Tagged: Feminism

Response to Nice Girl’s “The Dark Side of Feminism”

The recent post The Dark Side of Geek Feminism, authored by the pseudo-anonymous Nice Girl, and the mostly uncritical responses to it concern me for a couple of reasons.

First, it attacks all of geek feminism based on the actions of a few unnamed individuals. I find this problematic because there is no certification for being a geek feminist. Anyone can call themselves such. Certainly, there are those who call themselves feminists and claim to align themselves with our efforts to support women (in tech, geekdom and elsewhere), but then undermine those efforts with their actions. Or support women to the detriment of other oppressed groups. Folks who do this should be called out on their behavior. It’s not an attack or a condemnation to do so, it’s an opportunity for dialog and for social change.

Furthermore, the author discounts the need for accountability, equating it with vigilante justice. She claims that “naming and shaming” means “trying these things in the court of public opinion” and that both are “wrong and dangerous.” I find this conclusion to be flawed. Without question, it is a person’s decision whether or not to name their abuser. There are plenty of good reasons for not doing so. However, it’s clear that the author is withholding such information not to protect herself, but in order to protect potential abusers and derailers: “[Naming people] can completely ruin someone’s life. The internet lynch mob that it inevitably creates can haunt a person for years.”

Another aspect of the post to consider is use of the term “lynch mob” (quoted above) and the author’s response to being called out on its inappropriateness. Rather than reflecting on why it’s inappropriate to use such a phrase, she simply says she was being hyperbolic and accuses the person who called her out of trolling. What this tells me is that the author clearly doesn’t understand intersectionality and how it relates to privilege. For me, this kind of understanding, or at least the willingness to achieve it, is a prerequisite for engaging in feminist dialog in the first place.

Which leads me to wonder, is the author really engaging in a feminist dialog, or is she promoting an anti-feminist agenda?

I ask because Nice Girl’s post feels like an attention-stealing effort and an attack on anti-oppression dialog. Rather than having a productive conversation about specific people’s behavior, we’re discussing unidentified “bad feminists,” whom we have no ability to address because we don’t know who they are or the full content and context of what they said.

Nice Girl says she believes “naming and shaming” to be unfair. However, the approach she took is even more unfair because it attacks everyone associated with geek feminism; any one of us could be the person she’s talking about.

I’d be having a much different response if the author had written factually about her experiences and not given her post the damming title The Dark Side of Geek Feminism.

[Note: Wondering why is it not appropriate to use ‘lynch mob’ in the way the author uses it? Because it is powerful term that evokes institutional violence against oppressed groups.]

More reading on intersectionality includes: the Geek Feminism Wiki and The Angry Black Woman.

Language Matters: Stop Using “Guys” to Address Mix-Gender Groups

Hi guys. Hey guys. You guys.

Several times a day, in the course of normal workplace communication, I receive messages addressed in the manner indicated above. And I’d like it to stop. I’m not a guy, and don’t want to be referred to as such. Furthermore, every time I read “you guys” I am reminded of my minority status in an industry that is predominantly male.

I would have the same reaction if I were addressed in group email or conversation as boys, or dudes or men. These descriptions aren’t any more accurate than using gals, women, ladies, or girls would be.

I realize that to many it’s perfectly acceptable to refer to a mixed-gender group of people as “guys.” I’m asserting that it’s a terrible habit and requesting that those of you who are accustomed to using it begin using alternative, truly gender-neutral words.

For example:

  • If you’re addressing something to one or two people, try just using their names!
  • If you’re addressing a group of people, use any of the following: team, y’all, folks, everyone.

(Please comment if you have other alternatives, and I’ll update my post accordingly.)

I understand how ingrained the “guys” habit might be for some of you. It was for me. After several months of concerted, conscious effort, I still slip and say it on occasion. But the best way to get rid of old habits, is to practice new ones. Start with email, where you have time to re-read and edit. Then move on to speech. If you say it out loud, correct yourself.

I’m not sure when I started paying attention to this particular construct. It was sometime over the last year, if not longer ago. And it was a result of my gaining more knowledge and experience with issues around gender minorities in tech. It might sound trivial to you, but language matters. We should focus on promoting language of inclusion, and eliminating that of exclusion.

On not reinventing the pencil every time you want to send a message…

I’m currently reading Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches (Crossing Press Feminist Series), by Audre Lorde. There are a number of good quotes in the collection, but this one struck me in particular last night:

As a Black woman, I find it necessary to withdraw into all-Black groups at times for exactly the same reasons — differences in stages of development and differences in levels of interaction. Frequently, when speaking with men and white women, I am reminded of how difficult and time-consuming it is to have to reinvent the pencil every time you want to send a message.

I run a group for women who work in technology. The group isn’t a women-only space, but we ask that men come as the guest of a woman attendee. This ensures that the gender balance is always in favor of the women. We get occasional flak for this rule and I find it difficult to explain while women’s spaces are important.

I think the idea of not wanting to reinvent the pencil everytime you want to send a message applies as equally to women’s spaces as it does to those of other opressed groups.

