Following is my email response to a suggestion that I might like to try mediation to resolve the problem I had with my previous family doctor. See email below mine for copy of that email from the Human Rights Tribunal, received today, July 29, 2015.
In April, 2015, I submitted an application to have the case heard by the tribunal. I had already had a taste of the kind of response I was likely to get from the doctor in question, from having laid a complaint about him with the CPSO (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario). I am concerned that no one is actually looking at the Application I submitted, or taking time to compare that with the Response the doctor sent to that. As with emails sent to the Registrar of the HRT, it is more likely that a customer service rep reads my response and decides what to do with it – file it or toss it, or hand it to someone else to deal with, than it actually gets into the hands of the individual whose name is on it .
----- Original Message -----
From: Sue McPherson
To: Brennenstuhl, Keith (MAG)
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 4:58 PM
Subject: Fw: Human rights Application ---------- Susan McPherson v. ----------
Dear Mr Brennenstuhl,
Tell me this: how am I supposed to respond to the lies and distortions of truth he tells in his Response, that he isn't required to show evidence for? Am I just supposed to tell my "interpretation" in my Reply? Am I allowed only to add new facts if I can back them up with evidence? What is this - a game of he says, she shows evidence of? And if he says more than what she has evidence of, he wins?
You would have to convince me that anything could possibly be accomplished through mediation in this situation before I would agree to it. So far, the doctor hasn't admitted to any wrongdoing or poor judgement in my attempts to have this resolved, here or elsewhere, so I just don't see how mediation can help.
When I looked it up online, briefly, I saw that mediation was useful in cases where, for instance, a young person had committed a minor crime against a homeowner, and once found guilty, legally, the process of mediation could begin. That, and cases where married couples are divorcing, and I imagine, for the sake of the children, mediation is offered in order to ease the path for future tolerance of their situation, in which due to the children, their paths might well cross occasionally. Neither of those scenarios fit this one. The doctor has not admitted to anything, and in fact is blaming me for behaviour that he has invented, or must be imagining (and wishing to hold me accountable for), such as shouting at him and his staff.
We have no mutual interests that would require our paths to cross again, since my health and well-being is obviously not one of his, and he appears to have no desire to educate himself in matters of ageing, ageism, and discrimination on the grounds of gender and family status, from the looks of things.
I can see how for the doctor to choose mediation would act in his favour, as he can only benefit from presenting himself as willing and cooperative, for starters, and then, not having admitted to any of the things he has done, he has an advantage right from the start. It could only lead to me having to defend myself against accusations he makes (which he has already started to do) for which he doesn't have to present evidence, as he is a doctor, and I am only an older woman living alone without family beside me to grant me credibility.
No, mediation isn't going to work, unless something really changes in a hurry; for instance, the doctor admits to lying about me and being disrespectful, and to distorting incidents that happened and trivializing my concerns, and agrees to attend courses and programs that hopefully would contribute to making him a better doctor to people in similar circumstances as me.
Sincerely,
Sue McPherson
----- Original Message -----
From: Brennenstuhl, Keith (MAG)
To: s.a.mcpherson@sympatico.ca
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 12:05 PM
Subject: Human rights Application ------------- Susan McPherson v. ----------
Ms. McPherson,
In reviewing this file I note from the Response that the respondent has agreed to try mediation to resolve your Application. In your Application, you have not indicated a willingness to try mediation. Mediation is one of the ways the Tribunal tries to resolve disputes and it is highly recommended by the Tribunal. It is a less formal process than a hearing. If mediation does not settle all the issues between the parties, a hearing will take place at a later date. Mediation can only happen if both parties agree to it. Please let me know by return email if you are willing to try mediation. Thank-you.
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
29 July 2015
2 April 2012
Contraception and working women
What is Stephanie Pappas trying to say, in this bit about new research on an old topic - women and work? Too much left unspoken, not enough information on the study itself or on her own views, to make this anything but political manipulation on behalf of women's quest to have the pill paid for.
The longitudinal study undertaken by Martha Bailey and associates started in 1968 and continued throughout the 1990s, its participants having being born within a few years of the year I was (1946). Prior to the 60s, when no such pill was available, they suggest, women had to choose between either a career or marriage. Without the pill, they are suggesting, the risk of pregnancy was too great for women with partners to risk having a career.
But as time went on, the researchers claim, "With oral contraceptives, women no longer had to choose between investing in their careers and investing in a mate." As the pill became available in their area, more women would choose college and career as well as marriage.
I'm not sure about the logic behind these ideas, or how they relate to the experience of that cohort of women and this one today. When I read it, it seems to me that women researchers of today are interpreting the experience of twenty-year-olds in the 1960s according to their own model, instead of looking at it through the lens of society at the time. I'm not sure that many women back then looked at the world in terms of *choice,* a favourite word and key theme among liberal feminists and women in general today, but surely, not back then. Furthermore, the whole idea of the battle for 'the pill,' was one of women's right to use it, not as it has now become, the fight for the right to have someone else pay for it. "The pill’s availability likely altered norms and expectations about marriage and childbearing," Bailey has said. And work. And sex. There is a great deal that has been left unsaid, in the brief write-up here, and likely in the research itself, related to women's newfound personal freedom related to sexuality, both within and outside of marriage.
As discussed in the Comments section of this brief piece of news, there was something else going on at more or less the same time that the pill was being introduced into society (possibly through the efforts of radical feminists). Women in general were being encouraged to take their place alongside men in the workplace, in the quest for 'equality, as expounded by liberal feminists'. The influence of this latter ideology and women's movement was not mentioned in the article about women's wages and the pill, but it was a widespread effort by women, begun in the years after women in droves were sent back to the kitchen, so to speak, by men after they returned from the war in the early 40s. During the war, women had discovered how well they could do the work men did, in factories, farm fields, and many other areas that had traditionally been 'men's work,' and how much they enjoyed it, and enjoyed the independence and money. But after the war ended, they were no longer needed.
A second major factor of this subject of contraception and work is its connection to the debate about insurance coverage of contraception, for working women and college students, mainly (as I have seen in the news) and lastly, among women living in poverty. Many comments ensued from this awareness, on Comments online. I found it odd that some readers would suggest that if the insurance wouldn't pay for the pill for contraceptive purposes, that the working woman would stubbornly continue to have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy rather than pay for it out of her wages. This issue is not only a mattter of concern to women who are employed, and should be addressed as a concern for all women. Otherwise, some women will lose out, through inability to pay, and will be at risk.
The third major item in this piece is the news that, of the one-third increase in wages among women, two-thirds came from greater workplace experience, and more importantly for what I am to say next, one-third of the increase was a result of "women gaining more education and from choosing more lucrative, traditionally male, fields." In response to that, I can say that there is so much left out, so much more to discuss than how well women are doing at work. If women are taking the places that had traditionally been reserved for men, then what do you suppose all the men are doing, who are perfectly capable of doing the job?
If you haven't heard of the Occupy movement, then I suggest you open up your mind to what's going on in society. And if you are ready to seek solutions to the inquality brought about by feminism, then read my blog (see relevant entries below). Not only do we need to turn towards a society where there is more acceptance of one another's abilities, but within relationships also. Rather than the middle class, educated female joining forces with the middle class male she considers as being in her class (based on money and access to resources), forming what we now have a glut of - the dual-career, dual-income family - we need a variety of approaches to making up the workforce and the families within society. The problem is, it's the influential dual career couples who hold the power to make change, and who can at times seem to be the most reluctant to change.
