Equally amusing was the following statement by vengeful sex woman: “I do less because of this — less shopping, less going out to eat,” said Ms. Ryan, who has helped organize efforts to educate others on campus about the price jump. “For students, this is very, very expensive.” I don't know who the education efforts are aimed at; I'd think women would notice the price jump when they went to buy their birth control, but the restraints placed on shopping and going out are indeed tragic. Some might see this as a reasonable trade-off between two recreational options--sex or cute shoes. But evidently, college sex is completely price-inelastic.
Indeed, the NARAL people emphasize the extremity of the situation in some places: “This is a state school where people are on Pell grants and don’t have huge amounts of spending money,” Ms. Hagen said. “For them this is like a choice — groceries or birth control.” Truly, what kind of inhumane choice is this to ask a young woman to make? Sustenance or sex? Who in their right mind could choose sustenance? That is why it is necessary for drug companies to subsidize my access to birth control, so that I don't have to starve to death.
Phoebe argues the serious side of this change--namely that it burdens women disproportionately, and unfairly criticizes their consumption choices without holding men accountable at all:
Seeing as they are going nuts and buying everything in sight, they do not deserve to have any control over their wombs at a time in their lives when they have neither the time nor the income (nor, arguably, the wisdom) to raise children. Oh, and of course it's only women whose frivolous spending is really being discussed, since unless one is married and splitting all costs, it's typically the uterus-having individuals making the purchases on their own. And thanks to biology, it's always the woman who faces the physical consequences, whether abortion or childbirth. But to be fair, if these silly girls will spend $10 on lip gloss, they are old enough to face the responsibilities of motherhood.This is true, but I think, unavoidable so long as women are the only uterus-havers. The responsibility may not be evenly distributed, and women may be required to shoulder more of it, but that is not a compelling reason for them to avoid it. This is especially true given that the consequences of sex don't change if it's done in the name of furthering social equality. And here too, at least relative abstinence remains an extremely reasonable option (and, along with lesbianism, the only equalizer of biological inequality), despite its unpopularity. If you want to worry as little as men about pregnancy, don't have sex with them. At the very least, have sex with someone who you're certain will take responsibility. Maybe consider making him pay for half of your now prohibitively expensive birth control?
6 comments:
Your degree was in economics, not sociology, it seems.
You make a very logical argument (with nice sarcastic tidbits) in this line of "guns or butter" (now "cute shoes or sex") reasoning, but this is not a time for thoughtful reasoning!
It is a time for social justice!
"This is true, but I think, unavoidable so long as women are the only uterus-havers."
But it was certainly mitigated by the lower-priced birth control. In terms of women asking men to chip in for half, this is problematic for many reasons. One, unlike condoms, birth control must be purchased and used continuously even on weeks or months of abstinence/lesbianism. Who splits the tab on those months? What if a woman sleeps with two men during a given month-must she ask each to pay, but not pay half? It gets awkward.
Also, for women not (yet) in serious relationships, simply mentioning in casual conversation with a man they barely know, "I'm on the Pill" is code for offering sex. Sometimes being on the Pill is something women want to keep to themselves, a) to make sure men wear condoms, and b) because of the message it unfortunately still sends about overall skankiness.
It seems to me there are two different issues here; 1) the desirability/right to cheap contraception; and 2) the desirability/right to subsidized contraception--and the question of whether the health clinics have been receiving subsidized contraception. One can, I think, be cool to the idea of subsidized contraception while still favoring cheap contraception, per se.
Fair enough, and perhaps drug companies should not be the way. But the point is that if some entity other than the students themselves (or than women in general) shoulders the burden of this cost to some extend, that largely eliminates the problem of leaving women with a disproportionate share of the responsibility for that which, by definition, requires a man and a woman.
Bill: Whoever said I was a sociology major?
Phoebe: It's true that cheaper (better yet, free) birth control (for all) could make the link between sex and reproduction for women as tenuous as it is for men. That would reduce women's responsibility for children and the future to the ideal male level, which is to say, none. But it's not clear why technology and social policy should be directed towards encouraging an equality of non-responsibility for children rather than the opposite--forcing men to become more responsible than their biology alone might necessitate. What you're suggesting is arguably as sexist as holding women wholly responsible for childbirth. Instead of holding men responsible, you seem to accept the male dream of a world of free and limitless pleasure with no strings attached, and you want to re-create women in the male mold. Why not go in the other direction?
Withywindle: Given the selection of quotes in the article, the question really doesn't seem to be about the ideal market price of contraception as much as how much priority sex should have in individual spending decisions.
It's not so much about lowest-common-denominator as about what's actually possible, or what role law should have in all of this. For one thing, I think it would be wonderful if the only "strings attached" to sex were emotional, and if no man or woman had to worry about unplanned pregnancy or disease. A world in which a man or woman could get pregnant, in which HIV transmission rates were the same in both directions, and in which both HIV and unplanned pregnancy continued to be problems is not, to my mind, any sort of a solution, even if it would mean equality. Of course, such a world is not possible, so the best that can be done is reducing women's physical risk to put it on par with men's. Again, the restriction on "free and limitless pleasure" ought to be love and committed relationships, or (planned) families), not fear of STDs or abortion. And I'm confused by what you mean about free birth control meaning having no responsibility for children. Birth control is not sterilization, and it's perfectly normal for people to use birth control up to the point at which they feel prepared to have children, and then go on to be especially responsible parents.
But in terms of feasibility, what legislation could possibly make men as responsible as women for babies? DNA testing strikes me as more a sign of a problem than an answer. Laws friendly to marriage and parenthood do virtually nothing for the sexually active population that's college-age or younger, the very people this discussion was about in the first place. Am I missing something? Because evening things out in the direction you suggest sounds appealing but impossible.
Post a Comment