So, now I have a more useful metaphor when someone asks me why we but restrictions on the gender attendance of our group.

On the Continuous Use of Contraceptives

I take contraception and have been doing so for several years now (since I was 18). I take contraception for two reasons: 1) I do not currently desire to become pregnant, so I do not wish to be actively fertile, and 2) I wish to suppress my menstrual cycle.

In fact, I’ve been using oral contraception, “the pill,” continuously (meaning I do not take the placebo pills) for several years now. I have periods very infrequently. The longer I have taken the pill in this manner, the less I have any sort of uterine bleeding whatsoever.

And you know what? It’s wonderful. I don’t feel like total shit for a week out of the year as I do when I have regular periods. I don’t have to carry menstrual supplies and I don’t have to experience the extra hassle and effort of their use. I don’t produce extra waste via tampons and pads. (For women who do menstruate, I highly, highly recommend the DivaCup. Seriously, it changed my life when I was menstruating as much as realizing I could stop my menstrual periods altogether.)

No one told me I had to suppress my menstrual cycle. I first heard about doing this while getting ready for my first Burning Man. Another women noted that if I were scheduled to get my period during the event and didn’t want to deal with it while in the dessert (a real concern given the pack it in, pack it out nature of the event, lack of hand-washing facilities and port-o-potty conditions), that I could just skip the placebo week of pills and immediately start a new pack.

Learning this was incredibly empowering. Already I had experienced the empowerment of being able to choose when to be fertile. Now I could choose not to have a period. I started using this method whenever the timing of a period would be inconvenient: it coincided with travel, a job interview, etc.

A few years later I learned even more about the periods that occur when taking birth control. I learned that you could stop them all together by taking birth control continuously. Even more wonderful! I asked my doctor about this, she said it was okay to do and re-wrote my birth control  prescription to indicate continuous use so that my insurance would cover each refill. (Sometimes if the prescription is not written for explicit continuous use, insurance companies will not want to cover the “early” refills. If you’re considering continuous use, be sure to have your doctor write the prescription as such.)

Lately I’ve noticed a number of women speaking out against continues use of contraception for the purposes of menstruation control and suppression. One Op-Ed by Karen Houppert published in the New York Times declared that “war has been declared on menstruation.” Another blogger named Julia says “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And an article by Heather Corrina on a sex-education site for teens goes so far as to directly equate the desire to control one’s menstrual period as a form of internalize misogyny (see I, Being Born Woman and Suppressed). These are just a few examples of the many, I think, mis-informed reactions against the use of continuous contraception for period suppression.

An argument of these critical responses is that this solution is overly marketed to women. Corrina writes that menstruation suppression is “being given the hard sell,” and Houppert in her NYT articles warns women to prepare to protect themselves “for a barrage of advertising and research highlighting the debilitating effects of periods and the joys of menstrual suppression.”

I agree that women are overly marketed to. Actually, we all are. We’re bombarded with advertisements on TV, in print and on the Internet. We’re told that if we buy all manners of products that we’ll be thinner, happier, fitter, wiser. We’re told this in disingenuous ways and its incredibly harmful. There’s no doubt about this. There’s no doubting the power and clout that the big pharmaceutical companies have in our economy and culture. These companies certainly have an interest in developing drugs that we need (or want) to take with regular frequency because this means a recurring revenue source. An unfortunate side-effect of this is that these companies may benefit from health issues that to be maintained by a daily medication. So, these companies have a potential economic interest against finding/promoting preventions and cures for the source of ill-health. Cholesterol maintenance medication is a prime example. People would not have cholesterol issues if they followed a healthful vegan diet. The problem simply wouldn’t exist, nor would the market for the very lucrative cholesterol-lowering medications.

However, this does not mean that all regular-use medications that pharmaceutical companies create represent arbitrary and selfish market creation. Women have a very real need for contraceptive, fertility and reproductive health maintenance options. I think its okay for the companies who make these drugs and for doctors to inform women of their existence.

Opponents seems to think that the marketing of these options to women is an implicit attack on femininity itself, one which in turn gives women no real choice about using these options:

“Do pervasive cultural attitudes about menstruation, and about the female body as being a great annoyance and a burden — attitudes so ingrained and accepted that even some doctors perpetuate them — allow women a real choice as to whether or not, and why, they WANT to suppress menstruation?” (Corrina)

Houppert further dramatizes the supposed attack on femininity by saying, “Western civilization, it seems, hinges on our ability to wrangle our messy cycles to the ground and stomp ’em out once and for all.”

In no way have I ever felt that the availability of options to control my menstrual cycle is implied judgement that having a menstrual cycle is a bad thing. What I detect is that there are valid reasons why a women would want control over when and how she menstruates. Menses is the number one cause of iron-deficiency. A percentage of women have incredibly painful, heavy periods (dysmenorrhea), some women have especially difficult PMS (Premenstrual dysphoric disorder). Both of these can be helped by the pill (via continuous or regular use). For women who have mild periods, there is still a very valid benefit in the convenience of not having a period. I want all women to know this option is available as I do think it can be enriching and empowering.