Birth-Control Pill Helped Boost Women's Wages, New Study Shows
By Stephanie Pappas
LiveScience Huffington Post
Mar 29, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/birth-control-pill-womens-wages-pay_n_1388064.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=033012&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
The Economic Impact of the Pill
By Annie Lowrey
NY Times
March 6, 2012
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/the-economic-impact-of-the-pill/
Feminism's legacy: contributing towards social inequality
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
5 February, 2012
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2012/02/feminisms-legacy-contributing-towards.html
Men at work: what does the future hold?
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
March 18, 2012
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2012/03/men-at-work-what-does-future-hold.html
The Occupy Movement: UWO's Klatt and Hammond, and other perspectives
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
Dec 10, 2011
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/12/occupy-movement-uwos-klatt-and-hammond.html
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
Nov 19, 2011
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-justin-bieber-and-feminism-can.html
The longitudinal study undertaken by Martha Bailey and associates started in 1968 and continued throughout the 1990s, its participants having being born within a few years of the year I was (1946). Prior to the 60s, when no such pill was available, they suggest, women had to choose between either a career or marriage. Without the pill, they are suggesting, the risk of pregnancy was too great for women with partners to risk having a career.
But as time went on, the researchers claim, "With oral contraceptives, women no longer had to choose between investing in their careers and investing in a mate." As the pill became available in their area, more women would choose college and career as well as marriage.
I'm not sure about the logic behind these ideas, or how they relate to the experience of that cohort of women and this one today. When I read it, it seems to me that women researchers of today are interpreting the experience of twenty-year-olds in the 1960s according to their own model, instead of looking at it through the lens of society at the time. I'm not sure that many women back then looked at the world in terms of *choice,* a favourite word and key theme among liberal feminists and women in general today, but surely, not back then. Furthermore, the whole idea of the battle for 'the pill,' was one of women's right to use it, not as it has now become, the fight for the right to have someone else pay for it. "The pill’s availability likely altered norms and expectations about marriage and childbearing," Bailey has said. And work. And sex. There is a great deal that has been left unsaid, in the brief write-up here, and likely in the research itself, related to women's newfound personal freedom related to sexuality, both within and outside of marriage.
As discussed in the Comments section of this brief piece of news, there was something else going on at more or less the same time that the pill was being introduced into society (possibly through the efforts of radical feminists). Women in general were being encouraged to take their place alongside men in the workplace, in the quest for 'equality, as expounded by liberal feminists'. The influence of this latter ideology and women's movement was not mentioned in the article about women's wages and the pill, but it was a widespread effort by women, begun in the years after women in droves were sent back to the kitchen, so to speak, by men after they returned from the war in the early 40s. During the war, women had discovered how well they could do the work men did, in factories, farm fields, and many other areas that had traditionally been 'men's work,' and how much they enjoyed it, and enjoyed the independence and money. But after the war ended, they were no longer needed.
A second major factor of this subject of contraception and work is its connection to the debate about insurance coverage of contraception, for working women and college students, mainly (as I have seen in the news) and lastly, among women living in poverty. Many comments ensued from this awareness, on Comments online. I found it odd that some readers would suggest that if the insurance wouldn't pay for the pill for contraceptive purposes, that the working woman would stubbornly continue to have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy rather than pay for it out of her wages. This issue is not only a mattter of concern to women who are employed, and should be addressed as a concern for all women. Otherwise, some women will lose out, through inability to pay, and will be at risk.
The third major item in this piece is the news that, of the one-third increase in wages among women, two-thirds came from greater workplace experience, and more importantly for what I am to say next, one-third of the increase was a result of "women gaining more education and from choosing more lucrative, traditionally male, fields." In response to that, I can say that there is so much left out, so much more to discuss than how well women are doing at work. If women are taking the places that had traditionally been reserved for men, then what do you suppose all the men are doing, who are perfectly capable of doing the job?
