Now I know sub-Saharan African countries aren’t really known for their respect of human rights, but I was shocked out of hibernation by this story. Apparently doctors in Namibia are forcing HIV-positive women to be sterilized after they receive the positive diagnosis.

While the ‘forced’ part of that description may conjur images of the women being pinned down, kicking and screaming, but the allegations are actually that the doctors are not seeking informed consent for the procedure. According to the rights group representing three of the women who claim to have been sterilized against their wishes, at least 15 cases of forced sterilization have been reported in Namibian hospitals since 2008.

“We want a health system based on human rights which promotes equality for all,” the LAC’s Amon Ngavetene told the BBC News website.

He explained that when HIV-positive women go to hospital they are sometimes, at the discretion of the doctors, advised to undergo a sterilisation operation.

Mr Ngavetene said these women are not always given a clear idea of what the procedure involves and dangerous pre-existing conditions are not always taken into account.

There may also be a language barrier in a country where there are 11 indigenous languages, he said.

Deplorable. That’s about all I have to say on the topic.

Bookmark It

When I read the headline today, I was immediately reminded of early-century eugenics programs that were so popular across the Western world that they largely informed the Nazi holocaust. Apparently a US organisation is giving monetary incentives to encourage drug addicts to get sterilized.

The organisation calls itself Project Prevention and is headed by Barbara Harris, who intends to pay $300 to drug addicts on the provision they get long-term contraception or seek sterilization. The organisation was founded in 1997 and is funded through private donations and is not-for-profit. So far, it claims to have given funds to over 3200 drug-addicted “clients,” of whom more than 1200 are women who have been permanently sterilized.

Apparently Harris is driven by her own experience, having adopted the four children of a crack-addicted woman in Los Angeles. She says of the second of the four, Taylor:

“He couldn’t keep food down and his eyes looked like they were going to bulge out of his head,” she says. “Noise bothered him, light bothered him, he just couldn’t sleep.

“My husband and I had to take shifts with him. He would sleep 10 minutes, wake up screaming. I was just angry at his mom, I thought how could somebody do this to a baby?”

I admire that this woman has concern for disadvantaged children born into pretty terrible circumstances. However, sterilization is clearly not the solution. It’s not the solution for the simple reason that drug addiction is not a permanent state. And offering money as an incentive to get sterilised is preying upon the vulnerabilities of addicts, whom I hear will take rather drastic measures to get funding for their next hit. Harris understands this of drug addicts and uses their disease against them. Surely this is based on a prejudicial idea about the social capacity of people with addictions – that they can never recover and become productive members of society or good parents. It’s a campaign of social engineering – a way of preventing people with a problem from ever reproducing. Surely these funds could be better used in drug education, awareness, prevention campaigns, or safe-needle houses, or prenatal care facilities for vulnerable and/or disadvantaged people.

Bookmark It

I wanted to blog on this last week when I first heard the story that ‘baby brain,’ or ‘mumnesia,’ as it is sometimes called, has been found to have no scientific basis, and since the story broke news services around the world have taken a bizarre amount of delight in declaring the myth debunked.

The findings come from researchers at Australian National University Researchers, who say they have evidence pregnant women perform just as well in cognitive testing as they did before becoming pregnant. The ANU researchers had recruited 2404 women from the electoral roll, assessing 1241 in 1999, 1126 in 2003 and 1058 in 2007 in four areas of cognition: speed, working memory and immediate and delayed recall. What women identify as being reduced cognitive ability, the article of the findings suggests, is adaptive, shifting attention to the baby.

Now, I’ve never had a baby nor been pregnant, but I’ve asked several pregnant friends about this phenomenon, as I was sceptical myself of its existence. Without fail, every one of my pregnant friends attested to its veracity. Perhaps this is why women have come out vehemently against these findings.

Victoria Trenouth, a 28-year-old English teacher who became a mother for the first time last month when she gave birth to George Bell, said she suffered from baby brain while pregnant.

”I had a terrible, terrible memory … I couldn’t spell, I couldn’t get my words out, I couldn’t remember what I was saying. I spent 20 minutes trying to have a hot shower and screaming at my husband because I thought there was no hot water and it was on cold and he said try turning the hot tap on.”

The Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting opinion piece describing one woman’s experience with pregnancy:

Whether or not baby brain is measurable by tests, there is no doubt that pregnancy and breastfeeding are exhausting and in some case debilitating experiences. And that’s just for the dads. It must be really bad for the mums.

Cathy Warwick of Britain’s Royal College of Midwives told the BBC: “The physical and emotional stresses on a woman’s body from pregnancy can make women feel more tired than usual.

“As we all know, tiredness – for men as well as women – can make us lose concentration and cause us to function less effectively.

“This is why midwives encourage pregnant women to take appropriate rest breaks, at home and at work. Many pregnant women will need this rest, and all of them deserve it.”

I can’t help but think that this study is akin to the numerous scientists who claim to prove the female orgasm doesn’t exist. Apparently a team of researchers at King’s College in London have found “fairly conclusively” that there is no such thing as a g-spot.

Apparently their findings are based on a massive twin study in which, because they could not document that twins both felt the same g-spot sensations in the same place, no G-spot could, in fact, exist.

Some 4600 twinned women were enrolled in the UK research. Of these, 1875 women responded to the sex questions, and of that number, the study excluded women who hadn’t had intercourse and those who identified as lesbian or bisexual (keep those in mind — we’ll get back to them in a bit). They were left with 1800 women aged 23-85 (mean age 55) whose responses were considered in the preparation of their report on the G-spot.

Those women responded to a very interestingly-worded question about the G-spot: They were asked whether they believed they had “a so-called G-spot.” And because too few women said they believed they did, the researchers concluded that the G-spot is a “perception” caused by “non-physical factors” that “heighten sexual sensation.” That is, women may have mental G-spots, but not actual physical ones.

So what do the lead scientists of the study have to say about their findings? Something really ridiculous:

Dr. Spector also has some choice words for women who believe they have G-spots: “This is by far the biggest study ever carried out and shows fairly conclusively that the idea of a G-spot is subjective. Women may argue that having a G-spot is due to diet or exercise, but in fact it is virtually impossible to find real traits.”

Listen to the methodology of this sex study:

The scientists in this study asked women if they believed they had a G-spot, and if they didn’t, the researchers accepted that none was present. They did not ask searching questions that would help them evaluate whether the women’s belief might be backed with experience… in fact, they excluded from their sample those women who were most likely to have had G-spot experience, the lesbian and bisexual women who, the researchers decided, would skew the results by being more likely than the heterosexual women to have used their fingers. Instead they seemed to be grasping for evidence that the G-spot existed in heterosexual women who were less likely (they guessed) than their lesbian counterparts to have sex in a way that’s most associated with G-spot stimulation and pleasure.

Okay, well, this is something that’s been happening to women for centuries – because some men and scientific methods can’t prove something women claim they experience, these men and their science deny the possibility of its existence.

Bookmark It

In a promotional push to become the restaurant for V-Day, Mildred’s Temple Kitchen in Toronto is marketing itself via it’s toilets – encouraging patrons to consider having sex in its bathrooms. According to the promotion, the restaurant hopes to make it to the list of “101 places to have sex before you die.”

On its website, Mildred’s asks: “Have you given any thought to moving beyond the bedroom? “Check out Mildred’s Sexy Bathrooms throughout the weekend of Big Love. You get the picture.”

According to staff:

“We’ve always had little trysts in our bathrooms,” says chef/co-owner Donna Dooher, pointing to lingering weekday lunches as a popular time. “We’re taking it to the next level on Valentine’s weekend.”

Apparently the restaurant has also hired a “French maid” to be stationed in the restroom and ensure things are kept clean (“She’ll be there with her feather duster and cleaning supplies.”). As for those of us whose first thoughts were to health code violations:

Toronto’s Public Health food safety program manager said the restaurant wasn’t breaking any laws as long as there’s no intercourse in the kitchen and the bathrooms are kept clean.

“As far as bodily fluids, it’s pretty much similar to the other human functions going on in there,” said Chan, slightly undercutting the erotic value of the venture.

Apparently the place is totally booked out for Valentine’s Day and CANFAR is donating more than 900 condoms to the restaurant to promote safe sex.

Bookmark It

An Ontario dairy farmer has made huge strides today in the fight against forced pasteurization. A ruling from a Newmarket justice of the peace made today found that Michael Schmidt’s raw milk operation does not violate the province’s milk-marketing or public-health regulations.

You may remember Michael Schmidt from a LMB post nearly two years ago on the pasteurization conspiracy, which described Schmidt’s legal battle to provide raw milk to demanding customers. The ruling is being heralded as a big win for the growing food-rights movement that is distrustful of industrial farming techniques (and rightfully so, it would seem).

Today’s ruling means that raw, or unpasteurized, milk produced by Mr. Schmidt’s cows – heritage Canadiennes bred near the town of Durham, Ont. – can legally be distributed to the small network of consumers who have bought “cow shares” in exchange for access to the animals’ unprocessed milk.
…
The Schmidt case, which began when his farm was raided in 2006, has captivated food-rights academics and advocates in Canada, and around the world, who argue the court’s decision will ripple well beyond the raw-milk community. At its crux, they argue, the case is really about the extent to which consumers should be free to buy foods, however rarefied, and whether constitutional rights stretch as far as the grocery basket, farmer’s market and the people who own shares in – but do not live on – food-producing farms.

Although many US states have decriminalized unpasteurized milk sales, in Canada it is still illegal to sell raw milk because of concerns of E. Coli contamination. However, this law does not extend to cheeses made from raw milk, which are legal provided the cheese is aged for at least 60 days. Similarly, in Australia raw milk for drinking purposes is illegal in all states and territories, as is all raw cheese. This has been circumvented somewhat by selling raw milk as bath milk. An exception to the cheese rule has been made recently for two Roquefort cheeses. There is some indication of share owning cows, allowing the “owners” to consume the raw milk, but also evidence that the government is trying to close this loophole.

But why are people so interested in unpasteurized milk?

Raw-milk advocates claim that it is more nutritious than pasteurised dairy. According to Real Milk Australia, a Melbourne-based group lobbying to make raw milk legal, pasteurisation eradicates vitamins, minerals and enzymes that make dairy easier to digest and less likely to trigger allergies.

According to Realmilk.com:

Pasteurization’s great claim to popularity is the widespread belief, fostered by its supporters, that tuberculosis in children is caused by the harmful germs found in raw milk. Scientists have examined and tested thousands of milk samples, and experiments have been carried out on hundreds of animals in regard to this problem of disease-carrying by milk. But the one vital fact that seems to have been completely missed is that it is CLEAN, raw milk that is wanted. If this can be guaranteed, no other form of food for children can, or should, be allowed to take its place.

Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported.

Besides destroying part of the vitamin C contained in raw milk and encouraging growth of harmful bacteria, pasteurization turns the sugar of milk, known as lactose, into beta-lactose – which is far more soluble and therefore more rapidly absorbed in the system, with the result that the child soon becomes hungry again.

Probably pasteurization’s worst offence is that it makes insoluable the major part of the calcium contained in raw milk. This frequently leads to rickets, bad teeth, and nervous troubles, for sufficient calcium content is vital to children; and with the loss of phosphorus also associated with calcium, bone and brain formation suffer serious setbacks.

Joanne Hay, editor of online magazine Nourished, started drinking raw milk six years ago and claims: “I’ve seen it do miraculous things with the health of my family.” She also claims that the consumption of raw milk cleared up asthma, eczema and tooth decay problems in her three children.

I’m inclined to be pretty distrusting of government regulations aimed at controlling our behaviour, so I see this ruling as a pretty substantial win for the “back to the basics” approach to living. And anything that could undermine the “food industrial complex” is a good thing in my books.

Bookmark It

Have you heard about this product now available that women can use to dye their vaginas pink? My New Pink Button is a cosmetic labia dye that is targeted at women over the age of 30 and lasts about 48-70 hours. The product comes in four shades: Marilyn, Bettie, Ginger, and Audry. Apparently women are becoming increasingly concerned about their private parts losing their “pinky freshness.”

According to website testimonials:

I was embarrassed about the color change for years and my doctor said there was nothing you could do about it. I was too embarrassed to even discuss it with my friends, and when I finally did I found out I wasn’t alone. We love this product, and it works! Thank you so much.
-Rochelle C. 51 years old

My New Pink Button is pitched as a product which “restores sexual confidence to women everywhere!” But it seems more like another marketing ploy to firstly create an anxiety about body image and then exploit that same anxiety. Strangely, according to the FAQ on the product’s website:

Q. “Help! I’ve noticed I am turning a more brown color down there on my inside lips, is this normal”?

A. Yes, it’s perfectly normal and there are many factors that can contribute to this. Ethnicity is a big factor, also age, hormone change, surgeries, childbirth, sickness, health, diet and medications can all contribute to a change from “Pink” to “Brown” in a woman’s genital area.

Yet another extreme product to alter women’s bodies to appear more like the porn star ideal. Because even though it is “normal” to have genitals of varying colours, “normal” is not “ideal.” So in addition to shaving, waxing, dieting, botoxing, implanting, liposuctioning, tanning, whitening, and all the other changes women are expected to make to conform to this ridiculous ideal, we now have to worry about whether our partners think we’re “pinky” and “youthful” enough down there.

Ummmmmm no thanks.

Bookmark It

So this ridiculously insensitive and conservative article was published in the Age over the weekend, claiming that the “socially infertile” will cause a backlog in Victorian fertility clinics providing in-vitro fertilization.

Uh… “socially infertile”? I’ll come back to this.

The Victorian legislature recently passed a law that came into effect 1 January 2010, allowing single women and lesbians access to in-vitro fertilization. Well, thanks, you old white cunts for allowing me the privilege of deciding what to do with my own body. But now that we ‘socially infertile’ women are bestowed the right to assisted fertilization, this Jill Stark comes along from the Age and essentially blames these selfish single women and lesbians for delaying the process for deserving parents-to-be (namely, heterosexual married partners).

Apparently this abhorrent term, ‘socially infertile’ was introduced by former Prime Minister John Howard to define single women and lesbians. What it suggests, though, is that single women and lesbians are choosing not to have a man in their lives with whom they could legitimately procreate.

And why should a country that is so desperate to encourage a rising birth rate (of white babies, of course) that it hands out a baby bonus to each couple that manages to pop one out unassisted, suddenly be so outraged at the idea that more Australians who want to become parents might put a strain on the IVF system? This concern is clearly drawing a line between what we consider ‘acceptable’ applications for IVF – those of heterosexual medically infertile couples – versus the ‘unacceptable’ – the ‘selfish’ women who can’t be bothered doing it the old fashioned way. In many ways it suggests the conservative argument of the ‘choice’ behind homosexuality, suggesting lesbian women could get pregnant through heterosexual intercourse, but are simply choosing not to. Discrimination based on conservative social values of who should be a parent is ridiculous.

And speaking of said discrimination, the new law also now requires all applicants to undergo thorough police and background checks, not just in Australia, but also from any country in which the applicant has resided during the past 10 years. The aim of this, reportedly, is to prevent those with a history of child or sexual abuse from accessing IVF treatment. Why is this problematic? Of course we all agree that sexual predators and pedophiles shouldn’t be parents. But we don’t go around giving police checks to all couples who fall pregnant and terminating pregnancies should one of the parents be deemed “unfit” or “at risk of being unfit”.

John McBain, a director at Melbourne IVF, said carrying out criminal checks on would-be parents was abhorrent. ”The Government understands that it makes no sense and that it won’t protect a single baby but they don’t want to be seen to back down,” Dr McBain said. ”I don’t see that babies born from assisted technology are any different from babies conceived naturally and I cannot for the life of me work out why it ought to be made more difficult for any couple or individual to have a child just because the Government has the capability to do so.”

And why would they do it? Because they’re rich, old, white men who just can’t seem to relinquish their power over women’s bodies, and here is just one more piece of technology that allows them a mechanism to regulate women’s sexuality and fertility.

