It seems every time I opened my facebook or turned on the radio last week, I was hearing something about women who choose not to have kids. First it was the Time cover story and then it was the UK 'research' that purports to show that women who choose to remain childless are smarter than women who have kids. It was everywhere. I couldn't get away from it. Besides the fact that I object to childless women like me being talked about as if we are some sort of newly discovered species that need to put under a microscope and studied, there's something else that really bugs me about these articles. Not one of them looks at this 'phenomenon' as anything other than a personal choice and not one of them steps outside of the lens of western middle class (predominantly white) privilege. They all talk about this as if it's a global trend and we should be concerned about declining birth rates. It's not and we shouldn't. The reason why it's not a global trend is because the women who are making the choice not to have children are women who are able to make a choice. Logic might seem to dictate that it would be women who have money, family support, supportive spouses, and lots of resources who would make the choice to have children. It's actually often the opposite. Many women don't actively make a choice to have or not have children. The choice is never in their hands in the first place. Women who are in relationships in which they have very little control or in which they are being abused; women who are from cultures in which women are expected to have children and to be the primary caretakers of those children, women who are poor and dependent on a partner and that partner's desires and/or have no access to birth control. These are women who may not have the luxury of making the choice to have or not to have children. The choice not to have children is actually often a choice that comes out of privilege and opportunity. I don't believe that women who choose not to have children are smarter, I think they have more choices available to them in general.
On the other side of the equation, these articles don't look at why the ones who choose to be childless might be making that choice. It's framed only as a personal lifestyle choice. In spite of the cult of motherhood we've created in middle class western society, mothers are still given nowhere near the amount of support they actually need to raise their children. Affordable child care is the biggest issue. Moms who want or need to work face a huge problem in finding child care that they trust that they can afford. We've lost community in our culture so much that many women don't have a solid support network of family and friends to provide some babysitting help when things just need to get done or when they are really stressed and need a break. Many also don't have that network of women who help them learn how to be mothers - they are expected somehow to just manage on their own. On top of that, that very same cult of motherhood places a huge expectation on parents to do everything right for their kids. Everywhere you look, there is something telling you what you must do in order to raise your children right. Given all of this, is it any wonder that lots of women who can make a choice not to have children do just that? From where I sit, it doesn't look terribly appealing.
In the midst of all of this 'smart women aren't having babies' craze, I read an article about how the 'opt-out' generation is finding out that they can't opt back in. This article was about the 'movement' of professional women who decided to quit their jobs and careers and stay home with their children. They were very vocal and created a craze of media in their wake. Now, it seems, one of the most vocal of them is changing her tune. After getting divorced, she returned to the work force and found that 11 years away, it was extremely difficult to get back in. The article read like a cautionary tale for women who might make that choice to stay home with their kids - there are grave consequences that you couldn't possibly understand right now, don't make the same mistake these women did. But the problem with this article is exactly the same as all the 'smart childless women' articles. They talk about this all as if it's just about personal choice. And yet when you read the story, it's pretty clear that the reason this becomes a problem is not because women are making the wrong choices, but because there is no support available for them to be free to make a real choice.
The story of Sheila O'Donnell which is covered extensively in the Times article really exemplifies this. While reading it, it was pretty clear to me that this wasn't a case of her having made the wrong choice, it was a case of her not feeling that she had any choices. First of all, by her telling, her husband was a terrible partner. She was working full-time and yet the job of finding and coordinating child care and of taking care of the household fell almost 100% on her shoulders. This is the case for a lot of women. Housework and child care is still not shared equally. This means that many women who work outside the home have two full-time jobs, not one. It would make sense that she would decide not working was easier, since she could afford it. Next, the childcare, even for someone with a good income, was still an issue. Reliable and affordable child care is difficult for most women and means that many of them decide not to work outside the home even when they really need to or want to.
The story goes on to talk about what happened to O'Donnell when her marriage fell apart. She was left without a home and had to move into a much more modest house with her three children and needed to get a job in order to support them. The story does not say why this was the case. The picture that is painted of her married life leads us to believe that her husband was well off and they had a lot of assets together. What is wrong with the legal system and divorce laws that she wouldn't be getting enough child support in that situation to allow her a little better standard of living?
The story then goes on to talk about how O'Donnell and most of the other 22 women in the story really struggled to find decent jobs and opportunities for advancement once they returned to work after raising children for many years. This again, is framed as the consequence of personal choice. The issues of pay equity, the lack of opportunities for women in corporate jobs, the lack of support for women who wish to work part-time or job share while they raise their children, inadequate child care forcing women to quit their jobs, and the unequal treatment of women in the work force are not addressed. Instead, women are advised to be very strategic if they decide to leave the work force - make sure they keep their contacts, volunteer, and keep up their skills. So ya, it's all our fault.
I'm sick to death of these stories and I don't want to see one more that does not look at this 'choices' from a larger perspective. Instead of cautioning women to be careful about their choices or telling women that they are stupid if they have kids, maybe we should be looking at ways we can even out the playing field so that women can make choices more freely.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Two Heros for the Week
In my regular facebooking this week, two things were sent my way that really grabbed my attention. The first is a video of singer, artist, rock star, Amanda Palmer telling the Daily Mail, in song, exactly what she thinks of them. Click here for the link. It's NSFW and it's freakin' awesome!!! This is my introduction to Ms. Palmer but I will definitely be seeking out more of her music. So what happened was, she did a show at a festival in Glastonbury and the Daily Mail reviewed it. Except that the Daily Mail article didn't review her show or her music, they just reviewed her boob. Seems that her boob made an unexpected appearance at the show and this is what they chose to focus on. I love the way she totally takes them on. She really nails the issue - that most women in the public eye are not taken seriously for their art or politics or whatever contribution they make. Instead, they are assessed according to their bodies and their appearance. Ms. Palmer, I bow down both to your bravado and your talent.
The second things that caught my eye - and since it's been all over the web now, you've probably seen it - was a commercial made by a company called HelloFlo. HelloFlo sends women a care package of menstrual supplies exactly when they need it every month. They created this awesome commercial about a girl who became the Camp Gyno because of her comfort and knowledge of all things period related. Sure, it's hilarious but what strikes me about it is the direct approach. There is no blue liquid or short white shorts in this video. They call it what it is. They show actual packaged tampons and talk about cramps. No euphemisms, just what it is. How refreshing is that?
The idea behind HelloFlo is pretty brilliant but they don't ship to Canada. If you're looking for a period reminder service, download iPeriod. It's an app for iPhone that will keep track of your cycle and let you know when to expect your next one. It's easy and even kind of fun! The one thing to watch though is that the makers of iPeriod seem to think the rhythm method works. You will also get a reminder of when your fertile time is. This will not be correct! It's based only on dates. IPeriod does let you make any notes you want so you if you are charting your cycle, you can use it to keep track of your temperature, cervical mucous, and other such things. It just won't collect that for you and tell you when you are really ovulating.
The second things that caught my eye - and since it's been all over the web now, you've probably seen it - was a commercial made by a company called HelloFlo. HelloFlo sends women a care package of menstrual supplies exactly when they need it every month. They created this awesome commercial about a girl who became the Camp Gyno because of her comfort and knowledge of all things period related. Sure, it's hilarious but what strikes me about it is the direct approach. There is no blue liquid or short white shorts in this video. They call it what it is. They show actual packaged tampons and talk about cramps. No euphemisms, just what it is. How refreshing is that?
The idea behind HelloFlo is pretty brilliant but they don't ship to Canada. If you're looking for a period reminder service, download iPeriod. It's an app for iPhone that will keep track of your cycle and let you know when to expect your next one. It's easy and even kind of fun! The one thing to watch though is that the makers of iPeriod seem to think the rhythm method works. You will also get a reminder of when your fertile time is. This will not be correct! It's based only on dates. IPeriod does let you make any notes you want so you if you are charting your cycle, you can use it to keep track of your temperature, cervical mucous, and other such things. It just won't collect that for you and tell you when you are really ovulating.
Creepiest Parade Swag Ever!
I just happened across this story on Jezebel. It seems that a Right to Life group at the North Dakota State Fair thought that the best way to attract some attention at the parade would be to give away goodie bags....with tiny little plush fetus dolls in them.....to children! WTF? The fact that these 'dolls' even exist boggles my mind. These things are nasty looking! No matter what that group says, no one could possibly actually think these things are cute or fun to play with. They exist solely to make women feel guilty about thinking about having an abortion or having had one.
What blows me away about this is that this group thinks it's appropriate to give this creep little plush thing to kids and yet I absolutely certain that if you polled the members of that group, most of them would say that talking to young children about where babies actually come from is inappropriate. This is something I've never understood. They talk to kids about abortion - which in my opinion is a fairly grown-up topic - but they will not talk to them about all the things they need to know in order to not ever need one. How can these kids even understand what a fetus and an abortion is without all the background info about how fetuses are created in the first place? A child under 10 doesn't really have the life experience and knowledge to really get what abortion means and what those little dolls are all about. But they put them in their little goody bags and then force parents to have to answer some difficult and uncomfortable questions about what the hell that ugly thing is and what it's doing in their goody bag. How does this make any sense at all?
If I had kids at that parade, I would have taken that goody bag right back to them and told them what they could do with it.
What blows me away about this is that this group thinks it's appropriate to give this creep little plush thing to kids and yet I absolutely certain that if you polled the members of that group, most of them would say that talking to young children about where babies actually come from is inappropriate. This is something I've never understood. They talk to kids about abortion - which in my opinion is a fairly grown-up topic - but they will not talk to them about all the things they need to know in order to not ever need one. How can these kids even understand what a fetus and an abortion is without all the background info about how fetuses are created in the first place? A child under 10 doesn't really have the life experience and knowledge to really get what abortion means and what those little dolls are all about. But they put them in their little goody bags and then force parents to have to answer some difficult and uncomfortable questions about what the hell that ugly thing is and what it's doing in their goody bag. How does this make any sense at all?
If I had kids at that parade, I would have taken that goody bag right back to them and told them what they could do with it.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Poster Campaign Reminds Us the Victim Blaming is Alive and Well
Heavy sigh. I am so disheartened by this that I barely even have the will to write about it. But I feel I must. Some posters have surfaced in downtown Edmonton and on the U of A Campus that say 'Just because you regret a one night stand doesn't mean it wasn't consensual. Lying about sexual assault = a crime. Don't be that girl'. There is another one that says 'Women who drink are responsible for their own actions especially when sex is involved. Double standards. Don't be that girl.' In case you're not getting the reference, this is a response to the public awareness campaign called 'don't be that guy'. It's a series of posters that says things like 'Just because she's drunk doesn't mean she said yes. Sex without consent = Sexual Assault. Don't be that guy' and 'Just because you gave her a ride home doesn't mean you can help yourself. Sex with consent = Sexual Assault. Don't be that guy.' It's a brilliant campaign that for once, finally, puts the onus for preventing sexual assault on the people that do it, not on the victims of it. It is an education on what does and does not constitute consent. Of course, some people got angry about it because they still want to blame women for supposedly putting themselves in situations where they could be raped and they still want to justify their actions or their friends actions or whatever.
So I'm not actually surprised by the posters. I knew there were some people who really got their shorts in a knot over this campaign and I expected a response. But whether I expected it or not, it still makes me angry and sad. Why oh why oh why are we so married to the idea that women routinely lie about being assaulted? Yes, it has certainly happened but it is so very rare as to be absolutely inconsequential and yet we talk as if one instance indicates that this is a common thing. Worse still is the people who claim that being falsely accused of rape is just as bad or worse than being raped. First, why do we have to take sides? Both things are bad. Cannot they not both be bad? Secondly, I don't agree. While I do think it would be awful to be falsely accused and to potentially lose your job and your credibility over it, those are probably the worst things that could happen. The very worst would be to go to jail for it but since our record in Canada of convicting actual sex offenders is so pitiful, I seriously doubt that this really ever happens. It is highly unlikely. For victims however, there are serious lifelong effects including - physical injuries, nightmares, PTSD, loss of trust, fear, damage to relationships, loss of relationships, loss of reputation and credibility from other who find out or when incidents go public and the person is blamed or not believed, loss of jobs, loss of income, depression, suicide. A sexual assault never leaves you. You can heal from it but you will never be the same. It is a life sentence. I'm not saying it is necessarily worse that being falsely accused but those who say that seem to think that the effects of being sexually assaulted are limited to the assault alone and one just gets over it. That's not what happens. Ever.
Some people are saying that the poster about false reports is no big deal. It's just saying that false reports are bad and you shouldn't do it. But it is a big deal. Why? Because this poster sends the message that there are some women - perhaps lots of women - who just willy nilly go to the police and charge a guy with rape because they had a one night stand and then felt bad about it later. They make it sound as if this is an easy, simple thing that women do just to calm their own conscious when they choose to have sex that they later regret. If we have people telling us this all the time and we come to believe it, we are much less likely to believe a woman who reports a sexual assault - particularly if it wasn't a 'forcible rape' (I hate that term for many reason but it is a term that is commonly used in these arguments). Instead of just believing her, taking the report and investigating it, we are much more likely to wonder first if maybe she's just making the whole thing up. This should never ever be a question. Any complaint of sexual assault should be taken seriously. Instead what often happens is women are questioned about what they were doing and how they contributed to the situation. Putting posters like this all over town just makes people think that this is an acceptable way to respond - that women do this all the time so instead of helping them first, we should question them first.
The other poster is, if possible, even worse. That one says that women are responsible for their own action when they drink. I agree 100%. I am responsible for my own actions. If I get drunk and pass out and miss work the next day, that is totally my fault. If I get so drunk that I tell off my best friend and she never talks to me again, that is 100% my fault. If I get drunk and drive home, get into an accident and kill someone, that is 100% my fault. However, if someone else sees me passed out and takes the opportunity to assault me - how in the world is that my fault? It's my fault I was drunk. I got drunk. But I did not assault myself. The person who assaulted me did it and that is that person's responsibility. I still cannot understand why this is so unclear to people. Why do we excuse violent and aggressive behavior? Why do we take it as such an expected norm in our society that we decide to blame the victims of it? Getting drunk and passing out does not cause sexual assault. People who take advantage of people who get drunk and pass out does. In most situations if a women, or man for that matter, gets drunk and passes out at a party, most people at that party will take care of the person - put her to bed, find someone who can take him home and put him to bed, or stay with her until she wakes up to make sure she doesn't throw up and choke. That's what the vast majority of people will do. This is normal behavior. Only a very few will use that situation to hurt the person. So why then, if that happens, is that the person's fault. When you see someone drunk and incapacitated, you have some choices about what to do and if you choose to hurt them, it's your choice.
I think our confusion or trouble with this stems from two things. 1. We want so very much to think that nothing bad will ever happen to us that we want to believe we can control every situation and keep things from happening to us. So when we see a situation where a woman was assaulted when she was drunk and passed out we say 'well that would never happen to me because I wouldn't get drunk and pass out like that'. We look for the thing that person did wrong so that we can convince ourselves that we can keep it from happening to us. 2. Our culture wants to control women's behavior. We don't want women being overly sexual or overly aggressive or overly independent. We don't want them to drink or have random sex with hot guys. We want them to behave themselves. So when something bad happens to a woman who was doing something we don't like, we blame her instead of the person who was doing the bad thing. We use these examples to try to scare women into behaving - don't get drunk because you'll get raped.
