Saturday, April 21, 2007

Pill That Eliminates the Period Gets Mixed Reviews

I find this article both sad and fascinating. I particularly like what Ms. Andrist (apparently a real person with a very funny name) said about women not having enough time to be women. Now, who’s the sexist, I ask you?! What do you expect from a person with a name like THAT?!

I also thought it interesting that a Dr. Constantine laments menstruating women in that, “They limit sexual activity and exercise, wear dark clothes and stay home more.” Of course, I thought these sounded like some positives changes. But the loss of wages, a decrease in effectiveness at work or school and absenteeism – these are inexcusable! :)

Plus, as far as I know the Pill does NOT “stop the monthly release of an egg” but it does stop “the buildup of the uterine lining” and thus performs abortions when "necessary". The cozy terminology I remember is that it creates an inhospitable environment in which a baby/fetus/embryo cannot attach to the uterine wall.

I went to that site (Barr Pharmaceuticals) and they claim the Pill creates a "Pill Period" because it "hinders" ovulation and this type of period is different from the period of an ovulating woman. Whatever! Someone please educate me if I’m wrong. In fact, I have to share an entire section of their FAQ from the above-referenced site with you:
3: Isn’t it unnatural to not have a monthly period? Having a period every month is natural. What’s not natural are the number of periods we’re having now. Today, women have many, many more periods than their mothers or grandmothers. Years ago women stayed home, they didn’t work outside the home, they had more children, they got married earlier, and look at the number of children they had: sometimes 5, 6, 7 kids. They breast fed. They might go a long time without having a period. They might have a few periods and then get pregnant again. Now compare that to today’s modern woman. We’re having fewer children, we’re having children later, and we’re not breastfeeding. In fact, think about it. The average age of starting to have periods today is about 12. And let’s say a woman doesn’t have her first child until age 27. Well that’s 15 years of periods, you know, month after month after year after year after year. Our bodies really weren’t designed to have all of these periods. Today we’re having hundreds of periods in our lifetime, whereas a century ago we were only having a few periods. One might say that that’s not natural; that’s not what we were designed to do.

I was disappointed to find that they left out whether old-fashioned women (who menstruate less) or modern women (who bleed all the time) prefer dark clothes. I love how this Q & A sounds like one airhead explaining rocket science to another airhead. I can't argue with the internal logic of their explanation. Of course, the huge glaring assumption in the middle is that being a woman and mother to 5, 6 or 7 (Eek!) is a terrible thing of the past. Then they make the good point that if you're contracepting, you're not really a woman anyway. You might as well admit it, stop bleeding to death, and buy their product. I also have to point out that Barr Pharmaceuticals has taken a stand in the Evolutionism/Intelligent Design debate. They acknowledge we were DESIGNED.

Mostly I find it sad that we’re not worried about killing babies or about how the Pill destroys a woman’s long-term fertility specifically and our bodies in general. We’re worried about having the appearance of normality.

Pray, pray, pray.

No comments: