Second Class Citizens Still.

A week or so ago, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued new guidelines regarding when and how often women should get Pap tests, which, in case you didn't know, screen for HPV and cervical cancer. In fact, the Pap test is the sole reason why the number of deaths from cervical cancer in this country has dropped so dramatically in the last 30 years. In countries where the Pap has not been so widely used, cervical cancer is second only to breast cancer in causing premature deaths of women.

Until this change, the guidelines said Pap testing should start within three years after becoming sexually active and take place every year. Now they say testing shouldn't start until age 21 regardless of sexual activity and then only has to be done every 2 years after that. And, once a woman reaches age 30, it should only be done every 3 years. The reason for the change, ACOG says, is because doctors have been performing too many unnecessary procedures on young women; procedures which can cause these women to be unable to carry a pregnancy to term; procedures which aren't necessary because in MOST cases the HPV or abnormal cervical condition will clear up on its own.

The new guidelines came just days after the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (of which not one member is an oncologist) issued its own new set of guidelines related to women's health. Namely, guidelines detailing when women should start getting mammograms, the primary screening tool for breast cancer. There too the age for testing to start was raised, from age 40 to age 50, in part because too many doctors were performing too many unnecessary procedures.

The ACOG says their guidelines have nothing to do with the mammogram guidelines; and that they have nothing to do with the current health care debate going on in which women's sexual health is a major sticking point. The timing, they say, is purely coincidental. The decision to make the change, they say, was not political. Well I for one call bullshit. LIFE is political and there are no coincidences.

But what I'd really like to fucking know is why are women being screwed because doctors are fucking up? If the doctors are over-treating then, hello, fix the fucking doctors. Why is it we keep hearing about how women's health care needs to be rationed? Why is our society so willing to put women's lives at risk because a bunch of doctors (mostly male I remind you) don't know what the fuck they're doing? What about mens health care? Is there NO overtreatment there to be rationed? You think anyone is even thinking about changing the guidelines for when men get their prostate checked? Or whether Viagra is being overprescribed? I highly fucking doubt it. And that is because women, no matter how far we've come, are still undervalued in our society. And our fertility seems more important to that society than our actual lives: it was negative fertility outcomes that led to the change in Pap testing to begin with. I'll tell you this: not being able to carry a baby to term is devastating, but I imagine dying from, or even just suffering with, cervical cancer would be a whole lot worse. Because while reduced screening will surely lead to less unnecessary treatments, you know what the fuck else it will do - it will lead to less NECESSARY treatments too.

On the day the guidelines came out, I heard stories from 3 young women who would probably be dead if they waited until 21 to get their first pap test, or waited 2 or 3 years between tests. These women are all cervical cancer SURVIVORS, instead of victims, because of yearly screening and the treatment they received after their "abnormal" test results.

The point is simply - early screening saves lives. Every day. And by pushing back screening ages, the ACOG and the USPTF are putting women's lives at risk. And I am disgusted. And what makes it worse is that the National Cervical Cancer Coalition, an organization which stresses early screening and which I thought would be outraged right along with me about the Pap guidelines, actually supports the new guidelines because HPV/cervical abnormalities ALMOST always clear up on their own in younger women. But what about those women for whom they don't just clear up? Are their lives not worth saving? Aren't these women's lives worth more than the fertility of a few others? Or are we all still just here to be babymakers, worthless without that biological ability?

You might think that in the 21st century women, and their health, wouldn't have to take a back seat to some bureaucratic bullshit. But apparently you'd be wrong.

What's pissing me off today...

The fucking lying-ass-bitches over at the Traditional Values Coalition. Granted, despite their fucking lie about certain language in the stimulus package, the ridiculous DeMint amendment was defeated (thank the goddess); but still, they couldn't get their fucking way so now they want to sue? Are you fucking kidding me? I swear (obviously) that these fucking bastards will not rest until there is a government funded (Christian) church on every corner. Ok, we get it, there were a fuckload of Christians back in the day when this country was founded. But could you for one fucking second just stop and pretend like you listened in high school history -- these particular Christians (they were called PURITANS you ignorant assholes) were not the same as those in England, where everyone had to be the religion that the government said. So these people, the forerunners, one might say, of today's evangelicals, left the fucking country. So that they would be free from government required religion. And free to practice a DIFFERENT religion than the majority in England. So - ergo, dumbasses, whether the founders were Christians or Jews or Zoroastrians is besides the point. What they were is not as important as what they weren't -- they weren't interested in the government being involved in their religion. So back the fuck off already. Or leave the fucking country. I mean really, hasn't history taught you anything?

