Gender Inequality and the Case of Contraception
Equality between genders. Is that what our western culture should attempt to attain? Would this be the most fair and just way for our civilization to move forward in the 21st century? There are attempts at beginning equality in employment, with women catching up to men in terms of responsibility and salary. In medicine, my field, medical school student gender proportions are running close to 50-50. In nursing, men have a long way to catch up. In the management of home life along with care of the children, men are said to be more participatory these days than in the past allowing women to leave the house.
But also these days, women have been the political and philosophic or religious targets regarding issues of their potential for conception of new members of the family and the sustaining of pregnancy to delivery. Currently, these issues have arisen with perhaps more civil and uncivil agitation than in the past with regard to contraception and abortion. In the United States, these issues deal with the declared rights of women for control over their own bodies before and after pregnancy. State laws are being written to suppress any such considered rights with requirements that can lead to severe penalties applied to the women and their physicians if the requirements are not followed. The goal of some creating such laws applied to women is to prevent contraception and diminish the opportunity for abortion. Some laws are designed to subject women to severe legal penalty for various behaviors and acts during pregnancy which may harm a fetus. It may require a woman's medical record to be scrutinized by government to assure that a woman is following the rules.
And yet, in this area of potential restrictions regarding pregnancy as applied to women there appears to be no interest in gender equality. Men have so far been immune from these laws which appear to favor conception and deny contraception for women or deny a pregnant woman control over her body. Specifically, a husband who has a vasectomy for contraception purposes has so far not been under the watchful eye of the politicians or their activists. (There currently however is one exception in which a law proposed in Missouri by women lawmakers would make vasectomy for contraception purposes illegal. It may not be formally debated or signed into law perhaps because of resistance by the male lawmakers.) And definitely men still have control over what happens to their bodies.
I wonder how my blog visitors feel about gender (either gender) inequality in general and the current gender inequality with regard to conception. Write and let me know. ..Maurice.
posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 9:39:00 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
The issue boils down to women having rights to abort
their unborn child. By dragging men through the mud
only complicates the issue. Three female politicians
want to pass laws requiring men to undergo a rectal
exam as a requirement for Viagra.
Since when does a politician tell a physician how to
do their job!
PT
Dr. Bernstein, I agree that a man's right to contraception has not been under assault of late, as has been the case for women. However, I would suggest that part of this is because there is no male equivalent to the birth control pill. In fact, the only form of reversible birth control that a man has available to him is a condom, and these aren't covered by insurance, either. So, couldn't one argue that removing the requirement that insurance pay for birth control for women is actually a move towards equality, rather than away from it?
As for the proposal to ban vasectomies for the purposes of contraception, I think that the female lawamakers backing this have made a couple of errors. The first is that the female equivalent of the vasectomy is tubal ligation, not the birth control pill. As far as I know, no one has suggested that insurance should not pay for that surgical procedure.
Secondly, this proposed law makes the same mistake as other ill-considered proposals have, such as the one that would require a man to undergo an ultrasound prior to receiving a prescription for viagara. Namely, it assumes that all men are in favor of the ban on funding for birth control, and that all women oppose it.
As it happens, many men, such as myself, are in complete agreement with those who believe that contraception should be paid for by insurance. It is both unwise, and unjust, to alienate us by supporting bills that are just as foolish as those targeting women.
Abortion is a more complicated matter in many ways. It is difficult to view this in the context of gender equality, since Mother Nature chose not to make us equal. Since men are not able to conceive, can any law that impacts upon a woman's decision to abort a pregnancy ever be free of gender bias? This does not seem possible, but I do not accept that it follows that no such laws should be passed. Believing that abortion should be safe and legal is not the same as believing that it should be completely unregulated. This, even though such laws have a disparate impact upon women.
PT,"since when does a politician tell a physician how to do their job"..are you kidding? Laws and regulations spewing out how physicians should practice medicine is an everyday phenomenon, from HIPAA to abortion to electronic record keeping to medical marijuana to prohibition of physicians to make referrals to labs in which they have any financial interest to... and so on.
To StayingFit, I understand these law proposals regarding contraception or Viagra for men were initiated by women legislators who want to point out that up to now it has been females who have been selected out for unwanted and inappropriate punishment. The bills are for making a point and the women hold no confidence that these bills will be passed by their other state legislators. ..Maurice.
@Stayingfit
Except birth control costs A LOT more than a box of condoms. And don't men like having condom-less sex? Looks like you're damning yourselves. With the way things are going, I might just stop sex altogether. The will leave me alone, miserable, and the crazy lady with 9 cats, but what else can I do but hand my body over to a caustic government?
As for the crazy laws being made by women, it's only a lashing back. Of course it's ridiculous. One almost passed where a man would have to get a prostate exam to get Viagra. They're just trying to force the male government heads to see how stupid their own laws are and how irrelevant to medicine it is.
@Dr. Bernstein:
I realize that these female law makers are trying to make a point. As I stated, however, they are also making a mistake. I, and many other men, are on their side on these issues. And, believe it or not, some women are on the other side. Their proposed legislation, however, does not recognize this. Instead, they make no distinction between those men who don't understand, and those of us who do.
As Nekura correctly points out, “One almost passed where a man would have to get a prostate exam to get Viagra”. Yes, it did nearly pass. Which means that many legislators voted for a bad bill, to “make a point”. In so doing, they risk alienating allies, such as myself.
Politically, this is foolish.
@Nekura:
You said: “Looks like you're damning yourselves”.
You seem to have missed this, from my original post:
“As it happens, many men, such as myself, are in complete agreement with those who believe that contraception should be paid for by insurance.”
You make the same mistake that the misguided female lawmakers did, in that you don't recognize that this is not a case of all men versus all women. I am not “damning” myself, because I am just as opposed to these rules as you are.
As for the cost of birth control. Yes, it is definitely more expensive than condoms. Couldn't one argue, however, that this is all the more reason that condoms should be covered by insurance? They are very cheap, and highly effective. Sure, men don't like them very much, but this would be cost-effective. By that criteria, could we argue that this is the only form of contraception that insurance should cover?
@Nekura and @Dr. Bernstein:
Since the original question posed on this topic concerned gender equality and contraception, and not politically questionable counter-legislation, I am a bit disappointed that neither of you challenged me on that aspect of my statement:
“So, couldn't one argue that removing the requirement that insurance pay for birth control for women is actually a move towards equality, rather than away from it?“
This is not the type of equality that I seek, any more than I want to see the wage inequality between the US and India disappear by paying workers in both countries 50 cents per day. But, would it not be true that, in both circumstances, the situation was equitable, albeit undesirable?
Post a Comment
<< Home