I need feminism because...

Legs.Eleven

I was a victim of these double standards in my teens and although the circumstances of my situation were very different (all based on a rumour based on a lie - I chose the wrong guy to "shift"), I was bullied for 3 years solid from the ages of 14 - 16 while the guy in question was a legend and "the man". My life was a misery for those 3 years and I've never really got over it completely. I was so undeserving of the physical and mental bullying I was subjected to everyday in every single place I went to from my front door to inside my classroom. It got so bad that someone wrote "slut" on my parent's house and I had to get up in the middle of the night and paint over it. It was a really horrible period of my life. I didn't deserve any of the ****e I put up with and I can't imagine how I would've coped if the bullying was taken online. I can't say for sure that I would be sitting here today writing this post.

I hope this girl has the strength and support to get her through this. She made a stupid, drunken mistake but the level of bullying she is already being subjected to by complete strangers, by adults who should know better, really distresses me and I hope she doesn't do anything rash. I really pity her and hope she'll be okay. She absolutely doesn't deserve it and those people who uploaded that photo are absolute scum of the earth.

starling

Am I missing something or are the people uploading the pics not engaged in disseminating child porn? Like surely there is a legal basis on which to stop the spread of these photos.
Anyway yeah, this whole SG thing is making me so depressed, that poor girl is being called all sorts of horrible and misogynistic words because everyone thinks they have a right to judge her for liking sex. So fúcking angry right now.

starling

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I was a victim of these double standards in my teens and although the circumstances of my situation were very different (all based on a rumour based on a lie - I chose the wrong guy to "shift"), I was bullied for 3 years solid from the ages of 14 - 16 while the guy in question was a legend and "the man". My life was a misery for those 3 years and I've never really got over it completely. I was so undeserving of the physical and mental bullying I was subjected to everyday in every single place I went to from my front door to inside my classroom. It got so bad that someone wrote "slut" on my parent's house and I had to get up in the middle of the night and paint over it. It was a really horrible period of my life. I didn't deserve any of the ****e I put up with and I can't imagine how I would've coped if the bullying was taken online. I can't say for sure that I would be sitting here today writing this post.

I hope this girl has the strength and support to get her through this. She made a stupid, drunken mistake but the level of bullying she is already being subjected to by complete strangers, by adults who should know better, really distresses me and I hope she doesn't do anything rash. I really pity her and hope she'll be okay. She absolutely doesn't deserve it and those people who uploaded that photo are absolute scum of the earth.

What happened to you was awful Legs, I had a fairly similar experience although it didn't descend into actual bullying. But to quote the author of this excellent piece "Defending the girl by saying she made a mistake is falling into the trap of denying women can have sexual desire, can want to act outside the normal heteronormative standards that strangle at birth any sensible debate about sex."

Like we don't know the girl but unless she was being coerced in some way she chose to do this and we can't automatically say she made a mistake, that's just a nicer way of saying she did something "wrong."

starling

starling wrote: »

What happened to you was awful Legs, I had a fairly similar experience although it didn't descend into actual bullying. But to quote the author of this excellent piece "Defending the girl by saying she made a mistake is falling into the trap of denying women can have sexual desire, can want to act outside the normal heteronormative standards that strangle at birth any sensible debate about sex."

Like we don't know the girl but unless she was being coerced in some way she chose to do this and we can't automatically say she made a mistake, that's just a nicer way of saying she did something "wrong."

I'd assume the 'mistake' referred to was in underestimating the likelihood of being photographed and having the images live forever on the 'net rather than any aspect of her behaviour.

Although I'm not comfortable with her behaviour in performing sex acts publicly, if I'm honest. That is, of course, my issue and not hers.

She may have chosen, but she's not an adult and doesn't quite yet have that capability of looking forward to the possible effects, speaking very generally about teens. Doing it in such a public place was a mistake, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with women having desire and the two should not be conflated. It also certainly does not mean she deserves any of the bullying

Mod

Guys, I know you are only doing so in a positive light, but we cannot discuss the incident which is being referred in the last few posts. Please see feedback forum for further information.

Thanks.

Legs.Eleven

Not to play the mod here, guys but maybe we should leave the discussion there. :-/

Oh sorry ok

starling

^^^ Yeah we should probably leave it there although just to say Bluewolf I do take your point about conflating freedom of choice with teenage decision making skills

iwantmydinner

Yeah, we just... we definitely just need to stand up for our girls and women. I don't care how many people tell me I should be a 'humanist' rather than a feminist. Girls and women still, STILL, get such a raw deal it makes me want to explode.

Grimebox

Morag wrote: »

I honestly hope that the dept of Public Prosecutions get involves and we seen a massive amounts of charges related to this for those who have shared the pictures.
The Public needs to learn that they are traceable online and there are consequences.

Support SOPA next time it comes around in that case

Catari Jaguar

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Yeah, we just... we definitely just need to stand up for our girls and women. I don't care how many people tell me I should be a 'humanist' rather than a feminist. Girls and women still, STILL, get such a raw deal it makes me want to explode.

That's exactly how I feel. Sure there are a lot of "first world problems" in the everyday sexism you encounter thread that can lead a lot of people to think it's wimminz getting offended for the sake of it and blah blah "well men have to put up with xyz too.." but as long as there are atrocities like acid attacks all over the developing world (80% female), rapes especially in India & tear gassing of anti-rape protesters, abortion of female babies in China/India, violence against women/ "missing" women, girls not receiving an education in many ethnic communities, bride buying & child brides (38,000 children a day!), prostitution & trafficking, women being unable to legally represent themselves etc. then I really think it's unacceptable to downgrade feminism.

Until ALL women are treated to a just standard of living and acceptance then there should be ZERO tolerance of any anti-feminist views/ sexism, no matter how small. If people think that men and women are treated equally they really need to open their eyes to the world around them.

Morag

http://irishstudentleftonline.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/mixing-moralism-with-medicine-i-was-refused-the-pill-from-my-family-doctor/

Because we still have drs who think grown adult women can not make thier own contraceptive choices.

iwantmydinner

Morag wrote: »

http://irishstudentleftonline.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/mixing-moralism-with-medicine-i-was-refused-the-pill-from-my-family-doctor/

Because we still have drs who think grown adult women can not make thier own contraceptive choices.

Sweet suffering jaysus...

fits

Certain GPs are incredibly unprofessional. Its really very common and not just when it comes to contraception. A very conservative profession if you ask me.

Jessibelle

Morag wrote: »

http://irishstudentleftonline.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/mixing-moralism-with-medicine-i-was-refused-the-pill-from-my-family-doctor/

Because we still have drs who think grown adult women can not make thier own contraceptive choices.

Just on this: the G.P is perfectly entitled to refuse to issue any form of contraception if it goes against their own moral beliefs. Same as any Dr, and the same as if they disagreed with issuing sleeping pills, antidepressants or any form of medication, or indeed performing any medical action. What they are not allowed to do, is refuse, and not provide the patient with information of a practitioner that will provide them with the services required (so long as they're legal). The sanctimonious preaching however, well that seems to have been just thrown in for free :mad:

If a GP refuses to prescribe medication on moral grounds, do they still charge for the consultation?

I understand people have to be allowed follow their conscience, but if people are refused service, and aren't seen immediately by a more agreeable colleague, it's immoral that they should have to pay for the consultation.

Jessibelle

Candie wrote: »

If a GP refuses to prescribe medication on moral grounds, do they still charge for the consultation?

I understand people have to be allowed follow their conscience, but if people are refused service, and aren't seen immediately by a more agreeable colleague, it's immoral that they should have to pay for the consultation.

Actually, that I don't know . I'd assume no, but that's not to say it's not done. I personally would feel very uncomfortable charging someone if I was refusing them a service, but some might view it as you're paying for their time rather than their service, if that makes sense? I just know it's something reiterated to us ad naseum in school, if we're not personally comfortable with a prescription or an action, morally or ethically, we can refuse to do it, but if it's legal, then we have to recommend another practitioner, if they're known to us, that will provide said service.

iwantmydinner

Jessibelle wrote: »

Just on this: the G.P is perfectly entitled to refuse to issue any form of contraception if it goes against their own moral beliefs. Same as any Dr, and the same as if they disagreed with issuing sleeping pills, antidepressants or any form of medication, or indeed performing any medical action.

I know it's the law, and I know it's a very nuanced issue, but in relation to contraception I think it's a load of bo**ocks.

Jessibelle

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I know it's the law, and I know it's a very nuanced issue, but in relation to contraception I think it's a load of bo**ocks.

Perhaps (and I happen to agree with you in this instance), but it's there for a reason, and some people genuinely do have a conscientious objection to contraception. Even if you take the religious aspect of it out, I'd know a few practitioners who won't prescribe it because they think as a medication, it does more harm than good. Oddly, most that I know that won't prescribe for whatever reason, are female and not exactly old country dr's either.

iwantmydinner

Jessibelle wrote: »

Oddly, most that I know that won't prescribe for whatever reason, are female and not exactly old country dr's either.

That actually doesn't surprise me in the slightest, not exactly sure why, but it doesn't.

nesf

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I know it's the law, and I know it's a very nuanced issue, but in relation to contraception I think it's a load of bo**ocks.

Actually, no. If a young woman went into her GP and asked for the pill right. Say she was asked are you in a long term relationship and if not do you still plan on using condoms whilst having sex. If she answers no to both of these then no sane doctor should prescribe on public health grounds.

I do wonder if the woman in the article was asked about condoms and said it was none of his business.

YumCha

nesf wrote: »

Actually, no. If a young woman went into her GP and asked for the pill right. Say she was asked are you in a long term relationship and if not do you still plan on using condoms whilst having sex. If she answers no to both of these then no sane doctor should prescribe on public health grounds.

I do wonder if the woman in the article was asked about condoms and said it was none of his business.

Um, what? How is asking those questions okay? And how is denying any woman the pill in the interests of public health?

clairefontaine

YumCha wrote: »

Um, what? How is asking those questions okay? And how is denying any woman the pill in the interests of public health?

Well if your 45 and a heavy smoker I could understand.

Morag

YumCha wrote: »

Um, what? How is asking those questions okay? And how is denying any woman the pill in the interests of public health?

Cos slutty women spread STIs

:rolleyes:

What, women who don't use condoms should definitely have kids with randomers?

Malari

Yes, and lesbians who are not in long-term relationships and don't use condoms should never be prescribed the pill either...

YumCha

bluewolf wrote: »

What, women who don't use condoms should definitely have kids with randomers?

Obviously - as punishment for their fornication... Fornication is the leading cause of unwanted pregnancies in Ireland don't you forget! :rolleyes:

nesf

Morag wrote: »

Cos slutty women spread STIs

:rolleyes:

People who have unprotected sex contract more STIs than people who don't. Are a couple having a one night stand more or less likely to have unprotected sex if the woman is on the pill? Balance that against the risk of unwanted pregnancies.

Or go on making out that I'm going for an anti-woman dig if you like.

iwantmydinner

nesf wrote: »

People who have unprotected sex contract more STIs than people who don't. Are a couple having a one night stand more or less likely to have unprotected sex if the woman is on the pill? Balance that against the risk of unwanted pregnancies.

Or go on making out that I'm going for an anti-woman dig if you like.

Yeah, I have no idea what kind of logic you're using here.

nesf

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Yeah, I have no idea what kind of logic you're using here.

Inductive, thanks for asking.

iwantmydinner

nesf wrote: »

Inductive, thanks for asking.

:rolleyes:

I don't really care what you call it. Are you seriously saying the way to reduce STIs is to prevent access to oral contraceptives?

Morag

nesf wrote: »

People who have unprotected sex contract more STIs than people who don't. Are a couple having a one night stand more or less likely to have unprotected sex if the woman is on the pill? Balance that against the risk of unwanted pregnancies.

Or go on making out that I'm going for an anti-woman dig if you like.

Yes if a woman is going to be sexually active and goes to her dr to talk about the pill then that consultation should include, smear tests, sti tests and safer sex practices.

But that doesn't seem to be the type consultation which the author wrote about at all, those topics weren't raised the Dr seemed to not want to prescribe the pill to her as she was not in a relationship, that is not good enough imho.

nesf

Morag wrote: »

Yes if a woman is going to be sexually active and goes to her dr to talk about the pill then that consultation should include, smear tests, sti tests and safer sex practices.

But that doesn't seem to be the type consultation which the author wrote about at all, those topics weren't raised the Dr seemed to not want to prescribe the pill to her as she was not in a relationship, that is not good enough imho.

I agree it's unacceptable to refuse the pill solely because a woman is single.

nesf

iwantmydinner wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I don't really care what you call it. Are you seriously saying the way to reduce STIs is to prevent access to oral contraceptives?

Are you seriously saying a woman's casual sexlife is more important than reducing the spread of AIDs? See, I can make silly statements too.


What is the number one way to reduce the spread of STIs? Education and people actually complying with safe sex practices. Some people have absolutely woeful sex education, and I'm not talking about 12 year olds. My GP (a woman) has remarked of women she's had coming in for the pill who think it'll protect them from STIs.

The condom question is a leading question. If you know anything about STI prevention your answer will be an automatic yes, even if it isn't your intention really. The question is really there to screen for people, who like the above, think you won't need to use condoms if you're on the pill.

clairefontaine

nesf wrote: »

Are you seriously saying a woman's casual sexlife is more important than reducing the spread of AIDs? See, I can make silly statements too.


What is the number one way to reduce the spread of STIs? Education and people actually complying with safe sex practices. Some people have absolutely woeful sex education, and I'm not talking about 12 year olds. My GP (a woman) has remarked of women she's had coming in for the pill who think it'll protect them from STIs.

The condom question is a leading question. If you know anything about STI prevention your answer will be an automatic yes, even if it isn't your intention really. The question is really there to screen for people, who like the above, think you won't need to use condoms if you're on the pill.

Or get the HPV vaccine.

iwantmydinner

nesf wrote: »

Are you seriously saying a woman's casual sexlife is more important than reducing the spread of AIDs? See, I can make silly statements too.


What is the number one way to reduce the spread of STIs? Education and people actually complying with safe sex practices. Some people have absolutely woeful sex education, and I'm not talking about 12 year olds. My GP (a woman) has remarked of women she's had coming in for the pill who think it'll protect them from STIs.

The condom question is a leading question. If you know anything about STI prevention your answer will be an automatic yes, even if it isn't your intention really. The question is really there to screen for people, who like the above, think you won't need to use condoms if you're on the pill.

I wasn't making a silly statement, I was asking if that was actually what you were saying.

It's late and I may be misunderstanding something, but earlier you seemed to say that if someone told the doctor she didn't plan to use condoms despite being sexually active, then no sane doctor would give her a prescription for the pill.

If the GP discovers that someone believes the pill protects them from STIs, then surely the solution is to correct that belief, rather than to deny them a prescription for oral contraception?

Won't that just lead to STIs AND unwanted/unplanned pregnancies??

Catari Jaguar

Nesf you're backtracking now and making another argument because you got caught out on your first point, which was just trying to throw a spanner in the works.

This was a repeat prescription. This girl wasn't looking for a consultation or an STI screen. He is her family GP, not her gyno, not her college clinic doctor. She would have already discussed her contraceptive options and safe sex practices with them before she got her first prescription.

That post is not about safe sex practice, nowhere did Morag or iwantmydinner dispute safe sex practices. Where did the original author say she has unprotected sex? Where does she say she has STI's and doesn't care about spreading them? This doctor didn't ask if she was using condoms or not.

This is about a doctor who won't let an adult female make a choice about her sexuality based on HIS OWN religious views. He should be stripped of his licence. What he did is in unethical and against the medical code of conduct.

Speaking of safe sex practice & STIs, doctors used to only prescribe condoms to married people. Progressive. Safe too. Really responsible... :rolleyes:

iwantmydinner

nesf wrote: »

Actually, no. If a young woman went into her GP and asked for the pill right. Say she was asked are you in a long term relationship and if not do you still plan on using condoms whilst having sex. If she answers no to both of these then no sane doctor should prescribe on public health grounds.

I do wonder if the woman in the article was asked about condoms and said it was none of his business.

While I'm here... the doctor really has no business asking this.

nesf

Guys, I'm stepping back from this because it's quite heated and as a CMod I shouldn't be causing potential hassle for the mods. Sorry for those who were looking forward to ripping my future posts apart.

Morag

nesf wrote: »

I agree it's unacceptable to refuse the pill solely because a woman is single.

That's pretty much the point of the blog, it shows the difference between drs in college/university towns dealing with young women and the more conservative family GPs who often don't want to be dealing with the contraceptive needs of young women esp when her parents are also their patients.

Lyaiera

I get what Nesf is getting at, but he's being incredibly confrontational in saying it. I actually don't think he's at odds with anything Catari Jaguar is saying except when it comes to prescriptions. For a doctor to prescribe something they can't rely on any other doctor's statement, unless they've done everything they can to investigate what that doctor is saying.

A GP can't rely on another GP who says, "I prescribed X, she's grand, prescribe it again." When a doctor prescribes something that's a huge indicator of their medical opinion. They are justifying all the downsides of the medication for the benefit of the medication in the case of the patient. When a doctor prescribes the pill they should be sure that the patient isn't relying on it for STI protection and that they're aware it isn't 100% effective.

That isn't what I took from the thread here, but I do get what NESF was saying (at least I hope so.) I think he said it in a pretty awful way though, and it didn't really have a place here.

Femme_Fatale

Good post Catari Jaguar - seems somebody doesn't like that they can't argue against it.

nesf wrote: »

Guys, I'm stepping back from this because it's quite heated and as a CMod I shouldn't be causing potential hassle for the mods. Sorry for those who were looking forward to ripping my future posts apart.

starling

Lyaiera wrote: »

I get what Nesf is getting at, but he's being incredibly confrontational in saying it. I actually don't think he's at odds with anything Catari Jaguar is saying except when it comes to prescriptions. For a doctor to prescribe something they can't rely on any other doctor's statement, unless they've done everything they can to investigate what that doctor is saying.

A GP can't rely on another GP who says, "I prescribed X, she's grand, prescribe it again." When a doctor prescribes something that's a huge indicator of their medical opinion. They are justifying all the downsides of the medication for the benefit of the medication in the case of the patient. When a doctor prescribes the pill they should be sure that the patient isn't relying on it for STI protection and that they're aware it isn't 100% effective.

That isn't what I took from the thread here, but I do get what NESF was saying (at least I hope so.) I think he said it in a pretty awful way though, and it didn't really have a place here.

I'm baffled as to why, given the account of what this doctor actually said, anyone thinks that his behaviour was defensible in any way.

This doctor asked the poster if she had a boyfriend - completely unacceptable and none of his business - and, to quote the article: "He then went on to declare that “co habiting” (he made little quotation marks with his hands) couples had a higher rate of break ups than married couples. He also threw in the fact that ‘fellas’ often experience so much they don’t know what to settle for." WTF does that have to do with whether she's taking the pill or not?

It also has nothing to do with "screening" a patient for their knowledge of the risks associated with not using condoms. It is ludicrous to suggest that his behaviour was motivated by a desire to protect his patient from contracting an STI. Even if it had been, all he had to do was explain "This will only protect you against pregnancy, not STIs". Simple.

He then attacked the poster for being pro-choice - again, a disgraceful thing for a doctor to do. He has absolutely no right to tell a patient that her personal views about abortion are "outdated and immature" (the fúck?).

If he had a policy of not prescribing contraception because it contradicted his own personal morality, he could just have said so, rather than nosing around in the poster's personal life.

Similarly if he asked the medically relevant questions (do you smoke, any history of high blood pressure etc) all would have been well, though as her family GP one would assume he already had a medical history for her. I'm sure if he'd said "I'd like to check your blood pressure before I can prescribe this" nobody could reasonably object to that.

This doctor did neither, it's clear from what the poster decribes that he felt it was immoral for her to be having sex outside of marriage and that this was the reason he refused to prescribe the pill. And while he is within his rights to refuse something that goes against his conscience he is not within his rights to fail to refer the patient to another doctor who will provide the pill. The fact that he didn't do that is a further black mark against him.

The evidence is right there in the article, there's absolutely no need to try to defend this doctor on the grounds that some other people don't understand safe sex.

10/10 for mansplaining though, nesf.

Morag

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Good post Catari Jaguar - seems somebody doesn't like that they can't argue against it.

Nah I think it's more Nesf seeing that him continuing to debate the topic is a conflict due to the fact he is a defacto mod for this forum as he is a Soc Cat mod.

Some threads are more sharing and discussing and some are more the cut and thrust of debate, I see that as him bowing out graceful as sometimes discretion is the better part of honor and you slight him with that assumption in my opinion. I also think it's unfair to post addressing him and having a go when he's said he's quit the discussion.

starling

Morag wrote: »

Nah I think it's more Nesf seeing that him continuing to debate the topic is a conflict due to the fact he is a defacto mod for this forum as he is a Soc Cat mod.

Some threads are more sharing and discussing and some are more the cut and thrust of debate, I see that as him bowing out graceful as sometimes discretion is the better part of honor and you slight him with that assumption in my opinion. I also think it's unfair to post addressing him and having a go when he's said he's quit the discussion.

I think he was wrong to say what he said and as a mod I would have expected him to have known better; however once he'd stated his views why should we allow them to go unchallenged just because he decided he could not continue the debate?

Morag

I think the TLL mods would be the ones to best make that call.

starling

Morag wrote: »

I think the TLL would be the ones to best make that call.

Aren't we the tLL?

fits

Jessibelle wrote: »

... I'd know a few practitioners who won't prescribe it because they think as a medication, it does more harm than good.

That's interesting. Because I think theres a lot wrong with the medication too and that its way overprescribed and other options are not explored enough.

starling

fits wrote: »

That's interesting. Because I think theres a lot wrong with the medication too and that its way overprescribed and other options are not explored enough.

I totally agree with you on that. It's just that in this case, that clearly wasn't the doctors motivation.