Bookmark It

The Supreme Court in Argentina has just ruled against charges of possession of marijuana in a case involving five individuals arrested with marijuana cigarettes in their possession. According to the court, it is unconstitutional to punish people for using marijuana for personal consumption.

Citing personal use as a “lifestyle decision,” the Supreme Court of Argentina ruled:

“Each adult is free to make lifestyle decisions without the intervention of the state.”

Supreme Court President Ricardo Lorenzetti said private behaviour was legal, “as long as it doesn’t constitute clear danger”.

“The state cannot establish morality,” he said.

While the court made it quite clear that it does not advocate complete decriminalization, it follows in the footsteps of similar decriminalizations across Latin America.

Last week, Mexico decided to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, and heroine. Proponents of the new law argue that it will help police focus on drug trafficking crimes and will combat corruption in the form of “shaking down” casual users.

Under Mexico’s new regulations, a usable amount constitutes:

The maximum amount of marijuana for “personal use” under the new law is 5 grams — the equivalent of about four joints. The limit is a half gram for cocaine, the equivalent of about 4 “lines.” For other drugs, the limits are 50 milligrams

Anyone caught possessing under these new limits will be encouraged to seek treatment. However, once a person is caught three times in possession within the limit, they will be sentenced to mandatory treatment for addiction.

Bookmark It

I thought I’d come out of my very long hiatus (due to website technical issues, mind) with a whimsical story of a little Queensland town, named Bundaberg, that is raising breast cancer awareness in a unique way: constructing the world’s longest bra chain.

After three years of planning and the donation of 166,000 bras, the 163 kilometre long chain has finally come together. Bundaberg’s bra chain beats the old record holder, Cyprus, by 51km.

Event organizer and breast cancer fundraiser Rob Bauer has told the press that the stunt was about raising awareness for breast cancer, though the donated bras will also be sent to charities in the Third Word:

“I’ve also donated 20-odd-thousand to the Afghan Women’s Association to go to Afghanistan to one of refugees there,” he said.

“What I set out to do was not only break the record and raise money, but I wanted people to be aware of breast cancer,” he said.

“I wanted women and men to take it on board to either self test or go to the doctors and be tested.

“If we save one person by doing what we’ve done we’ve achieved something.”

I don’t know if it’s quite as impressive as those friends of mine in Edmonton walking 60km this weekend to raise awareness and funds for breast cancer research.

Bookmark It

Australian researchers believe they have found the gene responsible for male transexualism. Having studied the DNA of 112 male-to-female transsexual volunteers, researchers from Prince Henry’s Institute of Medical Research discovered that their subjects were more likely to have a longer version of the androgen receptor gene, which may cause weaker testosterone signals.

One study has shown that certain brain structures in male-to-female transsexual people are more “female like”.

In the latest study, researchers looked for potential differences in three genes known to be involved in sex development – coding for the androgen receptor, the oestrogen receptor and an enzyme which converts testosterone to oestrogen.

Comparison of the DNA from the male to female transsexual participants with 258 controls showed a significant link with a long version of the androgen receptor gene and transsexualism.

As I was reading though the article from the BBC News website, a colleague of mine read the headline over my shoulder and became very upset. Like myself, he is worried about implications scientific biological research will have on society. In other words, having identified this gene, does transsexualism become stigmatized as a genetic defect? Do we add this genetic mutation to the prenatal amniocentesis tests? Do we abort babies who may be genetically predisposed to transexualism?

And while I accept that sexual identity is biological, I am interested by Sheila Jeffrey’s position on transsexuality. Jeffreys argues that transsexuals reproduce oppressive gender roles and mutilate their bodies through sex reassignment surgery. Jeffreys maintains that transsexual surgery is an extension of the beauty industry offering cosmetic solutions to deeper rooted problems. She argues that in a society in which there was no such thing as gender, there would be no need to undergo such surgery.

One of the study’s co-authors believes there is something biological about gender, and this new research goes a step further in proving just that:

Co-author Professor Vincent Harley added: “There is a social stigma that transsexualism is simply a lifestyle choice, however our findings support a biological basis of how gender identity develops.”

The jury’s out for me on this one…

Bookmark It