Crossposted from Amplify This post seems even more appropriate to crosspost now, as it builds on the one right below!
So I'm sitting in my dorm room doing some research on the Birth Control Shot for men that is being tested... nothing out of the ordinary. Then, before I can even move beyond the article sent to me in the Amplify newsfeed I notice something... the image bar at the top of the ABC News site for this article is labeled Men's Sexual Health . All right, I think, that's interesting - I wonder what the women's one looks like...
Oh, okay, It doesn't exist.A quick look at the taskbar reveals that the abc.com extension health/sex brings one directly to the page for men's sexual health which, really, says everything I need to say about male birth control. (Stick with me, I promise it will all come together!)
Although a method of male birth control (in the form of a shot) exists in clinical testing, and has displayed a fairly high rate of effectiveness:
"After two years, the injections had 95 percent effectiveness for preventing pregnancy overall , and about 98 percent effectiveness for men whose sperm levels dropped off at expected levels within the first few months of the trial. "
Still, it seems unlikely that a pill like this will be seen by consumers anytime soon... why? The ABC article gives several reasons...
"Failure rates as high as 20 percent have been reported," said Ross, who is also professor of urology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
This can be written off right away; the failure rates applied to different studies, different methodologies... we've moved past that now and, thus, scientist should be able to let it go. I mean, look at it this way: if one disease treatment had 20% failure rates, does that mean we'd give up on finding a cure? No! We'd look to different methods that may have higher success... which is whats being done now with only a 5% failure rate, much better odds I'd say.
Not to mention methods like the female birth control pill or condoms do have small failure rates, just like this shot seems to, when they are not used perfectly.
On the other hand, Ross said testosterone injections can be too effective and, over time, can sterilize a man. "There are not an insignificant number of men who will develop permanent sterility," he said. [...] "Places we've seen this is in steroid abuse like weight lifters, and there's been a lot of talk about baseball players lately," Ross said.
Lets use another metaphor: say a certain number of individuals abused a drug marketed to help people... lets say, a drug that helps people deal with cold symptoms. Now, these people experienced some negative side effects because they used too much of the drug in an inappropriate way (like, to get high) does that mean the drug needs to be pulled entierly, taking it away from people it could help ? No.
Steroid abuse is the same thing: just because some people abuse steroids for weight gain, that doesn't mean the drug does not have uses that can be both helpful and harm free, if used in the right doses. But don't just take my word for it, one of the scientists involved in the study, Armory, added his professional opinion:
"I'm not sure I agree that it can lead to sterility," said Armory, who added that in the 35 male hormonal-contraception studies using testosterone he has seen, there has never been a case of irreversible sterility.
"There are these reports of sterility in bodybuilders who take hormones that we don't use; those are veterinary hormones," Armory said. "We have ongoing studies using hormones and, if the subjects were at risk for sterility, we wouldn't be able to do the study."
On this note, birth control pills often reduce a woman's sex drive (which seems to me as if it should be a side-effect on par with possible fertility loss) yet we don't see anyone up in arms about that potential side effect - keep this in mind.
Finally, the scientists behind the study list two more barriers to getting this injection onto the market: one, the injection can take up to three months to take effect and, two there would be a considerable up-front cost.
Both of these logistical issues are concerns and, yet, it strikes me as how when it is the woman taking birth control things like cost (birth control pills, IUDs etc. can be REALLY cost-prohibitive) don't seem to enter as an issue in terms of supply - they're there for whoever can afford them. And there is a demand, as researchers explain,
"We don't have a lot of trouble recruiting men for our studies, [...] there are many couples where the woman can't use the pill for a variety of reasons, or just doesn't want the pill."
So, how does this relate to the lack of a Women's Sexual Health page on the ABC Website? Simple: sex and men are, currently, firmly linked in our cultural conscience. While women are seen as pure virginal gatekeeers, men are viewed as sexually insurpressable beings - it makes sense, given this cultural understanding, that women would then be charged with the task of preventing pregnancy.
Its fine for sexually active women to take risks with their sexuality (sex drive!) and health in order to prevent pregnancy (the side effects for the pill include a raised risk for heart attack and stroke ) because, as a society, we are conditioned to view these women as less valuable or, damaged goods ( a recent blogger explained an exercise that compared a sexually active woman to a used toothbrush, a perfect example of the abstinence-only thinking that leads society to place less value in these women.)
However, we live in a world where many women like sex (surprise!) and feel as if they are not anything less than a whole human being, even without their virginity, and thus their partners have just as much responsibility in preventing pregnancies as they do. For these couples, where the man may even want to be the one on birth control this option should be available.
If the sexism wasn't obvious enough, the article ends with this line:
"It's a lot easier to suppress the production of one egg every month than the 1,000 sperm men make once a second, everyday,even when they're lying on the couch, men are actually doing something.*"
Any questions as to which sex the author of this article**, or the scientists opposing this treatment, sees as more valuable?
* With this logic, I suppose women should only lie on the couch when ovulating or pregnant for fear of being accused of laziness. Men, on the other hand, are never lazy: they're 24-hour sperm production plants!
** I know the author is a woman, however, that does not exempt her from the ability to make sexist comments, like the one above.
( All quotes used are from the ABC article located here )
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Male Birth Control and Sexism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13556
I really don't understand why men would be opposed to a male birth control pill so much... quite frankly, any man who just assumes that his female sexual partner will take care of the birth control is incredibly foolish. As women, if we miss a pill, or the condom breaks, we have options to avoid pregnancy and/or motherhood (Plan B, abortion, adoption).. however, for men, the second they deposit their sperm into a vagina, they lose any control of the situation, and will be a father no matter what (and legally obliged for child support payments in the least). Why wouldn't most men jump at the chance to take control of their own destiny? It boggles the mind for me (also mind-boggling are people who engage in casual sex without condoms..).
I'm in a long term, monogamous relationship, free from disease, and we still consistently and carefully use condoms. Why? Because we're not ready for children, and my boyfriend wants to ensure that we both participate in birth control... at the end of the day, he wants to ensure that he's doing everything HE can to ensure that HE does not end up a father. It's just logical self-protection and self-interest. Why wouldn't men jump at the chance to take control of their reproductive destinies?
I would love it if this shot would become available to the general public faster than it obviously will.
To me yes what raq said about men losing any rights to decide to keep or not keep the possible child hits home. Unfortunately there will never be an easy fix for this sue to the biological differences between the sexes. That being said I do think that preventive measures if one is not ready should rest on both shoulders and not just on females. Currently preventive measures for females abound (if you don't count the side effects some of them have). I hope this research into the male preventive measures continues and hopefully levels the current bias of responsibility onto both halves and not just women.