I came across three news articles in Time this morning that shocked me beyond belief. The first reported that Beyonce was seen nursing her eight-week old while at lunch at an upscale restaurant in New York city. Did she choose to breast-feed her baby in public so as to advocate breast-feeding, or was she merely tending to the cries of a hungry newborn, the article speculated. Since when has something so natural and basic as a mother feeding her hungry infant begun to be the source of such immense controversy and debate? A lot of Americans decry breast-feeding in public as being "gross" and constituting "lewd behavior" or "indecent exposure". But has our sense of perception gone so awry that when we see a woman feeding her baby in public, we fail to see a mother responding to her child's need in the most natural way possible and instead wrongly construct a sexualized image of a woman 'wilfully' exposing her breasts in public? It seems that we are completely immune to provocative images of scantily-clothed women abundantly posted online and even in public places, but somehow we are violently averse to the sight of a mother nursing her young baby in public. Must a new mother then, never venture outside her house until her child grows old enough for her to stop nursing? Granted that we do live in a highly sexualized era, has society become so sex-centric as to go so far as vehemently condemning an innately biological act (when in public) which is but a natural consequence and aspect of new motherhood? Outrageous.
The second article I read was to do with the hottest controversy of the past week - Rush Limbaugh's ignorant and misogynistic remarks against a female student who was courageous enough to stand up for beliefs and raise her voice over an issue that is of consequence to millions of women. For a guy that walks around airports with a bunch of Viagra without a valid prescription, Limbaugh has some nerve to brand women rallying for contraception coverage as being "sluts". "She's having so much sex, she can't afford to buy enough contraception, and needs us, the taxpayers to pay for it", he said on air on his radio show recently. Limbaugh's remark shows a clear ignorance and misunderstanding of the female oral contraceptive pill - that it has to be taken everyday regardless of the amount of sexual activity, and that, to thousands of women, it doesn't just serve as a contraceptive, but acts as a major preventer of health risks, reproductive and otherwise. "Viagra is for a medical condition, but the birth control pill is a 'lifestyle choice'", say political commentators and policy-makers (male, obviously) in defense of the pill not being covered by insurance. So, a pill widely used by those with erectile dysfunction (among other medical conditions) is definitely not a "lifestyle choice", but a pill that prevents women from going through endless emotional and physical burdens from unwanted pregnancy is? And do cervical cancer, ovarian and breast cancer, irregular menstruation, polycystic ovarian syndrome, stroke etc. (which the pill protects against) not qualify as serious medical conditions? When are the legislators going to start viewing the pill as being vital to women's health, in preventing unwanted pregnancies and the need for abortion, and in protecting against severe health risks, and not just something that allows them to be promiscuous? Never mind all those promiscuous men that use Viagra "recreationally" without prescriptions.
The third article reported that a bill mandating pre-abortion ultrasound had been passed by the Virginia governor. An earlier draft of the bill required that women undergo an invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound pre-abortion in order to "make a more informed decision", irrespective of whether or not the fetus had been conceived from rape or incest. In the face of strong opposition and outcry, the bill was amended to require the less invasive abdominal ultrasound, with termination of pregnancies resulting from rape and incest being excepted. I am yet to fathom how showing a woman who has painfully arrived at the decision to undergo an abortion for whatever reason, an image of the child she is choosing not to have, will help her make a more informed decision. The intention is obviously to attempt to guilt the woman into feeling that her decision makes her a horrible person and changing her mind about it. It is cruel and insensitive, at best. How about channelling efforts into ensuring contraception coverage and working towards social change that demands accountability and responsibility of men that carelessly impregnate women and then abandon them, Governor?
Apparently, biology is destiny for women, even in one of the world's most developed nations in the second decade of the 21st century. Ironically, all three of these news-articles have been splashed in the media on the eve of International Women's Day. So much for womens' lib.
The second article I read was to do with the hottest controversy of the past week - Rush Limbaugh's ignorant and misogynistic remarks against a female student who was courageous enough to stand up for beliefs and raise her voice over an issue that is of consequence to millions of women. For a guy that walks around airports with a bunch of Viagra without a valid prescription, Limbaugh has some nerve to brand women rallying for contraception coverage as being "sluts". "She's having so much sex, she can't afford to buy enough contraception, and needs us, the taxpayers to pay for it", he said on air on his radio show recently. Limbaugh's remark shows a clear ignorance and misunderstanding of the female oral contraceptive pill - that it has to be taken everyday regardless of the amount of sexual activity, and that, to thousands of women, it doesn't just serve as a contraceptive, but acts as a major preventer of health risks, reproductive and otherwise. "Viagra is for a medical condition, but the birth control pill is a 'lifestyle choice'", say political commentators and policy-makers (male, obviously) in defense of the pill not being covered by insurance. So, a pill widely used by those with erectile dysfunction (among other medical conditions) is definitely not a "lifestyle choice", but a pill that prevents women from going through endless emotional and physical burdens from unwanted pregnancy is? And do cervical cancer, ovarian and breast cancer, irregular menstruation, polycystic ovarian syndrome, stroke etc. (which the pill protects against) not qualify as serious medical conditions? When are the legislators going to start viewing the pill as being vital to women's health, in preventing unwanted pregnancies and the need for abortion, and in protecting against severe health risks, and not just something that allows them to be promiscuous? Never mind all those promiscuous men that use Viagra "recreationally" without prescriptions.
The third article reported that a bill mandating pre-abortion ultrasound had been passed by the Virginia governor. An earlier draft of the bill required that women undergo an invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound pre-abortion in order to "make a more informed decision", irrespective of whether or not the fetus had been conceived from rape or incest. In the face of strong opposition and outcry, the bill was amended to require the less invasive abdominal ultrasound, with termination of pregnancies resulting from rape and incest being excepted. I am yet to fathom how showing a woman who has painfully arrived at the decision to undergo an abortion for whatever reason, an image of the child she is choosing not to have, will help her make a more informed decision. The intention is obviously to attempt to guilt the woman into feeling that her decision makes her a horrible person and changing her mind about it. It is cruel and insensitive, at best. How about channelling efforts into ensuring contraception coverage and working towards social change that demands accountability and responsibility of men that carelessly impregnate women and then abandon them, Governor?
Apparently, biology is destiny for women, even in one of the world's most developed nations in the second decade of the 21st century. Ironically, all three of these news-articles have been splashed in the media on the eve of International Women's Day. So much for womens' lib.