Some women feel that their femininity in part originates from their menstrual cycle. Blogger Julia writes, “I am a woman and my periods are part of that womanhood, which I love.” I appreciate that some women feel this way. However, not all do, including myself.

My period is not my source of femininity. Nor is my fertility, my genitals or my breasts. I am my source of femininity and I alone define it. The act of taking contraception does not inherently or implicitly endanger femininity. Women who make the decision to use contraction in this manner aren’t necessarily demonstrating an internalize misogyny.

That’s not to say that we don’t have a ways to go in our cultural understanding and acceptance of menstruation. Many women are ashamed of their periods, of any “accidents” they might have during their period, of even talking about their periods. I cringed during the scene in the movie SuperBad when one of the party guests, a male, discovers he has period blood on him. He proceeds to freak out and so does the rest of the party. The scene wasn’t funny to me, as I imagine it was written to be. A mature person should be able to handle fluids associated with normal bodily functions. As should an adolescent who is or on the verge of being sexually active. So, just like all aspects of women’s reproductive health and sexuality, we need to continue to promote open, honest dialog and education.

Some opponents site the unknown health effects of using contraception continuously for period suppression. These health concerns are largely exaggerated:

We know that suppressing your period long term is not detrimental (actually, there’s evidence it’s beneficial, but I digress). And how do we know that? From decades of observing the effects of menstrual suppression in women who, you know, don’t menstruate for extended intervals: Pill users, pregnant women, breastfeeding women.

(from The Well-Timed Period blog)

Using hormonal contraception continuously carries no greater side effects than taking contraceptive pills plus the placebo pills intermittently.

I think that women who are opposed to the use of contraception for period control do not have a complete understanding of how the menstrual cycle works particularly in relation to hormonal birth control. All hormonal contraception, regardless of whether you take it continuously or not, suppresses the menstrual cycle. There’s a very good overview of this available in the article Menstrual Suppression vs. Continuous Use .

In short: Fluctuations in hormone levels cause changes in the uterine lining. The uterine wall thickens in preparation for possible pregnancy. When pregnancy does not occur the thickened lining of the uterus is shed, along with any unfertilized ova. This is a menstrual period.  If you’re not planning for a pregnancy, there is no reason to have cyclical changes in your uterine lining. Hormonal birth control forgoes this uterine/menstrual cycle by maintaining a thin uterine wall. There’s nothing to shed when you’re taking hormonal birth control, so there’s no reason to have a menstrual cycle. There’s no evidence to suggest that regular bleeding is necessary or even good for the uterus beyond its function as stated above.

When you bleed while taking the pill you aren’t really having a menstrual period:

“What you do have when you use the Pill is a monthly withdrawal bleeding episode, or a fake period. This withdrawal bleeding and the menstrual period are not one and the same thing. Briefly, by manipulating the dose of hormones in the Pill, you can destabilize the thin uterine lining enough to cause some bleeding.” (from Menstrual Suppression vs. Continuous Use )

In fact, these withdrawal bleeding episodes are not medically necessary. Rather, the decision to induce them was a marketing one, as mentioned in this NPR interview:

“Marketers at the manufacturing company which developed the pill,” says Segal, “felt at the time that an oral contraceptive might or might not be accepted by the public. These were very different times. Not only was this the first oral contraceptive but it was the first medication given to healthy women for any purpose at all.”
Taking away ovulation and imposing synthetic hormones was already a big change, and apparently marketers felt it might be too much to also take away monthly periods.
“You have to remember also that this was a time before drugstore pregnancy tests, so that if a woman was not bleeding, having a regular menstrual period, she wouldn’t know for sure whether she was pregnant or not,” says Segal.

“Such anxiety about unintended pregnancy was another reason why marketers felt it was better to have one week off, to allow this artificial menses to occur,” he explains.

To be clear: I am not criticizing a woman’s decision to use birth control or not use birth control, for whatever reason and in whatever manner (continuously or otherwise). That is a personal decision. If you aren’t comfortable taking medication, if you have other means of contraception that you are comfortable with, that’s fine. If you take contraception but don’t mind having regular periods, that’s fine too. If you choose to take birth control continuously to eliminate or reduce withdrawl bleeding, that’s also okay.

What I am criticizing is the notion that women who use technology to control their fertility and/or their menstrual cycle are somehow doing so out of an internalized misogyny, or are otherwise betraying the feminist cause.

It is possible to be fully unashamed of your period and still make the decision to banish it from your life. It’s also possible to feel some negativity about your period and decide to banish it from your life. This doesn’t mean you hate yourself, your femininity, or that of your sister’s (biological and otherwise).

I’m curious to hear from other women out there. Have you chosen to take contraception continuously? Did you feel pressured into doing so so? Does it make you feel empowered? Do you choose not to take birth control in order to stay connected to your “natural” femininity? Has the availability of birth control affected you in a positive way? A negative one? How so?