And if that wasn't enough, more wacky-ass Christian bullshit (that's right, I called it bullshit) from "Revive Our Hearts." For those who are blissfully ignorant of this particular fringe group, apparently "Revive Our Hearts" is, according to the linked article, a St. Louis based women’s ministry, and radio program, that "stresses submission as a militant discipline." And by submission they don't mean submission as in S&M-ooh-that's kinda-kinky submission. They mean women-are-stupid-bitches-who-should-be-seen-and-not-heard submission. As in go-fix-me-a-turkey-pot-pie-you-useless-female submission. These self-hating women actually believe that women should be subservient to men in all things. And they even sponsored a conference -- the "True Women's Conference" -- to talk about it. The final point being to change culture to rid the world of the effects of the women's movement. You know - all those awful things like opportunity and equality and education. Who fucking needs it right?

Well, my first question is, do you think they had their husbands' permission to have this little "conference" or rather, did their husbands require them to attend? Because the mere fact that they're organizing and have a political agenda seems to fly in the face of their stated beliefs that women are only good for raising children and taking care of the home and even then only if they do these things in the ways demanded by their (allegedly) superior menfolk. And then my second question is - are you fucking kidding me? Ummm, sorry bitches, but I think perhaps you should all just go back to your kitchens and baby-making and shut the fuck up because your measly 3,000 little signatures of poor self-hating women (who were probably beaten into submission for the most part anyway) is nothing compared to the will of the millions of women in this country who have more sense in their well-coifed hair follicles then it would appear these "true" women have combined and who aren't about to leave the board room for the back room.

Maybe that's a little unfair -- maybe these women aren't total idiots...after all, they claim this is a religious belief. But if that's so, then keep your fucking belief to yourselves ladies (see above). Then again, as noted over at Mother Jones, these nutjobs don't want our respect or the freedom to do as they please (which they already have), they want our deference and that they will not get and do not deserve. In fact, I'll even go one farther -- given that this same group seems to think its just fine for a man to BEAT HIS WIFE (that's right -- read the linked MJ article - no divorce for 'average' abuse), well then they're a bunch of criminal-minded mother fuckers who should have their children taken from them. I'm sorry, but it is child abuse to tell a little girl that she is worthless for anything other than being a breeder. And let's not forget that the Bible, which all these lunatics cling to, was written by...can you guess? do you know? that's right...fucking MEN. Men who had faced thousands of years of matriarchal pagan culture and didn't like not being in charge of everything and who had finally found a way to take all the power. They wrote their little books and got a whole bunch of mother fuckers to read them and believe every word came straight from the Big Man's mouth. Then they use it to rationalize (among a whole host of shitty things) their treatment of women. Excuse me but, ummm, look at it this way, would Jesus really beat and oppress women? I've never met the man, but I'm guessing not. And I'm thinking he's probably gonna be pretty pissed that people are using his church to push this blatantly sexist agenda. AGAIN.

There is of course, a potential bright side...history tells us that the type of submission being pushed here often has very interesting results. Put another way, I wonder if the men behind these women (and you know that's what this is -- it must be right, cause women are not smart or strong enough to do this alone) would keep pushing this particular brand of submission were they to realize that it is also the Janie's-Got-a-Gun and It's-Independence-Day and Goodbye-Earl brand of submission. If so, well, then maybe the end result will be less dickheads and more unindicted women. ;)

The "V" Word

Not but three days ago, I ranted about the misogynism behind the word cunt.

Turns out I was right, as this story proves. Long-story-short: three NYC high school girls suspended for saying the word vagina during a reading of The Vagina Monologues. If you aren't as amazed as me, you should have your head examined.

And the "we didn't suspend them for saying the word, only for disobeying the order not to say the word" line of bullshit from the school...the fucktards who said that prolly shoulda checked with their lawyer first. Because trying to prohibit the girls from using the word in the first place is even worse than punishing them after the fact. It's called "prior restraints" and even the Supremes on the right have a distaste for that shit.

Seriously -- I understand not saying "cunt," but now you can't even say "vagina?" In New York fucking City -- one of the "bluest" places on the planet? Are you fucking kidding me? Because "children" might hear the word? Really? Should girls be so ashamed of their bodies that they aren't even allowed to mention it in public? Using the "real" (i.e. technical/medical) word for it? How old is old enough, exactly, for a little girl to know that the thing between her legs is called a fucking VAGINA? Please, MR. Principal, and MR. School Board President, do tell, I for one would like to know...and you being men must surely know better than I. Dicks.

One last question - if three boys had used the word "penis" as part of a literary reading, would they have received the same punishment? Would they have been told the word was "inappropriate for children?" I somehow doubt it. You sexist motherfuckers.

Man - I am so fucking pissed about this. Can you tell? I hope those girls' parents sue. I would.

More on the "C" Word

On his blog yesterday, D-Bud asked why the word CUNT is so much more offensive than bitch, or even slut. While most readers agreed the word was highly offensive (myself not included), no one bothered to answer the question of why, other than to say CUNT is offensive because it is used in a hateful manner. As if bitch or slut were words of praise and kindness (although I suppose in some cases . . .). But seriously, that CUNT is used in a hateful manner doesn't explain why the first of the following two statements is so much more offensive to people than the second:

Get your hands off my husband before I rip your eyes out you fucking cunt.

Get your hands off my husband before I rip your eyes out you fucking bitch.

The feeling and emotion behind the two statements is identical. The purpose? Identical. Yet people can stomach the second statement far better than the first. At least in America. Why? The real reason has nothing to do with the way in which the word is used -- after all, used the right way, any word can be offensive. If it were only about meaning, people would only be offended when the word was used in an offensive manner, but that simply is not the case -- people are offended by it even if no insult is intended, as in "the cunt splice is very strong." Even the word standing alone, CUNT, with no reference as to its meaning or purpose, CUNT, is offensive to many. CUNT. Thus, "the 'c' word."

The real reason the word is so offensive in America (and I am hardly the first to come up with this one) is because despite the supposed sexual revolution of the 60s & 70s, this country is still sexually repressed and overly puritanical. And despite the ongoing feminist movement, which admittedly (and thanks be to the goddess) has made remarkable strides, this country is still hopelessly misogynistic. For example, in several southern states, it's illegal to sell dildos but not Hustler magazine. For all our supposed equality and freedom, we continue to play into centuries of sexist propaganda, despite the fact that we should fucking know better already.

Put another way . . . CUNT is reviled, in a way that bitch is not, because CUNT, goddess forbid, refers to a woman's sexual organs. For centuries, the female genitalia has been seen as dirty and shameful. Until relatively recently in our common history, menstruating women were forced to remove themselves from society. (OK - menstruation isn't neat or pretty but it is fucking natural dammit and lest we forget, absolutely required if the human race is to continue). Women have been blamed for everything from original sin to the downfall of an American president. In this country alone, women have been treated as property, burned at the stake and denied rights which, fucking excuse me, are supposed to be "inalienable." This country's continued derision toward women, and their vaginas, is evident in the repulsion people feel upon even hearing the word CUNT.

What's worse is that, in my experience, more women are repulsed by the word then are men. This smacks of self-hatred and in my opinion, plays right into the hands of those who would prefer that women, and their CUNTS, remain in their "proper place."

But enough cunt-talk for one day. This cunt, for one, has shit to do.

Fucking Alabama

If there weren't enough reasons not to move to Alabama, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has just upheld another one. Did you know that it is illegal in Alabama to sell or distribute anything involving "the pursuit of orgasms by artificial means." In other words, people, Alabama has banned the sale of ALL SEX TOYS! And a fucking federal appeals court let them get away with it. Alabama claims the purpose of the ban is to promote public morality, cause goddess knows only people with loose morals would ever want to give themselves a fucking orgasm. Oh wait - I mean only loose women 'cause boys don't need toys like the ladies do (at least not straight boys anyway). Fucking sexist homophobic puritan Alabama bastards. As far as I'm concerned, they can take their public morality and stick it...or would that break the rules? Does public morality shoved up the ass of a state legislator equal a sex toy? Hmmmmm...

Anyway -- so unless the US Supreme Court hears an appeal (and you can bet the ACLU, who handled the main case, will file one) and overturns the decision of the lower court, the poor folks in Alabama will have to do without the Rabbit, and everything else that might make living there more tolerable. OK - technically they can order the toys online (supposedly) and it isn't illegal to own the items, just to sell them, but isn't this a thin line they're walking on? Besides, why shouldn't the women of Alabama be allowed to have "sexerware parties" like the rest of us?

Wanna see what the Appeals Court had to say about it? Click here.