The thing is, though, before you send off your report I wanted to ask you about what I should do regarding this wonky ovary. Now that you’re an expert on all things Unspeakable and Girly, I have to defer to you, Tiny White Man in My Underpants. This son of a bitch ovary hurts. As you know, the doctor wants me to take these birth control pills, but I’m no fan of pills. I prefer wonky ovaries and getting as many abortions as my federal government punch card allows.
So, with the most recent debates about whether women should have access to reproductive health care, there have been several alarming practices:
1. shutting women out of the discussions about health care for women.
2. discrediting the experiences of women who advocate for insurance to provide for birth control.
3. ignoring sites of hypocrisy, like where men easily get coverage for erectile dysfunction.
4. ignoring the absurdity of some rules, where women can get birth control if it's not used for birth control.
5. overstating the effects of birth control or skewing facts in any number of other ways.
Certain lawmakers, usually Republican, have been so persistent with these attacks that it's nothing short of policing women. Or, in the case of this post, planting a hall monitor over women's health. It's quite a vivid and potent metaphor, here played to great humor, but elsewhere used justly as a call for women to have ownership over their own body, their own health and well-being.
I guess what I'm most curious about is whether y'all think this piece is effective at ridiculing the present debates. I like it, love it even, as it makes the debate excessively visceral. Oftentimes, these debates both emphasize and avoid women's bodies: women's bodies are something different, something fleshly or special, the second sex, but the particulars go unmentioned. This doctrine is mainly problematic because men's health as a consequence becomes something general and expected, whereas women's health is the thing to be accepted or excepted instead of assumed, a problem unsolved, a terrain unexplored. (Forgive me for cursing, but fuck that language.) I think that the linked piece is able to mock that discourse (a discourse used by the white men in her pants) without falling into the trap of exoticizing the body, but I wish that there were a way to... I don't know. Make men's fleshliness or special requirements for health just as apparent while making the case that every person should be addressed? Successfully do away with this idea that reproductive health is particular to women and particularly controversial for women? I guess if we could do the latter, then this entire discussion would be unnecessary. What do you think of the linked material/the debate/your place in it?