overly sensitive. You on the other hand, should consider getting treatments for your frequent bouts of PMS.
VM | April 27, 2007, 4:06pm | #
joe -it happens sometimes. The keyboard doesn't always come with a filter from the brain.
bad moments (such as taking the bait) when you do know better do happen. Oh well. Next thread you won't. Think of it that way!
You're just playing against a loaded deck in this case. You'll note that it seems to be only your behavior that people are mentioning/ objecting to...
(Interesting.)
but considering the abuse that gets heaped on you from time to time (even when it's against the joe in their minds), I guess a stealth taking the bait is gonna happen.
(Carrick - it's UMS, please. Ugly Mood Swings.)
*opens bag of wasabi peas.
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 4:06pm | #
She wrote about having a serious, long-term relationship with some guy who'd been buying beer for a few years, when she was a freshman. And don't you DARE say there's anything untoward about that.She also paid for school by working as a stripper!
Not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand. But that, like teenage sex, is a sex-themed topic considered unsavory by many, so it MUST have something to do with the topic at hand. Right, Joe?
Does her phone-sex experience matter as well, or does she get a pass there because she did it for journalism-related reasons?
Gimme Back My Dog | April 27, 2007, 4:11pm | #
This thread is a hit and run classic. So far, we have joe making a joke that falls flat (I feel your pain, buddy) and then playing the too-hip-for-the-room card. We have a discussion of jennifer's underaged sex life (always a crowd pleaser). Even a little English major vs. Math major debate. The only thing missing is discussion of the subject at hand.ed | April 27, 2007, 4:13pm | #
Yikes. Look what happens when there's no haiku.Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 4:13pm | #
We have a discussion of jennifer's underaged sex life (always a crowd pleaser).Not to mention incredibly relevant to the topic at hand, which is why Joe brought it up.
thoreau | April 27, 2007, 4:16pm | #
Dude without dog-We should include this in the "Hit and Run Greatest Hits" compilation. Along with the 1000 post Thanksgiving thread, a few of the haiku threads, and something with gaius marius.
Oh, and "The Ideal Platonic Blog Post."
Mr. Steven Crane | April 27, 2007, 4:16pm | #
jennifer, joe, other interested parties:i have declared this argument UNFUNNY and demand you two stop immediately.
seriously, guy montag is more entertaining. you can do better, i know.
Lamar | April 27, 2007, 4:17pm | #
Lamar: Whatcha talkin' 'bout?H&R crowd: girls.
Lamar: carry on. [leaves with totally wrong impression]
mediageek | April 27, 2007, 4:19pm | #
"You, Sir, demonstrate yet again why you're one of the bestest posters evar!"Thanks, Moose! :-D
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 4:21pm | #
i have declared this argument UNFUNNY and demand you two stop immediately.I don't find it amusing either. But somewhere in the middle of his flailings must be an actual point, and I'm curious to know what it is.
VM | April 27, 2007, 4:22pm | #
carrick! :)Missing Canine man - gak! Sure sign that Mr. Crane's warning should have been predicted :)
Mr. Crane speaks clear minded!
(not only did he deliver his speech in authentic Hip, northside neighborhood gibberish...)
M | April 27, 2007, 4:29pm | #
What, pray tell, is wrong with elitism? I never read by choice unless I'm expecting to read something that is in some sense elite.joe | April 27, 2007, 4:30pm | #
Jennifer,First, I apologize. I didn't mean to start a fight, just to encourage a more thoughtful, less reactive and emotional response than you were coming up with. There was no need for me to drag up the past like that.
"Not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand." You were ferociously defensive about the implication that there might have been some manipulation going on there, just as were are ferociously defensive about the same concept in regards to the topic of this blog post. That's why I broght it up - because I think you have irrationally hostile reactions to the suggestion that women can be subject to pressure and manipulation to make thsemselves sexually available to men.
"Ditto for the men who take Viagra or get hair transplants or toupees. Is this desire to recapture the appearance and ability of youth something the guys want for their own sakes, or are they being manipulated into it by women who find potent guys with a full head of hair more attractive than flaccid baldies?"
I suppose so. Might it be somewhat short of medieval of me to suggest that women in our society are pushed into conforming to the sexual preferences of men more commonly than vice-versa?
grumpy realist | April 27, 2007, 4:34pm | #
Comments from the peanut gallery:1) Hesitation on the part of women to go "non-period" because you know what else makes you go "non-period"? You got it--a pregnancy. I think a lot of women like the reassurance they get with a period every month, even if it's a fake period. And with the expected continued narrowing of possibilities of abortion, you really, really don't want to discover you're pregnant 3 months down the road and be already dealing with the hassle of trying to get a second-trimester abortion.
2) There's good historical reason for women to be sceptical about medical breakthroughs touted for women and then discover several years down the road that, ummm, well, sorry, there are some really nasty side effects you opened yourself (or your daughter) up to. DES, the Pill and smoking, estrogen therapy....heck, it wasn't until relatively recently that the medical establishment got around to admitting the women's pains during their periods were real and not just "all in their heads." So permit us to remain skeptical.
3) Having said all this, I think several years down the road, after all the bugs are figured out and we have enough data to indicate that there won't be adverse side effects, we'll be seeing a world very much like that which Connie Willis outlines in "Even the Queen" (which is a very funny story from all directions.)
van | April 27, 2007, 4:44pm | #
"...heck, it wasn't until relatively recently that the medical establishment got around to admitting the women's pains during their periods were real and not just 'all in their heads.'"True, but you know, feminists have been known to propose this very same thing. With the twist that women's psychosomatic reactions to their periods were caused by the negativity of patriarchal society towards women's bodies. I am not sure, but it might have been in Naomi Wolf's *The Beauty Myth* that I encountered this argument.
Jennifer | April 27, 2007, 4:47pm | #
You were ferociously defensive about the implication that there might have been some manipulation going on thereFirst, learn the difference between "annoyed" and "defensive." Yes, I'm damned annoyed by an alleged feminist who would look at a woman who wants to be freed from the inconvenience (or worse) of periods and assume that it must be because a man's prressuring her into it.
I think you have irrationally hostile reactions to the suggestion that women can be subject to pressure and manipulation to make thsemselves sexually available to men.
No, I fully agree women and men are subject to pressure from the opposite sex. But I, unlike the elitists you're defending, don't look at a woman who disagrees with me about something sex-based and automatically assume "She can't truly believe this. She's being pressured by the man in her life."
I apologize. I didn't mean to start a fight, just to encourage a more thoughtful, less reactive and emotional response than you were coming up with.
Apology accepted. And in the same vein: remember when you demanded I apologize for saying you were racist for insisting that black students should be held to lower standards than white ones, who in turn should be held to lower standards than Asians? Here goes: "I apologize. I didn't mean to start a fight, just to encourage a more thoughtful, less reactive and emotional response than you were coming up with."
thoreau | April 27, 2007, 4:53pm | #
...heck, it wasn't until relatively recently that the medical establishment got around to admitting the women's pains during their periods were real and not just 'all in their heads.'Wait, what? There have been women in medical research for some time now, it took that long to change that mindset?
I want to ask a devil's advocate question: When you say 'all in their heads', well, all pain is in some sense 'all in your head', in that a nerve sends a signal to the brain which then says "Ouch!" Was the debate over whether the pain came from aggravation of a nerve in the pelvic area, or instead something happening in the brain?
Either way, if you feel pain then you have pain. But I can see how there might be some debate over the origin of the pain.
Or were they really just a bunch of jerks?
carrick | April 27, 2007, 4:58pm | #
thoreau, the whole medical community has been terrible about the subject of treating debilitating pain until the last decade or so.A huge driving factor in the prosecution of pain doctors is the still widely accepted idea that no one can really need that much morphine on a daily basis.
Mr. Steven Crane | April 27, 2007, 4:59pm | #
VM: howard street is right!jennifer: I don't find it amusing either. But somewhere in the middle of his flailings must be an actual point, and I'm curious to know what it is. does not constitute stopping.
Mr. Steven Crane, as soon as you show me the contract I signed agreeing to chat on the Internet only when you find it amusing, I'll definitely give your suggestion much serious consideration. Until then, go amuse yourself somewhere else.
Mr. Steven Crane | April 27, 2007, 5:08pm | #
see, jennifer? there you go. you made me laugh. that's all it took!carry on, my wayward sons. there'll be peace when you are done.
VM: the sherriff is a n-(orth sider!)
Brian E | April 27, 2007, 5:08pm | #
Might it be somewhat short of medieval of me to suggest that women in our society are pushed into conforming to the sexual preferences of men more commonly than vice-versa?It's a valid point, but the irony of the situation is that there's a good reason for this treatment which has at its root the desire for further freedom of everyday choice for women. Instead of encouraging those who are considering this course to do so for the right reasons, the supposed feminists consulted by the NYT took the view that if women were deciding this way, it was out of a sense of shame for being women, rather than the more obvious and more practical reasons. That, if I may say so, is incredibly condescending.
If the stated goal of feminism is female liberation, then feminists should encourage women to make decisions for liberated reasons, even if it leads to actions which could also (somewhat theoretically) be caused by reasons associated with patriarchy. Telling someone the real reasons behind their actions without knowing any of the details first simply smacks of elitism.
M | April 27, 2007, 5:09pm | #
Well, I'm glad I asked.Yawn | April 27, 2007, 5:25pm | #
>This thread is a hit and run classic.Yes, but there is point at which "classic" becomes repetitious, fagged out, and just plain dull.
Johnnie Cakes | April 27, 2007, 5:28pm | #
"What a dishonest little coward you are."You know, every three months or so I check out Reason's Hit & Run with the hope that things have changed.
But I'm always disappointed to find that Jennifer is still a horrid person that doesn't play well with the other kids. Rather like that know-it-all bitch in Beaver Cleaver’s 5th grade class. Pretty pathetic really.
Will check back July.
Biff | April 27, 2007, 5:34pm | #
"(I) can instead talk about when I lost my virginity"I would very much like a detailed account...
ChicagoTom | April 27, 2007, 5:38pm | #
Yes, I'm damne