Balancing Act

Speaking as a mother, student, and employed woman, there's a lot I've learned about balancing various demands, but the most important is knowing when to give myself a break. Of course, organizational skills, knowing how to say no, getting enough sleep, and having help are essential. But even so, without having some purely leisure time, I would go insane. Right now, I have assignments, papers to write, several finals to study for, required volunteer hours for my son's charter school, church obligations, not to mention work, and now Christmas shopping to keep me occupied for the next three or four weeks.

So, when I get too frazzled, or begin to feel my temper getting too short, I know it's time to check out and watch some mindless T.V. show, or relax after a hot shower with some hot chocolate, or sit back with some leisure reading. Sometimes, I take Jackson to the local pizza/ arcade and spend an hour or so there playing games and pigging out on pizza and ice cream. It may not be great for our diet, but it's a necessity to relieve stress sometimes!

I will say that one skill has made college classes a great deal more tolerable, and that's the ability to write well. I feel like all I have done this entire semester is bang out one paper after another, sometimes two or even three in one night. Keeping a blog has of course added to the pile. Do not underestimate the ability to turn out decent work in a short period of time! And that is why it is immensely helpful to have strong writing skills and even better typing skills. I just think of it all as prep for grad school. ;)

Mentality of Violence

The question was posed in Women's Health this week, "What can a woman do to reduce her risks of being assaulted?" I guess my pithy answer would be, "stop breathing." The question pre-supposes that a woman is, a, living in a society which empowers women and gives them ability to extricate themselves from an unequal relationship, and that she, b, wants to get away from a bad situation. If those conditions are met, there is a lot a woman can do to protect herself, providing she has enough self-worth and common sense to realize when a relationship or a situation is posing serious danger. Unfortunately, I've witnessed a few relationships where the woman involved was being verbally and physically abused, but instead of leaving the relationship, sought to make excuses for her partner or pretend the abuse wasn't happening. When children are involved, it only complicates the issue tenfold.

The other issue is when they don't have the common sense to realize that they are doing something dangerous--like going to a party full of strangers, drinking the spiked punch, and then following it down with about ten more drinks. I've seen both women and men engage in such senseless behavior, and the truth is, both sexes are at risk nowadays from date rape and physical assault in such events, but women especially. I am not blaming the woman for being raped, but I think it is disingenuous to state that women are "strong" and "empowered" and just as intelligent as their male peers, but then turn around and treat them like they are all victims-in-waiting. Women can and do have a responsibility to take precautions to protect themselves; if they indulge in high risk behavior with high risk people (i.e., the scum of society), then they are placing themselves in acute danger of being harmed. It is impossible to envision or guard against every single possibility, and women should not have to bear that burden anyway--but in the cases of obvious, well, lunacy, in my opinion, it's frustrating. Good prevention habits can be as simple as taking a couple of trusted friends to a party, and watching each other's back, and making sure nobody goes off with a strange guy in the bedroom alone after having several drinks. But, it seems that many women and men practice poor judgment in these types of situations and so they fall victim to opportunistic sexual predators.

There are so many cases in the world of violence where women have NO power and NO ability to protect themselves legally or physically. In a society where we do have such rights, I wish some women (and men!) would use the brains God gave them and either avoid high risk situations, in the first place, or take steps to mitigate the risks. Many rapes and assaults could be avoided this way, and resources could be focused on those cases where assault and abuse are far more difficult to prevent or avoid.

JMO.

Dealing with Drug Addicts

The question came up in Women's Studies this week, should drug addicts be imprisoned or should they be made to go into drug rehabilitation programs? In my mind, both answers are wrong, because both imply that outside force is enough to break the internal bonds of addiction. Physical weaning is possible, but how does compelling a person who does not wish to stop taking drugs to be forcibly separated for her addiction also achieve psychological independence? Drugs are often a salve for many problems, such as homelessness, joblessness, unresolved emotional turmoil, and broken or dysfunctional relationships. It is almost laughable that sending, for example, someone who is doing drugs because she has zero self-esteem, due to being raped at age 12 by a trusted relative, to prison to punish and wean her from her addiction would work. Prisons are notorious for smuggled drug activity anyway--it is likely she'd still find a source, and prison would only give her more reason to hate herself and want to find a way to anesthetize her pain.

Similarly, requiring her to attend a drug therapy program will also not work if she is not willing. She can simply return to her habit after she has completed the program, or even drop out before finishing.

I believe the best way to address drug addiction is through programs such as MHMR-Tarrant County's, which is where my husband works. Their substance abuse program is predicated on designing a plan of treatment that is based on the client's own goals for his or her future. If a homeless client wants to get off the street and into an apartment, for example, MHMR-TC designs steps to help her achieve those goals, by helping her wean herself off the drugs, while building her self-confidence through workshops, providing therapy, and connecting her to a variety of education programs and resources.