Contrary to what some people are saying, these posters are not harmless. They exemplify and perpetuate a belief system that harms all of us - that keeps us from believing and supporting victims of sexual violence. They help to keep offenders on the street by denying and excusing their behavior. They stir up anger against people who are doing their best to help educate about the realities of sexual violence and worst of all, they turn that anger against victims.
The only possible good that could come out of this is that it may cause some people who have had similar thoughts and beliefs to see these blatant victim blaming statements, hear the response, and really question their position. Maybe a few minds could change.
So I'm not actually surprised by the posters. I knew there were some people who really got their shorts in a knot over this campaign and I expected a response. But whether I expected it or not, it still makes me angry and sad. Why oh why oh why are we so married to the idea that women routinely lie about being assaulted? Yes, it has certainly happened but it is so very rare as to be absolutely inconsequential and yet we talk as if one instance indicates that this is a common thing. Worse still is the people who claim that being falsely accused of rape is just as bad or worse than being raped. First, why do we have to take sides? Both things are bad. Cannot they not both be bad? Secondly, I don't agree. While I do think it would be awful to be falsely accused and to potentially lose your job and your credibility over it, those are probably the worst things that could happen. The very worst would be to go to jail for it but since our record in Canada of convicting actual sex offenders is so pitiful, I seriously doubt that this really ever happens. It is highly unlikely. For victims however, there are serious lifelong effects including - physical injuries, nightmares, PTSD, loss of trust, fear, damage to relationships, loss of relationships, loss of reputation and credibility from other who find out or when incidents go public and the person is blamed or not believed, loss of jobs, loss of income, depression, suicide. A sexual assault never leaves you. You can heal from it but you will never be the same. It is a life sentence. I'm not saying it is necessarily worse that being falsely accused but those who say that seem to think that the effects of being sexually assaulted are limited to the assault alone and one just gets over it. That's not what happens. Ever.
Some people are saying that the poster about false reports is no big deal. It's just saying that false reports are bad and you shouldn't do it. But it is a big deal. Why? Because this poster sends the message that there are some women - perhaps lots of women - who just willy nilly go to the police and charge a guy with rape because they had a one night stand and then felt bad about it later. They make it sound as if this is an easy, simple thing that women do just to calm their own conscious when they choose to have sex that they later regret. If we have people telling us this all the time and we come to believe it, we are much less likely to believe a woman who reports a sexual assault - particularly if it wasn't a 'forcible rape' (I hate that term for many reason but it is a term that is commonly used in these arguments). Instead of just believing her, taking the report and investigating it, we are much more likely to wonder first if maybe she's just making the whole thing up. This should never ever be a question. Any complaint of sexual assault should be taken seriously. Instead what often happens is women are questioned about what they were doing and how they contributed to the situation. Putting posters like this all over town just makes people think that this is an acceptable way to respond - that women do this all the time so instead of helping them first, we should question them first.
The other poster is, if possible, even worse. That one says that women are responsible for their own action when they drink. I agree 100%. I am responsible for my own actions. If I get drunk and pass out and miss work the next day, that is totally my fault. If I get so drunk that I tell off my best friend and she never talks to me again, that is 100% my fault. If I get drunk and drive home, get into an accident and kill someone, that is 100% my fault. However, if someone else sees me passed out and takes the opportunity to assault me - how in the world is that my fault? It's my fault I was drunk. I got drunk. But I did not assault myself. The person who assaulted me did it and that is that person's responsibility. I still cannot understand why this is so unclear to people. Why do we excuse violent and aggressive behavior? Why do we take it as such an expected norm in our society that we decide to blame the victims of it? Getting drunk and passing out does not cause sexual assault. People who take advantage of people who get drunk and pass out does. In most situations if a women, or man for that matter, gets drunk and passes out at a party, most people at that party will take care of the person - put her to bed, find someone who can take him home and put him to bed, or stay with her until she wakes up to make sure she doesn't throw up and choke. That's what the vast majority of people will do. This is normal behavior. Only a very few will use that situation to hurt the person. So why then, if that happens, is that the person's fault. When you see someone drunk and incapacitated, you have some choices about what to do and if you choose to hurt them, it's your choice.