If you haven't heard of the Occupy movement, then I suggest you open up your mind to what's going on in society. And if you are ready to seek solutions to the inquality brought about by feminism, then read my blog (see relevant entries below). Not only do we need to turn towards a society where there is more acceptance of one another's abilities, but within relationships also. Rather than the middle class, educated female joining forces with the middle class male she considers as being in her class (based on money and access to resources), forming what we now have a glut of - the dual-career, dual-income family - we need a variety of approaches to making up the workforce and the families within society. The problem is, it's the influential dual career couples who hold the power to make change, and who can at times seem to be the most reluctant to change.
Birth-Control Pill Helped Boost Women's Wages, New Study Shows
By Stephanie Pappas
LiveScience Huffington Post
Mar 29, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/birth-control-pill-womens-wages-pay_n_1388064.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=033012&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
The Economic Impact of the Pill
By Annie Lowrey
NY Times
March 6, 2012
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/the-economic-impact-of-the-pill/
Feminism's legacy: contributing towards social inequality
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
5 February, 2012
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2012/02/feminisms-legacy-contributing-towards.html
Men at work: what does the future hold?
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
March 18, 2012
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2012/03/men-at-work-what-does-future-hold.html
The Occupy Movement: UWO's Klatt and Hammond, and other perspectives
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
Dec 10, 2011
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/12/occupy-movement-uwos-klatt-and-hammond.html
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
Nov 19, 2011
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-justin-bieber-and-feminism-can.html
28 May 2010
Myths about money and health: who should pay for health-care, and who should be getting it
Revised June 2012
The article I have based this blog comment on is this, from the Globe and Mail - 'Make rich seniors pay for drugs, report says'. A secondary issue is the "cost-effectiveness" of the care given by doctors, which I don't believe is quite the same meaning as "improve the quality of patient care."
So, first of all, I would like to say this: There are certain myths in society that need to be dispelled. The idea that the wealthy are worth more, in their very humanity, than the poor, is one of them.
There are other myths in society that are just as commonly believed, or rather, simply not questioned, but first things first. Some people having more wealth than others is not a good reason why they should be treated better, though of course, in some circumstances, having money enables a person to buy better treatment and health-care.
The slippery slope of the myth of the greater 'worthiness' of the wealthy leads not just to more choices given to them, but also more advantages in their health-care, to the extent that all other things being equal, the wealthy will still receive better treatment than the poor, even when it is available to all, apparently, regardless of class or wealth. Why?
The myth is that the wealthy are internally 'better' in character, in work ethic, determination, decision-making, and all other traits that make for a better citizen in Canadian society. Thus, more is given to them, and more is taken away from the poor. This is how our just society works.
Added June, 2012
According to this article, altering the way ODB (Ontario Drug Benefits program) is carried out could affect “universality of access.” Of course it would. That would be the whole purpose of having those who are better off pay for their own drugs. The only “alarms” likely to be raised would be those in the heads of the wealthy who might be thinking What next? The fears of the rich are so great they can’t help pushing down those in need farther down just to protect benefits they surely know they don’t deserve, much of the time, or need.
In addition to the idea to “overhaul the way doctors are compensated by paying them, not only for treatment, but care that is cost-effective.” If we leave this up to health care staff to determine, there’s no limit to how they might interpret this need. Cost-effectiveness might mean that care and treatment given to people in society who are not contributing in the way they would like, or not reproducing, or not providing various other tasks and functions seen as valuable, or do not own their own homes, might find themselves on the dnt list – do not treat.
It could be requested that staff and doctors treat all patients the same – *objectively* - meaning give each one the same quality of care as another, except that stands the risk of being interpreted as treating the patient as an object (unless of course, they are known to you), with no fair assessment of their needs or what treatment might be best for them.
Finally, the matter of sustainability, or as the article says, “Without such profound changes, suggests a report released Thursday by TD Economics, public health care as Canadians know it is unsustainable.” Yet we can afford F35s, full day kindergarten, sending financial help to countries like Haiti? I don’t see the government telling Michael Ferguson, or the Ministry of Education, or Michel Jean that’s there no money for their causes.
Some people in society have more care given to their needs. And that’s not likely to change, when the cuts come. Many of these would be able to pay for health-care not only for themselves but the healthcare of others. They will never come to see themselves as having enough money to share the wealth because they want to be able to leave a nice inheritance to their children.
Make rich seniors pay for drugs, report says
By Lisa Priest and Karen Howlett
Globe and Mail, and in Social Policy in Ontario
May 27, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/make-rich-seniors-pay-for-drugs-report-says/article1582236/ not working
http://spon.ca/make-rich-seniors-pay-for-drugs-health-care-report-says/2010/05/27/
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2010/05/myths-about-money-and-health-who-should.html
Links updated June 2012
The article I have based this blog comment on is this, from the Globe and Mail - 'Make rich seniors pay for drugs, report says'. A secondary issue is the "cost-effectiveness" of the care given by doctors, which I don't believe is quite the same meaning as "improve the quality of patient care."
So, first of all, I would like to say this: There are certain myths in society that need to be dispelled. The idea that the wealthy are worth more, in their very humanity, than the poor, is one of them.
There are other myths in society that are just as commonly believed, or rather, simply not questioned, but first things first. Some people having more wealth than others is not a good reason why they should be treated better, though of course, in some circumstances, having money enables a person to buy better treatment and health-care.
The slippery slope of the myth of the greater 'worthiness' of the wealthy leads not just to more choices given to them, but also more advantages in their health-care, to the extent that all other things being equal, the wealthy will still receive better treatment than the poor, even when it is available to all, apparently, regardless of class or wealth. Why?
The myth is that the wealthy are internally 'better' in character, in work ethic, determination, decision-making, and all other traits that make for a better citizen in Canadian society. Thus, more is given to them, and more is taken away from the poor. This is how our just society works.
Added June, 2012
According to this article, altering the way ODB (Ontario Drug Benefits program) is carried out could affect “universality of access.” Of course it would. That would be the whole purpose of having those who are better off pay for their own drugs. The only “alarms” likely to be raised would be those in the heads of the wealthy who might be thinking What next? The fears of the rich are so great they can’t help pushing down those in need farther down just to protect benefits they surely know they don’t deserve, much of the time, or need.
In addition to the idea to “overhaul the way doctors are compensated by paying them, not only for treatment, but care that is cost-effective.” If we leave this up to health care staff to determine, there’s no limit to how they might interpret this need. Cost-effectiveness might mean that care and treatment given to people in society who are not contributing in the way they would like, or not reproducing, or not providing various other tasks and functions seen as valuable, or do not own their own homes, might find themselves on the dnt list – do not treat.
It could be requested that staff and doctors treat all patients the same – *objectively* - meaning give each one the same quality of care as another, except that stands the risk of being interpreted as treating the patient as an object (unless of course, they are known to you), with no fair assessment of their needs or what treatment might be best for them.
Finally, the matter of sustainability, or as the article says, “Without such profound changes, suggests a report released Thursday by TD Economics, public health care as Canadians know it is unsustainable.” Yet we can afford F35s, full day kindergarten, sending financial help to countries like Haiti? I don’t see the government telling Michael Ferguson, or the Ministry of Education, or Michel Jean that’s there no money for their causes.
Some people in society have more care given to their needs. And that’s not likely to change, when the cuts come. Many of these would be able to pay for health-care not only for themselves but the healthcare of others. They will never come to see themselves as having enough money to share the wealth because they want to be able to leave a nice inheritance to their children.
Make rich seniors pay for drugs, report says
By Lisa Priest and Karen Howlett
Globe and Mail, and in Social Policy in Ontario
May 27, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/make-rich-seniors-pay-for-drugs-report-says/article1582236/ not working
http://spon.ca/make-rich-seniors-pay-for-drugs-health-care-report-says/2010/05/27/
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2010/05/myths-about-money-and-health-who-should.html
Links updated June 2012
7 July 2009
Refusing to Multiply: motherhood or career
The comment below was my response to the article by Leonard Stern, editorial pages editor, Ottawa Citizen, July 3, 20, 2009. He was questioning how to get Canada's citizens to choose parenthood. He says, "The brutal truth is this: The only sure-fire way to ensure women have lots of children is to deny them sexual equality. (Needless to say, this is an approach I’d oppose.)"
My online comment, July 6, 2009:
You mean other than surrogate motherhood? If it's not for money - for profit - what would be the motivation for today's generation of women? I hope that doesn't sound too cynical. But why would women want to give up the respect, the financial gain, the independence, and legitimate additions to their resume rather than provide the service of childbearing within marriage? Bearing and raising children as part of marriage is not enough in today's world to enable women to have their caring, problem-solving, planning, analytical, social, and community involvement skills recognized. Take a look at my website: http://samcpherson.homestead.com/StoryofMyLife.html . So, either start paying what it's worth [for women to give birth], or give mothers the respect they deserve.
Added May 2, 2012
Lately there has been controversy about birth control, and who is responsible for paying for it – the women using it, or their employers and colleges, through their medical insurance plans. Some see the obstinance of some colleges and insurance companies a strategy to get women back into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
But is it simply that working women are expected to be responsible for paying for their own oral contraceptive, seeing as they have the money to do so; and college girls, well, it isn’t a necessity for them, is it? Yes, of course, the girls and women can come up with all sorts of reasons why it shouldn’t be their responsibility, for instance, they argue that sometimes, the pill is used for non-reproductive purposes, which they then expand into a general reason why all girls having sex and not wanting to get pregnant should have it paid for too.
But is the difficult of having contraception covered a ploy to have more women pregnant, doing their duty, so to speak, to reproduce another generation. That’s what the article “Refusing to multiply’ is suggesting, that women are reluctant to give up their power and their freedom at work to have children. Yet no one is stopping women from obtaining the pill for purposes of contraception. It isn’t a 50s style argument. It’s just that the women are expected to pay for it themselves out of their pay.
This seems as much to do with sex itself as the issue of contraception. Sandra Fluke received an apology (see Rush Limbaugh apologizes, Mar 3, 2012) after being called a slut, but the fact that this idea was expressed at all is an indication of how the use of contraception can be viewed - not in terms of preventing pregnancy but in terms of having sex not for the purpose of procreation.
A rather odd article in Macleans, ‘You can’t mandate marriage,’ discusses the idea of promoting marriage, but concludes that ‘love’ cannot be mandated, a rather old-fashioned idea by today’s standards, whereby women still appear to want the best mate possible to ensure their own success, if not a good provider for their family.
In ‘Why was I shamed over contraception?’ not all the issues come through, though I suspect that young women, who today often have a great deal of belief in their rights, might feel they don’t need to hear the negative side of taking the morning-after pill, not even the first time they use it.
Finally, to end where I started, I would say that the problem of women not wanting to become mothers, or not even wanting to be married, can’t be resolved if these ways of life aren’t attractive to them, and aren’t rewarding, either financially or for their own self-fulfillment. The state – and society - can try to make it so that women need marriage, and need to have children, but haven’t we already tried that?
If the decision-makers of the families or the workplace – or of feminism or men’s rights groups - lean towards becoming dictators in order to get their own way, not recognizing that not all women are the same, then discord will continue. Until these groups recognize that getting one’s rights usually means that someone else’s are being trampled on, women will continue to demand theirs and make all other women submit to their decision-making, at the expense of society and the future of society.