And it must be voluntary, or it will only seem that outside forces are, once again, in charge of her life. If there's one thing I've observed in known drug users, is that many feel very much out of control already. In order to feel "in charge" again, they need to be their own agents of change, lest they feel that they are merely powerless--a perception that is greatly at odds with the intent to break and addiction.

Catching the Crazy

Since I was diagnosed with Postpartum Depression six months after Jackson was born, I thought I'd share my experiences here. I have to say that if you are one of those women who don't enjoy pregnancy, like me, it doesn't seem to improve for a looong while after the baby actually arrives. I know I was clinically depressed my whole pregnancy, mostly because I didn't want to be pregnant, I was very sick, and the weight gain (a whopping 25 lbs) caused an inflammation of my sciatic nerve that bothers me to this day.

Anyway, after having Jackson, in the middle of a Pennsylvania winter, no less, I got bad pretty quick. Apparently, having a family history and a baby that never sleeps more than two hours at a given time will have that effect on your mental health. Also, I was dealing with some painful breastfeeding issues. And, by the way, if I ever hear another breastfeeding advocate wax on about the conveniences of breastfeeding, I will be sorely tempted to violence. Oh, I don't dispute the health benefits and all that; it's just that waking up two or three times a night to strip your bed and change sheets because you've leaked all over them like some manic dairy cow is not my idea of "ease" and "convenience!"

Ok, rant over. Where was I? Manic cows...no sleep...oh yeah! Postpartum depression, which actually seems to me not to be so much a disorder, but the body's quite natural and understandable protestation for months of abuse, culminating in a tremendous physical event (birth!) followed up by long nights of obnoxious nurses slamming hospital doors loudly and a crying, hungry baby.

Of course it's a hormonal imbalance. Please, show me one other instance where the body has such physical and emotional demands put on it, for a sustained period of time, without enough rest, and the hormones don't go haywire?

But anyway, in my case, I started seeing a psychiatrist and I switched Jackson to formula. Both decisions had the noticeable effect of allowing me to sleep better, and being to enjoy motherhood. PPD actually prevented my ability to bond with Jackson, and so unfortunately, it was probably six months or so before I began to feel "happy" and attached to him. It was such a difficult time to go through that it has been the single biggest deterrent in getting pregnant again. I just won't go through it again!

Short of Breath

If I have to be honest--and as this is a blog, I'd be missing the point if I failed to blather about my personal life to the four corners of the world wide web--I really don't want to write here this evening. It isn't just that this has been a long, tiresome week, and I've been worrying about a friend who has had several mysterious and forbidding symptoms for several months now. Or, that I'm in the middle of an intense semester, and wish it was mid-December instead.

On top of everything else, I had to take my cat, Gremlin, to the S.P.C.A. today, after six months of futile searching for a home for him. I have had him since he was a kitten, and he has absolutely, without exception, been the most amazing pet I have ever had. I've been crying off and on all day today, feeling like I've betrayed an old friend, and yet I could see no other choice.

Because Jackson has asthma, and one of his more serious allergies is to the protein in cat saliva. Thus, making him extremely susceptible to severe asthmatic episodes by simply being too close to cat hair (that has, of course, been regularly bathed by its owner's feline tongue).

So, if I had to think about chronic diseases for this blog assignment (and it's hard, because I'm still weepy), I decided that asthma is, indirectly, most definitely affecting me right now, and my emotional health. Call it trite, but it seems unfair to me that a chronic disease, like asthma, can cause such disruptions in the lives of so many women, besides myself. It can range from the very "petty" (no pun intended), like being forced to give up a beloved cat or dog, to the very severe, like being hospitalized (as my son has been on three different occasions).

According to the CDC (2002), women are not only negatively affected by this disease, but to a much greater degree than men. They are hospitalized more, they seek medical treatment more often for it, and they even die at greater rates in this country, than do men with asthma (CDC, 2002).

But, it affects them in other ways as well. According to the findings of a survey, Women and Asthma in America (Medscape, 2006), many women reported that their loved ones were very concerned or worried about their (the women's) asthma, that they were forced to cancel social events or participate in them, and that their asthma even affected their sex lives.

I can believe it. I see how Jackson has to make concessions for his illness (Gremlin was his buddy, too), in how he is much more easily physically stressed than his peers, even though his asthma is supposedly under good control. I hope he is not limited as he grows up, but it seems to me that as more and more Americans are diagnosed with this disease, due to a variety of causes, (but most glaringly, diet and environment) we are going to see an increase in cases which are hard to control, and even the numbers of attributable deaths.

