Recently, I've noticed a slew of people--straight, white women, to be specific--referring to their significant others as their "partners." Doesn't use of this term constitute an appropriation of what has essentially become a stand-in term for "husband" or "wife" among gays and lesbians? Women who are legally married to men are afforded significant legal and cultural protections that gay, lesbian, and alternative lifestyle types (poly people, for instance) CANNOT access. Using the term "partner" seems akin to saying, regarding racism, "I'm colorblind. Color doesn't matter to me." But differences, and our attention to them, do matter; they highlight significant inequalities and differing levels of privilege.
I understand wanting to posit that one's marriage is indeed a partnership between equals. However, your marital partnership (and my own, to be fair) is NOT, in legal terms, the same as the relationship between two gay men or two lesbians in this state. It's not the same as cohabiting. It's not the same as a boyfriend or girlfriend or lover. It cannot be. I can file taxes jointly, use my husband's health insurance, visit him in the hospital, collect benefits in the event of his untimely demise and much more without doing a damn thing other than simply be married.
Further, I am in a culturally acceptable hetero marriage. Many people in this culture wouldn't view me, or the validity of my relationships, the same way if I had a wife, or two husbands. To refer to a husband as a "partner," while it may sound more mature and egalitarian of me, would imply that I'm somehow in the same boat as all the GLBT couples and alt people who can't be married.
But I am not in the same boat. My (hetero) marital status gives me privilege that they do not have access to.
Why don't we name our relationships accurately while we work to allow adults--any adults--who want to get legally married to do so?
Monday, May 3, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Just when you thought you weren't merely a breeder...
I have bad skin. Since my 20s--when endometriosis began wreaking hormonal havoc--I’ve been fighting a losing battle. In a huge concession to vanity, last year I started seeing a dermatologist to help my acne. Recently, I visited her again because my current retinoid treatment was no longer helping.
The doc suggested we step up the treatment, and that I consider taking Accutane. Accutane? I kept thinking. The name rang a bell, but I didn't know why.
Then, she gave me THE BOOK on Accutane, a glossy publication with attention-grabbing yellow and red pages and lots of graphics. The Web site replicates the color scheme: https://www.ipledgeprogram.com/AboutIsotretinoin.aspx
This book, however, is not really about isotretinoin, the drug that used to be marketed as Accutane. Instead, most of the text describes how to avoid pregnancy while taking Accutane. You see, this drug causes severe birth defects--very, very severe ones.
Okay, you’re saying. I don’t plan on getting pregnant. Or I’m not having sex. Or I don’t have sex with men. Or I already use birth control.
That’s what you think.
Women who can get pregnant and decide to take isotretinoin must engage in an elaborate system of FDA-approved checks and balances to insure that they do not get pregnant, termed iPledge: https://www.ipledgeprogram.com/AboutiPLEDGE.aspx
Like what, you ask? Using two forms of birth control. But I have my tubes tied, you say. Ha! Tubal ligation is not considered 100% effective birth control. (Probably news to many post-tubal women. Ditto for vasectomies, by the way.) You must use a secondary form from an approved list. Further, your doctor must certify you are using the two approved methods.
In fact, you’re exempt from the two-method policy only if you have had your uterus and/or both ovaries removed (and, of course, a doctor must attest to this fact as well, because women can’t be trusted to know their own bodies and/or tell the truth!)
Oh, and did I mention the mandatory pregnancy testing every month? Because women certainly can’t be trusted to monitor our own fertility.
Reading through the tome that detailed the iPledge program, my blood boiled. My intelligence--about whether to take the drug or not, about how to prevent pregnancy in the first place, about how to select and use birth control--was insulted.
But then... the final insult came on page 14 of the book. After having spent the first part of the book telling women about the supreme importance of avoiding pregnancy (and how to PROVE to the FDA that one is responsibly avoiding conception) because of danger to a potential fetus, the book finally gets around to mentioning the following dangerous side effects:
And that's when I realized why the Accutane trade name rang a bell for me: suicides caused by the drug, and lawsuits alleging that patients were not informed.
The patient’s mental health clearly remains a distant second priority for the drug companies (and the FDA, with their i-Pledge system). What about an i-Pledge system that monitored women taking the drug for adverse mental health reactions, in addition to pregnancy? What about making potential mental health danger as obvious and important a point to recipients of the drug?
It’s clear that the drug makers and the FDA still consider breeding capacity--and the specter of abortion that accompanies conceiving a fetus with severe birth defects--far more important than mental health. We’re still just walking wombs
I decided not to take Accutane. I did not even consider it seriously because I value my mental health. And even if I didn’t have an adverse mental reaction, there were many additional dangerous (some irreversible) possible side effects. Further, I don’t like to be told what birth control methods I must use--or to be obligated to report those methods to a government agency.
At the end of the day, I can deal with a bad complexion, if isotretinoin is my alternative.
The fact that a drug with so many contraindications is still being prescribed at all--and for a “malady” as insignificant as acne--seems unethical, while the complicated and value-laden system used to administer it is downright insulting.
https://www.ipledgeprogram.com/AboutiPLEDGE.aspx
The doc suggested we step up the treatment, and that I consider taking Accutane. Accutane? I kept thinking. The name rang a bell, but I didn't know why.
Then, she gave me THE BOOK on Accutane, a glossy publication with attention-grabbing yellow and red pages and lots of graphics. The Web site replicates the color scheme: https://www.ipledgeprogram.com/AboutIsotretinoin.aspx
This book, however, is not really about isotretinoin, the drug that used to be marketed as Accutane. Instead, most of the text describes how to avoid pregnancy while taking Accutane. You see, this drug causes severe birth defects--very, very severe ones.
Okay, you’re saying. I don’t plan on getting pregnant. Or I’m not having sex. Or I don’t have sex with men. Or I already use birth control.
That’s what you think.
Women who can get pregnant and decide to take isotretinoin must engage in an elaborate system of FDA-approved checks and balances to insure that they do not get pregnant, termed iPledge: https://www.ipledgeprogram.com/AboutiPLEDGE.aspx
Like what, you ask? Using two forms of birth control. But I have my tubes tied, you say. Ha! Tubal ligation is not considered 100% effective birth control. (Probably news to many post-tubal women. Ditto for vasectomies, by the way.) You must use a secondary form from an approved list. Further, your doctor must certify you are using the two approved methods.
In fact, you’re exempt from the two-method policy only if you have had your uterus and/or both ovaries removed (and, of course, a doctor must attest to this fact as well, because women can’t be trusted to know their own bodies and/or tell the truth!)
Oh, and did I mention the mandatory pregnancy testing every month? Because women certainly can’t be trusted to monitor our own fertility.
Reading through the tome that detailed the iPledge program, my blood boiled. My intelligence--about whether to take the drug or not, about how to prevent pregnancy in the first place, about how to select and use birth control--was insulted.
But then... the final insult came on page 14 of the book. After having spent the first part of the book telling women about the supreme importance of avoiding pregnancy (and how to PROVE to the FDA that one is responsibly avoiding conception) because of danger to a potential fetus, the book finally gets around to mentioning the following dangerous side effects:
Serious mental health problems. Isotretinoin may cause:
- Depression
- Psychosis (seeing or hearing things that are not real)
- Suicide
Some patients taking isotretinoin have had thoughts about hurting themselves or putting an end to their own lives (suicidal thoughts). Some people tried to end their own lives. And some people have ended their own lives.
And that's when I realized why the Accutane trade name rang a bell for me: suicides caused by the drug, and lawsuits alleging that patients were not informed.
The patient’s mental health clearly remains a distant second priority for the drug companies (and the FDA, with their i-Pledge system). What about an i-Pledge system that monitored women taking the drug for adverse mental health reactions, in addition to pregnancy? What about making potential mental health danger as obvious and important a point to recipients of the drug?
It’s clear that the drug makers and the FDA still consider breeding capacity--and the specter of abortion that accompanies conceiving a fetus with severe birth defects--far more important than mental health. We’re still just walking wombs
- unable to think for ourselves about whether to take the drug
- unable to evaluate the risks we’re willing to take
- unsure how to prevent an unwanted and, in this case, unwise pregnancy. (Perhaps, if we had comprehensive sexual education instead of abstinence-only “education,” the FDA wouldn’t need an i-Pledge program to teach the basics of human reproduction.)
- unimportant enough to be informed immediately, upfront about ALL potential side effects.
I decided not to take Accutane. I did not even consider it seriously because I value my mental health. And even if I didn’t have an adverse mental reaction, there were many additional dangerous (some irreversible) possible side effects. Further, I don’t like to be told what birth control methods I must use--or to be obligated to report those methods to a government agency.
At the end of the day, I can deal with a bad complexion, if isotretinoin is my alternative.
The fact that a drug with so many contraindications is still being prescribed at all--and for a “malady” as insignificant as acne--seems unethical, while the complicated and value-laden system used to administer it is downright insulting.
https://www.ipledgeprogram.com/AboutiPLEDGE.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)