I think our confusion or trouble with this stems from two things. 1. We want so very much to think that nothing bad will ever happen to us that we want to believe we can control every situation and keep things from happening to us. So when we see a situation where a woman was assaulted when she was drunk and passed out we say 'well that would never happen to me because I wouldn't get drunk and pass out like that'. We look for the thing that person did wrong so that we can convince ourselves that we can keep it from happening to us. 2. Our culture wants to control women's behavior. We don't want women being overly sexual or overly aggressive or overly independent. We don't want them to drink or have random sex with hot guys. We want them to behave themselves. So when something bad happens to a woman who was doing something we don't like, we blame her instead of the person who was doing the bad thing. We use these examples to try to scare women into behaving - don't get drunk because you'll get raped.
Contrary to what some people are saying, these posters are not harmless. They exemplify and perpetuate a belief system that harms all of us - that keeps us from believing and supporting victims of sexual violence. They help to keep offenders on the street by denying and excusing their behavior. They stir up anger against people who are doing their best to help educate about the realities of sexual violence and worst of all, they turn that anger against victims.
The only possible good that could come out of this is that it may cause some people who have had similar thoughts and beliefs to see these blatant victim blaming statements, hear the response, and really question their position. Maybe a few minds could change.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
I know you love 'em, but you really don't need a PAP test every year.
I was delighted to get a link to this article from the Canadian Women's Health Network today. It explains pretty clearly why we need PAP tests, who needs them and when we need them. It also explains clearly that a PAP test is not in any way, shape or form a test for any STI and that those need to be done separately. Awesome! Great article! So glad I found it. My question is, why don't I know this already? Why don't doctors explain this stuff to us? I have run into some women - often friends of mine - who have fabulous doctors who explain everything to them and give them lots of options and choices around their sexual health care. Sadly, I've never had this. This is what I've had - tell me if any of this sounds familiar to you.
Somewhere in and around 1994, I had a doctor prescribe antihistamines for me for nasty nasty summer allergies. I later found out from a friend who worked at Planned Parenthood (now Options for Sexual Health) that those antihistamines could interfere with the effectiveness of the birth control pills that doctor had already prescribed for me. When I asked the doctor about this she said 'Oh'. No really, that's all she said.
In 2002, now with a completely different doctor, I got a call saying that my PAP test came back abnormal and that I needed another. That came back abnormal as well and the doctor called me in to discuss. I looked at the lab result and it said clearly - HPV effect. I asked if I had HPV. The doctor laughed and said 'no, no, no, of course not'. As if it was completely absurd that a nice girl like me could have HPV. I was not in the least offended by the idea, I just wanted to know if I had it. I called the STI centre and the info nurse said 'Oh yes, if you have that result, you only got it because you have HPV.' Nice. So they sent me for a colposcopy. I was, I think justifiably so, terrified. They were looking for cancer! Neither my doctor nor anyone at the colposcopy clinic would or perhaps could answer my questions about exactly what the procedure would involve, what I would find out, what might happen after that or how long it would take to get results. So I freaked out for almost a month before this appointment happened. When I got to the clinic for my appointment, they handed me a lovely brochure that answered every single one of my questions! Might have been nice to have that earlier! The procedure took about a nanosecond, involved a slight pinch, and the tech took the sample, looked at it right there in the room with me and told me there were no cancer cells. Would have been so nice to know that I was going to get results on the spot! Why doesn't anyone explain any of this to you? And doctors outright lying about what your results mean? What's up with that?
