What Are Women?

"Women make up 50% of the population!"
It's a phrase I hear a lot. Or another popular one:
"These are our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our wives."
And then there's the common expression, when discussing political interest groups:
"Minorities and women."

There is a common theme here, an underlying problem. Its been bugging me for a while, but I think I finally figured it out: these descriptions suffer from an astonishing lack of personhood.

My goal in this entry will be to turn these sentiments on their head, and by the end construct a new descriptor that appropriately illustrates that womens issues are, at their core, about people.

What determines our biological sex? Simply put, it's the father's sperm. Women have two X chromosomes in their somatic (or non-reproductive) cells. Reproductive cells take your genome and split it in half, so the resulting baby will get one sex chromosome from each parent. Women, having two X chromosomes, can only contribute an X. It will be one or the other of her X chromosomes, but it will always be an X.

Men, on the other hand, are XY. This means that when sperm develop (by splitting in half), 50% of them receive an X chromosome and 50% receive a Y. Half the sperm competing to fertilize the egg will result in a female baby if successful, the other half will result in a male.

This is a single, instantaneous event, it only happens once. There are no other changes down the line that can affect your biological sex (gender - both social and psychological - is another issue altogether which I will not be addressing here), it's set at conception. This means that when a baby is born, you can flip a coin and the chance that it will land "heads" is the same as the chance that baby will be female.

So why, then, do we talk about women like they're a minority interest group? Why do we bring percentages into the discussion at all?

The phrase "mothers, sisters, daughters, wives" is inherently problematic because it defines women by their relationships with men. It reminds men that they only should care about women because they have a personal relationship with them; not - as it should be - because they are people and people have intrinsic value.

But I don't think this phrase is communicating anything new. It emerges from a larger, long-standing attitude: that women are peripheral, they are accessory to men. Men are central, they are a societal and personal focus. Women are sidekicks, decoration, supplemental. Our stories are filled with heroic plot-driving men and afterthought-designed women who hang around but never really contribute. Our attitudes are shaped around this notion, and our language reflects it. "Minorities and women." We are an interest group. Not a statistical minority, but, let's face it, still a minority in the social and political sense.

So, what then? Women do, technically, make up 50% of people. But that expression is extremely problematic. How, then do we discuss these issues that affect our society so deeply?
I say it's more like this:

Humans are split evenly into two groups. A given person, chosen at random, has an equal chance of being a woman or a man. People are people, and gender should be of no consequence. Which is why issues that overwhelmingly or specifically affect women are unacceptable and must be addressed.

The bottom line is, people have value because they are people. But when we put a descriptor - any descriptor, whether it's gender or skin color or nationality - before personhood, we lose sight of that. We can't let anything, especially something as petty as semantics, distract us from the value of a human life.

Put personhood first: it's not that women make up 50% of people, it's that people are 50% women.

Why the "Fake Geek Girl" Meme is Just Another Game of "Hot or Not"

There is a lot of great conversation going on in feminist blogs about why the "Fake Geek Girl" meme is harmful to women, not to mention blatantly false. But I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own.

Found on The Mary Sue

This meme claims that there are women who feign interest in nerdy things in order to "prey" on men in that subgenre. The most common activity discussed is cosplay; the claim is that the women at conventions know nothing about the characters they are dressing as, and are only looking to show off their bodies in order to lure innocent men in. In short, they're fishing for dates.

This mindset is full of obvious problems, not the least of which is the insinuation that geeky men are easy "prey" for women. The men touting this theory probably don't see how badly they're insulting themselves there, but the fact is that it hurts all geek culture. It's counterproductive at a time when media and activities previously considered "nerdy" are now entering the mainstream, and nerd culture is gaining momentum among new audiences. It reinforces old ideas about nerds being socially inept, pushovers and not to mention, sexists.

But that's a side-effect. Instead of discussing its effects on geek culture, I want to investigate what's really happening at the core of this theme. Firstly, who identifies a Fake Geek Girl? Who decides which women are "true nerds" and which are pretending? Generally speaking, it's men. Self-described nerdy men who believe that the contents of the meme are true, and some women at conventions and other gatherings are only there to pick up dates.

So, what's the criterion for differentiating between a true nerd and a woman who is faking it? Other bloggers have pointed out, quite accurately I think, that it's generally attractiveness. As in: nerdy girls, by definition, cannot be hot. If you're hot and cosplaying, you're definitely just doing it for attention. It follows then, that the man doing the accusing finds the accused attractive. And here is where the true content of the meme comes out. These men aren't angry, they're just playing "Hot or Not."

Me, as Tony Stark for Halloween

This activity is harmful to the entirety of geek culture. Attractive women are objectified and told they aren't allowed to have an opinion. Women identified as "true geeks" can safely assume they are not considered attractive, and while most probably don't care what random men at conventions think of them, unsolicited confirmation of one's lack of attractiveness is still rude and hurtful. And finally, for nerdy men, it furthers the stereotype of the socially awkward pseudo-virgin who doesn't know how to behave properly around adult women.

By pointing out to the accused "Fake Geek Girl" that her features are on display and claiming that they are obviously meant to be seen as desirable, the accuser sexualizes the accused, and makes his attraction publicly known.

The fact that there are semi-intellectual discussions that boil down to boys pulling girls' hair on the playground taking place on the internet is embarrassing at best, deeply harmful to gender relations within geek circles at worst. I don't know what the answer is, because people are going to believe what they want to believe. Hopefully this ridiculousness will soon die down. Then we can focus on undoing the damage that has been done to our reputation as a legitimate subculture, and get back to gaming, cosplaying and LARPing together, in peace.

Tangible Harm

There is a common dialogue that I've heard a lot during this election season, and it worries me. It goes something like this:

Me: "Aren't you worried about this candidate's stance on this Very Important Social Issue?"
Other person: "All the social issue stuff is just posturing. People are emotional voters, and they need to win those voters over by talking about social issues. But you'll see, as it gets closer, what they really want to talk about is the economy, and Issues That Matter. All the posturing won't matter by then."

Photo: CBS News

There is the first problem, which is the idea that social issues don't matter, only economic issues matter. And that leads right into the second, bigger problem, which of course is what I want to discuss: tangible harm.

This mentality ignores the fact that, while politicians are posturing and saying whatever they feel they need to say in order to gain the "emotional vote," they're spreading and promoting a culture that accepts harmful ideas, and in a culture like that, people tend to invest their resources in causes that promote harmful actions as well. In short, a backwards mentality will support a backwards culture wherein backwards things are commonplace, and as such, people get hurt. Posturing achieves tangible harm.

Border Patrol and the TSA
I had a wonderful conversation with my boyfriend recently that I feel illustrates this point very clearly. We were on a long car trip near the Mexican border and we were stopped for a quick search by the border patrol (this is normal in that area, even if you're not actually crossing the border). This got us on the topic of the constitutionality of the actions taken out regularly by agencies like Border Patrol and the TSA.

Photo: Flickr creative commons

The ineffectiveness of the measures taken out by the TSA at airports is a popular topic of conversation in political and scientific circles. In short, the conclusion that people continue to draw is that the TSA doesn't actually increase security at airports. Bombers, hijackers and terrorists in general can get on an airplane as easily as any common citizen can, and the TSA's implementation of x-rays, scanners, pat-downs and interviews doesn't actually change that. But this is an uncomfortable truth, one that people don't like to face. So, the government funds the TSA, a massively expensive project, to give the appearance of security. This simultaneously gives people peace of mind and the appearance that something is being done about the problem. But both are false, and in the meantime money is wasted.

My boyfriend has been repeating this argument to me for many years now, and for the longest time I just nodded and said "That's fine, it's low on my priority list. Next to a lot of the other backwards laws being proposed, having my suitcase rifled through isn't a huge infraction on my right to privacy." But this time he made his point clearer, and I'm starting to agree with him.

I asked him, if he could only pick one fight, which would it be: the TSA or the "mandatory ultrasound" bills being proposed in multiple states that require women seeking an abortion to undergo a medically unnecessary vaginal sonogram? I sat back and waited, comfortable in my assumption that everyone judges an invasion of privacy involving one's genitals to be more severe than that which involves ones suitcase, but his response surprised me. He said, without hesitation, that he would fight the TSA. This was his explanation:

Photo: Texas Tribune

Culture of Complacency
The TSA has become a commonplace infrastructure in American life, despite it being more or less common knowledge that the airport scanners accomplish nothing. What this means is that we have a nation (and, as a consequence, a planet) full of people who are complacent with the idea that their government can invade their privacy in the name of a ruse, a ploy to create the appearance of security.  This is an acceptable idea to us now, we have been desensitized to it. It is this sort of action that sets the stage for further infractions upon our personal privacy and freedoms. In short: the TSA made the ultrasound bill possible. Without this prerequisite, such a ludicrous, perverse manipulation of the law would be unfathomable. These anti-abortion bills would never have gotten as far as they have.

My boyfriend's point was simply that when you poison the national conversation about personal freedoms, this does noticeable and lasting damage. Words are not just words, they affect what we perceive to be acceptable and normal, and as such can pave the way for more and more backwards legislation.

I've always felt this way, but my boyfriend was able to show me that I was doing triage - attending to the worst wounds first - while knowing full-well that more would simply pop up in their place. Instead, he proposed, we should attack the problem at its root. Propoganda, anti-science thinking and outright lies about one's political agenda confuse and distort the truth, leaving people handicapped when they approach these topics. Once you see this effect taking place, you realize that a complacent attitude toward political posturing contributes in a very real way to quantifiable, tangible harm.

Some Thoughts on Sex Education

I've taken a lot of sex ed courses, from the 2nd grade separate-the-boys-and-girls and learn-about-our periods class to college-level psych courses on human sexuality wherein we parsed out straw feminism from true equality struggles. They all had one thing in common: they were dry.

Pardon the pun, but it carries an important point: sex ed should be fun, right? I mean, not sexually satisfying, obviously that's inappropriate, but talking about sex should be fun. And I think with a younger audience, especially teenagers, we risk alienating them when we try to keep it textbook and intellectual. I think bringing a little humor and levity to the subject could help make some of the more important topics accessible.

I remember a time when I was younger and there were discussions about whether or not condoms were cool. It wasn't quite that straight-forward, but in general kids were parsing out their urges to contradict authority figures, to seek out pleasure, and to keep themselves safe. Since then, I think the condom companies and culture at large have done a good job of branding condoms as sexy (it's not like it's hard to do,) and I think the same lesson could be applied to other parts of sex ed that are suffering from an overly textbook-type of treatment in these classrooms, namely: consent.



The concept of sexual consent has received a wide variety of treatments in popular culture. But in my experience, even attempts to make it light and funny still equate it to a contractual obligation. And while it might get a laugh for the time being, and does an effective job of spreading awareness about obtaining consent (as well as its highly conditional nature, which is something that often gets missed), I think that dry, vanilla image of a paper contract tends to stick with people.


The reality is that consent can be sexy, just like condoms can be sexy. It's simply unnecessary to break the mood and have a "serious discussion" in order to obtain consent properly. What's even more important is the message that nonconsensual sexual encounters, encounters where there is doubt about the other person's desires and intentions, are stressful, dangerous and (this one is key) un-fun. Consent is hot! And it's way more fun to have sex with someone who repeatedly, enthusiastically, desperately tells you how hot they are for you, and that they want you. Never mind that it's safer and healthier - it's more fun! I think that's a message that will stick with teenagers a lot better than simply stressing the importance of consent, and then scaring them with messages about rape. Because the first step to truly combating rape culture is to make consent cool.

In terms of branding, I honestly think this is another gimme, just like condoms were. We can talk about "communication" all day but when we phrase it that way, all teenagers are ever going to picture is two people sitting down having a very serious, very dry, very un-fun conversation about what they will and will not do in bed tonight. But as sexually active adults, we know that that's not always the reality. Talking about sex gets you hot. And consent can be obtained in ways that promote the mood, rather than killing it. Why are we hiding this super awesome truth from kids? It's something they would love to hear! And it would help prevent rape and sexual assault due to lack of communication, which is way more common than aggressive rape.

I'm not saying that no sex ed class has ever been fun or used humor to keep things moving. I've certainly had some entertaining sex ed teachers and professors during my schooling. But in my experience, consent is a topic that's treated with a lot of weight. I understand why; it's very important that this message get across. At the end of the day, it's about safety. But learning HOW to do it, how to obtain consent, how to have sex in safe, respectful ways doesn't have to be dry and boring. In fact, I feel that strategy is somewhat purpose-defeating.

Another problematic aspect of classic lessons about consent is the focus on the word "no." Of course it's important for kids to hear that if your partner says "no," you stop. But the tricky part is that people don't always say "no." Sometimes they can't, sometimes they won't and sometimes they're scared or nervous. The problem with using "no" as our starting point is that then we have to backtrack through a laundry list of "warning signs" that people need to keep an eye out for. By the time you're done with a lesson like this, sex sounds like a chore.

There has been something of a shift lately - and I hope it continues - to focusing instead on "yes." Rather than going forward unless there is an audible objection, how about we only move forward if there is a clear and obvious agreement? This is, in every possible way, a more positive message. And even more importantly: it's more fun.

In short, the first and best tool we have for combating rape culture is to first remind ourselves that sex should be fun. If everyone involved isn't having fun, you're doing it wrong. I think that's a rule of thumb that everyone can agree with.

Mitochondrial Donors in IVF

I want to revisit the article I posted about "three-parent babies." It's vaguely related to my research, but also I just find it plain fascinating (I do, after all, have something of a bias for mitochondrial research.)

The article describes a new technology that would allow people with mitochondrial diseases to avoid passing it on to their children. This technology involves the use of a mitochondrial donor for in-vitro fertilization. Let me start by explaining how this works.

Mitochondria have their own DNA, separate from the nuclear genome. When you think about your genes, you traditionally picture your 46 chromosomes, housed in the nucleus. You get half of it from your mother, half from your father. The mitochondrial genome is different in many respects, but for my purposes right now, I'll say just this: it's entirely maternally inherited. You don't have any mtDNA from your father, at all.

This means that if your mother carries genes for a mitochondrial disorder, you have a 100% chance of inheriting it. If your father has it, you have a 0% chance.

This is where IVF comes in. In mitochondrial research there is a technique called cybridization. This is a process where you take the nucleus from one cell and the mitochondria from another cell and combine them for a "cybrid" (cytoplasmic hybrid) cell containing two different sets of DNA. This is something that my lab does routinely, and it's great for screening for the effects of mitochondrial mutations without any "background" nuclear mutations confounding your results.

Image from nydailynews.com

In this context, rather than eliminating confounding variables, cybridization would eliminate the disease genes by using a mitochondrial donor. So, in essence, the IVF would go like this: take sperm and egg from the couple seeking IVF, and another egg from a mitochondrial donor. Fertilize the mother-to-be's egg with the sperm, then remove the nucleus from the now fertilized embryo, and move it over to the mitochondrial donor's egg (removing the donor egg's nucleus first). In this manner, you have now created an embryo with nuclear DNA from the two parents-to-be, and mitochondrial DNA from a third donor.

What this means for women with a family history of mitochondrial disease is that there is some hope that they will not have to pass on that disease to their children. While these diseases are rare, they are often severe, and it can be devastating to people trying to start a family. But this therapy has broader implications scientifically, socially and ethically.

On one level, the idea of the "three-parent baby" is completely accurate, but at the same time it is extremely misleading. All of your physical traits are encoded in the nuclear genome. Everything that makes you your parents' child is there. The nuclear genome encodes for something on the order of 30,000 proteins, while the mitochondrial genome encodes for 14. Why, then, can a mutation there have such a profound impact on a person's health? Well, those 14 proteins are very important. They make all the energy your cells need to run. Without them, your body shuts down. But again: they don't have anything to do with your physical characteristics.

Image from Nature.com

One thing that would absolutely change, and this is something I find fascinating, is your haplogroup. Haplogroups are genetic categories that define where your ancestors came from. They trace migration patterns of early humans all the way back to the original Homo Sapiens that lived in Africa. The DNA that is used to determine your haplogroup is mitochondrial DNA, entirely. All of human migration patterns are traced through maternal lineage, and the fastest way to do that is by looking at the mitochondria. At the moment, this is a useful technique: mitochondria are maternally inherited, so it's safe to assume that your mitochondrial DNA reflects your maternal lineage. But once this technology becomes available, there will suddenly be a small portion of the population for which this assumption is not true. Their mtDNA would reflect the haplogroup of the mitochondrial donor, not their mother.

I think another issue that the idea of the "three-parent baby" brings up, which is something of a red herring, is that suddenly we will have groups of three people caring for and being responsible for children. I don't think this will happen. Just as sperm donors are not held to any kind of parental responsibility, a mitochondrial donor would be free of any obligation. Does this raise ethical problems for custody, parental status, etc.etc.? No, I don't think so. Instead of trying to shoe-horn a completely new technology into existing definitions, I think it would be simpler and more accurate to adjust our ideas about what assumptions we make about someone's DNA, and what it means for their personal identity. A child who had a mitochondrial donor is just that; their parents are still their two (nuclear) parents. But, and I'm sure this is predictable coming from me, it's still really, really cool.

On the Male Birth Control Pill

Here's an article from WebMD to start you off. The bottom line is this: some researchers recently developed a pill that reversibly stops sperm development without hormonal therapy, and it's showing promising results in mice. This and other articles outlining this study list the side effects of hormonal therapies, and applaud this new technology for its ability to avoid them.

I heard about this study from a number of friends, one after the other, and they all had exactly the same reaction: "Hey, aren't those the very same side-effects that women have to suffer through with traditional hormonal birth control? Why is it okay for women to deal with that, but not men?" And to this I say simply: Hold up a minute.

In order to explain, I want to take some time to outline one of the most basic principles in biomedical ethics. When a drug or therapy is being tested for mass-market distribution, one of the first things considered is: do the benefits outweigh the side-effects? If the answer is no, it's a dud.

What is birth control for? It prevents pregnancy. From a purely social angle, this is a tool that benefits everyone (a concept I've outlined at great length on this blog), but these are biomedical ethics we're dealing with, not social ethics. Medically, pregnancy puts a massive burden on women. Its impact is felt for years, or in actuality, the rest of the woman's life. Pregnancy significantly alters a woman's health, but for men? The implications are entirely social and emotional. I'm not trying to imply that they are somehow less significant, only that they do not enter the equation when considering male birth control.

Because pregnancy is such a huge event for women, just about any form of birth control is considered acceptable. Once hormonal birth control was developed, it hit the market almost immediately. Why? Because nearly any side effects are acceptable when weighed against the alternative (an unplanned pregnancy).

But for men, this is a tricky question. We're talking about an entirely medical solution to an entirely social problem. The social impact of pregnancy for men is an invisible factor in the biomedical ethics equation. It simply can't be taken into account. There is no physical damage incurred upon men by pregnancy, and as such, almost any side effect whatsoever is considered unacceptable in this situation. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this makes the scenario entirely unique. Can you name any other medical advancements that have been developed solely to solve a social problem? Any medical treatment for which the tolerance level for side effects is zero? I can't think of even one. In that respect, this technology has no precedent.

So, before you go blowing the whistle, take a step back. I know this feels like chauvinism, but upon closer inspection, I think you'll find it's an entirely appropriate solution to a subtly complex problem.

So, what about the feminist issues I mentioned in my last post? This is exactly it: while family planning measures benefit everyone, a lack of access to said resources only hurts women. If you don't provide comprehensive sex education, birth control in its various forms and access to safe abortions, who suffers? The answer, without caveat, is women. Women have to bear the burden of unplanned pregnancy entirely. There are repercussions on every level of a woman's life when she has a baby she didn't plan on having. Her health, her social status, her financial stability, her emotional wellbeing are all shaken to the core. Men deal with a fraction of this laundry list of problems - if that - when these situations arise.

So, I try to be polite and academic when I remind you that family planning is for families, not just women, but the bottom line is, while it helps provide the resources we need to build a healthier, more stable society, it's also a massive safety net for women. Why are women staying in school longer? Why are women getting a wider variety of jobs? Why are women earning more money? Why are women having fewer health problems later in life? Why are women having fewer children and having their pregnancies appropriately spaced? Because birth control is widely available. Women can grow and flourish in every area of their lives with the comfort of knowing that they won't be derailed and devastated by an unplanned pregnancy. This issue, while important for everyone, cuts deepest for women. It's just an unavoidable truth; we can't change our biology, we can't change how we reproduce, but we can change the way we interact with that reality - by exerting control over our reproductive functions with modern medical technologies.

I'm sorry, sometimes I just need to geek out about that. The fact that we can even do that is amazing. It blows my mind sometimes that anyone would ever fight it. It's a beautiful time we live in. Relish it. You can live your life as you see fit. Across human history, that is a rarity in the truest sense.

But I digress. This advancement (aside from being really cool) is an interesting new piece in the game of sex politics. What will it mean? Will things be more balanced? Will responsibility for family planning finally be shared in equal parts? Will birth control for men be empowering for women? Will it even be popular? Or will it flutter around in relative obscurity, like the female condom? Will it be the first nail in the coffin of the "war on women?" Before we can answer any of these questions, it has to get past testing in mice. But it is a fascinating technology with a wide variety of possible social outcomes.

No matter which way it goes, I'm of the opinion that yet another resource in the family planning arsenal is never a bad thing.

Birth Control, Revisited

A few months ago I wrote a post about birth control, where I tried to outline what it represents on a social and societal level. There is a central piece to that argument that I want to try and make clearer, if I can. In that entry, I said: "...while the hormone pills used for birth control are chemically acting on the woman's body alone and for the purpose of preventing ovulation, that's just not the point. The point is about broader social consequences of not providing people with the tools they need to plan their families carefully, safely and responsibly." 