As it seems women already bear more than half the burden for adult cases of asthma in this country (CDC, 2002), that prospect does not bode well for women's health.


Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. (2002). Asthma: A heavy burden for women. Retrieved on November 8, 2008 from http://www.cdc.gov/women/newsltr/02fall.htm

Medscape. (2006). Asthma may be undermanaged in a majority of women. Retrieved on November 8, 2008 from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/411139

Food & Family

I expect most of us inherited or learned certain attitudes about food from our families. I know that was the case with me. Growing up, food was a central theme in our holiday gatherings, and meals were was brought the family together. As a young child, living on a large property in northern Virginia, I was lucky to have parents who decided to plant and tend a large garden. Every year, they'd pay a local farmer to bring his tractor over and till the land so we could plant all kinds of vegetables. We spent many a day or afternoon in the garden together, tending and watering our plants.

When it was time for the corn, green beans, peas, eggplant, tomato, pumpkins, etc., we'd have a big gathering and we'd eat that food for months. Similarly, we had a lot of wild blackberries growing on our land, and I used to go pick a large bowlful to take back to my mother, who'd make a blackberry pie out of them.

In short, my family loved food! I think at that period of time, it was a healthy relationship, because we worked so hard planting and growing it, and we definitely ate lots of fresh vegetables. After we moved to a new house in a new subdivision, and my parents were both working full time, my family's love of food quickly became unhealthy.

They eat when they are depressed, and they eat when they are happy. To them, food is a comfort, and it is a reward. These are attitudes which contributed to my own unhealthy attitudes towards food as an adolescent who was overweight. It wasn't until I moved out as a young adult and began buying and cooking food for myself that I began examining my own feelings about food. I came to believe that food, itself, should be neither a positive or a negative influence, but simply neutral. It shouldn't be used as a punishment ("You better eat your peas if you want ice cream!") and it shouldn't be a reward ("Wow, I lost ten pounds. Let's celebrate with cheesecake!"). Both can easily lead to dysfunctional attitudes towards food.

Food should not be used as a substitute for other things either, like emotional comfort. Of course, everyone does this from time to time, but making a habit of it does not seem healthy to me. Instead, I remind myself that just because I'm going to the mall or a movie, it does not require me to eat the most fattening, unhealthy food to go along with the entertainment. I always try to keep some sort of border in my mind which says, food is food, and fun is fun!

Cultural Perspectives on Menopause

Yes, I know. It's coming eventually. That time in my life when monthly menstruation is a thing of the past, and where birth control ceases to be a concern. Yay! Right?

Well, it seems that this period (hehe) of a woman's life is viewed in pretty negative terms by many Western women. Many seem to feel that it marks the end of their "productive" lives as mothers, and that they are old and washed up. Useless.

According to Dr. Dixie Mills (2007), however, this prejudiced view of menopausal women stems from Sigmund Freud's male-dominant perspective, which underpins a great deal of Western thought and medicine. For example, whereas many in our society place child-bearing as the litmus test of a woman's social and biological productivity, the Japanese and Mayan peoples believe that menopause frees women from their greatest burden and enables them to become "wise women," living repositories of family history and a valuable resource.

Mills (2007) wrote, "Menopause in Japan, or konenki, is thought to begin in the early 40’s and last until around 60 years of age. . .Literally translated, ko means “renewal and regeneration,” nen means “year” or “years,” and ki means “season” or “energy.” While translated into English as “menopause,” konenki connotes a much lengthier, gradual transition where the end of periods is just one contributing feature."

That is a fundamentally different viewpoint than what many Westerners hold. Whereas many of us see menopause as a time of declining importance and increasing irrelevancy, the Japanese see it is a time when one is entering her zenith. Age and experience are much respected among the Japanese (and Mayan) culture, and I believe that this is probably the biggest reason why women there do not fear menopause or want to avoid it: they are honored for their position. In the U.S., the message that is constantly fed to women is that if you aren't young and beautiful, you are unimportant. It seems that living in such a facile society as ours, it is going to be particularly galling for the Baby Boomers, who once despised the older "establishment" to be faced with their own decline.

For myself, I ascribe to the ideals which many Celtic pagans and American Natives believed: that to be female is to be part of a circle, and a cycle, marked by three stages. These are maiden, mother, and crone. Each stage holds its own importance to the tribe, and is valuable. I'm in the "mother" stage now, but I look forward to the days when as a crone, I can devote my energies more fully to my surround community, as well as to providing whatever guidance or help to my adult son (and eventually his family) as I can.


Source:

Mills, D. (2007). Woman to woman: menopause and perimenopause. Retrieved on October 18, 2008 from http://www.womentowomen.com/menopause/menopauseacrosscultures.aspx

Plague as Punishment

25 And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, 26 And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, 27 When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment. 28 For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. 29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. (Gospel of Mark, Chapter V)

I think that the above picture is very descriptive of how many people living with sexually transmitted diseases are ostracized by the surrounding community, and most especially how women tend to be especially vulnerable to such treatment. STDs such as herpes and syphilis carry with them a social stigma in many countries, even the western and industrialized ones. But the worst disease by far--that is the most damaging, the most isolating, and devastating--is HIV/Aids.

It seems to me that if there was ever a "perfect" weapon of propaganda and bigotry to have been derived from natural causes, HIV is it. Here we have a virus which is transmitted primarily by sexual contact making its debut in the US via homosexual unions. And! Drug users also spread it! And! It's deadly! Wow, the religious zealots were salivating over that one. I remember as a child in the early 80's, watching news casts about this mysterious and dangerous virus, and hearing my parents and my pastor at church refer to it as "judgment from God on the gays."

I had no idea then what "gay" meant, but I do remember thinking how horrible it was that the same Jesus I was being told to trust and who supposedly loved everybody was busy making people sick so they could die, because God was angry. I think it was at that point I learned to be afraid of God.

The fact that my parents, and my pastor, like so many religious people, seized upon a travesty, and the ruination of so many lives as fodder for some sort of morally smug superiority contest was one of many things which ultimately turned me off to their particular brand of faith. I grew up and was able to make the connections between the uncomprehending and dumb nature of an opportunistic virus and the lack of relevancy this had to any morals.

Because the truth is, if HIV/Aids were punishment, than innocents would never contract it. If it was a divine retribution for men loving men, or women other women, or drug addicts seeking their addiction, then people who had blood transfusions prior to screening for legitimate medical conditions would not have contracted it. Babies would not catch it in vitro from their mothers, or later on from breastfeeding. Chaste wives would not get it from their infected husbands.

But the hell of it is, all of these types of people have contracted it, and more are infected every day. During a heated debate on this issue, I once had the ironic pleasure of pointing out to my mother that her c-section (for my younger sister) in 1982, resulting in a blood transfusion, could have led to her contracting a "gay man's plague," despite her adherence to her faith. Not that I wanted that to happen to her, but I thought and still think that those who would look down on people who have HIV/Aids as being somehow cursed by God need to reexamine their theology. My own opinion...well, I think it is the one judging who is really "cursed." They are cursed because they reject the humanity of others for the sake of maintaining a pretense of righteousness.

Don't know about others, but in my edition of the Bible, that type of behavior was always associated with Phariseeism--a serious condition of the spirit, causing hardening of the heart, and potentially deadly to the soul.

American Obstetrical Rites

Many birth choice advocates, myself included, like to talk about the differences between high-intervention, medicalized childbirth versus low-intervention, low-tech childbirth. There are benefits and drawbacks to both, but generally speaking, when we say that the low-intervention model of childbirth is "safer" according to the body of evidence, we are speaking about low-risk women.

There are many obstetricians (who are often pro-intervention) who will state that the only low-risk pregnancy is one diagnosed in hindsight--that is, after the mother has given birth safely without any problems. This is a view which I do not agree with, and one which largely ignores the entire point of prenatal care: that of diagnosing and treating certain conditions before the onset of labor.

There is one noted author and birth choice advocate, Robbie Davis-Floyd, P.h.D., who has written several articles and books on the culture of medicalized childbirth in our society. One such article, The Rituals of American Hospital Birth, is based upon the premise that every society, every culture had a set of rites built around birth (along with other major life effects, like marriage, or death). Dr. Davis-Floyd is an anthropologist at the University of Texas at Austin, and has studied the culture of hospital birth in our society in depth.

She writes, "Rites of passage generally consist of three stages, originally outlined by van Gennep: (1) separation of the individuals from their preceding social state; (2) a period of transition in which they are neither one thing nor the other; and (3) an integration phase, in which, through various rites of incorporation, they are absorbed into their new social state" (1994).

Pregnancy, then, is one long practice in separation, which is symbolized by how a pregnant woman eats, drinks, and behaves differently from her peers. Furthermore, her reduction from a fully independent and autonomous individual to that of a semi-dependent who is deemed by society, her peers, and her physician to require instruction and care in order to protect herself and her baby from the vagaries of the reproductive process, also emphasizes her new status as being set apart from others (Davis-Floyd, 1994).