Now, just recently, about a month ago, I finally found a new doctor - I hadn't been to see a doctor since a year after that whole mess. She told me I didn't need a PAP test because I have never been pregnant. That seemed bizarro to me so I explained that I have had an abnormal result and a colposcopy several years before and would really like to just check. She did the PAP test but said that it was highly unusual for someone who has never had sex to have an abnormal PAP. She assumed that because I'm 43 and never been pregnant, I don't have sex. How can we even try to have the honest and open communication that's required for good sexual health with huge assumptions like that going on?
I include the timeline to be clear that this is not something that used to happen. This is my experience over almost 20 years with three different doctors.
So what's my point in all of this over-sharing? My point is that I agree with the author of the CWHN article - women do have a lot of misconceptions about what a PAP test is, when they need it, and when they are and are not being tested for STI's. I believe that responsibility lays squarely at the feet of the doctors. They need to do a much better job of asking the right questions, not making assumptions, and informing women of what tests they can get, what tests they need and why, what those tests will tell them, and what they are and are not being tested for. However, since I have little faith in most doctors to do this, until such time as it actually starts happening, it's really up to us to find the information ourselves and insist that our doctors, even if they might think we don't need them, give us the care and testing we believe we need.
Somewhere in and around 1994, I had a doctor prescribe antihistamines for me for nasty nasty summer allergies. I later found out from a friend who worked at Planned Parenthood (now Options for Sexual Health) that those antihistamines could interfere with the effectiveness of the birth control pills that doctor had already prescribed for me. When I asked the doctor about this she said 'Oh'. No really, that's all she said.
In 2002, now with a completely different doctor, I got a call saying that my PAP test came back abnormal and that I needed another. That came back abnormal as well and the doctor called me in to discuss. I looked at the lab result and it said clearly - HPV effect. I asked if I had HPV. The doctor laughed and said 'no, no, no, of course not'. As if it was completely absurd that a nice girl like me could have HPV. I was not in the least offended by the idea, I just wanted to know if I had it. I called the STI centre and the info nurse said 'Oh yes, if you have that result, you only got it because you have HPV.' Nice. So they sent me for a colposcopy. I was, I think justifiably so, terrified. They were looking for cancer! Neither my doctor nor anyone at the colposcopy clinic would or perhaps could answer my questions about exactly what the procedure would involve, what I would find out, what might happen after that or how long it would take to get results. So I freaked out for almost a month before this appointment happened. When I got to the clinic for my appointment, they handed me a lovely brochure that answered every single one of my questions! Might have been nice to have that earlier! The procedure took about a nanosecond, involved a slight pinch, and the tech took the sample, looked at it right there in the room with me and told me there were no cancer cells. Would have been so nice to know that I was going to get results on the spot! Why doesn't anyone explain any of this to you? And doctors outright lying about what your results mean? What's up with that?
Now, just recently, about a month ago, I finally found a new doctor - I hadn't been to see a doctor since a year after that whole mess. She told me I didn't need a PAP test because I have never been pregnant. That seemed bizarro to me so I explained that I have had an abnormal result and a colposcopy several years before and would really like to just check. She did the PAP test but said that it was highly unusual for someone who has never had sex to have an abnormal PAP. She assumed that because I'm 43 and never been pregnant, I don't have sex. How can we even try to have the honest and open communication that's required for good sexual health with huge assumptions like that going on?
I include the timeline to be clear that this is not something that used to happen. This is my experience over almost 20 years with three different doctors.
So what's my point in all of this over-sharing? My point is that I agree with the author of the CWHN article - women do have a lot of misconceptions about what a PAP test is, when they need it, and when they are and are not being tested for STI's. I believe that responsibility lays squarely at the feet of the doctors. They need to do a much better job of asking the right questions, not making assumptions, and informing women of what tests they can get, what tests they need and why, what those tests will tell them, and what they are and are not being tested for. However, since I have little faith in most doctors to do this, until such time as it actually starts happening, it's really up to us to find the information ourselves and insist that our doctors, even if they might think we don't need them, give us the care and testing we believe we need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
