Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Birth Control for Men, Susie Bright on the Elections, and No Sex for You!

A New York Times article this week discusses the hopes and failures in the search for a reliable, reversible birth control method for use by men. One of the scientists interviewed acknowledges that they've been saying for years now that birth control for men will be on the market in 5-10 years, but, he said, "Now I’m saying it with a twinkle in my eye.” The article focuses on taking the pressure of family planning off of women, and cites some promising statistics about the number of men who would be willing to take responsibility for birth control. Still, I've been reading Andrea Dworkin all week, and though most of it acts as devil's advocate, there's a part of me that is very suspicious of how long it's taking them. Does the scientific community really want to assume responsibility for spreading the weight of family planning equally? (Contraception as an Option for the Man, Michael Mason, 11/7/2006)

A darling friend of mine told me earlier that she's proud of her country for the first time in forever, and I've got to say I'm feeling the same way. Of all the media I've scanned through today, Susie Bright's blog post --with its series of updates-- is my favorite. Take this quote, for example:
Rumsfeld is "stepping down," hopefully right onto his own sword. And he's being replaced by Daddy's old friend... Robert Gates? He's a former Eagle Scout and CIA Director... why does that strike me as a porn movie?
Susie's political savvy is something I admire and aspire to.

In her post, Susie also references this story:
The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore.
Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.
The article goes on to discuss how women ages 19-29 are the group having the largest number of children outside of marriage, so the shift in policy is meant to encourage people to wait until they're married to have children. Some of those women are certainly having children on purpose (outside of marriage? The horror!), and many probably will never get married. The policy claims to be aimed at all adults, but in reality it's an incredibly paternalistic way of controlling women's bodies and women's sexuality well beyond their youth. Don't have sex, ladies, but make sure you're treating your pre-pregnant bodies properly!

No comments: