The Scottish Government wants women to use more Long Term Contraceptives.

Women using contraception will be asked to try alternatives to the pill under plans to cut the number of unwanted pregnancies in Scotland.

The government will run a campaign next spring to highlight longer-lasting and more reliable forms of contraception.

Under the strategy, women are to be offered coils, implants and injections. BBC News: 10/11/09

The Scottish government announced yesterday that they will be running a campaign to persuade more women to use longer lasting forms of contraception in order to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies- or, more importantly it seems, given its repeated highlighting in the various news items, abortions of which there were 13,000 in 2007. And the ages of the women with the highest rate of abortion? 16-19. It will be suggested to women between 18 and 40 who are already on the Pill. Does anyone else see a problem with trying to reduce abortions by not targeting the women most likely to be having abortions? And that doesn't help at all with the 300+ girls below the age of 16 having abortions. I hope (I'd like to say assume but I'm not that optimistic) that along side this initiative there will be another targeting younger people (note the people here- it takes two to fertilize an ovum).

The options that will be suggested:

Long-term contraceptives which could be encouraged include Depo Provera, a hormone injection which lasts for three months, and Implanon, a small rod inserted under the skin in the arm which releases a hormone over three years.

Another option which can last for up to five years is Mirena, a small T-shaped implant which is inserted into the womb and releases a hormone.The Daily Record: 10/11/09

Interestingly only The Herald seems to mention that there have been critics of the scheme, although only in regards to suggesting older women should go on it because of the extended reduced fertility that these options have for women even after they stop having the injections/being implanted/having strange objects lodged inside them. Confusingly, the Herald's article also states that "This latest bid to improve sexual health will focus on improving safe sex, particularly among gay and bisexual men, and the first stage of the campaign next spring will tackle the taboo that still surrounds discussions about sexual health and habits." which makes very little sense since nowhere else in either this article or the other newspapers are social groups other than women of childbearing age even mentioned. Is this rolling out of contraceptive advice just part of a wider scheme? I tried to find something on the Scottish Government's website but my searches produced nothing.

What struck me about this scheme regarding contraception is how biased it is towards women being the sole person responsible for contraception. There's no mention of educating men to wear condoms so as to not accidentally knock up the woman they're sleeping with. No! Because, as we are all fully aware, men don't need to take responsibility for what happens to their sperm- sperm? what's that got to do with pregnancy- it's just the stupid, forgetful, possibly slutty, women who are the only ones that should be thinking about these things. FTBS.

Also, looking up the options being suggested (on Wikipedia, I know, really should find better research sources) reveals problems all of their very own.

Depo Provera can reduce fertility for up to 18 months after the last injection was given. The longer you are on Depo-Provera the more likely you are to suffer from bone density loss which can lead to osteoporosis. It is unknown whether this loss is irreversible. In the states the FDA recommends that women should not be on Depo-Provera for more than two years. Which is a lot of good for women who go on it at the age of 18. Furthermore, based on what I have heard from family members, Doctors do not always seem to be aware of this side effect leading to women who are at risk from loss of bone density- in this case due to an intolerance for dairy- to have been onDepo-Provera for over five years, only becoming aware of the bone density problem when researching for themselves. Are the government going to ensure that the doctors prescribing this medication are aware of the side effects and take it into account?

Implanon has, as a problem, the fact that, if implanted by an inexperienced clinician, nerve damage can occur and also, if misplaced, it doesn't work. If it breaks it can be hard to remove and scar tissue forming around it can also cause problems. Although, other than that, there doesn't seem to be any major problems (besides the normal types of side effects: fucked up periods, migranes, increased anxiety etc). Fertility returns quickly after it has been removed and it can be removed at any time. However, the Wiki page seems quite slight and the information leaflet provided has lots of "It is not known" which indicates that more research may still be needed. The leaflet also mentions that it can cause cysts on the ovaries that may require surgery. Fun.

Mirena "can only be fitted by a qualified medical practitioner" as it is going into the womb and we don't want any yucky bacteria or accidents when playing in there. The cervix needs to be dilated in order to have the IntraUterine System installed... installed sounds like an unfortunate word choice but can't think of the correct one... which in itself is often painful for women. Whether you get a local anesthetic or even just a couple of pain pills is, from the sounds of things, pot luck. It is also possible that this method does not actually prevent conception but rather prevents the fertilised egg from implanting so, if you beleive life begins at conception O_o then this may not be for you either. According to Wiki however noone knows how this bloody contraption works, just that it does. As for fertility, it can be left in for five years and after one year 80% of women are fertile again. It doesn't say what happens to the other 20%. There is also a rare but "potentially" dangerous risk of perforation of the uterine wall and damage to the other internal organs. Oh, and it's not a hundred percent, and if you get pregnant while it is still in there it can cause you to have a miscarriage.

Of course none of these methods (nor the Pill) prevents STDs (or STIs as they appear to be calling them these days). The fact that 300+ under 16s managed to have abortions in 2007 indicates that under 16 are having unprotected sex. Same with all the other age groups. So, surely, promoting condom use would be more useful than having women inject, implant or undergo minor surgery at the risk of their long term health?

And, you know what, with men being the group with the highest incidents of STDs/STIs, promoting condoms and MUTUAL responsibility for contraception might actually do the menfolks some good too.
Click Here to Read More..

OK. I have to ask...

...how come every fat person that has 'magically' become thin and who is reported about in the news always had a terrible diet before they decided to 'grow up' and eat healthily and go to the gym?

In The Scotsman today there is an article about a woman who went from a size 26 (UK dress size) to a size 8 in three years. What gets me is she apparently started at a size smaller than I am now and at the time she her diet included "snacking on countless biscuits and eating two desserts a night" and she "found it hard to walk short distances and was embarrassed to travel on public transport." In order to lose weight she just (just!?) changed her diet and hired a personal trainer. Oh! to be able to afford a personal trainer. If I could just do that all would be alright with my world.

Fuck off.

The point of this is not to slag off a woman who has done an incredibly hard thing, and capitulated to society's requirement for women to be a size 8 and I wish her the best in keeping it off and with being happy, but instead to ask... how come every fat person in the media has to have a bad diet? How come every fat person in the media has to have had no exercise and to have been unable to walk? How come every fat person who the media talk about has to have been miserable? I am a fat person. I eat plenty of fruit and veg. I rarely eat dessert (mainly because I don't care to have them all the time and when I'm out I can feel the disapproval... depending on who I'm with). I do eat biscuits, but not countless ones. Sometimes, instead of biscuits, I eat dried fruit sticks- healthy and delicious. I go to and participate in dance classes on a regular basis. I am a quite snazzy dancer. I walk everywhere (although I do use public transport if I'm going somewhere in a rush). And, yes, I am frequently miserable but that is less to do with my weight and more to do with my family, my lack of money, my confusion over my life path, my self-doubt and low self esteem, and my isolation at working from home.

So how come the media and the press insist that it is just being fat that makes people (women... how often do you hear about some brave and marvellous man who lost half his body weight in three years?) miserable?

Wait! I know the answer to this! It's because we deserve to be miserable for daring to not be conventionally attractive be female be fat. Because fat is bad. And fat people= bad/lazy/stupid people. I declare this Bull Shit and I repeat: Fuck off!

END OF POST. THERE IS NO MORE Click Here to Read More..

UK Feminism

I often find myself wandering the feminist blogosphere feeling quite distanced from the topics on offer What, I wonder, does it matter to me to hear endlessly about Proposition 8, Sarah Palin, the hideous backlog in the processing of rape kits in LA, other than to make me (righteously) angry? Why do I need to know the details of a "he said" "he said" election that I can do nothing about and will just make me feel frustrated? Is there nothing happening in my own country? Is there nothing in my own country to get righteously angry about (for example the 2.9% conviction rate for rape charges in Scotland, that seems like something that's due some attention and ranting about)/ Where are all the British or Scottish feminist blogs? Is The F-Word Blog really it?

And then the other day, while reading about a 21yo woman being raped in Glasgow last weekend([1], [2], [3]) I suddenly realised: I have a blog! It's in Britain! It can have a British, or at least a Scottish, perspective!

Of course this could be a really big job, and I am only learning , growing, working out my stance on topics. Perhaps it is a a case of me trying to take on too much, perhaps I just don't have the time or the motivation or the intellectual capacity for it. But then, you know what, if I don't fucking try I'll never know.

So I'm going to try. I won't promise not to comment on things outside of this remit. I'm not stuck on an island... well I am but the Internet and globalisation and the sheer high frequency of American influences on Britain (not the mention the lesser but not unimportant influences from Australia, Canada, Mainland Europe, or rather Europe, Japan/China, India, the Middle East, basically everywhere ) makes the ability to be xenophobic rather moot. Anyway I'm not going ti stop reading all those other blogs: how would I procrastinate? But what you can be assured of is that I will have a British./Scottish outlook on the whole thing. Because that is what I am.

So there it as another sentence starting with 'so' a declaration of intent. I may be now to this Serious Blogging lark but I so want to give it a darn good try. Now I just have to work out where to start.

END OF POST. THERE IS NO MORE Click Here to Read More..