Birth-Control Pill Helped Boost Women's Wages, New Study Shows
By Stephanie Pappas
Huffington Post
Mar 29, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/birth-control-pill-womens-wages-pay_n_1388064.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=033012&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
Refusing to multiply
By Leonard Stern
Ottawa Citizen
July 3, 2009
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Refusing+multiply/1757284/story.html link not available
http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=8c508397-f187-4d02-b053-b12bcbfa9cb0
Rush Limbaugh apologizes to law student over contraception
Philip Elliott Associated Press
Star online
Mar 3, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1140614--rush-limbaugh-apologizes-to-law-student-over-contraception-comments
You can’t mandate marriage, even if it’s good for society
By the editors
Macleans magazine
Oct 11, 2011
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/11/you-can%e2%80%99t-mandate-marriage-even-if-it%e2%80%99s-good-for-society/#more-218787
Why was I shamed over contraception?
By Lisa Priest
Globe and Mail
Mar 18, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/ask-a-health-expert/the-patient-navigator/why-was-i-shamed-over-contraception/article2371794/
Links updated May 3, 2012
My online comment, July 6, 2009:
You mean other than surrogate motherhood? If it's not for money - for profit - what would be the motivation for today's generation of women? I hope that doesn't sound too cynical. But why would women want to give up the respect, the financial gain, the independence, and legitimate additions to their resume rather than provide the service of childbearing within marriage? Bearing and raising children as part of marriage is not enough in today's world to enable women to have their caring, problem-solving, planning, analytical, social, and community involvement skills recognized. Take a look at my website: http://samcpherson.homestead.com/StoryofMyLife.html . So, either start paying what it's worth [for women to give birth], or give mothers the respect they deserve.
Added May 2, 2012
Lately there has been controversy about birth control, and who is responsible for paying for it – the women using it, or their employers and colleges, through their medical insurance plans. Some see the obstinance of some colleges and insurance companies a strategy to get women back into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
But is it simply that working women are expected to be responsible for paying for their own oral contraceptive, seeing as they have the money to do so; and college girls, well, it isn’t a necessity for them, is it? Yes, of course, the girls and women can come up with all sorts of reasons why it shouldn’t be their responsibility, for instance, they argue that sometimes, the pill is used for non-reproductive purposes, which they then expand into a general reason why all girls having sex and not wanting to get pregnant should have it paid for too.
But is the difficult of having contraception covered a ploy to have more women pregnant, doing their duty, so to speak, to reproduce another generation. That’s what the article “Refusing to multiply’ is suggesting, that women are reluctant to give up their power and their freedom at work to have children. Yet no one is stopping women from obtaining the pill for purposes of contraception. It isn’t a 50s style argument. It’s just that the women are expected to pay for it themselves out of their pay.
This seems as much to do with sex itself as the issue of contraception. Sandra Fluke received an apology (see Rush Limbaugh apologizes, Mar 3, 2012) after being called a slut, but the fact that this idea was expressed at all is an indication of how the use of contraception can be viewed - not in terms of preventing pregnancy but in terms of having sex not for the purpose of procreation.
A rather odd article in Macleans, ‘You can’t mandate marriage,’ discusses the idea of promoting marriage, but concludes that ‘love’ cannot be mandated, a rather old-fashioned idea by today’s standards, whereby women still appear to want the best mate possible to ensure their own success, if not a good provider for their family.
In ‘Why was I shamed over contraception?’ not all the issues come through, though I suspect that young women, who today often have a great deal of belief in their rights, might feel they don’t need to hear the negative side of taking the morning-after pill, not even the first time they use it.
Finally, to end where I started, I would say that the problem of women not wanting to become mothers, or not even wanting to be married, can’t be resolved if these ways of life aren’t attractive to them, and aren’t rewarding, either financially or for their own self-fulfillment. The state – and society - can try to make it so that women need marriage, and need to have children, but haven’t we already tried that?
If the decision-makers of the families or the workplace – or of feminism or men’s rights groups - lean towards becoming dictators in order to get their own way, not recognizing that not all women are the same, then discord will continue. Until these groups recognize that getting one’s rights usually means that someone else’s are being trampled on, women will continue to demand theirs and make all other women submit to their decision-making, at the expense of society and the future of society.
Birth-Control Pill Helped Boost Women's Wages, New Study Shows
By Stephanie Pappas
Huffington Post
Mar 29, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/birth-control-pill-womens-wages-pay_n_1388064.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=033012&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
Refusing to multiply
By Leonard Stern
Ottawa Citizen
July 3, 2009
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Refusing+multiply/1757284/story.html link not available
http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=8c508397-f187-4d02-b053-b12bcbfa9cb0
Rush Limbaugh apologizes to law student over contraception
Philip Elliott Associated Press
Star online
Mar 3, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1140614--rush-limbaugh-apologizes-to-law-student-over-contraception-comments
You can’t mandate marriage, even if it’s good for society
By the editors
Macleans magazine
Oct 11, 2011
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/11/you-can%e2%80%99t-mandate-marriage-even-if-it%e2%80%99s-good-for-society/#more-218787
Why was I shamed over contraception?
By Lisa Priest
Globe and Mail
Mar 18, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/ask-a-health-expert/the-patient-navigator/why-was-i-shamed-over-contraception/article2371794/
Links updated May 3, 2012
12 November 2007
Clinton: femininity, masculinity, and marriage
Some truth here, finally. It's not a welcome idea that women are able to achieve success because of the men they marry, but in Gary Younge's article in the Guardian (UK), author Suzanne Goldenberg quotes a female lawyer as saying about Hilary Clinton, "This is a woman who is where she is because of who she married". A lot of women, feminists included, aren't willing to admit that that is how they've managed to get ahead, in their own spheres of life, even though they are lesser in status than Clinton's. Marriage has always been, and always will be, the best resource a woman can have (the same goes for men). Thus, the essential ingredients for success, for Hilary Clinton and many other women, are indeed a combination of femininity, masculinity, and marriage. Read also essay on Gertrude (Briggs) McPherson: an interdisciplinary, biographical approach to life cycle development. Gertrude (Briggs) McPherson was a wife and mother, a missionary, artist, author and suffragist. Born in England, in 1908 she went to Hong Kong. . .
All Clinton has to do is prove her femininity. And her hypermachismo
By Gary Younge
The Guardian
Nov 12, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/12/comment.gender
Gertrude McPherson and the Grey Cottage: an interdisciplinary, biographical approach to life cycle development
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2001
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/GMcPhersonGryCttgLifeCycleSMcPherson.doc
Links updated Apr 19, 2012
All Clinton has to do is prove her femininity. And her hypermachismo
By Gary Younge
The Guardian
Nov 12, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/12/comment.gender
Gertrude McPherson and the Grey Cottage: an interdisciplinary, biographical approach to life cycle development
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2001
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/GMcPhersonGryCttgLifeCycleSMcPherson.doc
Links updated Apr 19, 2012
1 February 2007
Marriage and the Career Woman
There must be many reasons why women university graduates aren't marrying. That they can't find their intellectual equals isn't a very good reason, I should think. It's more about level of education, class membership, and potential for moving up in the world that matter. And there could well be many women who don't really want to marry at all, but would rather not state that publicly. How do women expect men to "rise to the challenge of feminism" when men feel threatened by them? Now that the truth is out, such women need to see that the answer is not that being 'like a man' is better than being 'like a woman,' but that there is a place in this world for different kinds of men and women, with different interests, and different capacities. This was a mistake to make being up there with the big guys the place to be, if women wanted to be seen as having worth. So now, as Boris Johnson says, instead of women at the bottom, it's some men and some women down there, while the rest live the 'good life.'
I'll tell you why women are running out of men to marry
Boris Johnson
Telegraph
Feb 1, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3636932/Ill-tell-you-why-women-are-running-out-of-men-to-marry.html
Link updated Apr 19, 2012
I'll tell you why women are running out of men to marry
Boris Johnson
Telegraph
Feb 1, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3636932/Ill-tell-you-why-women-are-running-out-of-men-to-marry.html
Link updated Apr 19, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)