The integration Davis-Floyd speaks of includes the intense rites practiced in the medicalization of labor and delivery. Floyd states, "Routine obstetric procedures are highly symbolic. For example, to be seated in a wheelchair upon entering the hospital, as many laboring women are, is to receive through their bodies the symbolic message that they are disabled; to then be put to bed is to receive the symbolic message that they are sick" (1994). How is this important? Because this message emphasizes the belief that the woman is dependent upon her physician and the hospital (institution) and its goodwill, for her health and wellbeing. This message is repeated through the administration of gratuitous I.V., continuous fetal monitoring leads being attached (either external or internal), blood pressure cuffs, and even the epidural. It is as if, and Floyd points this out, that just as her baby is dependent upon the umbilical cord for life and health, she is just as attached through these various "umbilical cords" to the institution for her life.

Davis-Floyd continues this analogy in her thoughtful and insightful article, and it is one of the reasons why I have come to practically idolize her. I firmly believe that her writings should be required reading for any medical student wishing to specialize in obstetrics. Pregnant women who read it may come to view many "necessary" interventions in a very different light (and certainly be more informed for the experience than with What to Expect when You're Expecting).

Personally, I admire any author who can ream the obstetric field so thoroughly and with such flawless logic, without degenerating into sarcasm, histrionics, or other emotion-based tactics.

You know, the kind of tactics many (cough-choke, don'tyoumeanmost?) OBs use to "motivate" women to do their bidding?

Davis-Floyd, Robbie. (1994). The Rituals of Hospital Birth. In Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology, 8th ed. (pp. 323-340). Retrieved on October 4, 2008 from http://www.davis-floyd.com/ShowPage.asp?id=158

The Making of Mini-Me

It's the most. GODAWFUL. Tiiiiiime...of the year.

I'm speaking of course, about those 9 months of the year in a woman's life, called pregnancy. Oh, I know, there are so many women out there who would get all snippy with me and wax on about "the miracle of it all" and how beautiful, and shiny, and everything wondrous that they feel.

Well, it wasn't that way with me.

Sick in the morning, sick at noon, sick at night. I have more synonyms for throwing up than I strictly need, thanks to that time of my life. Puke, hurl, toss my cookies, throw chunks, worship the porcelain goddess (hey, my toilet is female). My low point was the day when I slipped on my own vomit while running to the trash can, and falling on my pregnant butt. I promptly burst out in angry tears. If Martha Stewart were before me at that moment, I would have drop kicked her as retribution against all things maternal or feminine. Or maybe just puked on her nice clothes.

Point being, I was not a happy pregnant woman. Not just because the physical aspects were a pain in my...butt...but primarily because it was an unexpected (and unwanted) pregnancy. I was married, my husband I had a nice apartment, and we both had jobs, and two spoiled cats. Why in the world would anyone willingly go screw up such a fantastic set-up in order to reproduce? I figured, the world had enough babies and kids in it already. I mean, humanity seemed to have covered the "multiply and fill the earth" pretty well already, as well as spoiling the earth with all their disposable diapers and other baby stuff. And, anyway, I didn't have the right temperament for kids, because you know, I wasn't one of those simpering female whose top five hobbies included scrapbooking, sewing doilies, and watching Lifetime.

Yeah, it's true, I was a childless snob. Even worse, I was a facetious, greener-than-thou childless snob. Ha! It was like throwing a neon boomerang at karma when she's PMS'ing. In other words, I should have seen it coming.

The pregnancy, that is.

Because one day I took a pregnancy test and nearly passed out when it turned positive. Followed by three more tests in quick succession, all of them obdurately staring back with their smug little plus signs. It was infuriating. It was terrifying!

But, the pregnancy and the birth ended up giving me more than just meeting the best person, the most amazing, the most exasperating, and endearing little spirit to grace my life. I think one of the things I was most worried about was becoming one of those women...you know those mothers whose every other sentence is "My Christopher" this and "My Molly" that. I was afraid of being reduced to becoming a body in orbit around the sphere of my child's existence, having no other purpose. And I have seen and met mothers like that, whose only purpose in life is caring for their kids.

Now, though, I have to fight myself to let him take those little steps of independence from me. I carry with me the same wound, the same vulnerability of spirit that every mother does, that of the impossible love she feels for her child. Impossible in that she has such a powerful emotional need to care for and protect, yet knowing she must let that child go out eventually and face innumerable dangers and risks.

No, I can't protect him from everything, and I suppose the arrogance of my childless existence has served one purpose--it has reminded me not to make my son my only purpose in life. But, it's funny because even my desire to be a Health educator is the result of my experiences during pregnancy, and later during his medical issues with asthma. So, in way, my son is the reason even for my choice in career. Before I had him, I didn't know what I wanted to do.

As a woman, and as a mother, I have come to appreciate aspects of both childlessness and with having a child. I want to make clear that my own laughable hubris in my pre-Jackson years is just that--mine. I don't transfer that to others who willingly choose to remain childless. I am very offended on behalf of those who are accused of being selfish because they don't want to have children. On the contrary, I believe that many of the reasons behind why people choose to have children can absolutely qualify as being "selfish," with having a baby in order to have "someone love me" being among the foremost.

I also think that there are valid reasons behind either choice. In my case, my choice was preempted by birth control failure. I would wish that every woman who wishes children could have them, and those who do not, would not be faced with an unexpected pregnancy. Both situations are extremely stressful when not the choice of the woman involved, and I suppose the most important thing I learned from my experience was not to make hard assumptions. About either myself, or others. Having a child is a tremendous life event (to say the very least), and different women will react differently to it.

And now, to exploit this post by putting up a gratuitous picture of my son, in the tradition of proud and annoying mothers everywhere. Hmmm, he looks kind of impish here. Like the kind of kid I would have found really annoying before I had him. Of course, I think he's the greatest now. ;)

Stampeding toward the clitoris

The question of whether sex education should be included in public school curricula is one that has been revisted often in the media and in countless school board meetings across the country. I would like someone to explain to me how one may go to school, and learn about human history, sociology, science, mathematics, music, the arts, and so on---but not learn about human reproduction? The only reason why such a gap in education is tolerated, indeed, insisted upon in by some parties, is due to the near superstitious belief that the more thorough one's sexual education is, the more likely one is to (recklessly) engage in sexual behavior. This same premise seems to be the impetus driving those who argue for "abstinence-only" programs as well--that is, sex education which explains the mechanics of sex, but does not cover any contraceptive methods.

Now, I could go into studies to show the absurdity of such an argument, but I'd rather just put it to my readers this way: in all of human history, can anyone point out to me one instance where lack of information, and general ignorance led to overall better decision-making? Where a dearth of knowledge regarding potential risks or threats was a good thing, and led to sound choices? Because, I'm just going to put on my Health Studies educator-in-training suit right now and tell you, good readers, I sure can think of many instances where lack of information often leads to poor choices. In short, what you don't know can hurt you. It can even kill you.

And in the case of sex education, I believe incomplete knowledge can and does most definitely harm teenagers and young adults. It is not enough to simply know, for example, that human papillomavirus exists and may be contracted by genital contact; the other part of prevention is knowing how to protect oneself against said virus during sex. After all, the real issue is this: abstinence-only education is designed to meet only the needs of those students who choose to abstain.

But what about those students who will elect to have sex regardless? What about those students who are raped? And what about those students who will marry early, either right after high school or shortly after entering college? Don't they deserve to enlightened as to their particular risks? Do they not have the right to know and understand how their bodies work and how best to protect themselves from dangerous pathogens?

Will someone take them aside and say, "Oh, now you're legitimately sexually active, so we'll go ahead and explain to you how to protect yourself." I doubt it. My husband, who was educated entirely in a private, Baptist school had no sex education provided at all, save what he heard on the street, and what he read in men's magazines. He was at risk of contracting diseases when he became sexually active. And in fact, a girl in his school became pregnant in her senior year, and he knew several classmates who were sexually active as well. Obviously, the "don't talk about it and they won't do it" approach accomplished nothing except see a bunch of horny, repressed adolescents engage in risky behavior sans any factual knowledge whatsoever, and no protection.

Of course, the next logical question would be, "What should a well-designed, and balanced sexual education program look like?" I was thinking something along the lines of a demonstration of a condom-on-a-banana.

Ok, not really. Though I know someone who absolutely rejects the idea of "explicit sex-ed" (how exactly does one teach sex non-explicitly??) in schools because she believes it would involve a cartoonish demonstration of penile-shaped fruits inserted into condoms. Seriously.

But, in case she's reading this, I have included the following video as an example of what every godless, secularized liberal like myself really thinks a sex ed class should look like.

Warnings: staid intercourse, bored teenagers, full-frontal Murphy bed, clothes peg references

Cheerio!

My Health

I have to say that reading the self-assessment for preventative health practices in my Women's Health text this week, I had to suppress a tinge of exasperated humor. Not because any of the suggestions lacked merit, but because, as is typical, (and understandably so), most of the "tips" are geared more towards 18-22 year old demographic. Not a 31 year old, married-with-one-five-year-old, sedate and tame mom. The paraphrased list in question:

1. Are you eating a healthy diet with lots of fruits and veggies?
No. I make my son eat his veggies though before he gets to have a cookie. Hehehehe...life's not fair.

2. Do you engage in moderate exercise at least 4 times a week?
I clean house, I regularly haul groceries up the steps to our apartment, and I always take the stairs on campus because I have an elevator phobia. So, yes.

3. Do you sleep enough to not feel tired during the day?
Ha! I grab sleep at every opportunity, and I usually feel alert. Any leftover lethargy gets taken care of by a trip to Starbucks.

4. Do you use tobacco or drugs?
I have never smoked, but I regularly use over-the-counter drugs, in the form of ibuprofen and aspirin. See, I have this little problem called age, and it causes all kinds of aches and pains!

5. If you drink alcohol, do you limit your intake?
Absolutely. Er, frequently. Sometimes. Probably.

6. Do you use protection when engaging in sex?
I'm married, with progeny. What's sex?

7. Do you find ways to reduce stress such as hanging out with friends?
See question number 5.

8. Do you practice good safety habits like wearing a seat belt or helmut, while riding a motorcycle?
Religiously. Texan drivers are too freaking insane for me not to buckle up.

9. Do you use nonviolent methods of conflict resolution?
Sometimes I use heavy-handed sarcasm, but other than that, I'm peaceful.

10. Do you seek preventative care routinely?
Well, I get my yearly oil-n'-lube from the OB/Gyn, and I had my first mammogram just a few weeks ago, so I suppose so.


So, that's it. See what I mean? Some of the questions are relevant to my situation, but a lot of them made me chuckle. Of course, it sounds like I don't take the issue of preventative health very seriously. Actually, I do, and I'm not really a lush who never eats her vegetables. I think my health is one of the few things I have an ability to influence, and I do what I can to keep myself in good health, both physically and mentally. Overall, I'd rate my preventative practices as decent, but there's room for improvement. If I, and many others, were to make an effort to eat and exercise better, it would go a long way in helping to solve our health care crisis (Alexander & LaRosa, et. al., 2007, p.55). Furthermore, it is my opinion that Americans are in poorer health than their European cousins for three reasons: they eat bigger portions, they walk a lot less, and they don't drink enough red wine.

For myself, I live in the mid-cities region of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex, and our apartment complex is right down the street from two grocery stores, a video store, and numerous other shops. I have to admit, it does give me a profound feeling of superiority to walk to the doughnut store across the street, rather than drive. ;)

Sources:

Alexander, L. L., LaRosa, J. H., Bader, H., & Garfield, S. (2007). New Dimensions in Women's Health (4th ed.). Sadbury, Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Image retrieved from http://www.mayyoubeforeveryoung.com/

Image retrieved from http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/jmiles/2007/12/18/1012red-wine-posters.jpg

Sicko, revisted

When I read that the topic of my Women's Health class this week would be focused on the economics of health care, I decided to mentally prepare myself renting and watching the movie, "Sicko," by Michael Moore. I'm still emotionally recovering from it. However, it did the trick. My righteous indignation has been ignited, not to mention a healthy dose of anger about the health care situation in the US.

This is a very difficult subject for me, as I find the polemics involved in the debate over whether the U.S. should go to a universal, single-payor system to be quite disturbing in regards to one significant respect. It is not the squabbles over cost which cause me difficulty, nor is it the arguments over whether such a system should be federally regulated and controlled rather than having state-governed and financed health plans. Neither am I upset over how people are arguing how consumers or doctors would protect their interests against government-mandated initiatives, such as schedules for preventative care. In my opinion, all of these debates raise legitimate concerns which are integral to resolving the crisis which is the U.S. health care system.

One question, however, does most definitely have a negative effect on my equanimity, and that is, "Why should health care be considered a right?" It is a question I have had posed to me in more debates on this issue than I can count, and often, it is posed within the larger context of health care being viewed as a business venture, and therefore subject to the vagaries of corporate investment schemes and the pursuit of personal gain. This concept is mind-boggling to me, but I suppose is no more than the sum result of decades of a powerful trend towards privatization in all sectors of service, as evidenced by such examples as the airline and utilities industries. That movement, combined with skyrocketing costs, obscene profits, and an explosion in the size of corporate growth in medical care, has gifted us with a health care system which considers the healing of a human being to be a commodity first, and a social or ethical imperative second.

How else do we explain how one of the richest, and most powerful countries in the world permits thousands of Americans to die from lack of health care, or insufficient access to the same? According to the Institute of Medicine (as cited by the National Coalition on Health Care, 2008), approximately 18,000 uninsured adults die every year in the U.S. This figure does not even include any deaths of children, a grim prospect considering that 8.5 million children are uninsured (Alexander, La Rosa, Bader, & Garfield, 2007).