I was recently reading this article about Sandra Fluke and representative Joe Walsh, and there was a quote from Mr. Walsh at the bottom that got me thinking about this argument all over again: "We’ve got parents in this country who are struggling to buy sneakers that their kids can wear to school that just started," Walsh said. "We’ve got parents up and down my district who are barely keeping their house. And, and, and, we have to be confronted by a woman, the Democratic Party this is what they stand for. They're going to put a woman in front of us who is complaining that the country — you, me and you — won’t pay the 9 dollars per month to pay for her contraceptives."

I want to revisit my original argument by breaking down Mr. Walsh's comments for you. In doing so, I hope to shed some light on why there is suddenly such heated debate about birth control among politicians lately. 

There are many groups (Planned Parenthood, in particular) that have worked to bring the cost of birth control down for some time. But President Obama has made the issue a lot more public with his new legislation regarding health care and health insurance. Obama - along with what seems like the majority of the democratic party - believes that birth control should be widely available and as near to free as possible, at the very least, extremely affordable. I think this sudden popularization of the subject has brought up some deep rifts that weren't previously obvious - but why? It seems an innocuous subject, after all 99% of women of child-bearing age in the United States use birth control. It's not exactly a politically safe topic to oppose. But I think the issue of access - of tax dollars paying for it - brings to the surface some differences in the way people view birth control. In particular, there are two main paradigms that attempt to define just what birth control is, and what it means for women, for men and for families. I'd like to compare and contrast these two views.

The first is the view held by Mr. Walsh and others who - on average- tend to be on the far right end of the political spectrum. That is that birth control is medication for women. It enables a certain lifestyle for women (that is to say, the ability to be sexually active, possibly outside of the bounds of committed relationships, without the fear or concern of pregnancy). It is, in their minds, a women's issue. Birth control is women's business, and furthermore, there is some implication that it's frivolous to boot. It's a luxury - after all, you don't have to be sexually active. Abstinence is still an option. Because you have made a choice to be sexually active, then it only makes sense that you should pay for the luxuries that make this lifestyle possible out-of-pocket.

There is a certain aspect to this argument that brings the speaker's own opinions into play. I would personally describe a sexually active lifestyle as "modern," but many people view a modern lifestyle as luxurious. So I think this is a personal distinction that doesn't have any place in politics. It's not the place of politicians to push their beliefs on the populace (despite the fact that they do it regularly). But I digress, because I also find the heart of this paradigm - idea that birth control is only for the benefit of the woman - to be incorrect. To understand why, let's examine the other side.

What Mr. Obama, Ms. Fluke and others who share their ideology would rather discuss, as opposed to hormonal birth control for women, is the idea of family planning. This is more of a blanket concept that refers to the freedom to reproduce when, where, how, and with whom you choose. I like this part of the argument because it remembers to acknowledge that we are discussing nothing less than the ability to create life. Heavy stuff.

But the next step in this argument is notably more political. Because true, modern family planning necessitates a certain level of control over one's own biology, and this brings into the picture a host of resources developed by modern medicine that cost money. The assumption that people should simultaneously be able to live a modern (read: sexually active) lifestyle and still plan their families with a staggering level of control implies that a massive health infrastructure needs to be in place in order to bring those resources to the public. In this way, Obama's recent actions on this topic make sense. It's a logical consequence of his personal view on family planning.

This part of the second paradigm brings me back around to my original point. Hormonal birth control for women is simply one of a suite of tools in the family planning tool belt. It's the most powerful mechanism currently available for preventing pregnancy without necessitating abstinence. It happens to be used by the woman, but that's just the biological reality of the drug, and it doesn't change its broader social purpose. Men have the right to control over their reproductive activities, too. Which is why condoms are so cheap and commonly available; at present, it's the greatest tool a man has to protect himself against accidental pregnancy. But birth control is far more effective when used properly, and I think men have the same right to the peace of mind it provides as women do.

In closing, the two lenses through which people view hormonal birth control are as follows: it is either medication for women, or it is a social tool that, by necessity (because we cannot change biology) must be employed by women in order to work. These two views are obviously in direct conflict with one another, and tend to drive very different political actions with regard to birth control. It's probably obvious that I tend to align with Mr. Obama on this subject. But I don't blame people like Mr. Walsh for making this type of error. Birth control is a singular drug in that it has such strong social implications, and it can be difficult to see beyond the basic chemical mechanism to the larger role in people's lives and in society.

Now, if you're concerned that my attempt to paint hormonal birth control as a tool for the benefit of all people overlooks some very large feminist issues, you'd be right. And that's something I'd like to address in my next entry, which will be on the male birth control pill. I'll try to get it posted soon.