Those numbers are shocking, indefensible, especially when considering that we went to war with not one, but two nations over the deaths of about 2,800 people, costing us the lives of thousands more men and women in our armed services, and untold billions of dollars. Why is there no similar outcry and call for action for the tens of thousands fallen due to...lack of access to health care?

But to answer that, I come back to the original question. "Why should health care be a right?" And I answer, "Why should it not be a right?" Should firefighters wait for a third-party authorization before consenting to douse your burning house, or dive in to rescue your screaming children? Should teachers in our public schools wait until you have written your co-pay before allowing your child to register for an education? Should the police man who answers your call at the mall check to see if your policy covers "out-of-network" law enforcement before going after the perp who has just kidnapped your child?

Do these questions sound absurd? They would to most Americans--but only because we already live in a society which takes these services for granted, because we have deemed the cost of not providing them to be too steep to us as individual communities, and to us as a nation. How this attitude of affording each person protection from criminals, rescue from danger, and an education, and so on, would not translate to providing health and protection against disease and financial ruin is beyond me. To me, it should be a given, and in fact, in every other Western, post-industrialized nation, universal health care is the standard. Even Cuba offers its citizens health care, and in fact, not incoincidentally has a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S (CIA, 2008).

We have tried the free market, private sector, every-man-for-himself approach. And we have 18,000+ dead Americans a year to show for it, not to mention one of the most expensive systems in the world (NCHC, 2008). In my opinion, universal health care should not only be a right, but is a necessity. In order to preserve our ideals, and our very way of life, we must achieve universal care. For, a diseased and unhealthy society will ultimately be a short-lived one--in every sense of the word.

Sources:

Alexander, L. L., LaRosa, J. H., Bader, H., & Garfield, S. (2007). New Dimensions in Women's
Health (4th ed.). Sadbury, Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Central Intelligence Agency. (2008). [Graph illustration the rank order of infant mortality].
The World Factbook. Retrieved on July 6, 2008 from
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

National Center for Health Care. (2008). Facts about health care: health care insurance.
Retrieved on July 6, 2008 from http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

Image retrieved from http://community.livejournal.com/politicartoons

Issues on my mind

The health issues I am primarily interested in revolve around women's reproductive rights. It seems in this country, a majority of people hear "reproductive rights" and think "abortion rights" and go no further, as if this one subset of the topic of reproduction encompassed the entire issue. Unfortunately, this limited focus totally ignores a host of complicated issues surrounding pregnancy and birth in this country.

When I state that I believe women should have reproductive choices in regards to childbirth, I am referring to an issue laden with many political, financial, and ethical concerns at play. The issues of the legality of home birth and direct entry midwifery are prime examples of these intertwined tensions, as there are physicians (usually represented by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) vying for complete control of the current market share, legislators who are being wooed by physicians' powerful lobbyists in many states, malpractice insurance companies with their own standards of what constitutes "safe" and "legal" practice, and home birth advocates and midwives, as well as proponents for more evidence-based medicine who are fighting to protect the legality of home birth, as well as informed choice in all venues.

In my opinion, no physician or hospital should have a right to dictate to a woman: a, the type of care provider she chooses (assuming she chooses to be attended); b, the place she wishes to give birth at, whether home, hospital, or birth center; c, unwarranted interventions to self either during pregnancy or during labor and delivery; and d, unwarranted interventions performed on her baby.

That is crux of my stance, although the subject is far more involved and complicated.

Though this issue is foremost in my mind, the issue of the lack of universal health care also weighs heavily on my conscience. This issue affects women everywhere and of just about every demographic. Two women I've recently spoke with, Patricia and Holly, both expressed the same concern re: access of health care for women, though one is African American, in a same-sex relationship and liberal, while the other is white, elderly, and a moderate conservative. Both expressed fears regarding the future, whether health care costs would become so exorbitant as to make health care inaccessible to nearly everyone. I share their trepidation, and I believe that for any potential solution to be successful, it must address the following: controlling costs, and achieving universal coverage. However, one cannot be accomplished without the other, although reversing the trend of phenomenal increases in costs is likely to be the much greater challenge. If we, as a society, fail to achieve universal coverage, the tremendous costs of paying for the uninsured will surely drive the entire system to its breaking point. In essence, we are already paying for them; our choice is essentially to either to insure everyone and replace the expensive "Emergency Room"-centric model we currently are stuck with, or continue to pay for uninsured Americans indirectly, in the form of rising costs of medical care and increasing insurance premiums. This issue affects nearly all women, and their families, everywhere in our society. It is imperative we come up with an efficient, workable model of preventative health care which is accessible to all, regardless of economic status.

Well here I am

Here it is, a labor of love. And I don't know a thing about blogging except how to comment on other people's blogs. This should be interesting. ;)